Attraction to Anthros - Is this Unusual?

[Streetcircus]

I don't consider an attraction to anthros a fetish, or unusual in any way. You are merely applying what is more aesthetically pleasing about animals to human beings. It could not make more sense. You can't become less attracted to a person because they become cuter and more physically capable.

 

[Fallowfox]

I don't consider an attraction to anthros a fetish, or unusual in any way. You are merely applying what is more aesthetically pleasing about animals to human beings. It could not make more sense. You can't become less attracted to a person because they become cuter and more physically capable.

And yet, it is a fetish.

• "a form of sexual desire in which gratification depends to an abnormal degree on some object or item of clothing or part of the body; "common male fetishes are breasts, legs, hair, shoes, and underwear" etc " [obviously this extends to other fields, not only physical objects]

Furries are abnormal anatomically and persistant attraction to them is a minority libidinal trait; not everyone finds them intrinsically hot.

Similarly some people have fetishisms for clothing, which subjectively make a person more asethetically pleasing, more resistant to physical exposure etcetera- such as boots.

Whether or not we personally consider our libidinal deviations strange is irrelevant to the defenition of sexual fetishism. I think a large number of people think that 'fetish' is an extreme label and want to avoid it, but if vanilla things like underwear and haircolour are fetishes this is clearly not so.

 

[benignBiotic]

I agree with Fallow. Regardless of how one feels about it the attraction to anthros is a deviation. I am waaayyy past the point of fretting about majority opinion in this case though. Like FF says everyone has a fetish for something.

 

[FreedomXJustice]

Yes, yes it is a fetish. An attraction I am cursed to find sexually appealing. To males no less. However, being it non-existent, it keeps me composed in the real world and uninterested in "other" forms of sexual distractions.

 

[fbocabral]

maybe one reason for this, I was thinking, is that no matter if you like cartoon or realistic or even stories about anthro or any other kind of "drawing", the fact is that those anthros are... clean.
I don't know about you, but to think about real humans, in many ways, makes me think we are disgusting (physically). Not that I'm not attracted to my kin, neither I'm attracted to other species.
like, I find men in real life pretty ugly and hairy (well, that's ironic!!). But in the furry fandom, they are mostly not so different from the women and actually cute. Well, that works for me, at least.

 

[benignBiotic]

If I'm understanding you right fbocabral you are referring to the kind of 'perfection' that anthros typically engender? If so, of course they are clean and neat. If one is creating a secondary identity why would they make one with flaws? But you're right that lends to their attractiveness. I assume that's how 'normal' porn is these days. Everything touched up, cleaned, and perfected digitally.

 

[WagsWolf]

This has been an interesting ride, i've been enlightened by this post to the point that I now have a recorded speech readied in my head in case of anyone calling my out for my "fetish".
But yeah, I think we all got the point, we weird from the outside yet retrospectively MOST, if not the great majority of us understand.
All I can say is now I feel secure about my self in that stand point xD
I was kinda wondering the same thing and luckily NightWolf## threw it out there
Thanks for that bro ^^

 

[Fallowfox]

If I'm understanding you right fbocabral you are referring to the kind of 'perfection' that anthros typically engender? If so, of course they are clean and neat. If one is creating a secondary identity why would they make one with flaws? But you're right that lends to their attractiveness. I assume that's how 'normal' porn is these days. Everything touched up, cleaned, and perfected digitally.

In european history depictions of the human body were often heavily censored to make them perfect. Human body and pubic hair did not feature in western painting until early renaissance [please correct me if I am wrong] and european sculptors were expected to copy the perfection of the old masters even late than that, until Rodin dared to portray the 'ghastly' human body moving around in the ways it actually did, rather than only the most perfect theatrical stillnesses.
Even looking at Rodin today many of us would still see his sculptures as 'overly perfect'.

 

[Streetcircus]

And yet, it is a fetish.

• "a form of sexual desire in which gratification depends to an abnormal degree on some object or item of clothing or part of the body; "common male fetishes are breasts, legs, hair, shoes, and underwear" etc " [obviously this extends to other fields, not only physical objects]

Furries are abnormal anatomically and persistant attraction to them is a minority libidinal trait; not everyone finds them intrinsically hot.

Similarly some people have fetishisms for clothing, which subjectively make a person more asethetically pleasing, more resistant to physical exposure etcetera- such as boots.

Whether or not we personally consider our libidinal deviations strange is irrelevant to the defenition of sexual fetishism. I think a large number of people think that 'fetish' is an extreme label and want to avoid it, but if vanilla things like underwear and haircolour are fetishes this is clearly not so.

I think the key phrase in that definition is "gratification depends to an abnormal degree." To be abnormally dependent on an object or concept constitutes an obsession. This is very different from becoming aroused by the presence of underwear, nice legs, hair, or shoes because those things tend to enhance beauty objectively. It crosses over into fetishism when the desire for those things to be present during sexual stimulation compels you more significantly than the general act of sex. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to separate my appreciation of a beautiful woman in some cute underpants from the creep on DeviantArt who hordes massive amounts of underwear drawings in his favorites - many of them crude.

You argue that anthros are a deviation from standard attraction, but the definition you provided states that even common things like breasts can be fetishes. It isn't the abnormality of the attraction, it's the degree of dependency that must be abnormal to qualify a fetish, and that depends on the individual. I also find it very bold of you to suggest that most people do not have the capacity to find anthros sexually appealing. I don't believe that's grounded in any facts. My beliefs are contrary to yours. As I mentioned, I believe applying the same qualities to a humanoid form that most people prefer in animals can only enhance the beauty of said humanoid form. Beauty objectively contributes to sexual arousal, and most people persistently find animals to be more beautiful than human beings - beauty is not a fetish.

I can't deny that I do not wish to be associated with the extreme end of fetishism, but I think that most fetishists would find it easier to believe that their inability to control their impulses is as common as a man becoming aroused at the sight of underpants, so they can continue to indulge in the pleasure they receive from it without feeling as though they've done anything wrong. I believe they have much more motivation to bend the truth in their favor than I do to try and take their fun away.

 

[Fallowfox]

I think the key phrase in that definition is "gratification depends to an abnormal degree." To be abnormally dependent on an object or concept constitutes an obsession. This is very different from becoming aroused by the presence of underwear, nice legs, hair, or shoes because those things tend to enhance beauty objectively. It crosses over into fetishism when the desire for those things to be present during sexual stimulation compels you more significantly than the general act of sex. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to separate my appreciation of a beautiful woman in some cute underpants from the creep on DeviantArt who hordes massive amounts of underwear drawings in his favorites - many of them crude.

You argue that anthros are a deviation from standard attraction, but the definition you provided states that even common things like breasts can be fetishes. It isn't the abnormality of the attraction, it's the degree of dependency that must be abnormal to qualify a fetish, and that depends on the individual. I also find it very bold of you to suggest that most people do not have the capacity to find anthros sexually appealing. I don't believe that's grounded in any facts. My beliefs are contrary to yours. As I mentioned, I believe applying the same qualities to a humanoid form that most people prefer in animals can only enhance the beauty of said humanoid form. Beauty objectively contributes to sexual arousal, and most people persistently find animals to be more beautiful than human beings - beauty is not a fetish.

I can't deny that I do not wish to be associated with the extreme end of fetishism, but I think that most fetishists would find it easier to believe that their inability to control their impulses is as common as a man becoming aroused at the sight of underpants, so they can continue to indulge in the pleasure they receive from it without feeling as though they've done anything wrong. I believe they have much more motivation to bend the truth in their favor than I do to try and take their fun away.

Abnormality doesn't necessitate obsession. Anybody who is attracted to urinating on their partners, however slight that attraction is, is pretty abnormal- even if they are not obsessive or if they anticipate 'normal' sex just as much as fetishistic behaviour.

The role of the word [sexual] 'fetish' is not an insult for you to fling at artists or sexual deviants you want to separate yourself from. It simply describes the state of abnormal sexual desire, desires which are not intrinsic or majority-held within the population.

Please refrain from using the words 'beauty' and 'objective' in the same claus; beauty is a subjective opinion that varies between indidivuals, even if an entire population has commonly shared standards of beauty. Hence if you find something not inherently sexual to be sexually beautiful I'm afraid it is fetishistic.

Whether or not you feel more comfortable with these conclusions I'm deriving them from the definitions of sexual fetish. Having a fetish of any sort does not definitively associate you with extreme fetishists, perverts, paraphiles or people who are perhaps mentally ill at all.

 

[Streetcircus]

Abnormality doesn't necessitate obsession. Anybody who is attracted to urinating on their partners, however slight that attraction is, is pretty abnormal- even if they are not obsessive or if they anticipate 'normal' sex just as much as fetishistic behaviour.

The role of the word [sexual] 'fetish' is not an insult for you to fling at artists or sexual deviants you want to separate yourself from. It simply describes the state of abnormal sexual desire, desires which are not intrinsic or majority-held within the population.

Please refrain from using the words 'beauty' and 'objective' in the same claus; beauty is a subjective opinion that varies between indidivuals, even if an entire population has commonly shared standards of beauty. Hence if you find something not inherently sexual to be sexually beautiful I'm afraid it is fetishistic.

Whether or not you feel more comfortable with these conclusions I'm deriving them from the definitions of sexual fetish. Having a fetish of any sort does not definitively associate you with extreme fetishists, perverts, paraphiles or people who are perhaps mentally ill at all.

I agree that having an abnormal attraction does not indicate an obsession, it is how much your behavior is influenced by the attraction that determines whether it is an obsession or not. To find the idea of peeing on someone arousing in passing is completely different from actually pursuing the act in anyway that is not completely convenient: drawing crude images of the subject when you have limited artistic ability, collecting images of the act like trophies, or even making an effort to find someone with the same desire. Something so trivial and so typically considered unpleasant should not hold enough significance for you to make such an effort towards obtaining it. If peeing on someone for fun matters to you either way, then it's a fixation.

The popular quote "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is misused more often than not. Many people interpret it to mean that anything can be considered beautiful if someone thinks it is so, but most experts in the field of aesthetics will tell you that it actually means beauty does not exist without an eye to behold it, and that beauty is actually easily defined by a handful of pretty exact principles. The rule of thirds, for example, is not subjective. It has been determined by science that the subject of a composition should take up roughly one third of the entire image to most effectively activate the orbitofrontal cortex, which is the part of the brain that reacts to beauty.

Other concepts used to measure beauty are form, function, complimentary elements, symmetry, and complexity. Our standards of beauty are pretty consistent with these measurements as a whole. I believe anthros are biologically favorable, and that is what makes them attractive, not a mindless desire to bone a freak. I believe I cannot be aroused by anything that wouldn't make absolute sense to any rational person, and that if I couldn't make sense of it, I would instantly be incapable of being aroused by it. I believe fetishes exist out of emotional immaturity, and the inability to control one's impulses. Impulses are what we grow out of when we become adults, so I believe fetishists are somewhat mentally defective.

 

[Fallowfox]

I agree that having an abnormal attraction does not indicate an obsession, it is how much your behavior is influenced by the attraction that determines whether it is an obsession or not. To find the idea of peeing on someone arousing in passing is completely different from actually pursuing the act in anyway that is not completely convenient: drawing crude images of the subject when you have limited artistic ability, collecting images of the act like trophies, or even making an effort to find someone with the same desire. Something so trivial and so typically considered unpleasant should not hold enough significance for you to make such an effort towards obtaining it. If peeing on someone for fun matters to you either way, then it's a fixation.

The popular quote "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is misused more often than not. Many people interpret it to mean that anything can be considered beautiful if someone thinks it is so, but most experts in the field of aesthetics will tell you that it actually means beauty does not exist without an eye to behold it, and that beauty is actually easily defined by a handful of pretty exact principles. The rule of thirds, for example, is not subjective. It has been determined by science that the subject of a composition should take up roughly one third of the entire image to most effectively activate the orbitofrontal cortex, which is the part of the brain that reacts to beauty.

Other concepts used to measure beauty are form, function, complimentary elements, symmetry, and complexity. Our standards of beauty are pretty consistent with these measurements as a whole. I believe anthros are biologically favorable, and that is what makes them attractive, not a mindless desire to bone a freak. I believe I cannot be aroused by anything that wouldn't make absolute sense to any rational person, and that if I couldn't make sense of it, I would instantly be incapable of being aroused by it. I believe fetishes exist out of emotional immaturity, and the inability to control one's impulses. Impulses are what we grow out of when we become adults, so I believe fetishists are somewhat mentally defective.

To have an abnormal desire is all that is necessary for an attraction [a carnal desire] to be a fetish. Nothing more or less.

You don't find scat beautiful [ a wild guess ], some people do. You find furries beautiful, lots of people think they're gross and disturbing. Definitive arguments about what beauty is are hence redundant to that fact.

People who don't find furries arousing are not 'irrational' they simply don't share your fetish. Fetishism is not inherently infantile or rabid. It is nothing more than an abnormal sexual desire.

You actually need to understand what a fetish is before you start using freudian analysis to judge people's character by what turns them on. Much of the time you will not find a correlation; some people I know in real life turned out to be sadomasochists and macrophiles. If they hadn't have told me I would not have been able to deduce their fetish from their behaviour, so in turn I'm not going to assume anybody has a specific personality because of their libidinal desire.


* as a side note, not being able to 'make sense' of an attraction would mean you could not find it attractive? Pfft. I would instead suggest that you feel you have to rationalise your fetish as entirely normal in order to prove to yourself that you're not a degenerate.
Having a fetish does not inherently make you a degenerate anyway, so you do not need to rationalise your attraction, only be safe in the knowledge that it's pretty trivial in the grandscheme of things and no harm is going to come by it.

 

[NaxThewolf (mike)]

To have an abnormal desire is all that is necessary for an attraction [a carnal desire] to be a fetish. Nothing more or less.

You don't find scat beautiful [ a wild guess ], some people do. You find furries beautiful, lots of people think they're gross and disturbing. Definitive arguments about what beauty is are hence redundant to that fact.

People who don't find furries arousing are not 'irrational' they simply don't share your fetish. Fetishism is not inherently infantile or rabid. It is nothing more than an abnormal sexual desire.

You actually need to understand what a fetish is before you start using freudian analysis to judge people's character by what turns them on. Much of the time you will not find a correlation; some people I know in real life turned out to be sadomasochists and macrophiles. If they hadn't have told me I would not have been able to deduce their fetish from their behaviour, so in turn I'm not going to assume anybody has a specific personality because of their libidinal desire.


* as a side note, not being able to 'make sense' of an attraction would mean you could not find it attractive? Pfft. I would instead suggest that you feel you have to rationalise your fetish as entirely normal in order to prove to yourself that you're not a degenerate.
Having a fetish does not inherently make you a degenerate anyway, so you do not need to rationalise your attraction, only be safe in the knowledge that it's pretty trivial in the grandscheme of things and no harm is going to come by it.

scat *PUKES* well iam sure that this thread should be sumed up soon.....

 

[Fallowfox]

scat *PUKES* well iam sure that this thread should be sumed up soon.....

I'm just using it as an example; just like many of us are repulsed by poo lots of other people think that animal-folk are a massive turn-off.

 

[NaxThewolf (mike)]

I'm just using it as an example; just like many of us are repulsed by poo lots of other people think that animal-folk are a massive turn-off.

i know buddy

 

[Fallowfox]

Here's a charming curiosity.
Consider that fetishism was entirely random; would it be deprived of sense? Well...no, actually.
The choosiness in selecting partners that fetishism affords encourages greater genetic mixing in a population.

If the population density of group A is low compared to the overall population then individuals who choose to mate will likely be further apart and therefore provide a more direct route for the flow of genes over greater distances, spreading successful mutations throughout the population more rapidly.

That is perhaps a general justification for 'fetish x', which relies upon no psychological explanation or implications at all. If rationalising your attraction is what you're after, this simpler explanation vetos your complex set of prejudices, streetcircus.

 

[Berlik]

I had an immediate attraction to anthros when I saw my first furry art over a year ago! The experience sucked me right into the fandom!

 

[Streetcircus]

To have an abnormal desire is all that is necessary for an attraction [a carnal desire] to be a fetish. Nothing more or less.

You don't find scat beautiful [ a wild guess ], some people do. You find furries beautiful, lots of people think they're gross and disturbing. Definitive arguments about what beauty is are hence redundant to that fact.

People who don't find furries arousing are not 'irrational' they simply don't share your fetish. Fetishism is not inherently infantile or rabid. It is nothing more than an abnormal sexual desire.

You actually need to understand what a fetish is before you start using freudian analysis to judge people's character by what turns them on. Much of the time you will not find a correlation; some people I know in real life turned out to be sadomasochists and macrophiles. If they hadn't have told me I would not have been able to deduce their fetish from their behaviour, so in turn I'm not going to assume anybody has a specific personality because of their libidinal desire.


* as a side note, not being able to 'make sense' of an attraction would mean you could not find it attractive? Pfft. I would instead suggest that you feel you have to rationalise your fetish as entirely normal in order to prove to yourself that you're not a degenerate.
Having a fetish does not inherently make you a degenerate anyway, so you do not need to rationalise your attraction, only be safe in the knowledge that it's pretty trivial in the grandscheme of things and no harm is going to come by it.

According to the definition that you provided, it is not an abnormal desire that constitutes a fetish, it is an abnormal dependency on an object or concept for sexual gratification to be possible. My interpretation of the definition is supported by definitions provided by Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster:

• "Psychology. any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation."
• "an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression"

The abnormal attraction must be habitual, depended upon for sexual gratification to an abnormal degree, and a fixation. Just having the capacity to be aroused by something abnormal is not enough, it must be coupled with fixative behavior.

Essentially, people who find poop beautiful are wrong. They are conditioned to find appeal in something they are biologically predisposed to find repulsive. You have to wonder that out of everything that could be found arousing, it is the most unpleasant thing possible that becomes an object of aesthetic appreciation for a person. I don't believe it's the inherent properties of poop that people find beauty in, it's their psychological state that makes them find appeal in something repugnant. The mind that feels liberated by indulging in waste and disease is not a sound one.

I assert that rational choice is preferable to mindless desire. What makes all life on Earth inferior to human beings is their inability to control their impulses. Indulging in irrational fixations despite all logic is primitive, and it is the defining characteristic of parasites.

 

[Kit H. Ruppell]

I assert that rational choice is preferable to mindless desire. What makes all life on Earth inferior to human beings is their inability to control their impulses. Indulging in irrational fixations despite all logic is primitive, and it is the defining characteristic of parasites.

Source?

 

[Ricky]

You actually need to understand what a fetish is before you start using freudian analysis to judge people's character by what turns them on.

Except for poo. If someone is into poo, they are gross.

Sorry, but it's true

 

[benignBiotic]

Here's a charming curiosity.
Consider that fetishism was entirely random; would it be deprived of sense? Well...no, actually.
The choosiness in selecting partners that fetishism affords encourages greater genetic mixing in a population.

If the population density of group A is low compared to the overall population then individuals who choose to mate will likely be further apart and therefore provide a more direct route for the flow of genes over greater distances, spreading successful mutations throughout the population more rapidly.

That is perhaps a general justification for 'fetish x', which relies upon no psychological explanation or implications at all. If rationalising your attraction is what you're after, this simpler explanation vetos your complex set of prejudices, streetcircus.

Listen to this one. He knows his stuff.

I assert that rational choice is preferable to mindless desire. What makes all life on Earth inferior to human beings is their inability to control their impulses. Indulging in irrational fixations despite all logic is primitive, and it is the defining characteristic of parasites.

Woah. When did human beings become objectively superior to the rest of life on Earth? *end sarcasm* Parasites don't indulge in irrational fixations mang. Parasitism is a legitimate lifestyle for a creature. We all need to eat.

My first memorable sexual attraction was toward furries and that impulse hasn't changed with age. Show me pictures of humans and generally my response is 'meh' but show me something furry, scaly, feathery and I'm into that noise.

 

[Fallowfox]

According to the definition that you provided, it is not an abnormal desire that constitutes a fetish, it is an abnormal dependency on an object or concept for sexual gratification to be possible. My interpretation of the definition is supported by definitions provided by Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster:

• "Psychology. any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation."
• "an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression"

The abnormal attraction must be habitual, depended upon for sexual gratification to an abnormal degree, and a fixation. Just having the capacity to be aroused by something abnormal is not enough, it must be coupled with fixative behavior.

Essentially, people who find poop beautiful are wrong. They are conditioned to find appeal in something they are biologically predisposed to find repulsive. You have to wonder that out of everything that could be found arousing, it is the most unpleasant thing possible that becomes an object of aesthetic appreciation for a person. I don't believe it's the inherent properties of poop that people find beauty in, it's their psychological state that makes them find appeal in something repugnant. The mind that feels liberated by indulging in waste and disease is not a sound one.

I assert that rational choice is preferable to mindless desire. What makes all life on Earth inferior to human beings is their inability to control their impulses. Indulging in irrational fixations despite all logic is primitive, and it is the defining characteristic of parasites.

The keywords are 'or' and 'may'. Fetishes can be fixations and they may interfere with complete sexual expression. In many cases they do not.

whether fetishism is necessary for sexual expression should be viewed as contentious, since some people have multiple fetishes that cannot be practiced simultaneously, which renders that definition physically defunkt- forcing into the contraction 'may be necessary'.

You think their fetish is gross, but plenty of people will think the stuff you and me are into is gross or appalling, so perhaps throwing accusations of mental illness is premature.

Many of us don't choose what turns us on. I didn't sit down and have a debate with myself before I decided I could get my jollies to yiff.
As the forests burn and our population explodes like no other species' I think humanity should recognise that if we pride ourselves in resisting compulsion that we have failed spectacularly.
Fixation and indulging for the sake of indulging are not the defining characteristics of parasites. The defining characteristic of a parasite is that it survives by directly stealing resources from another lifeform's body without returning any survival advantage, most parasited don't have brains so don't have fixations.

No true scotsmen fallacies do not entitle you to insult people who get turned on by things that you don't understand.

Most importantly: if we want other people to respect us for the characters we are, regardless of our sexual desires, we should be open to the possibility that other people might demand the same respect in return, rather than 'getting your rocks off to animal-headed people is totally normal, but you're just weird'- a deeply hypocritical sentiment.

 

[Streetcircus]

The keywords are 'or' and 'may'. Fetishes can be fixations and they may interfere with complete sexual expression. In many cases they do not.

whether fetishism is necessary for sexual expression should be viewed as contentious, since some people have multiple fetishes that cannot be practiced simultaneously, which renders that definition physically defunkt- forcing into the contraction 'may be necessary'.

You think their fetish is gross, but plenty of people will think the stuff you and me are into is gross or appalling, so perhaps throwing accusations of mental illness is premature.

Many of us don't choose what turns us on. I didn't sit down and have a debate with myself before I decided I could get my jollies to yiff.
As the forests burn and our population explodes like no other species' I think humanity should recognise that if we pride ourselves in resisting compulsion that we have failed spectacularly.
Fixation and indulging for the sake of indulging are not the defining characteristics of parasites. The defining characteristic of a parasite is that it survives by directly stealing resources from another lifeform's body without returning any survival advantage, most parasited don't have brains so don't have fixations.

No true scotsmen fallacies do not entitle you to insult people who get turned on by things that you don't understand.

Most importantly: if we want other people to respect us for the characters we are, regardless of our sexual desires, we should be open to the possibility that other people might demand the same respect in return, rather than 'getting your rocks off to animal-headed people is totally normal, but you're just weird'- a deeply hypocritical sentiment.

Well, now you've literally dismissed every single official definition given for what a fetish is, insisting that fetishes aren't at all what they're defined as most of the time. I, however, take no issue with distinguishing fetishes from attractions by fixative behavior, as three separate sources have testified.

I have no reason to believe that there are plenty of people who would find what sexually appeals to me appalling. I think that what peaks my sexual interests would be found acceptable by anyone sensible. I offer anyone the chance to alter my perception if they are willing and have given it as much thought as I have. If someone were able to put the sexual attraction to anthros in a context I have never considered before, I could potentially cease to be aroused by anthros. I don't know how people can continue to be drawn to something they either know is wrong or that doesn't make sense to them because that's not possible for me.

I don't know who is claiming that any attraction to anthros at all is weird or the result of mental illness, but I imagine they're referring to the same depictions of anthros that I find weird as well. If I explained my particular preferences, I'm convinced that those same people would completely understand my point of view. If not, then I'm perfectly able to accept that I'm wrong and change. It doesn't matter that much to me, I'm not fixated.

You are correct that parasites destroy for the sake of themselves without consideration for other life, and they are the worst kind of organism. They are compelled by mindless desire. Rational thought will always lead to a better product than mindless desire - always.

 

[benignBiotic]

You are correct that parasites destroy for the sake of themselves without consideration for other life, and they are the worst kind of organism. They are compelled by mindless desire. Rational thought will always lead to a better product than mindless desire - always.

Tell that to the non-sentient animals that keep the Earth functioning every bit as much as the sentient ones do. We're all part of the circle of life you know.

I have no reason to believe that there are plenty of people who would find what sexually appeals to me appalling.

Also I have no idea how you believe this. I'm pretty sure if I showed whatever variety of furry porn you (or I) enjoy to a 'normal' person they'd recoil in disgust.

 

[Kit H. Ruppell]

Tell that to the non-sentient animals that keep the Earth functioning every bit as much as the sentient ones do. We're all part of the circle of life you know.

No, we're a fundamentally different organism in a class all of its own, due to our unique ability to do things and stuff. This entitles us to do exactly as we please with the mere objects of the animal kingdom, and anybody who disagrees with this is a parasitic looter :V