Okay but that's kind of the exact same argument as the 9000 year old witch that just happens to look like a little girl, whereas a human torso arms and legs are well, human torso arms and legs
There is a line somewhere everywhere so I guess everyone chooses to put it where it arranges them, just my two cents
I dunno about that. If you're attracted to something that looks exactly like a 12 year old - no matter how old the thing says it is, - you're still attracted to the 12 year old features, which absolutely makes you a pedo no matter what. However, if you're attracted to a dragon or a mythical wolf monster, I don't think that means you'd wanna fuck the geico gecko or your neighbor's chihuahua. In my opinion, if it's hyperrealistic or based on a literal animal with no mythical properties then it ranges from questionable to absolutely Zoo-related. However, I don't think if Jimmibob wants to fuck a sentient mythical dragon with six legs or a wolf with horns and wings who can solve universal awareness is a necessarily zoophile-label. Maybe Teratophilia at best. There's a reason the term "Monster Fucker" exists, after all. Seeing it all on the same level does seem rather narrow, so I'm forced to agree with @
Kit H. Ruppell.
Anyway, what was that Furry site called? I'm not seeing it in the posts but I might just be sleepy.
Liking feral doesn't automatically mean one is a zoophile, but at the same time, the possibility that they are one makes me uncomfortable. You can just have people who happen to find Balto and/or Mufasa hot but yet have people who use feral works to promote zoophilia.
I also agree with this. For example...
People who think Kovu is attractive
usually do so because he exhibits "human" features (*which by extension could be considered mythical since it's very toony and unrealistic) and he has a conscious human personality/mind, human-like hair/mane, human eyes, human-ish mouth, an actual speaking voice, fur at the face that makes it appear more rounded and less animal to accentuate the human expressions he makes, eyebrows, and so on.
Yet they wouldn't want to, say, go after this...
(artist unknown)
Since it lacks all of the features that attracted most non-zoo Furs to begin with.
Unless you're secretly a real life lioness in a human trench coat....but I doubt that, lol
You can tell that there's more than just a difference in art style; the lion on the bottom lacks all humanizing and, by extension, "fantasy" elements that make it sentient and less animalistic. I think that this is the most specific example of what would and wouldn't count as Zoophilia since it deals with a lion by itself, while still attributing a lot of fantasy and toony elements to it...but I guess everyone has their own lines in the sand. I've certainly seem some worse examples on FA. >->