The loli fetish is clearly sublimed noncery. The Furry thing is...they don't want to screw ducks, they want to screw Donald Duck. Which, again, super weird, but also a fictional representation of an adult, sentient, consenting character which is more a human with some duck features than anything else.
And not really any different from wanting to screw, say, an anime catgirl, or even Arwen Evenstar as far as I can tell. Neither of which is considered particularly unhealthy provided the person is otherwise functional.
Frankly, less so than Jane Eyre fantasies which would make half the het women in the west unwell.
/r/socialism tried to ban catgirls several years ago and they were routinely ridiculed for this exact take and it they eventually went back on it after the whole left made fun of them.
It is a really really silly take. For one petplay is a fetish that people outright enjoy, it's a sub/dom thing, and it's perfectly ok like every other sub/dom thing. And for two it isn't always petplay it's just liking catgirls, people like raccoon girls too is that magically different? What about batgirls? None of these are pets. It's not always a pet thing at all. Specifically singling out the cats is really silly.
And you fail to distinguish between literally any sexual attraction to anthro girls and the petplay kink.
I get it, there is a subset of this that is dedicated to the concept of owning women and some of its proponents do not distinguish between it as a simple kink and it as a genuine outlet for mysogyny. But that is what it is -- a niche within a niche. You are deliberately ignoring that and expanding it into any and all sexual attraction people might have to women with fucking cat ears and tails which is as I said previously, utterly ridiculous.
If you think a girl is cute and them think she is still cute when she wears a cat ear hairband that’s one thing, but having a “thing” for animalistic people – which you keep generalizing away from for some odd reason – is very different.
You wanna call them animalistic people we can call them that, I don't give a shit what we call them it changes absolutely nothing about the point. Really I don't know why you have a problem with the word anthropormorphic, it means the same thing, humans with animal features.
There is a fundamental difference between animalistic people that are clearly just humans with animal features vs literal animal people that behave and act like animals who clearly have questionable levels of consent. Extrapolating this to everything is, as I keep saying, ridiculous. It's also a completely separate issue to the "misogyny" inherent to treating women like pets, which as I mentioned previously coincides with infantilisation, mansplaining attitudes and so on. Again though, this is not inherent to everything and your dogged insistence that it is doesn't lend itself to understanding any of the problems properly at all.
I get the sense that someone with the username “Awoo” who uses the term “anthropomorphic” to mean “having animal features” might have a dog in this fight, if you’ll pardon the pun.
Good job finding the way to be as weird about this as possible :yikes:
counterpoint: the furry fandom does have serious issues (related to grooming + sa more than the pictures on the Internet people hyperfocus on because they're more entertaining), but have you heard of "heterosexuals"
Removed by mod
I'm...not sure it's the same thing, frankly.
The loli fetish is clearly sublimed noncery. The Furry thing is...they don't want to screw ducks, they want to screw Donald Duck. Which, again, super weird, but also a fictional representation of an adult, sentient, consenting character which is more a human with some duck features than anything else.
And not really any different from wanting to screw, say, an anime catgirl, or even Arwen Evenstar as far as I can tell. Neither of which is considered particularly unhealthy provided the person is otherwise functional.
Frankly, less so than Jane Eyre fantasies which would make half the het women in the west unwell.
Removed by mod
Is fetishizing catboys still misogynistic?
deleted by creator
If someone asked me to describe discourse online in a single sentence, I'd probably go for yours.
Honestly feels like you should be given a :hero-of-socialist-labor: as a reward.
deleted by creator
Is that a trick question?
deleted by creator
/r/socialism tried to ban catgirls several years ago and they were routinely ridiculed for this exact take and it they eventually went back on it after the whole left made fun of them.
It is a really really silly take. For one petplay is a fetish that people outright enjoy, it's a sub/dom thing, and it's perfectly ok like every other sub/dom thing. And for two it isn't always petplay it's just liking catgirls, people like raccoon girls too is that magically different? What about batgirls? None of these are pets. It's not always a pet thing at all. Specifically singling out the cats is really silly.
Removed by mod
No I'm sorry but this take is still horrible today.
Some of it is mysogynistic. Some of it is not. Claiming all girls portrayed anthropomorphically is mysogyny is frankly fucking ridiculous.
Not what I said
Then elaborate.
Read what I already wrote! The topic is sexual fetishes.
And you fail to distinguish between literally any sexual attraction to anthro girls and the petplay kink.
I get it, there is a subset of this that is dedicated to the concept of owning women and some of its proponents do not distinguish between it as a simple kink and it as a genuine outlet for mysogyny. But that is what it is -- a niche within a niche. You are deliberately ignoring that and expanding it into any and all sexual attraction people might have to women with fucking cat ears and tails which is as I said previously, utterly ridiculous.
Removed by mod
You wanna call them animalistic people we can call them that, I don't give a shit what we call them it changes absolutely nothing about the point. Really I don't know why you have a problem with the word anthropormorphic, it means the same thing, humans with animal features.
There is a fundamental difference between animalistic people that are clearly just humans with animal features vs literal animal people that behave and act like animals who clearly have questionable levels of consent. Extrapolating this to everything is, as I keep saying, ridiculous. It's also a completely separate issue to the "misogyny" inherent to treating women like pets, which as I mentioned previously coincides with infantilisation, mansplaining attitudes and so on. Again though, this is not inherent to everything and your dogged insistence that it is doesn't lend itself to understanding any of the problems properly at all.
:mao-clap:
Thank you for noticing!
Good job finding the way to be as weird about this as possible :yikes:
counterpoint: the furry fandom does have serious issues (related to grooming + sa more than the pictures on the Internet people hyperfocus on because they're more entertaining), but have you heard of "heterosexuals"