No. It’s clearly not the same logic. I have no problem with anyone’s body shape. If an actress were to act out the role of a child in an adult film, then I would have a problem. Since you want to take it there, then I’ll point out that you are using the same logic as the people who claim certain art is not pedophilic because the child’s body is canonically inhabited by a thousand year old soul. Is that context readily apparent? Is that context entirely relevant? I would argue it is not.
This just opens more questions than it answers. Like, I know this is from a children’s movie, but since we are discussing furry sexuality, suppose it was furry porn. How could a bunny realistically consent to a fox? Is that not a problematic power dynamic? It sounds like a stupid question, but I shouldn’t even have to evaluate these sorts of questions. It shows that I don’t need to understand the intricacies of pornographic material to be able to decide if it’s gross or not. (And before you ask, I don’t like power in balances in human porn either.)
I’d also like to emphasize that I am not drawing a moral comparison between furries and pedophiles. I don’t care if furries want to do their thing behind closed doors. I personally find it gross, and think that the way the furry community suppresses this side of their fandom is unhealthy and potentially a public health risk, but I do not have a moral qualm with furries in principle. I’m not advocating for making furries illegal or anything. I simply think they need to collectively admit that the sexual side of their fandom exists and is prevalent.
No. It’s clearly not the same logic. I have no problem with anyone’s body shape. If an actress were to act out the role of a child in an adult film, then I would have a problem. Since you want to take it there, then I’ll point out that you are using the same logic as the people who claim certain art is not pedophilic because the child’s body is canonically inhabited by a thousand year old soul. Is that context readily apparent? Is that context entirely relevant? I would argue it is not.
Yes.
Visible human emotions, walks on two legs, exhibits clear intelligence (talks, reasons, makes jokes, etc.)
They are called anthropomorphic for a reason. Nobody wants to fuck a real wolf.
This just opens more questions than it answers. Like, I know this is from a children’s movie, but since we are discussing furry sexuality, suppose it was furry porn. How could a bunny realistically consent to a fox? Is that not a problematic power dynamic? It sounds like a stupid question, but I shouldn’t even have to evaluate these sorts of questions. It shows that I don’t need to understand the intricacies of pornographic material to be able to decide if it’s gross or not. (And before you ask, I don’t like power in balances in human porn either.)
I’d also like to emphasize that I am not drawing a moral comparison between furries and pedophiles. I don’t care if furries want to do their thing behind closed doors. I personally find it gross, and think that the way the furry community suppresses this side of their fandom is unhealthy and potentially a public health risk, but I do not have a moral qualm with furries in principle. I’m not advocating for making furries illegal or anything. I simply think they need to collectively admit that the sexual side of their fandom exists and is prevalent.