sorry i genuinely have no clue where else on the internet i could talk about such a thing

in the past couple of years ive suddenly seen a whole lot of people who feel incredibly strongly opposed to animal-anatomy-accurate genitals in yiff and while im not opposed i just kinda wonder where this came from. it feels like a block-and-dni movement that came out of nowhere overnight when, to be honest, i thought this was just kind of part of The Culture. everyone always joked about bad dragon and knots and stuff but now many people are like dont even talk to me if you like knotting. i much prefer the more human-like anatomy personally because i find the animal stuff kinda gross but i didnt consider it to be a moral problem until recently since its just so normalized and omnipresent in furfandom. idek if this truly counts as a question i just wanna hear what people think or what they have to say or if they know anything. before anyone tries to explain it to me tho yes i know why people are against it i understand that part i moreso mean about the sudden uprising of the ideologiy in online spaces, yknow?

It's been going back and forth at least since 2012. It goes in a cycle. Ferals fine->ferals shamed->animal anatomy shamed->knots/horse cock become an ironic meme->animal anatomy accepted->feral debated->ferals fine

regsmutt said:
It's been going back and forth at least since 2012. It goes in a cycle. Ferals fine->ferals shamed->animal anatomy shamed->knots/horse cock become an ironic meme->animal anatomy accepted->feral debated->ferals fine

you put it perfectly.

It's the same energy as people who make Beware posts, you're always better off not associating with them (the people demonizing anatomy/feral). Enough people who dislike it get together and start being loud and trying to dictate how things should be. Other people will call them Anti's for how they make hating certain things the first thing you learn about them.

honestly lets all just make out in the bathroom of a sketchy gas station

Complaints about taboo subjects in fantasy with no real-life targets or harm are less an ethical concern and more about moralizing and in-group/out-group behavior. It's disheartening to see individuals still grandstanding like senators in the mid-90's complaining about Phantasmagoria and other violent video games. If something makes you uncomfortable, but you can avoid it and it is not causing demonstrable harm to other living beings, then ethical behavior is to not impose your will on others' life and interests. Some basic self-reflection that, yes, getting off to anthropomorphic animals in any capacity is not broadly socially accepted would be helpful as well.

song said:
Complaints about taboo subjects in fantasy with no real-life targets or harm are less an ethical concern and more about moralizing and in-group/out-group behavior. It's disheartening to see individuals still grandstanding like senators in the mid-90's complaining about Phantasmagoria and other violent video games. If something makes you uncomfortable, but you can avoid it and it is not causing demonstrable harm to other living beings, then ethical behavior is to not impose your will on others' life and interests. Some basic self-reflection that, yes, getting off to anthropomorphic animals in any capacity is not broadly socially accepted would be helpful as well.

This is exactly right. I like the way Martha Nussbaum once put it - "Disgust and shame are inherently hierarchical; they set up ranks and orders of human beings. They are also inherently connected with restrictions on liberty in areas of non-harmful conduct."

People are free to participate in "block and dni" if they choose to, but in the context of drawn art and the fantasy lives of individuals, it's not about "morals" or "ethics" at all - it's about expressing disgust in other people, instilling a sense of shame, and setting up a social hierarchy.

Its twitter puriteens. Bunch of people who masturbate to being outraged about something who constantly look for new things to be mad about. They're the same kind of people who brigade against people with hermaphrodite characters and hyper assets, screaming about degeneracy and morals before they go back to their macro porn accounts to masturbate about furries sitting on cars or whatever. In every single case it's going to be A) tweenlets encountering a fetish for the first time and being OFFENDED because being OFFENDED about something means they're part of an IN-GROUP and thus COOL, B) manchildren who still think they're tweenlets masturbating to outrage because they're literally addicted to being RIGHTEOUSLY ANGRY ABOUT THINGS, and C) extremely repressed individuals who doth protest too much as a means of conscious or subconscious camouflage to seem 'normal'.

The best way to interact with those three groups is to ignore them and move on. It burns itself out when there's no longer anyone to scream at who gives a shit, generally.

There are, of course, small percentages of the people who actually DO have concerns morally/ethically, and might bring up good points while pointing their fingers at outliers who DO go down dark paths, but they tend to get swept up in the outrage addiction of the other three groups.

The discussion of ethics on a porn website is absolutely hilarious to me. It's porn. It's all unethical, one way or another. Splitting hairs and being self-righteous over whether or not you like to get off to animal-esque anatomy or human-esque anatomy is... The kind of thing that I'd use as an example of people arguing for no reason to feel good about themselves.

If you think porn Type A is better than porn Type B and want to take part in one over the other, then go for it. Welcome to hell with the rest of us.
If you think porn is unethical, say so, and leave this place for somewhere better. You're probably right, it is unethical. All of it.

I think the reason for animals getting humanoid genitalia is because people don't want to feel disgusting for getting off to their anatomy. Or maybe they just find anatomically correct genitals to be disgusting. It's all up to the artist's or commissioner's discretion.

"A duck penis? HAVE YOU SEEN WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE?!"
Or something along those lines. Doesn't have to be because they feel cringe.

This topic is an issue of ethical approach rather than ethical analysis. A lot of people (if not most people) don't operate solely on utilitarianism (action --> consequence), and instead also rely on absolute rules like Immanuel Kant suggested.
These rules would include that humans having sexual interest in animals (whether sentient or not), is immoral by principle.
Alex O'Conner also described himself as believing in emotional ethics - basically meaning that if you feel bad about something, then it must be bad.

The reason why this is important to understand, is because it is very difficult to have a moral discussion with someone that has a different ethical approach than you. It's not impossible, but there's not much to discuss.

cadynn said:
[...]emotional ethics - basically meaning that if you feel bad about something, then it must be bad.

this is the most ridiculous moral framework I've ever heard, totally self-referential logic.

dba_afish said:
this is the most ridiculous moral framework I've ever heard, totally self-referential logic.

Nah it's a thing
A very large percentage of humans are emotional thinkers

nin10dope said:
Nah it's a thing
A very large percentage of humans are emotional thinkers

I think there's a difference between being an emotional thinker and essentially what sounds to be an unwillingness to self-reflect on one's own position.

honestly, it's not even a moral framework it's just a cop-out. it's treating emotions as if they're intrinsic and not also influenced by external sources. I mean, you'd still necessarily be making decisions based on some internal logic but you're just treating that as some moral black box.

dba_afish said:
an unwillingness to self-reflect on one's own position.

This is exactly it. At the risk of mentioning politics-
Well everyone can individually internally finish that statement.