I don't know if I can quite comprehend what you're saying, but if I had to guess, you're probably talking about how "ferals" can cause people who are actually attractive to IRL animals to use such works as "fuel" to their paraphilia.
So I will try to give out three main points, two with the fact that "zoophilia" isn't an issue for the sake of it's meaning, but why it was concerning in the first place, that having thoughts in the head isn't itself 'an offense'. If you know what I mean by that and have a similar mindset for it alone then great.
Point 1:
Look, I don't really remember how many times the criticism toward that has been repeated, but we need to consider something too: What is zoophilia? Well, it contains multiple elements that many furries has but with one extra element; the preference to non-consensual animals, or at least not caring about it if that makes sense. If a zoophile happens to like anthropomorphic animals too, then I think they are only justifying the same exact elements non-zoos has. There is also the possibility some might be be a zoophile and like certain things not containing real-animals at all (e.g. anime women?) The real concern is that extra element. Oh and let's not forget the fact that two-legged anthros are also loved by many zoophiles if the story is true.
There is also the fact that no amount of evidence suggest that many cases of fictional art existing alone can really cause zoophiles to offend. There is even the sayings that taking away such less realistic outlets away would literally push more zoos into isolation and just go after IRL animals even further. I even heard one zoophile said (around a similar debate) that being into feral art made the person less interested into IRL animals. If this is true, then in that example likely, to be against all purely fictional NSFW feral art would clearly not only fail to render some kind of "better safe than nothing" element, it would render a "worse than nothing" element instead.
Point 2: I'm pretty sure an average person can tell the difference between a story of a human falling in love with a fully sapient four-legged anthro containing a clear message saying that they clearly like each other, then flat out putting a human together with a mindless goat.
Point 3: Also sorry I should probably just add this too even though I kinda explained it.
If alien dogs that looks like real dogs came in and were fully sapient and consensual, then the main concern for said paraphilia would likely be solved because now there exists animals that can consent. The paraphilia would be similar to heterosexuality where a full path to consent exists despite some human adults not consenting. So it's weird to be like "But it's still that in head, so it's wrong." despite the problem not much existing anymore. Sorry I added this one late, because I think I got reminded of some weird argument on Twitter involving some character from Lion King. LOL
I don't know if I can quite comprehend what you're saying, but if I had to guess, you're probably talking about how "ferals" can cause people who are actually attractive to IRL animals to use such works as "fuel" to their paraphilia.
So I will try to give out three main points, two with the fact that "zoophilia" isn't an issue for the sake of it's meaning, but why it was concerning in the first place, that having thoughts in the head isn't itself 'an offense'. If you know what I mean by that and have a similar mindset for it alone then great.
Point 1:
Look, I don't really remember how many times the criticism toward that has been repeated, but we need to consider something too: What is zoophilia? Well, it contains multiple elements that many furries has but with one extra element; the preference to non-consensual animals, or at least not caring about it if that makes sense. If a zoophile happens to like anthropomorphic animals too, then I think they are only justifying the same exact elements non-zoos has. There is also the possibility some might be be a zoophile and like certain things not containing real-animals at all (e.g. anime women?) The real concern is that extra element. Oh and let's not forget the fact that two-legged anthros are also loved by many zoophiles if the story is true.
There is also the fact that no amount of evidence suggest that many cases of fictional art existing alone can really cause zoophiles to offend. There is even the sayings that taking away such less realistic outlets away would literally push more zoos into isolation and just go after IRL animals even further. I even heard one zoophile said (around a similar debate) that being into feral art made the person less interested into IRL animals. If this is true, then in that example likely, to be against all purely fictional NSFW feral art would clearly not only fail to render some kind of "better safe than nothing" element, it would render a "worse than nothing" element instead.
Point 2: I'm pretty sure an average person can tell the difference between a story of a human falling in love with a fully sapient four-legged anthro containing a clear message saying that they clearly like each other, then flat out putting a human together with a mindless goat.
Point 3: Also sorry I should probably just add this too even though I kinda explained it.
If alien dogs that looks like real dogs came in and were fully sapient and consensual, then the main concern for said paraphilia would likely be solved because now there exists animals that can consent. The paraphilia would be similar to heterosexuality where a full path to consent exists despite some human adults not consenting. So it's weird to be like "But it's still that in head, so it's wrong." despite the problem not much existing anymore. Sorry I added this one late, because I think I got reminded of some weird argument on Twitter involving some character from Lion King. LOL