so basically you are saying all forms of furry NSFW are zoophilia.
That's one of the options. The other option is that it's all not, as long as there is some form of human characteristic such as human-level sapience or another kind of characteristic that doesn't make them 'animals' anymore.
Involving the rest of your comment:
I don't think zoophilia was itself classified as an illness in the DSM? I don't know about the ICD but I don't think DSMV said it was. Not that I'm saying that it's best to remain attracted to real animals, just wanted to point this out.
that sounds like saying banning Lolicon would led pedos to go after children.
Well, yeah. There is a saying that taking away victimless outlets will result in bottling up the urges thus increasing the risk for IRL children, and that has never been debunked as far as I know. Banning fiction, which could even be used as a way to change the preference (as I heard) is unlikely going to save children. It's even much worse for involving zoophiles, especially content that looks less realistic. I heard a zoophile became less interested into IRL animals because of feral art.
This can also go for thundercats, zootopia, and etc.
There is no difference than finding a character like Nick Wilde attractive. The psychological reasoning to prefer him are exactly the same (except for instead of legs, it involves another thing). People prefer him for his non-human self, his overall animal body, but mixed with human characteristics in some way. This exactly exists for preferring characters like Balto, the wolf from Okami (well, that might depend why more), and some other ones. There are even "ferals" that look way less like an animal so much that even characters like Nick Wilde looks closer to one than them. Sapient ferals is another form of furry genre.
That's one of the options. The other option is that it's all not, as long as there is some form of human characteristic such as human-level sapience or another kind of characteristic that doesn't make them 'animals' anymore.
Involving the rest of your comment:
I don't think zoophilia was itself classified as an illness in the DSM? I don't know about the ICD but I don't think DSMV said it was. Not that I'm saying that it's best to remain attracted to real animals, just wanted to point this out.
Well, yeah. There is a saying that taking away victimless outlets will result in bottling up the urges thus increasing the risk for IRL children, and that has never been debunked as far as I know. Banning fiction, which could even be used as a way to change the preference (as I heard) is unlikely going to save children. It's even much worse for involving zoophiles, especially content that looks less realistic. I heard a zoophile became less interested into IRL animals because of feral art.
This can also go for thundercats, zootopia, and etc.
That's partly been talked about actually.
https://multiversefeeling.blogspot.com/2022/07/why-anti-furry-feral-arguments-fa...
Note: Not mine.
There is no difference than finding a character like Nick Wilde attractive. The psychological reasoning to prefer him are exactly the same (except for instead of legs, it involves another thing). People prefer him for his non-human self, his overall animal body, but mixed with human characteristics in some way. This exactly exists for preferring characters like Balto, the wolf from Okami (well, that might depend why more), and some other ones. There are even "ferals" that look way less like an animal so much that even characters like Nick Wilde looks closer to one than them. Sapient ferals is another form of furry genre.