this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2026
29 points (83.7% liked)
furry_irl
2235 readers
28 users here now
"For the fur in u"
Welcome to Furry_irl, a community for furry memes, shitposts, and other relatable images or comics.
Community rules:
- Code of Conduct — Follow our instance rules.
- Post formatting — All titles should be a single word, followed by _irl. An emoji may substitute the underscore.
- Credit artists — If it's not your art, include who made it in the title or the post body. Links are appreciated, except to X/Twitter.
- Stay on topic — Images should contain or be related to furries. Images should be relatable or a meme. This isn't the place for general art posts.
- Avoid AI images — Our fandom has countless artists, please share their (or your own) labors of love instead.
- Don't be a jerk — Have tact, don't antagonize other posters.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
.png){kind=link}
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I dunno how much of it is just a joke, but seeing that image is used on the Wikipedia page for Furry pornography, I guess people actually think about this stuff.
Personally I don't fully agree with the "test". The whole concept of consent is a bit odd when it comes to fully fictional media. Fictional creatures can never give consent for real (because they're fictional) and we cannot know if they would if they were real. But unlike in real life, in fiction/fantasy we can just choose to ignore difficult questions like that (or even decide it's nonconsensual, if that's something you're into). Isn't the whole point of fiction to imagine things that aren't possible in reality?
That said, there's gotta be some limit. If it's likely that some sick child molester will get kicks from some piece of art, then probably that art shouldn't be made in the first place.
The image is there because that article references the Harkness Test, which initiated with:
It’s more about "could give consent".
Yes, but that’s not how sexual fantasies work. There are probably few people who only masturbate to real people, who gave them permission to masturbate to them.
You're not wrong but that's still the part I'm not a huge fan of. I think the moment we start arguing whether something is okay based on if a fictional creature would be sapient enough to give consent or not, we're in a bit dangerous waters because that same train of thought is used by real life animal abusers: "My dog is so intelligent, I can communicate with it and it's sexually mature. Obviously it would give consent if it could speak."
That's why I personally think the better way to look at it is to draw a clear line between reality and fiction and just treat fiction as fiction where none of this matters.
Also, wanna make it clear I'm not trying to invalidate how anyone personally looks at this matter. Just pointing out the flaw in the logic if trying to "justify" furry porn with "tests" like this.
No. It would still need to give explicit consent if it were real.
But yes, I think everything should be allowed in fiction.