JRaccoon

Who could deny such a good boy? *pats head*

It’s more about "could give consent".

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.

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.

Ah, thank you.

I don't get it. What is this about?

There should be a pro dom(me) who first ties you up AND then puts you through hardcore needle play... by making sure you're current on your vaccines.

Someone would pay for that.