Post #1723315

2026-04-27 13:21 UTC

Its kind of like boobs, some cultures don’t sexualize them, but if you were socialized in one that does, it is an automatic association for most males of that culture. I have also mostly seen horny furry content just as a side effect of browsing the internet so this image in furry style reads as sexual to me too, even though there is nothing intrinsic about the image that is sexual. It is the cultural context.

Replies (1)

@Filetternavn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2026-04-27 13:46

It’s not a cultural context, this is not a culture that we’re talking about (“this” being a misguided sexualization of furry art). This is the product oversexualization and objectification created by porn consumption and sweeping generalizations. This is merely exaggerated by the fact that most people don’t understand furries beyond a vague idea that it’s sexual, but there are plenty of parts of furry life that are entirely non-sexual. It’s a harmful generalization that objectifies furries as sexual objects, and fails to recognize that there are things other than sex on their mind in their culture (culture applies here because it is a shared group of people with similar and related ideology and interests that routinely interact with one another in community, not a disjointed, unorganized group of people that share the same misunderstanding of a group). You know what has a lot of porn of it? Video games. Are you gonna interpret every piece of video game fanart as sexual? Obviously that would be ridiculous. Yet it’s no different than what we see here. Bigotry is not culture.

Open ##1723314