• VolcanoWonderpants@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The sample they used is likely not representative of the whole fandom; they only interviewed 334 furries in the study, from a fandom made of millions of people. And the participants were all male, too.

      …I can’t be the only one who actually reads these things, right?

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        2000 is considered the perfect size for surveys. Anymore and you’re wasting resources on diminishing margins of error.

        • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          OK but that’s very, very fucking different from saying that furries are attracted to animals like you originally said, and that’s what is really fucking offensive, especially considering that pretty much anyone who gets outed as an actual zoophile is swiftly exiled from the furry fandom

    • Furbag@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      But saying there isn’t a sexual aspect about it, is not true.

      Bruh, take anything and you can probably find a sexual aspect about it.

      There’s a sexual aspect about Sports Illustrated. I’m not going to turn around and say everyone who subscribes to Sports Illustrated is a pervert.

      • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Facts. I mean, I know I don’t need to, but I’m going to quote Rule 34 in its entirety:

        If it exists, there is porn of it. No exceptions.

        Take anything and I guarantee you, someone, somewhere, has sexualized it. And if not, there is Rule 35, which states

        If there is no porn of it, porn of it will be made.

        Some can interpret this as, “If you discover that something has no porn, you have a responsibility to make it.”

    • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I didn’t say there was no sexual aspect to it, but I stand corrected that there’s some sexual aspect involved for the vast majority (at least of the men they interviewed). I wish the rest of that study wasn’t locked behind a paywall, 'cause I’m curious about the details now. I wanna know what they mean by “some aspect.” However, it’s disingenuous/misleading to say that furries are attracted to animals, as that’s zoophilia and is on the same level as pedophilia. Grouping the two together like that is like “MAPs” claiming they’re part of the LGBT. My general experience with furries is that the animal fuckers are treated on the same level as the Nazi furs.

      Whenever this kind of thing comes up, though, I can’t help but think about the internet outrage from when they made Lola Bunny’s boobs smaller in the new Space Jam movie and wonder how many of those people are the same people who call furries gross, lmao.

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Hey, is there some reason you changed the phrase that the researchers very consistently used, which was anthropomorphic animals, which they defined in the very first sentence as being like Bugs Bunny? You get how that is not the same as looking at a living rabbit and feeling sexual arousal, right?

      I guess “most furries want to fuck characters like Bugs Bunny!!” was just obvious shit everyone already knew.