My opinion on the relationship between furries, ferals, and zoos.

March 15 2025

PREFACE

I will preface this post by admitting that I, Bloog, am sexually attracted to certain animals. I also express interest in sexual acts/relationships with animals, as long as the interaction causes no harm, mentally or physically. It is possible with proper consideration. This is not an admission of guilt, rather a statement of interest. I have not commited acts of bestiality with any animal.

I am also active in the furry fandom, and I feel alienated even within the more "taboo" realms of furry culture online for a reason I will explain in this post. I am not an active member of any zoophile "organization" or online social group because I am not open to being perceived with an alignment of opinions that comes with being in a social group, much like my sexual orientation toward humans. However, I still maintain myself as a zoo within the furry fandom, although not publicly, and have an easy time staying away from those who would wish to do me harm.

In this post, I do not discuss the moral and ethical implications of sex with animals per se, nor attempt to justify it in any way. That may or may not come at a later date if I so feel like it. My aim is simply to point out an inconsistency, or rather an irony, that I observe within the furry fandom regarding the relationship between sexual furries and sexual attraction to animals.

I must first define some frequently used words in order to make my intentions clear. A "sexual furry" is anyone in the furry fandom that engages in any kind of sexual act pertaining to subjects in the fandom. This includes but is not limited to: consuming pornographic material, making pornographic material, discussing or expressing the intent to perform sexual acts of a nature consistent with themes in the furry fandom, or having sex with other furries. A "zoophile" is anyone that is sexually attracted to animals. The "animal aspect" means the extent to which a furry or the furry fandom is based on animals. The "Harkness test" is a meme turned moral deciphering tool based on a Doctor Who character (Dr.Harkness) who had a specific way of determining their attraction to non-humans.

As always, this may not be my full opinion on the subject- only what I could think of at the time of writing. It also may be a little confusing, but that's alright to me because how I feel is never precisely structured anyway. And, although I am responsible for my opinion and what I express on the internet, and my blog, my opinion is always subject to change. Therefore, an opinion I held at any point in time in the past might not be how I feel about a topic currently. This is important to consider, but the internet tends to present a sense of permanence because the statement is permanently part of the identity of the service that hosts it (i.e: my website).

TL;DR: I opine that all sexual furries are sexually attracted to animals whether they admit it or not. I also believe that artists that make zoophilic art ought to abandon the arbitrary principles of morals enforced by a population in the furry fandom that have nothing to do with the subject anyway.

So, what's the deal?

I believe that furries at large, specifically those who enjoy furry pornography to any extent, and especially those who enjoy feral and bestiality types of pornographic furry art, are ignorant to or refuse to acknowledge their sexual attraction to animals.

I feel like it is ridiculous how many people say they aren't zoophiles in the furry fandom and yet especially enjoy feral and bestiality art, and are specifically attracted to animalistic features of the art and content they enjoy as furries.

I ask this: what makes sense about sexual furries claiming they aren't a zoophile, and claim that the animal characteristics are not the source of their attraction too? If your sexuality within the furry fandom (paired with the enjoyment of furry porn of any kind) was not based on animal characteristics, you would not be a sexual furry to begin with!

I encourage you to watch regular porn instead since you are claiming it would be equally as enjoyable. So, it is not as enjoyable? Then something about being a sexual furry differs from just being sexual as a non-furry, and that is undoubtably the animal aspect, and therein lies an inherent attraction to animals.

And the data supports this too. Statistically, approximately 1 in every 6 furries self-reports as a zoophile. This statement is a result of years of research inquiring into the sexual lives and preferences of furries. It may not be the most accurate metrics, but it is the most consistent piece of data available. The more telling piece of information that supports my claim is the part on this table containing data that reports 46% of the fandom reporting a non-zero attraction to animals, of those surveyed. Again, there are small samples in these results, but this is the most amount of data in one location, and there is a consistency in this data, primarily the data from the Furry Surveys provided by Alex Osaki. (Source: https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Zoophilia)

I can understand the justification of not admitting to being sexually attracted to animals in the furry fandom, because there are individuals who confuse this statement with being willing to perform sexual acts with animals, and tend to have violent opinions on the matter. It is out of fear of safety and social retaliation that the vast amount of sexual furries online do not self-proclaim themselves as zoophiles. I will continue, however, because publicity is what liberates taboos.

I also understand that it's easy for those with an opinion like mine to assert that all furries that are sexually attracted to animals also express a want to perform sex with an animal, and would jump at the opportunity to. I know for a fact that the majority do not, and would not think of it due to their moral/ethical considerations on the topic. I will not make this assertion because it would be immature to, and I believe that opinion might lack nuance that would be worsened by making a claim that I believe to be entirely false. My intention is simply to say that it should be no question that sexual furries are attracted to animals to some extent. They are. Furries that disagree are either ignorant, or are acting out of fear and are self-conscious about their attraction.

Harkness

The Harkness test is a useful tool for those that enjoy feral/bestiality furry pornography, because it has the power to influence choices if faced with the fictional scenario of having sex with a non-human. But I believe the Harkness test is nothing more than a shield separating "rightful" zoophilia from "wrongful" zoophilia, and a tool for justification for those who are self-conscious of their attraction to animals.

The thing is that it's just that: it's for fictional scenarios, and as I just said, it's being used to shape people's point of action in real scenarios.

Therefore, they have not reached the same conclusion about sexual attraction to animals as I have. It is a tool of ignorance and denial. I think it's bullshit. It's still attraction to another species, except it's being put through a filter to determine the point of action in a real scenario.

It is possible that I am not thinking about the Harkness test in the most logical way. It's quite simple on paper: If this character can consent through meaningful communication and is of appropriate age, then it is morally permissible to have sex with. With my perspective on the test, it seems as if I have a lack of care for those traits, which would make me appear to be a sexual perpetrator. This description of the Harkness test is not what I have an issue with. My issue is how it is used in the furry fandom and how in the fandom's conscience, it is the primary, uncontested point of reference to determine if sex is moral and ethical not just within actual sexual scenarios, but feral/bestiality artwork too.

I think it is bad because it makes feral/bestiality artwork almost entirely uniform, which if I were to impose intentions of being against "vanilla" furry art upon this type of artwork, it would nullify it as a "rebellious" kind of pornography. It is not out of the question that some feral/bestiality artwork in the fandom is attractive to some people because it is seen as a taboo by others. Harkness weakens that aspect.

Most importantly, I see the effect it has on feral artists, who would otherwise lean into a more "non-fictional" depiction of bestiality in their art. In order to stay afloat as a feral artist (which is already not easy), one must add traits to the art that obscure the original artistic intent, like charismatic kinky lines of dialogue, or more human characteristics to steer clear of being "too animal-like." It gives users like me a harder time finding thoroughly enjoyable bestiality artwork, and likewise to the artists who would make it.

The Harkness test, in short, kills artistic intent and makes feral/bestiality furry art less genuine and sexually appealing. It is a tool for furries to feel secure in their denial, and it is an inhibitor for zoophilic artists.

Conclusion

The furry fandom has flaws. Denial runs rampant in the culture, and some of the infighting is a result of that denial of attractions, and a lack of self-esteem. It's pathetic, and I believe it would be easier for people to admit their attractions, and understand that artistic intent and personal intent are two different things. Artists should not allow themselves to hinder the potential of their art to satisfy a group of people that really don't even matter to them.

I do think this is an appropriate place to put this meme I made, also. Not specifically related, but relevant.