#subjective

In conversation with an only mildly annoying, seemingly authentic anti-#shipper on #Twitter, the anti-shipper continued to focus, despite every attempt I made to make them see reason, on the individual parts of #erotic #furry #art.

Specifically, they thought it was weird for erotic furry #artists to draw #knots (commonly understood as an #erectile tissue structure on the penis of #canid #mammals, although weirdly, it's also present in some #plant #species), and obviously, if an #artist draws a #knot, they must be attracted to #canines, from which the knot is imagined to have derived.

This is a weird reach, and I'm about to explain why.

Erotic furry art is, at its core, less concerned with parts as it is with behaviors. That is to say, the parts are considered simply to exist upon the #fursona of the individual that carries it upon their #penis in lieu of a human #glans. The intent of the artist is generally to draw their fursona (or a given #anthropomorphic non-#human #animal character) engaging in an #action. If the action takes place with a second (or more) character(s), then all of these characters will likely share some characteristics with the animals from which the inspiration for the character derived.

Yet these characters are often depicted behaving in remarkably human ways, even as they use their very animal parts on one another. As most of us are aware, very few animals (aside from some primates and their relatives) engage in foreplay and kink, yet these are behaviors often seen in erotic furry art.

Still, anti-shippers will focus entirely on the presence of a knot at the exclusion of everything else. In this way, their criticisms are very much like the #conservative r#eactionary's criticism of #Michelangelo's David, a #statue created with the purpose of depicting the #beauty of #man, and less with the intent of showcasing a neo-classical #dick. #David is #nude, yes, because the beauty of man would be hidden by clothes, obviously. But any reasonable person sees that statue and recognizes it as a work of art, not encouragement to go find dick of one's own to enjoy.

Only the conservative #reactionaries focus on the singular part of David's flaccid dick and see #obscenity, and I propose that this is because they are themselves driven to see that obscenity by their own #biases and repressed #desires. In effect, the fact that they #fetishize the penis is precisely why they can't see anything BUT the penis when looking at the statue of David (or any other piece of art that includes a penis for any reason).

I see the same kind of behavior motivating the criticism of #zoophilia levied against erotic furry artists by the anti-shipper community. When the knot is not prominently displayed, the intent is often simply to draw #love-making between two or more individuals seeking only pleasure among themselves. When the knot IS prominent, it serves as a metaphor for #domination, wherein the #bottom is bonded or otherwise held in place, at the mercy of the #top, in a position of #submission to the latter.

But when the anti-shipper views this form of artwork and only sees the desire to #rape living non-human animals, could it be that they're seeing some hidden meaning within the work? Could it be that Michelangelo wanted us all to seek and bounce upon dick, flaccid or not? #Illustration and other forms of #visual art are inimitably #subjective and their #interpretations are greatly informed by the viewer's #subconscious #mind.

So when an anti-shipper sees a knot and thinks, "this is about wanting to have #sex with #dogs," I find myself wondering if this is a desire that the anti-shipper is #repressing and #projecting onto an artist that does not share that interest at all. Normal people don't see erotic furry art and think "the artist wants me to go rape an animal." And I think that's telling.

#antiShip #antiShippers #zoophilia #furryFandom