>>54600715>I honestly don’t know if I’m an actual zoophile if porn fried my brain but, at the end of the dayCartoon characters are only passingly similar to their real-life counterparts. I can safely say that I find IRL animals (and heck, most people for that matter) pretty gross, and any attempt to make Pokemon look ultra-realistic invariably has horrifying results (looking at you, Eevee, with your flat face that doesn't work in real life's "art style" at all). I'd argue the overwhelming majority of folks are in a similar boat to myself, with their cartoon porn preferences not really reflecting IRL preferences (if they did, we'd be absolutely drowning in pedophiles by now, given how popular loli is).
It's also worth noting,
>>54556668 , that normal people ARE into furries, no matter how much they may try to protest otherwise, so maybe cool it with the ad populum rhetoric. It's happened over and over again that people are perfectly happy to consume media with furryshit in it so long as the media itself is either good or sufficiently marketable (preferably both, but the two are more like passing acquaintances than bedfellows - not seen together THAT often) - Zootopia, Avatar, Undertale, Beastars and, yes, Pokemon itself. The list goes on and on. There are more Lucario pics on Rule 34xxx than Princess Peach. Furries are merely a logical extension of the same exoticism that gave us Playboy Bunnies (with Lopunny serving as an amusingly literal example), and people, frankly, LOVE themselves some exoticism.
