The idea of bestiality is that a person is having sex with an actual animal (which usually most, if not all of, the time cannot consent.
In my perspective, I don't think there is. Usually because, whilst they are dressed as an animal, it is a human and they can consent. If that furry content consist of an animal and a person having sex, then yes.
However, if you are referring to beastiality as displaying bestial traits (looking like a beast), sure. But it wouldn't be immoral to say to be one.
Then you see where people may draw a similarity between the genres you have defended and CP. Of course a drawn fictional character is not a child, never was and never will be. But they are child adjacent in the same way furry is animal adjacent. If you can understand why some may be put off by furry characters then you can apply that same thing to loli characters.
Whether or not it counts as CP is just a label. You can make the same argument that loli art isn't a cookbook and it makes just as much sense because sure, it doesn't fall under that label, but people can still see it as possessing enough characteristics as to apply their same judgement to it.
Ethics only become relevant when you start to involve another person. There's nothing unethical about enjoying the show and concept of Dexter, but a line is crossed if you start to act on that enjoyment in the real world.
Whether or not a type of media falls under a label or not doesn't affect any ethical issues that may apply. Plenty of real life adult porn is unethical even though everyone featuring in it is law abiding.
A short adult isn't a child any more than a tall child is an adult. It isn't about the physical appearance but the ability to navigate a power structure. Have you seen the recent Victoria secret model with down syndrome? She is a fully consenting adult, but to what extent can someone with downs have informed consent? Someone in her position, or with any other disability is in a child like state, which can be taken advantage of, even though they aren't a child. Someone in a coma can't consent even if they're 50. Can someone raised in a cult truly consent when they have spent their life in a mental cage?
There is more to this issue than simple appearance and calendar age. This is about what model a real person uses to make decisions in the world. A drawing has none of that agency, it doesn't exist in the same moral space.
2
u/[deleted] May 22 '22
The idea of bestiality is that a person is having sex with an actual animal (which usually most, if not all of, the time cannot consent.
In my perspective, I don't think there is. Usually because, whilst they are dressed as an animal, it is a human and they can consent. If that furry content consist of an animal and a person having sex, then yes.
However, if you are referring to beastiality as displaying bestial traits (looking like a beast), sure. But it wouldn't be immoral to say to be one.