>>770824I just want to see this from someone else's perspective
>a human is a primate but not every primate, its a bad comparison.i should've been more specific, I meant other primate species that aren't humans, such as chimps and monkeys.
>it's still a wolf(animal), no matter how you change itWhat do you mean by that? I think taking a wolf and giving it all the characteristics of a human being would completely and utterly change how we interact with them in all aspects of life. No reasonable person would see a verbal, cloth-wearing, tool-using, math-doing, human-sized bipedal wolf and treat it as if it was just a regular wolf. What do you mean it's still a wolf either way?
>you aren't attracted to the human bits but the animal ones.Now, this can definitely be true, but it's not always. There is some nuance to this. Firstly, one might be attracted to a piece of anatomy sexually or non-sexually. For example, in the case of human females, one might be sexually attracted to: breasts, ass, wide hips, narrows waist and shoulders. While also being attracted non-sexually to other features such as hair or skin color.
The same applies to anthros, Most anthros are depicted as sharing the same sexual characteristics as humans. So in the case of anthro females, one would be sexually attracted to the human sexual features (breast, wide hips, etc). While the animal bits (fur, tail, etc) are secondary features that one might be non-sexually attracted to, the equivalent of hair/skin color for humans.
But there are lots of furries who do prefer animal sexual features (animal genitalia, for example), in those cases your point is totally valid.
>>770866>How can you say furry isn’t zoophikic but think loli is pedophilic?I never said anything about loli