What I think is wrong with
Zak's analysis of Furries (and none of the following is going to make sense if you don't follow that link), is that he just doesn't get the inherent sensuality of a whole bunch of animals. He mentions dogs and horses and snakes as inherently sexy, and contrasts them with all the 'cute' animals which he claims aren't inherently sexy (presumably animals like cats, squirrels, chipmunks, etc.). This strikes me as a very odd statement -- from my point of view, I don't find dogs or snakes sexy at all (especially not snakes, ick). Horses...well, sure. Horses. Riding horses. Mmm... But cats are soft and fluid; I love the way they move. I would like to be able to move like a cat. I think it would be fascinating to have sex with someone who could move like a cat. And one should not ignore the appeal of really soft, silky fur, the way it feels against the skin...
I'm not arguing that some people don't also get a charge out of the whole small, cuddly, sort of defenseless critter thing. And maybe that in a certain subset of those people, it might even be linked to a certain pedophilic pleasure. But mostly, I think furry-types attracted to those types are attracted to them because they think they're sexy. That's all.
