What's the deal with Rule 34 material?

The point my mother was making was objectifying non-human things is a perversion and is not of God.

It's bad enough when people do it to human characters.

So you (or your mother specifically) are claiming that men would want to have sex with anything that seems sexually charged.

According to what I found:
"There is no scientific evidence that a hard-on impairs cognitive function. In other words, guys can't justify assault or infidelity based on biology. A penis may have no conscience (flaccid or hard), but the moral center of the brain (the frontal lobe) does — and that moral center keeps right on working, no matter how turgid the erection."
https://jezebel.com/5-myths-about-the-penis-5797162

Personally, I was never aroused by Lola Bunny, or any fictional cartoon.

Good for you. There are people out there who are sexually attracted to furries and other non-human things.

What people do behind closed doors is their business, but you won’t stop talking about it.

If somebody wants to marry the Berlin Wall, it’s their affair. Most of us just think it’s weird and move on, but not you.

Why are you so bothered about it?

So what.

I didn't say that.

I'm trying to have a mature discussion on something that's related to what the thread is about.

Then why keep talking about something you find uncomfortable?

No one here mentioned furries except you.

Furries, aliens, robots, etc. People humanize anything.

Or any type of fictional character.

A mature discussion?

You’re acting like a naughty schoolboy talking about “ladies’ parts.”

If you were being mature you’d be owning up to an unnatural interest in other’s sex lives and trying to do something about it.

Isn't this what you are trying to do with your work?

You've discussed animals acting in ways similar to humans.

Doesn't having a sexual attraction to furries or anything anthropomorphic fringe on being bestial, technically speaking?

Again: why keep talking about something you find uncomfortable?

You already mentioned that you dropped an art history class because of the nudity shown, and you refuse to use the word penis for some prudish reason. So why keep talking about nudity and sex if you don't like to talk about it?

If you know of anyone shagging animals tell the police.

The graphic sexual imagery is what I had an issue with.

We had to take life drawing classes and draw nude human bodies. We had to know how to draw human anatomy. Most art colleges require students to learn how to draw human anatomy.

High school libraries have books on drawing human anatomy.

That's not a sexual thing.

I'm not refusing to use the word "penis".

Then you should have stayed in that art history class and learned how those images were not used in a sexual manner. And, you should not have taken your mother's view as absolute when she had no knowledge of the historical artistic viewpoint.

You can't have it both ways here.

Those images were being used in a sexual manner. The instructor at the time even said they were erotic.

I recall I had a lit class in which pornographic stories were being read. I dropped that too.

I'm not going to compromise being a Christian to go take any courses.