I'm going to try something crazy here, and see if we can have a rational discussion here. I was just browsing some of the reaction threads and your responses and something you said struck a chord:
Because furries represent a childish and borderline creepy characterization of creatures as something humanly emotional, equally sacred as human life, and, yes, often bestially perverted. There is a core conscientious feeling towards "furries" in my mind that just whispers to me that something is not right about it. It has nothing to do with what society tells me or any politically motivated conspiracies you may come up with. My gut just says something is inherently out of place with these anthropomorphs.
Fair enough. I suppose the argument could be likened to people who do not approve of Annie in the game because they feel that "loli" style characters represent a "borderline creepy characterization of creatures children as something often perverted."
However, I feel like in both cases it is more the viewer projecting their own sexual thoughts or apprehensions onto the image, rather than it being inherently perverse. Admittedly, this is a harder argument with R&X given their lore and theme as lovers. The sexuality in this case is more inherit, but the perversity of it I think it still a projection of it being "creepy."
And like it or not, everything we say and do is influenced by our society and our politics. Maybe not overtly, not obviously, or not in ways that we're consciously aware of. But art cannot be completely separated from society, as art is a reflection of the society in which its created.
Alright, back to the "furry = wrong" argument. League has always had a spectrum of Champions, ranging from Humans to Beasts to Monsters. Some are firmly in the normal/natural Human category. There is very little unnatural about Xin Xhao, for instance, he's just a dude with a spear. These range into "Normal Humans with Unnatural Powers or Equipment" (Ezreal or Ekko are regular kids with magic items), all the way to Lovecraftian horrors (basically any of the Void monsters) that are not remotely natural or normal.
So I see the Vastayan as just being along that spectrum. On the Beast end of that spectrum you have, say, Warwick. He runs like an animal, sounds like an animal, looks like an animal (although wears some armor). Renekton, Nasus. They're anthromorphs too, they're just much further towards the animal end than the human end. Kindred is probably the furthest you'll get to the Animal end of the spectrum (they don't wear clothes, don't walk like humans, etc) where Ahri is probably one of the closer to the Human end (basically human with fox tails and minor cosmetics).
So my question for you is why are the Vastayan's "wrong", but none of the others are? Is it just because their lore & theme revolves around them being lovers, and something inside you is repulsed by and rejects it? Or is it because they're in some kind of Uncanny Valley of Anthromorphs. Less human than Ahri, but more human than Twitch? If either of these Champions had been released by themselves without the "star crossed lovers" slant, would you still be creeped out by them?
I'm genuinely curious what your answer here is, I'm not trying to bash your response.
