I can’t remember where I first read this theory - I think it might have been something written by R. Crumb - but the basic theory is that the current “furry” fetish/subculture occurred because kids grew up on a constant diet of cartoons that presented anthropomorphic animals with human behavior and voices and quasi-humanoid physical forms. The main culprit that was pointed at, I think, was Disney, but all animal cartoons in general were claimed to have influenced the eventual growth of the furry subculture.
I think there is something to this. For instance, I was recently reading some of the comments on the IMDB forum for Disney’s Robin Hood, an animated feature from the 70s where Robin Hood and Maid Marian were foxes. I was astonished by the number of people, mostly females, claiming to have thought that Robin Hood was “hot” or “sexy” in that film, despite being shown as an animal. And the common theme among all these discussions was, “wow, I thought I was the only one!” and other such personal revelations. Apparently, they are not so uncommon. Comments on scenes from that film on Youtube seem to be along the same line.
Beauty and the Beast is also much-discussed on the IMDB forum, with a huge number of women saying that they preferred the Beast, that they thought he was much sexier than the human form of the prince who the Beast ultimately transforms into at the end of the film.
Robert Crumb himself claimed that he was sexually attracted to Bugs Bunny when he was young; his brother Charles, who was also a prolific cartoonist and whose work is shown in the Crumb movie, also clearly had sexual attraction to animal cartoon characters as well as young boys.
Do you think this theory is valid? I would say that, from my own observation of how young kids are constantly inundated with animal cartoons, it holds quite a bit of merit.