Furry content is often deemed NSFW, and it can get annoying for it to be constantly flashed in your face.
Nothing wrong with it, but giving some sort of content warning isn't the worst thing in the world.
Personally, it does get annoying sometimes when two completely unrelated topics are fused into one - personally I'd find this kind of content equally as annoying as that cringe Gen X "Semiconductors with Brittany Spears" shtick, but to each their own.
There is nothing wrong with content flags or warnings, especially for stuff with a sensual or potentially sexual connotation.
I don't find anthropomorphized animals to be sexual in nature. I find it a bit strange that it's assumed most people complaining about the blog or suggesting content warnings, on the contrary, do.
The complainer is a self-proclaimed policy wonk. I am sure he knows all the corrext policies to enforce include NSFW content policies. Heck, looking at his comment history, I get the impression that he might be a policy wonk in everything.
The article contains zero content that necessitates such a warning. Your belief that it is "sexual in nature" is a misinterpretation or incorrect assumption.
Nothing wrong with it, but giving some sort of content warning isn't the worst thing in the world.
Personally, it does get annoying sometimes when two completely unrelated topics are fused into one - personally I'd find this kind of content equally as annoying as that cringe Gen X "Semiconductors with Brittany Spears" shtick, but to each their own.
There is nothing wrong with content flags or warnings, especially for stuff with a sensual or potentially sexual connotation.