Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Ok Furries, we need to talk. [NSFW] (was forum=28)Follow

#102 Mar 05 2009 at 4:27 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Allegory wrote:
Baron von Annabella wrote:
Zoophilia says it implies love--not even necessary sex, but love (and often sex). On the other hand, beastalists have sex without love, ******** random dogs or horses without regard for their feelings and they do not establish relationships. They are considered to be like rapists.

So no real difference, just the people of the fetish wanting to feel more legitimate.


Well, it always depends on your vantage point, I suppose.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#103 Mar 05 2009 at 4:30 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
As far as classifying paraphilia goes, there is no distinction. That is all I care about.

Edited, Mar 5th 2009 6:31pm by Allegory
#104 Mar 05 2009 at 8:53 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,094 posts
Hmph, somehow I detect just a hint of subtle, subtle resentment in ya'll.

Just slightly, just slightly.

/Sarcasm off.
#105 Mar 05 2009 at 8:57 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Allegory wrote:
Baron von Annabella wrote:
Zoophilia says it implies love--not even necessary sex, but love (and often sex). On the other hand, beastalists have sex without love, ******** random dogs or horses without regard for their feelings and they do not establish relationships. They are considered to be like rapists.

So no real difference, just the people of the fetish wanting to feel more legitimate.


Possibly. Possibly, if you're one of those people who thinks it's obvious that higher animals are conscious beings, and you can get a fairly good guess at their emotional state by the expressions, behaviour, and sounds they make, then it's easier to see what and why the zoophiles make that distinction.
#106 Mar 05 2009 at 9:18 PM Rating: Good
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,702 posts
Pikachoo is no match for pikachu.

Screenshot
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#107 Mar 05 2009 at 10:28 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Allegory wrote:
As far as classifying paraphilia goes, there is no distinction. That is all I care about.

Except that there is a distinction.

I have no dog in this fight, but based on the descriptions provided, there is an obvious distinction that anyone in the field of psychology would be remiss to ignore.


#108 Mar 05 2009 at 10:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
trickybeck wrote:
I have no dog in this fight
Tricky wouldn't want to risk his love-puppy getting hurt.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#109 Mar 05 2009 at 10:48 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Knew that was coming!

#110 Mar 06 2009 at 9:27 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
trickybeck wrote:
I have no dog in this fight, but based on the descriptions provided, there is an obvious distinction that anyone in the field of psychology would be remiss to ignore.

Bestiality is the act of sexual relations between a human and another species. Zoophilia is the sexual attraction to other species. Bestiality is an enactment of zoophilia, but not a separate paraphilia. The distinction some people are trying to create is a gbaji-like manipulation of terms to create legitimacy from their perspective. You don't have to love an animal to be a zoophile just like you don't have to love a person to be sexually attracted to them. Neither is bestiality necessarily devoid of affection.

Edited, Mar 6th 2009 11:30pm by Allegory
#111 Mar 07 2009 at 12:28 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Allegory wrote:
trickybeck wrote:
I have no dog in this fight, but based on the descriptions provided, there is an obvious distinction that anyone in the field of psychology would be remiss to ignore.

Bestiality is the act of sexual relations between a human and another species. Zoophilia is the sexual attraction to other species. Bestiality is an enactment of zoophilia, but not a separate paraphilia. The distinction some people are trying to create is a gbaji-like manipulation of terms to create legitimacy from their perspective. You don't have to love an animal to be a zoophile just like you don't have to love a person to be sexually attracted to them. Neither is bestiality necessarily devoid of affection.

You're glossing over an obvious aspect of it. I don't care about legitimacy. I actually have more respect for the people that just want to fuck an animal and don't want to "love" it like a person. You're just being obtuse.




Edited, Mar 7th 2009 2:33am by trickybeck
#112 Mar 07 2009 at 12:39 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
trickybeck wrote:
You're glossing over an obvious aspect of it. I don't care about legitimacy, you're just being obtuse.

I'm being obtuse for applying the actual definitions of the terms rather those invented by a minority?

Zoophilia is an erotic attraction towards animals. No part of the definition stipulates that romance, love, affection, or concern for the animal involved is required. Bestiality is the act of sexual intercourse with an animal. No part of the definition stipulates that the act must be carried out without love, romance, affection, or regard for the feelings of the animal. That is how the words are defined. There is no innately positive connotation attached to zoophilia over bestiality. A minority of individuals chose to recognize a nonexistent distinction for personal reasons.

Perhaps I need to further clarify. I am not suggesting you are part of this minority with personal motives.

When everyone tells you that you are weird and wrong, and you yourself probably feel that you are weird and wrong, it's natural to want to feel better about what you are doing. "I may be @#%^ing animals, but at least I care about their feelings; not like those guys @#%^ing animals, those guys are animal rapists." I create a divide and place myself on the most desirable side so that I feel better about myself.


Edited, Mar 7th 2009 2:52am by Allegory
#113 Mar 07 2009 at 1:51 AM Rating: Decent
According to fandom historian Fred Patten, the concept of furry originated at a science fiction convention in 1980, when a drawing of a character from Steve Gallacci’s Albedo Anthropomorphics initiated a discussion of anthropomorphic characters in science fiction novels, which in turn initiated a discussion group that met at science fiction and comics conventions. Patten defined "Furry fandom" as "the organized appreciation and dissemination of art and prose regarding 'Furries', or fictional mammalian anthropomorphic characters."

The specific term "Furry fandom" was being used in fanzines as early as 1983, and had become the standard name for the genre by the mid-1990s. However, fans consider the origins of furry fandom to be much earlier, with fictional works such as Kimba, The White Lion released in 1965, Richard Adams' novel Watership Down, published in 1972 (and its 1978 film adaptation), as well as Disney's Robin Hood as oft-cited examples. To distinguish these personae from seriously depicted animal characters, such as Lassie or Old Yeller, cartoon animals are referred to as funny animals, a term that came into use in the 1910s.

During the 1980s, furry fans began to publish fanzines, developing a diverse social group that eventually began to schedule social gatherings. By 1987, there was sufficient interest to stage the first furry convention. Throughout the next decade, the Internet became accessible to the general population and became the most popular means for furry fans to socialize. The newsgroup alt.fan.furry was created in November 1990, and virtual environments such as MUCKs also became popular places on the Internet for fans to meet and communicate. One of the oldest and largest MUCKs in existence is FurryMUCK.


Inspiration
Allegorical novels (including works of both science fiction and fantasy) and cartoons featuring anthropomorphic animals are often cited as the earliest inspiration for the fandom. A survey conducted in 2007 suggested that, when compared to a non-furry control group, a higher proportion of those self-identifying as furries liked cartoons "a great deal" as children and recalled watching them significantly more often, as well being more likely to enjoy works of science fiction than those outside of the community.

Furry fans are eager for more material than is available from mainstream publishers, and this demand is met by other fans who produce a wide range of materials in both amateur and professional capacities. Most furries also believe that visual art, conventions, literature, and online communities are strongly important to the fandom.

#114 Mar 07 2009 at 1:57 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Tailmon, you do realize you can just link to wikipedia right?
#115 Mar 07 2009 at 2:13 AM Rating: Default
Ya I do but most people skip links so I posted it anyways.
#116 Mar 07 2009 at 2:21 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Mistress Tailmon wrote:
Ya I do but most people skip links so I posted it anyways.

So instead you decided to quote a sequential section of the article that has no relevance to the current conversation.

As a general tip, regulars here already know how to use google and wikipedia.
#117 Mar 07 2009 at 3:07 AM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,702 posts
Allegory wrote:
Mistress Tailmon wrote:
Ya I do but most people skip links so I posted it anyways.

So instead you decided to quote a sequential section of the article that has no relevance to the current conversation.

As a general tip, regulars here already know how to use google and wikipedia.


Well this thread was moved from =28, and some of the regulars there don't like clicking links. We're all different types of lazy. Smiley: lol
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#118 Mar 07 2009 at 3:16 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
The One and Only Deadgye wrote:
Well this thread was moved from =28, and some of the regulars there don't like clicking links. We're all different types of lazy. Smiley: lol

What are you talking about? As pointless as this discussion is, most the posters prefer links or at the very least apathetic. If you quote a news article without posting a link people become irate.

Edited, Mar 7th 2009 5:16am by Allegory
#119 Mar 07 2009 at 3:28 AM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,702 posts
Allegory wrote:
The One and Only Deadgye wrote:
Well this thread was moved from =28, and some of the regulars there don't like clicking links. We're all different types of lazy. Smiley: lol

What are you talking about? As pointless as this discussion is, most the posters prefer links or at the very least apathetic. If you quote a news article without posting a link people become irate.
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#120 Mar 07 2009 at 4:05 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
I don't need a link, but I like a cite where it's relevant.
#121 Mar 07 2009 at 4:14 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
The One and Only Deadgye wrote:
Well this thread was moved from =28, and some of the regulars there don't like clicking links. We're all different types of lazy. Smiley: lol

1. I already covered that with "at the very least."
2. This is one of the few times where exact specificity isn't important. I'm almost certain I spoke specifically incorrectly when I said no poster doesn't like clicking links, but the "some" that do not fit that category are such a minority that my point about using links over only quotations is still correct.

You get to choose how I'm right. At least this argument was about semantics.

Edited, Mar 7th 2009 6:16am by Allegory
#122 Mar 07 2009 at 4:37 AM Rating: Excellent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,702 posts
Allegory wrote:
The One and Only Deadgye wrote:
Well this thread was moved from =28, and some of the regulars there don't like clicking links. We're all different types of lazy. Smiley: lol

1. I already covered that with "at the very least."
2. This is one of the few times where exact specificity isn't important. I'm almost certain I spoke specifically incorrectly when I said no poster doesn't like clicking links, but the "some" that do not fit that category are such a minority that my point about using links over only quotations is still correct.

You get to choose how I'm right. At least this argument was about semantics.


Screenshot
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#123 Mar 08 2009 at 12:06 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
When everyone tells you that you are weird and wrong, and you yourself probably feel that you are weird and wrong, it's natural to want to feel better about what you are doing. "I may be @#%^ing animals, but at least I care about their feelings; not like those guys @#%^ing animals, those guys are animal rapists." I create a divide and place myself on the most desirable side so that I feel better about myself.


Always something to look down on, neh?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#124 Mar 08 2009 at 12:44 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Allegory wrote:
trickybeck wrote:
You're glossing over an obvious aspect of it. I don't care about legitimacy, you're just being obtuse.

I'm being obtuse for applying the actual definitions of the terms rather those invented by a minority?

Zoophilia is an erotic attraction towards animals. No part of the definition stipulates that romance, love, affection, or concern for the animal involved is required. Bestiality is the act of sexual intercourse with an animal. No part of the definition stipulates that the act must be carried out without love, romance, affection, or regard for the feelings of the animal. That is how the words are defined. There is no innately positive connotation attached to zoophilia over bestiality. A minority of individuals chose to recognize a nonexistent distinction for personal reasons.

Perhaps I need to further clarify. I am not suggesting you are part of this minority with personal motives.

When everyone tells you that you are weird and wrong, and you yourself probably feel that you are weird and wrong, it's natural to want to feel better about what you are doing. "I may be @#%^ing animals, but at least I care about their feelings; not like those guys @#%^ing animals, those guys are animal rapists." I create a divide and place myself on the most desirable side so that I feel better about myself.

Like I said before "based on the descriptions provided." I didn't know any difference between zoophilia and bestiality before reading this thread. You asked someone what the difference was, they told you, and you said "oh ok they're the same thing." Which was obtuse. If you wanted to argue semantics, which you are doing now, you should have said that in the first place.

#125 Mar 08 2009 at 12:46 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Quote:
When everyone tells you that you are weird and wrong, and you yourself probably feel that you are weird and wrong, it's natural to want to feel better about what you are doing. "I may be @#%^ing animals, but at least I care about their feelings; not like those guys @#%^ing animals, those guys are animal rapists." I create a divide and place myself on the most desirable side so that I feel better about myself.

So you DO see that there's a psychological difference. Why didn't you just say "I was wrong" in the first place.

#126 Mar 08 2009 at 1:02 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
I can imagine fucking an animal, and the animal enjoying it, or most of it, and I can imagine fucking an animal, and the animal not enjoying it and finding it painful. I can imagine that there are people who think they can reliably bring the first situation about, and restrain themselves from fucking an particular animal if they can't arouse it. I can also imagine that there are people who fuck animals without caring about whether the animal finds it pleasant or not, and indeed, there might be some people who prefer it when the animal doesn't find it pleasant.

I'm quite prepared to say that I find the former group of people more morally likable in my own universe, than the latter group of people. So now I'm more informed on the issue, I'm more inclined to like a person who claims to be a "zoophile", than one who is simply into "bestiality" without any care or concern for an animal's welfare.

If I think about it too hard, and lose my detachment, then the entire thing becomes a bit squidgy.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 319 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (319)