Zoophilia
Pages
| Author | Topic: Zoophilia |
|---|---|
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
|
written Tuesday, April 25 2006 20:37
Profile
Homepage
quote:Agree. In this thread, Fox wrote about romantic attraction. This is something in his mind, is it not? In his wolf story the characters are at least dreamlike if not fantasy and far removed from reality in any case. The erotic moment is in the mind of the reader. Fox does not come close to Alec's writing skills - which I find admirable, BTW - but this story is claimed to have been written by a 15-year-old in Kentucky. Not bad, imho, and innocent rather than sinful. I am too much of a lurker to understand whether anything in Fox's other behavior may be setting off alarm bells in you - and I would take such feeling very seriously - but I see a relation between the underlying sadism that I sense in the death penalty thread and the stigma dealt out because of an erotic undertone in a fantasy story someone wrote at age 15. OMG, God loves you, you are right no doubt and anything you sense as deviating from the familiar is sin. (I exaggerate.) Finding a goats eyes so beautiful is not so rare, btw. quote:Notice what you are doing here in alleging that I "see no difference". You make me feel spray-painted as "interesting" weirdo targeted up for peer pressure. Sure, there is a difference between a picture and a fantasy story. The idea that kids do not have sexuality and cannot be romantically attached to a cat appears victorian to me. -------------------- The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference. Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies. (not mine) Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Tuesday, April 25 2006 21:28
Profile
Ok, I suppose you could read the story and see no erotic undertone, but ask everyone here and see how many did see one. If you see it as just a man being compassionate to a lone wolf, that's great too, I guess you look at things in less of a sexual light than I do. If you do see how that can be construed as an erotic connection with an animal I don't see what your point is. I never said it was wrong or perverted, but simply that the man with beast fantasy is there. Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
|
written Tuesday, April 25 2006 23:01
Profile
Homepage
quote:Not sure. For me the contradiction of physical compassion between lone wolves is what is sticking out of the story - quite similar to Fox stating no interest in humans and posting a poll. The lone wolf appears like a self-imposed fassade that covers a longing to snuggle up. That is rather puppy-to-puppy than male-female. We may differ whether we call it sex. quote:Point is whetever we name the puppy-to-puppy physical proximity that is as fulfilling as it can be given the circumstances, I see the theme reflected in the picture of the toddler with the cat. The toddler may even feel to be a cat. Like  .quote:Not sure about the "man", but what does that mean to you (as a female if I may guess so)? Are your fantasies all dry-cleaned? [ Tuesday, April 25, 2006 23:04: Message edited by: Yet another procrastinator ] -------------------- The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference. Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies. (not mine) Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5450
|
written Wednesday, April 26 2006 00:43
Profile
Homepage
*votes* I think it is disgusting, I am puzzled how it appeals to anyone, and I am against it. But, each to his own, and I wouldn't hold it against you. I guess the reason I am against it is because I personally don't have any feelings for my pets other than a friendship. -------------------- I'll put a Spring in your step. :ph34r: Posts: 2396 | Registered: Saturday, January 29 2005 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 3441
|
written Wednesday, April 26 2006 00:50
Profile
Homepage
I couldn't be attracted romantically to an animal for the same reason that I wouldn't date an unintelligent girl. As for sex with animals, that's kind of gross, and I'm not sure that vixens are large enough to accomodate human members. I believe bestiality is also illegal in many jurisdictions, as it is considered cruelty to animals. Whether this is right or wrong, it is the law. I would advise people to check their local statutes before boning their pets. That will be all. -------------------- "As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it." --Albert Einstein -------------------- Posts: 536 | Registered: Sunday, September 7 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 1092
|
written Wednesday, April 26 2006 00:56
Profile
Homepage
How would such an idea get into one's head that one would have romantic connectios with an animal? Some animals are cute, and sometimes you may say you love them, but only as a figure of speech. -------------------- When you think you can't get any lower in life and hit rock bottom, God hands you a shovel. Why should I say somthin intelligent when idiots like you make me look intelligent in the first place. Posts: 615 | Registered: Friday, May 3 2002 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Wednesday, April 26 2006 00:57
Profile
quote:Sure you're sure why. You're aware that it makes people uncomfortable and you enjoy watching people squirm. Nobody's that dense and you're not much of an actor. quote:I don't believe that. Nobody is born with a natural predilection towards animals, and nobody just up and chooses to be physically attracted to animals. In fact, I think you're lying; I sincerely doubt you've seen a single accredited psychiatrist so much as once. Please realize you're doing nothing but hurting yourself. quote:[/b] Sexual attraction is not fully formed before puberty, or really formed at all. Hell, it isn't until a level of interaction has been established with the objects of physical attraction that it can even reliably be separated from emotional comfort. You didn't 'like animals' before puberty, or at the very least you didn't 'like animals' in the sense you do (or claim to - but I'm taking you at face value) now. This is a well-understood phoenomenon in psychology; it is called retroactive interference, and it happens when recent (or present) experiences interfere with the recall of past memories. quote:No comment. quote:I'm not sure I've ever heard that cats have 'very sensitive skin' compared to other animals, but I feel it incumbent to point out four things: In neither picture is the person actually touching the cat's skin, but only its fur.Sensitivity only has a relation to sexuality either through certain nerve endings being present or through psychological stimulation, something absent in a cat (consider your fingers - extremely sensitive, but not inherently sexual).Having known dozens of cats, I know how they get themselves off and petting has nothing to do with it.The actual reasons cats enjoy petting are twofold: first, they enjoy being groomed; and second, the large relative size of people's hands remind them of their mother's tongue, evoking early childhood - an exceptionally pleasant time in mammals' lives. (It is for this reason that they paw when happy - as if nursing.)I heard it said best: 'When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail'. I'm not passing judgement on your motives, but you're sexualizing to an untoward degree something utterly unsexual - more related to grooming than reproduction and in any case ranging only from comradely cordiality to motherly warmth. And that's unfortunate. quote:No comment. [ Wednesday, April 26, 2006 01:01: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
|
written Wednesday, April 26 2006 01:51
Profile
Homepage
Is this Alec? I better do not believe it lest I get angry. The labelling of grooming as asexual reminds me of President Clintons narrow definition: "I did not have sex with this woman." There are worse lies, as we all know, but ... In that sense, Fox has not mentioned sex at all, afaik. Wild Kinky Slugs plainly confuses zoophilia with bestiality which suggests the "tl, dr" syndrome in combination with the common urge to post an opinion like singing in the dark instead of adapting to the available light or even striking a match. A blog or some write-only-memory that noboby has to read may be the suitable remedy. So, Fox, have you seen what you can expect from this forum? You may want to look at the link I provided in a previous post in this thread, in case you want to hook up with other zoophiliacs. Good luck and don't get hurt! [ Wednesday, April 26, 2006 01:56: Message edited by: Yet another procrastinator ] -------------------- The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference. Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies. (not mine) Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 3441
|
written Wednesday, April 26 2006 05:03
Profile
Homepage
On Mister Fox's myspace page it says: quote:To me this suggests some sort of physical desire for animals. I am not saying that Mister Fox practices beastiality, I am merely saying that (as I read it) he is interested in doing so. He is sexually attracted to animals. What I wrote was merely a warning that, should he act on these desires, he could get in trouble with the law. Mister Fox asked for our opinions. I gave mine. Deal with it. -------------------- "As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it." --Albert Einstein -------------------- Posts: 536 | Registered: Sunday, September 7 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Wednesday, April 26 2006 05:34
Profile
Homepage
This discussion is painful to read, much like watching a car crash in slow motion. Some people get a kick out of constantly repeating the obligatory "it's disgusting because it's different" (never mind that the same argument covers homosexuality), others get a kick out of playing devil's advocate and promoting "tolerance" (never mind the animal cruelty), and this - pardon the pun - drones out any sensible discussion. It is obvious that these two types are redefining the OT's viewpoint to match their argument, namely the first group narrowing it down to the sexual attraction, and the other group playing it down as normal affection for pets. I cannot say whether this misinterpretation is intentional; never ascribe to malice what can be accounted for by incompetence. I see no original thoughts on the third page that were not beaten to death on the first. The only progress is people publically making fools of themselves. Given that, you should probably thank me for ending this right here before it gets more painful.  -------------------- Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum] My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast. Polaris is dead, long live Polaris. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |