"Send your cutest delivery boy" (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2016-02-16 02:40:10 by Pigeondance Birdies yay
Yeah I thought people here would find this a little more funny than the general population xD
/r/zoophilia archive /r/zoophilia archiveYeah I thought people here would find this a little more funny than the general population xD
Hehehe... he looks a little uncomfortable in that getup, though. Hope he got a slice as a tip.
I might be a grumpy asshole again, but putting any animal in human clothing is just abhorrent and despicable, the perfect example of mankind´s tendency to anthropomorphize animals. When I came across pictures from George Willard´s/Mark Matthews´ "wedding", where he stuffed his pony into a human wedding gown, I wanted to throw up...
I think the animals should want to meet us humans half way if they truly want to be in relationship with us [this is kind of something which makes me doubt the mutuality of zoophilia relationships]. And we humans communicate things about who we are by what we wear- it is a part of our ethology, if you will. Why is it that the burden is on the human to become like a beast and not the other way around? At least why is this an expectation of only the human counterpart of the relationship? You can't "naturally" understand a being that is virtually completely unlike you and having practically an entirely different biology to yours. You need to begin your understanding somewhere and anthropomorphization is often a necessary evil to begin this process. It's not perfect but at least it's a start. We don't need to detest the efforts of the humans to understand, right?
So, in order to understand women, you need to dress up like one? They´re "virtually completely unlike" men, biology proves that. ;)
To be serious: I perceive humans as "degenerated" animals, I consider human life as artificial and entirely dependent on what we call "civilisation",irrelevant mind games made up by ourselves. We pour concrete between us and nature, we build walls to separate us from nature, we build devices to overcome our limitations given by nature. Mankind is "unnatural" per se. Man wasn´t made to fly, yet we use airplanes; mankind was supposed to have a certain lifespan,yet we try to outsmart nature by medicine etc. Demanding that animals should meet us halfway is defiling them imho. One species ruthlessly destroying nature is already enough, don´t you think? Humans are "disconnected" and expecting animals to go the same errant path is just cruel for me. Mankind already has done that with canines and that´s why I never even consider having a relationship with one of them; too close to the yahoos (read Gulliver´s travels if you don´t know what I mean^^) Anthropomorphisation is the first step towards loving animals as a substitute for humans and thus hinting at "untrue" zoophilia. If you love an animal for its human-like qualities, why aren´t you getting the "real McCoy" instead? And, woosh, we´ve landed at the fetishism section...unusually shaped sex organs, constant availability for sex, a nice fuckmachine that doesn´t do this annoying talk prior to let you get laid etc... Animals should remain animals, as WE´re the ones who have chosen the path of self deceit. Awakening the "animal" within yourself is a much lower price to pay and in the end, we don´t even know if animals are capable of "meeting humans halfway" or we just fall for our selfmade bogus bullshit as the ridiculous furless monkeys we are...again.
You seriously sound like you need therapy or something.
We're animals just like any other animal. We're just fucking weird animals, that's all. We have the means to do crazy shit, and therefore we do. Other animals don't, and therefore they live as they're bound to.
Remember where we came from. The jungles and plains of Africa. Our ancestors lived in the trees, and this is where they led us. It could happen to another species in the future, and they'd probably think the exact same shit you're going on about.
If you hate being who you are, do something about it instead of proselytizing behind a computer; One of the very things that your fellow humans, whom you despise so much, invented. Live in the woods, get off the grid. It sounds like it's in your nature. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to move forward.
Thank you for your thoughtful post. It made me laugh very hard.
So, you came from the jungles and plains of Africa...but I bet you wouldn´t survive one fucking day there, right? I really don´t want to give this more attention than it deserves, but I probably have hit a nerve in you with my post that made you reply so furiously. Glad I got you out of your comfort zone...
Regarding your recommendation: I already prepare for that. I found myself a nice farm with everything a rider needs, a riding hall, lots of grassland, far off any other houses for around 700 K Euro. I really am looking forward to move there when the renovations are done in approximately 2 months. Altough there is an internet connection installed, I struggle at the moment with myself if I should get rid of it. We´ll see if I retract from the net again, like I did between 1997 and 2009/2010. eInstead of wasting my time in endless debates, I´d rather form some sort of resistance group, write books and take actions where needed to redefine "our" scene into something worth fighting for again. So, have a nice day...I´m sure you will hear from us in one way or another....meanwhile, enjoy "moving forward"....even if you´re standing on the edge of a cliff...
Cool story bro.
Taken to it's logical extremity, you could say the same of all domesticated animals. I think we all need certain "human-like" characteristics in the animals we choose as lovers. At the very least we need them to tolerate us and preferably to be affectionate towards us. Why you feel the need to single out dogs (not all canines are domesticated, mind you) in this context is beyond me. Is it because they are more tame and submissive to humans than any other species? Is it just because you feel they are more "accessible" than other animals?... You speak as if "legitimate" attraction to dogs did not exist. As if we only loved dogs for their human characteristics and cynophilia was not a "true" subset of zoophilia. That is just ridiculous. There isn't a scale between what is human and non-human. There isn't a range of possibilities to what it means to be attracted to non-humans. What does it matter if some zoophiles seek human-like characteristics in their non-human partners? It doesn't make them any less zoophiles.
I don't understand the contempt that some zoophiles have towards the anthropomorphisation of animals. I can agree that it has the potential of selling animals short, but otherwise it's a nonproblem. If it makes people happy to attribute human traits to non-humans, I fail to comprehend why they should feel the need to force these thoughts out of their head. It's self-flagellation. We as zoophiles especially are in a position to know animals are closer to humans than what the mainstream of our species believe. I think we should embrace this rather than try to reject it for whatever reason.
I like dogs for what they are. I like that they shared their evolution with ours. I like that we share characteristics, complicity and trust. To me, it makes the relationship between humans and dogs that much more special.
Well, basically it´s about double standards that are showing here. Many antis anthropomorhize their dogs and treat them like they were their kids. That´s where the "animals are helpless children, therefore zoophilia is like raping a child" argument comes from. What is inappropriate from the antis cannot be appropriate from zoos. But there´s another level of why you should not anthropomorphize: if you see a human in your animal, or human qualities, it´s only a very short distance to believe that you´re actually love humans and use animals as a shortcut to get what you want, without the trouble of dealing with a real human. Maybe the tendency to impose human qualities onto animals is a subconscious expression of your real sexual wishes; the animal is reduced to a mere substitute this way. Why do you consider it problematic when I say that I can´t imagie having a relationship with a dog? I´ve read post from you dog people hitting on /u/ursusm because he isn´t into dogs, maybe even has kynophobia. Why is it so important to you that everyone has to dig what you´re doing? I only expressed my personal opinion and gave a reason why I´m not a dog person. Is it so hard to accept that? I never said that I despise someone into dogs, I just stated why I can´t imagine falling in love with dogs.Is this some form of hug box syndrome? To me (!), anthropomorphisation of an animal is in some way a reassurance of human dominance, you don´t see the animal, but your human shaped misconception of it. If it helps you enjoying your relationship, well, then good for you. But I can´t get rid of the feeling that imposing human qualities onto an animal is like using a wheelchair...a device designed to help you out ´cause you can´t walk propely. But I don´t blame anybody for that, zen buddhist monks spend their entire lives to overcome the human tendency to mistake their impressions for reality. The "is-ness" of things and life is obviously something humans can only experience when they devote themselves totally to spirituality, the common human mind serves as a lens distorting vision. Anthropomorphising animals seems to be common human practice, it can be found in ancient cultures as well as in recent culture, it seems that the human mind needs to make things into something that´s more familiar so the mind can relate to it more easily. It´s like saying that people with black skin color "only have darker white skins"...if you get what I´m trying to say. If it works out for you, fine. But I try to avoid it at all costs and, no, it´s not self-flagellation, it´s only an attempt to really perceive them as what they really are, a horse is a horse, of course, of course....;)
Anthropomorphism is the injection of human attributes and traits to non-human things. Unless you can argue that helplessness, innocence and immaturity are intrinsic human traits, these people are not anthropomorphizing animals. What they are doing is simply seeing animals as helpless, innocent and immature. If you said that the argument that likens zoophilia to pedophilia stemmed from the belief that animals cannot consent to sex, then that would be true anthropomorphism. It is shoving a non-human into human-centric mental/legal constructs.
Are you implying that having sex with animals is a shortcut to having sex with humans? This sounds like some bogus "argument" that any old "anti" would spew around. I really have a hard time understanding how the "trouble of dealing with a human" can dissuade people from having sex with humans and resort to animals when "the trouble of accommodating an animal in your life" is easily a thousandfold greater. It makes no sense to me. There are some human-like qualities I can appreciate in dogs. I may be wrong to project these characteristics unto them, but it certainly has nothing to do with using dogs as a substitute for humans. If I wanted humans, I would go get humans. Do people think we're stuck in the middle ages or something? Having sex with a human, in this day and age, is incredibly easy.
I don't give a rat's ass that you aren't into dogs. I have nothing to prove to you or anybody else here. What bothers me is the implication that dog people "use" dogs as a substitute to humans and that the only reason we would like them is because of the shape of their genitalia and their supposed constant availability for sex. Because you, oh almighty truest of true zoophiles, cannot picture yourself falling in love with a dog means that those who do aren't true zoophiles.
And by the by /u/ursusem isn't a "he."
Maybe I should use R.A. Wilsons "sombunall" to clarify things. "Sombunall" means some, but not all.Please just insert this word into passages you find offensive. feeling better now?
We teach animals a lot of "unnatural" habits. Eating food from a bowl, walking in a leash, letting us ride them, playing with man-made toys, teaching them tricks... The main issue is whether or not the animal is uncomfortable doing these things or enjoys this. This particular dog doesn't seem to enjoy it very much, and it's not for any practical purpose.
But some dogs (those that freeze easily) must wear some kind of clothing during winter. Some dogs like doing tricks, and wearing clothes can be such a trick. I used to think like you when I was a teen, then I realised that not all cases of animals in clothing is the same. Relax.
As if that has jack shit to do with this post. Somebody dressed up a dog in a uniform, it didn't hurt the dog, I doubt he cared, and it's not the end of the fucking world.
Get off your soapbox.
Why is everyone so serious in the comments... Yeah I wouldn't dress my dog up like this, it's ridiculous, even if it looks cute. And people do lot of weird things to animals to get a lulz.
But seeing it in relation to what is actually abuse, this is just a little annoying for the dog, no perma-damage.
And I doubt that the lab has to wear those clothes all the time. :P