Fictional Character Crushes? (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2016-10-13 19:43:26 by huskyencroacher In Soviet Russia, the husky encroaches YOU!
As a follow-up to the Pokemon thread (and also to piss off /u/30-30), let's make a thread about "love interests" in fiction.
Mine has to be Okami Amaterasu. She is such a badass and "a fair maiden" indeed.
What about you?
Although I'm mostly zoo-exclusive, mine is Renly Baratheon from Game of Thrones, because he makes me want to melt into my seat.
A series so full of sexy animals and you pick Renly?! haha
It's cause many of the animals aren't given names, or screentime for that matter, and so it's hard to get attached to them in any way.
Depends. The direwolves are given plenty of screen time.
Yeah but I'm not into canines....
That's why I said "depends."
Ohhhhh
Personally, I wish Ramsay Bolton was nicer. Then his hounds would be more pleasant, and I could stop feeling guilty for wanting them.
I love Ramsay. He's one of the only characters that is uniquivocally an asshole acting in nothing than his own self interest and I like that. I hate how the series try to justify the wrongdoings of certain characters with petty, psedo emotional bullshit. Ramsay has none of that.
In the books, there are a few pointers that he may actually be into bestiality hahaha
Mostly zoo-exclusive? This sure is a thing...as "mostly pregnant", "mostly voting for Trump" and "mostly a virgin"....either you are or you aren´t, there is no in between or "mostly", jackass.
I think that Valiant is intending to say is that if you created a Kinsey Scale for zoophilia, with being purely human-attracted at 0 and purely non-human-attracted at the other end, they would end up somewhere between 4 and 6.
Thanks cyber
Don't bother trying to explain that to 30-30, he's convinced zoophilia is binary... As in people attracted to people can't be "real zoos"... Which is patently ridiculous. I remember this because it's one of the points at which I finally realized he was beyond help.
Another fine example of Rannoch´s excellent reading comprehension....you realize that it was the word "exclusive" I addressed here? You and your kind of unexperienced fantasizers have already stolen and recoined our name. Now you even want to lecture me on exclusivity... Oh, by the way, who told you zoophilia wasn´t "binary"? Can you point out a scientific source? And please don´t even think of citing Miss "Parrot-for-Pervos" Miss-Letski, the one woman researcher who would even believe your bs stories if you insisted on being the passive part in a gay elephant orgy every Saturday. For me, Miss Miletski isn´t a re-searcher, she´s just a "searcher". Scientific studies usually include validating the gathered data before any conclusions are drawn, you know...science 101.
Maybe it would tremenduously help to look up "exclusive" in Merriam-Webster or Oxford dictionary. Please share your findings here and , while you´re at it, add why Webster and Oxford are wrong and you, Chief Lacks-of-pussy, are the one with the one and only true interpretation of the word "exclusive".
And, once again, because it perfectly fits Rannoch´s mindset: "DON´T ADJUST YOUR MIND, IT´S REALITY THAT´S MALFUNCTIONING!"
You don´t even seem to read my posts, just eye-scroll through the text. I´ve never said zoophilia was "binary", there are in fact three categories: 1) normals: not sexually/romatically interested in animals 2) zoophiles: only interested in animals 3) bestialists/beasties: have an interest in humans and animals.
Let´s see if you can recognize a pattern when I provide you with another example...
1) Heterosexual: only interested in the opposite sex 2) Homosexual: only interested in same sex 3) Bisexual: Interested in same and opposite sex, sometimes in equal amounts, sometimes biased towards one or the other option
It´s always interestingto read your posts, Rannoch. With that massive 4 week amount of experience that you´ve gathered years ago, with all your expertise and all the actual penetrative sex you had in this said 4 weeks, you surely are a lighthouse of real wisdom and unlimited knowledge... With my 22 years (1144 weeks, that is...) leading a zoo relationship out in the open , I simply have to surrender to your superior knowledge that you condensed out of your vast real life experiences with leading an animal-human relationship.
You still owe me an answer I requested in several other posts: Why are you so convinced that YOUR agenda is the right one? If I look outside, at the real world, all I see is that people who share your "tolerant" views" and definitions as flexible as Mr Elastic, have made the situation like it is today. There´s undeniable proof out there your attitude does more harm than any anti could ever inflict on our group. Your approach has been falsified for nearly two decades and won´t get us anywhere. So, here´s my question again: Why do you think your attitudes and definitions , your "tolerance" will steer us into less troubled waters? Is this a religious thing where you have to believe, even if reality tells otherwise? Or is your defense automatism so self-working, so automated that you even miss out on the exact topic of discussion?
The longer I am in here, the smaller the differences between this sub and BF become...the average "zoophile" in here isn´t that plebs and ruthless as in BF, but if you scratch on the surface, you all are really no different from the typical BF user...you believe in the same "tolerance" bullshit, you try to justify everything with exactly the same fake ineffective arguments and most of you even fall for this "zoo rights" bullshit. If anybody in here would man up and live life as he/she pleases, without all of that special snowflake crap and the moronic " We must be visible for everyone" approach, there would be no need for a forum like this.
There´s an awful lot that´s going totally wrong...in society, but in this community as well. The "zoos" are to blame for the current situation as much as the "intolerant" society and as long as you fight off the obvious conclusions because they would severely affect your long held beliefs and your sense of belonging to a certain group of folks , there will be no change, not even the slightest bit.
What I´m doing here is a Litmus test...and most of you miserably failed it. You simply fail in giving society any reason to reevaluate zoophilia. You want this to be a playground, so you have to deal with all the consequences and repercussions of that....
And the worst: you´re all sooo far out you don´t even know why any effort to gain tolerance equals running head first into a concrete wall that´s 2 meters thick... If you can´t see the world through a normal guy´s eyes for a second, I really fear for your animals...zoophilia as an orientation demands so much ability to view all your deeds through the eyes of the animal, seeing the world through the eyes of a normie should be a piece of cake for you. If you can´t do that, how can I, how can society and how can YOU be sure that your "zoophilia" isn´t just a poor excuse for getting your rocks off easily and without the usual obligations a "normal" relationship brings?
Anyway, I bet you find a cunning way to talk yourself out of this....delusions surely are comfortable to dwell in. Take the blue pill if you want....I chose the red one instead.
Not always, but nowadays? Yes. Something something about you thinking I need to adjust my vision because I aperently instead think reality is aparently malfunctioning. Yeah, really deep stuff man. Makes almost no sense though without drugs.
And yeah, you sure are an expert horsefucker. Please tell me what that has to do with human relations that we're aparently concerned with?
You just described binary zoophilia.
And I know this is going to shock you again, but we can't "steal" the term zoophile from you. You don't own it, and never did.
I know it's a matrix reference, but I can't help but reply with something along the lines of "enjoy your pills, I'm fine."
Another quality 30-30 post, nothing but rage.
You stated some time ago that you were leaving....either you are or you aren't, there is no in between or "mostly", jackass.
I guess I had an innocent crush on Scar from the Lion King when I was 5 years old.
I was going to mention 30-30's flipout and Amaterasu.
Well, I guess you already did that for me.
But still, I love any canine Pokemon, but they lack personality so I'm just going with Madarao/Ginro from a very obscure anime called Kekkaishi.
He's a ghost wolf who is gay, beautiful AND into humans.
That's just perfect...
EDIT: Interesting fact, my flair is something he said.
Well, Pokemon are more a species than characters, so it seems weird to say they "lack personality".
Also, Kekkaishi... I tried watching that at one point but wasn't really drawn into it. But you've made me want to take another look at it.
Their disdain of humanity aside, what about the forest wolves from Princess Mononoke?
Never watched it so I don't know much about them.
Definitely seems like a fun ride.
The forest wolfs where my fantasy family, a wife and 2 pups but would want more pops thow ^^
just watched episode one .. not bad. how far in do they talk about the fact that he's gay?
Episode 11 and 12.
These are my favorite episodes for sure.
cool. i'll have to try to find time to watch that far along. thanks.
really liking the voice actor for madarao in the english dub. definitely getting a bit of a crush on the character... <.<
Holy fuck yes.
I thought I was the only one.
I fucking love that voice.
i also like how hakubi calls tokine "honey". :)
So I'm guessing you would suggest the dub?
You see, this is all up to you.
It depends on what you prefer, dub or sub.
I personally don't care when it comes to Kekkaishi.
Madarao's English voice is just sexy, that is all.
Kekkaishi? Well, seems that now I have a new anime that I need to watch. Thanks.
Balto was totally like my childhood crush lol. Studly little hero, Jenna's lucky to have him XD.
I'm sure I've been infatuated with other canines in other movies but he is the longest running one that sticks out to me.
Oh, and Nick Wilde from zootopia. I think a lot of people can agree that he is one sexy fox, and he knows it too lol. The wolves in the movie were super cute too and furries totally shipped the two main appearanced ones.
Ah yeah, Balto. I used to be so obsessed with that movie when I was a kid lol.
Faline from Bambi was hot enough she probably fucked with my head a bit growing up... maybe I can blame my zoophilia on Walt Disney... yeah, that'll go over well, heh.
walt disney, the warner brothers, don bluth .. the list goes on... ;)
How I feel for this comment. I cant imagine what my mind would have bee like without the amazing animated masterpieces in my life though.
Okami is a wolf, and wolves are hot.
Yes and yes.
The big one for me is Rain from Spirit: Stallion of the Cimmarron. Yeah sure it's an animated movie, and yeah, she's very anthropic in how she's characterized, but I mean, come on.
My laundry list of real horse celebrity crushes is a bit longer, I admit...
Weirdly enough, the Scooby Doo from the live action movies. I know most people saw that as an ungodly abomination, and the movies do very much miss the point of Scooby Doo, but when I was a teenager, all I could think of was, "Mmm, dat ass! Such a sweet woobie!"
Doesn't help that a love triangle with Shaggy and Velma is canon now. So many fanfictions were justified that day...
"Ruh roh"
Perdie from the animated 101 Dalmatians. Not a childhood thing, actually, but more recent. And I also second Nick Wilde.
Blue from the anime Wolf's Rain.
So you´re doing this to piss me off? As if another stupid, infantile thread for sissyboys and not-grown-ups is necessary for that....
When I was young, we used to go out and play, not sitting in front of a screen...maybe that´s the reason why you seem so fucking retarded to me...generation conflict. Brainfucked media generation....
Maybe that generation is going to be running the show soon?
I swear, you're like the grumpy old bigot in the corner, complaining about the youuth going to hell in a handbasket. Only thing that's even remotely different about you is the fact you also happen to be zoo.
PS: I doubt he's doing this to piss you off, more responding to the fact it undoubtedly WILL piss you off. As if no one was ever a kid, man... jesus christ.
I just found your reaction to the Pokemon thing hilariously disproportionate.
And believe me, the irony of someone who has spent his life screwing animals calling others "not-grown-ups", "retarded" and "brainfucked" is not lost on me.
I don't find it ironic at all. Actually, some of the most intelligent people I've met have been zoos. I certainly don't see them as any of the above, stereotypes aside.
...sighs Yeah, if we get into stereotypes, I guess it is ironic isn't it?
The fact that I fuck animals does not make me magically respect other people only because they fuck animals as well. Zoos, to me, are degenerates. And I have absolutely no trouble applying this label to myself, too.
As far as I'm concerned, most zoos indeed are retards (maybe not intellectually, but emotionally) and fucked in the brain to some extent. It is EXTREMELY ironic for me to see a horsefucker give himself the authority to judge other people's lives and insult a bunch of people with ridiculous blanket statements.
why do you think zoos are emotionally stunted?
How can it be any other way?
How can someone do something the vast majority of people find absolutely revolting and find comfort and profound companionship in lesser beasts without disconnected from their emotions? I'm sorry for not sugarcoating this, but it's really how it feels to me. I love dogs as much as the next guy, in fact, the only reason I live is in hopes of one day bringing happiness to dogs... Animals take responsibility, they take commitment, I am well aware of that. But let's not delude ourselves and pretend the emotional maturity required to be a good partner to a human is the same as being a good caretaker of an animal. It is considerably less so. And let's also not delude ourselves into thinking that such two types of relationships can bring the same emotional growth to a person.
By justifying it in their minds over time via logical methods?
(BTW, if there's one thing I have noticed that's "different" about the average zoo, it's that they value logic more than the average sheeple on the street).
Look at the gay community in earlier times. Were they emotionally stunted? Of course not.
I also don't consider beasts "lesser," just different. We are suffering a substantial disconnect here.
I'm not so sure of that. And yes, I've been there.
They don't. But you can get the same stuff form other outlets. You aren't seriously going to argue all single people are emotionally stunted are you? Please.
PS: For the record, I am physically and mentally disabled in a few capacities. But I am not "stupid." I take offense to your use of the term "degenerates" for the disabled, which make up a large portion of the American/world public.
And before you argue "see! You're disabled because you're a zoo!" I suggest you read my story in the "dad of a zoo" thread if you haven't already. In short, I wasn't always this way.
If this isn't downright sophistry, it's a terribly huge bias.
I've never been to keen on comparing our "struggle" of acceptance with the struggle of other sexual minorities, but I can see why some zoos draw parallels between the two. But in this case, it's not even remotely relevant. You are aware that gay people are human, right?
The term was used more in the sense of how the world at large considers beasts, not so much as how I do personally. However, it is important to remember that the folding of our cortices is unmatched in nature. This trait gives us access to many mental aptitudes that are unparalleled within the animal kingdom. A few of those are rationality, introspection, management of emotions, self-growth...
Been where? In a relationship with human? Have you been caretaker of an animal? Have these relationships been long term ones?
No, you can't. No other "outlet" even comes close. A romantic, exclusive relationship with a human is different from any other type of relationship. It requires commitment, a good capacity at introspection, respect both for the other person and for your own self. It requires that you communicate with someone, so you may share your wants and needs. But it also requires that you have the clarity of mind and maturity to know what these wants and needs are in the first place. A romantic relationship implies a certain level of compromise, and in a functioning relationship, both parties are fully aware of that fact and ready to compromise when things go south. But it's a balancing act as well. Too much compromise is no good either. Again, it's with maturity, introspection and self-respect that one learns what is too much compromise. It's with these things that one learns what works and what doesn't.
And most of all, love between humans requires you to open up and be vulnerable. This is exactly where the "emotional stunting" part comes into play. You will never have to open up and be vulnerable for an animal.
In my entourage, the only person my age and up I have ever known to remain single for all his life is... me. Like it or not, something is broken with people who are single. A dry spell is okay. A lifetime of solitude is not.
Well, like you say to me: your problems are not my problems. If you take offense at being called a degenerate, I suggest you grow a thicker skin. And I did not use the term "degenerate" to refer to the disabled, I have no idea where you got that idea. I use that term to refer to sexual deviates, which just happens to objectively be everyone browsing this sub.
No, it's really not. It's only logical that people on the outskirts of society will be tempted to logically examine their behavior, and if they can reach the conclusion that it is harmless (as I and many others have), value logic for that gift it has given them.
They were also "deviants" at that time frame which was your main complaint against zoos psyche if I am not mistaken (I could be here, I'm not going to bother to reread frankly since you are basically an admitted troll).
Anyways, that was my basis for their relevance.
This is highly questionable. I'm going to pull the "prove it" card. My friendships fill all my social needs. My animals have filled my romantic ones (at least, in the past). I was a healthy balanced individual. Sorry you don't think that's possible, but again, that is your issue not mine.
My mother has a few single coworkers (in their 40s, no less), as did I when I worked. I don't know where you get this idea, but it's incredibly questionable and frankly, outdated.
Duly noted.
If you're using deviant in the sense of "not normal," then yes, but that also makes gay people deviants, etc. That's not how most people use the term. The fact is if you are happy and a zoophile, the APA does not consider you to have a mental disease. My final psyhciatrist that saw me made that abundantly clear and considered all my prior psychiatrists victims of as he called it "populist attitudes." Frankly, by the books, you are wrong.
Maybe. But it's not logical for said people on the outskirts of society to positively reinforce their bias because of no good reason in an endless loop. "I am a zoo, therefore I value logic," "I am a zoo, I see other zoos have the same opinion as me, therefore other zoos must also value logic," "if a lot of zoos value logic and I am a zoo, therefore I must be logical, too!" Do you see where I'm going with this? Conclusions are drawn with statements that materialize out of thin air.
Yeah, you are completely missing the point. But please don't bother. Because I am a troll apparently. I'm sure this head-in-the-sand attitude will get you far in life.
Did you not read the 200 words paragraph I wrote on exactly that?
Are you serious right now? Do you ever go outside? Where I'm from, people lose their virginity on AVERAGE at 17 years of age. Yeah, I know plenty of single people, too. But almost not a single person who has been single their whole life.
I am serious. We're in an age with a mostly accepted "asexual" movement for god's sake. You seem to be of the opinion that sex is the crux of human relationships. I'm not sure even many outside this community would agree with that.
I truly am sorry you are struggling so hard with this. All I can really do in this discussion is wish you the best of luck in finding your peace, as you clearly were convinced this was wrong long before you got to this reddit. That's your right, of course, but don't pretend the other way of thinking is inherently "wrong" just because you've choosen to damn yourself.
What I had with Willow was my proof. I'm guessing you have never had anything like that to set your mind at ease. I don't envy that position, it must be very hard, not knowing... I can only hope someday, some wonderful animal sets your mind at ease.
In the meantime, I have a life to rebuild, and that's hard work (and also something most "normies" don't get to experience). I really wish you well, and do empathize with your confusion (I was there some 10-15 years ago), but I don't really see this discussion progressing anywhere right now as it's clear for the moment, your mind is already made up. I hope your inner turmoil someday finds a way to inner peace. Good luck.
Sex is the crux of the relationship of any sexual animal. Hell, it is the only reason why some species form relationships with one another at all. Are you aware that without sex, none of us would be alive?
Asexual (and aromantic) people are a speck on the great canvas of human sexuality. They barely register as a statistic. A 1994 study in UK would have you believe that they make up 1% of the population, which is to me appears as a overestimate. In a bus filled with 100 people, 1 person has no sex drive whatsoever? Hahaha, what. I'm sorry, but anyone who lives in the real world knows this to be untrue.
Actually, no. When I first started participating in the community about 5 or 6 years ago, I thought nothing about it. I did not see it as something bad and would have been content to spend my life as a bachelor with only friends as human company and animals for intimacy. But the more I mature, and the more my entourage matures as well, the more I am concerned over the possibility that I am completely shutting myself away from a huge facet of human experience. And the more I see other zoophiles for what they are, the more I am concerned about my place among them.
I had an experience painfully similar to yours. She's not dead yet (for all I know,) but as far as I'm concerned she may well be. The chances of me ever seeing her again are slim to none. Do you think coming here and reading experiences such as yours make me think this is a good path for me to travel on? Sitting there, every day closer to death, reminiscing constantly about the life I've never get to live... No, I don't want this to happen to me.
It sounds to me as if you yourself are far from inner peace.
I have bad nights. I'm not at peace, but I am at peace with my sexuality, at least. I can't imagine the hell thinking this disables you in some way must be.
I also can't imagine thinking sex is the crux of any relationship, frankly. It isn't for me. Maybe you think that is "broken." I think that is merely "different." And that my friend, is the crux of OUR disagreement.
Then again, I strongly urge you to consider this may not be the lifestyle for you. It has plenty of baggage but it doesn't inherently disable you. I'd argue more that the people around me did that. Willow was the ONLY time I was happy.
I'm merging my replies from the other reply as well over here, to simplify our discussion.
It has nothing to do with it, honestly. It's just a great regret I have trouble suppressing.
Why is sex so important to you? If it really matters, we did some sexual things, just not intercourse.
But at any rate, it didn't take intercourse for society to respond. It didn't take intercourse for the consequences to come. I've had it all, and I've seen a lot, both good and bad, from people. That's what we call experience where I come from.
Then try to talk to people sometimes. Jesus.
Sex isn't even that important to me. But if you are going to defend the morality of zoophilia and zoophiles, then you have to be ready to accept the fact that you are defending sex with animals. If you tell me that "sex with animals does not harm them and I have a lifetime of experiences to back this up," please, actually have a lifetime of experiences to back this up. Not just a series of conjectures you have extrapolated out of one single anecdotal event.
I DO talk to people man. Sex is but a part of the larger experience that is love. That is what my culture has taught me.
Of course, we may be suffering a cultural disconnect. As I admitted via pm, I live in a very liberal area.
No debate there.
I think you completely misunderstood me. I have but one experience on that front, admitedly. That comment was directed towards the idea that zoophiles are emotionally stunted. All through my life, I've interacted with many, both good and bad. Frankly, my experiences with them have been that I have seen more empathy than the general population. Emotionally stunted that is not.
That's what that comment meant.
Therw's nothing "magic" about my respect for fellow zoos, it has been earned with time and hardship.
Sounds like you have some self-esteem issues. Not my problem.
Somehow, I find that incredibly hard to believe.
Self-esteem issues? No. I just have a good capacity at introspection. And I also don't let my feelings cloud my judgement. How there are people out there who get hard-ons for animals and do not even merely entertain the notion that something may be wrong with them is beyond me.
Again, not my problem.
I've entertained the notion like most zoophiles, and tossed it around in my head for most of my childhood. That makes my conclusions all the stronger. I'm sorry you seem to have trouble reaching the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with you, maybe this isn't the orientation for your healthy state of mind. Or maybe you haven't gotten there yet. Or maybe you just have self-esteem issues like I said before. Again, I can't claim to know, and it's not my problem.
You remind me of ZetaCola in some ways. I can only hope you and him both find your peace of mind, wherever it may be.
Strong conclusions... based on what exactly? Conjecture?
Oh, if I could change, I would. If I would be satisfied with a human or at the very least attracted to them, I would lock this part of me in a little box and toss it in a dark corner of my mind forever.
I am zetacola lol
Logical conclusions based on a lifetime of firsthand experience.
Then I suggest you see a psychiatrist.
This is not a surprise.
Some advice? If you're going to leave, quit trolling around the boards under different usernames with questionable agendas.
Ah, sorry. I did not know young adulthood was now considered a lifetime and porn videos a firsthand experience.
If you think I am trolling you just because you don't agree with what I have to say, you are severely mistaken. And a "questionable agenda" is very, very subjective. I don't consider I have an agenda.
You don't really know who you are talking to, do you?
I'm 30, for the record. I will likely be dead in 10 years due to a heart condition and other health concerns beyond my control. So yeah, maybe I was shortchanged but this is my lifetime and I am trying to make the most of it.
It also may humor you to know that your jabs at my sexual inexperience betray your own emphasis on sex. I barely look at porn (I did not lie when I said that canine video I sent you wasn't from my limited collection). I have also never had intercourse, not even with my Willow, due to lingering moral concerns.
The thing about Willow, was she WANTED intercourse. When she was in heat, it was a force to be reckoned with and the only thing on her mind. That I did not enjoy that with her is a source of great regret. But I didn't. And now with her dead, I never will.
Actaully, with the state of my heart, it's not even advisable to masturbate, let alone have intercourse. This has enabled a lot of long nights in an armchair, with a lot of tears, and a lot of introspection.
Would you please explain to me again why I would benefit from the conclusion zoophilia is right? As far as I can tell, it does nothing for me now. As for whether or not this "lifetime" has been worthwhile, I'll let you judge that, since you seem so very good at it.
PS: The only reason I think you are trolling is because you uh, said so yourself earlier?
Well, in any case, I stand my ground that considering thirty years of existence and a single event that did not even turn sexual "a lifetime of firsthand experience" is a preposterous hyperbole.
I honestly have no idea what this has to do with the original proposition. Yes, animals have biological urges. What does this have to do with a zoophile's emotional intelligence?
I find it harsh but correct. My mind is mentally unstable and I have trouble learning.. So it gives me more reasoning to believe myself and possibly many other Zoo's could be the same way. But I am not. I think most the people Ive been reading comments from here, exceed in my views, intellect I don't see in the majority of others using the internet. But it also comes with the possibility my mind is fucked up mentally, so it gives me no right to think I could see who is smart and who is not. >_< kept reading to see the word "self-esteem" come up. I guess I have little to none of that too.. But is it logical to think that all Zoo's are like me and others with bad brains? No.. It isn't. So why did I write this comment myself? Gr.. Well maybe it will help someone see clarity? Ill delete if it gets downvoted.
"Bad" is a loaded term. I don't imply any of this is inherently bad. But I am quite convinced that in the developmental process of the average zoo's emotions, something did not reach full fruition.
Zoos tend to be intelligent, rational people. I don't question this. It's in fact something that happens very often with groups of people who distance themselves from their emotions and replace them with pure rationality. My point is not that something is messed up from a intellectual perspective, but from an emotional (and arguably moral) one.
So basically you're this guy.
This makes way too much sense. I'm going to be less harsh on you from now on with that in mind.
Marley from Marley and me, such a beautiful dog. That movie came out right around the time I realized I was into dogs, it became one of my favorites
moro from princess mononoki no doubt. who wouldn't want a relationship with the wolf god?
i'm having a hard time coming up with anything specific atm besides a character that isn't really an animal, just animal-like, and the nature of that crush is .. odd, in that it's not so much the character that i'm in love with so much as a story in my head of that character and another character from the source story that has kept me inspired for nearly 20 years now. i still revisit my attraction to them both and desire to see them happy together. i hesitate to be specific because i think i had a fanfic out there somewhere that might identify me... <.<
.. come to think of it, there are several anthro characters that come to mind before any quadruped characters that i definitely had a crush on...
anyhoo, yeah ... so many fictional characters from so many things .. movies, cartoons, video games, books, etc., etc.
Going with the less anthropomorphized ones (otherwise I'd be here all day), Ronno from Bambi, Simba from The Lion King, Kion and Janja from The Lion Guard, Arlo from The Good Dinosaur, Bolt, and far far too many ponies from My Little Pony.
Blue Yaiden all day every day.
[deleted]
First crush Renamon, that's when I started becoming interested in girls,
Second was Saphira from the Eragon movie. She was the reason I watched that movie, and it was around that time I learned of my zoo tendencies. I had lost my virginity to a bitch once before but I repressed the memory and she brought it back.
Renamon is a hotty.
She is my forever waifu
[deleted]
yakul from princess mononoke. Along with nala the wolf (or something similar) from the same movie. haku from spirited away is another one. I kinda think its more about the animation style studio ghibli uses with animals...
I forget the major one, Flag from the yearling. As long as you stop the movie before the ending...
Oh wow. I loved reading all the comments here. Happily surprised by how many characters I recognized that others have witnessed. I have too many to post, but Nick Wilde is a favorite of many and yes, he is one of the most sexy foxy characters, I have ever laid my eyes on. Bolt is another favorite of mine. I have a stuffy of Bolt and I kiss him when I go to bed at night. >\\\\\<; I feel so weird telling even people that crush on the same character that.
Sebastian from Black Butler has to be one of many anime crushes I have had. I was mostly turned on by the fact that he could look like a big winged canine like demon, which sent shivers down my spine.
Another huge character I enjoy fantasizing about ever since childhood would be Sesshomarou from Inuyasha. I still have amazing fantasies of that character in his full demon form and human like form. Have my very own little sesshy toy too.
I feel so insecure you all know this now. >.<; But hope you liked the read? Eh.. I just wanna erase it all.. But but.. i hope I can find someone who finds they have those same interests. I dont know. Have a great day.. You. Yeah. "Slumps back into bed"
Haha, don't worry. I'm sure nobody likes to admit they have crushes on imaginary characters.
Colleen from road rovers. If you have not seen that cartoon, do it, is pretty funny. I also had a crush for Fifi la Fume from TTA. Ah, childhood/teen memories. When That was the best I could find as porn replacement. Tank (not a typo, if you watch road rovers you will get the pun) god for the internet.
Damn, some of your people crushers are on newer characters, makes me realize that I'm so old, I'm just 33 xD
I remember another one, Piyomon from digimon tamers.
Duchess from The Aristocats, Mittens from Bolt, and Kiara from the Lion King II, were three big ones for me