This looks like a very promising movie (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-07-20 01:42:19 by yrs-bluebox
This could be a real credit to the image of interspecies love. The shape of water. Check out the trailer and tell me what you think. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XFYWazblaUA
I'm just happy to see a movie coming out that's not a remake, sequel, prequel, or based on an existing franchise. Hopefully it's good. That's all I really care about right now.
Hahaha... Then when they have a children it happens to be aquaman. O.O
If the director's previous films are anything to go by, it's gonna be great.
And an acid trip.
I think you don´t even have a vague glimpse of what an acid trip is like...;) If there´s a movie director that tries to capture an acid trip in his movies, then it´s definitely Fincher...Lost Highway, for example... You might want to check out Luis Bunuel, too...his surrealistic movies like "Un chien andalou (1929)", " El angel exterminator (1962)" and "Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie (1972)" give a pretty good idea of the non linearity and trancendence of time, space, archetypes, dream, reality and narration. Much more acid like than any of Guillermo del Toro´s movies...
THIS! And it actually looks decent, the trailer really made me want to watch it. Although this looks a lot like district 9 and E.T. put together.
To be honest I don't think it will get any credit towards interspecies love at all, it's a fictional film, and that is forever how it will be viewed.
Although it does look like a good movie...
Nope. It's humanoid and possesses human or near-human intelligence. That's how easily people are tricked into accepting non-human relationships.
If anthropomorphic animals with human intelligence (i.e. Furries) emerged on earth one day, I'll guarantee a sizeable percentage of the population would be dating and banging them soon after.
But apparently loving animals who don't think exactly like humans, and who possess two more legs, makes you a rapist. Great thinking, society.
People were talking about how it's bestiality in the comments actually.
Yeah, that's generally the point where people stop considering it bestiality. Hell, some people even argue that being human-shaped doesn't matter, as long as it thinks like a human it's acceptable.
That said there is a decent-sized group of people who think banging furries is bestiality. I've seen people argue about whether or not fucking catgirls is bestiality. Hell, I've seen people who call screwing vulcans bestiality and seen a couple say those 'sexy cat' Halloween costumes are too close to bestiality for comfort. It's hilarious and sad.
To be fair, if furries actually existed, having sex with one would almost certainly qualify as bestiality. They are animals, and they are most certainly a distinct species from humans, even if they share a bipedal form. Vulcans would qualify as Xenophilia though.
I think the confusion comes in when people use this sort of logic: "Bestiality is wrong. Having sex with a furry is not wrong. Therefore having sex with a furry is not bestiality", when the correct logic would be to recognize that their second premise is actually in contradiction to their first.
Going by the 'non-human species' rule xenophilia is still technically bestiality. I don't have a problem with that definition, fyi, just pointing it out. The other definition I see is 'beings with non-human intelligence' which I also think is fine. When you're talking about fantasy species it does get to be messy because things that are bestiality by the non-human definition are functionally ethically closer to human-human sex.
I think that confusion comes about when people don't really bother to think about why bestiality is wrong to them. They only heard that sex with anything other than a human is wrong and that's where the thought train ends.
Bestiality isn't just sex with a nonhuman species though, it is sex with a nonhuman animal. We don't consider sex with plants to be bestiality, for instance.
I... can safely say I've never considered sex with plants at all
But surely many young people watching farscape have considered sex with the plant based Zhaan.
With aliens and fantasy creatures 'creature' works well enough. I figure if there was a plant with animal-like behavior fucking it would be considered bestiality even though it's not in the animal kingdom. Like I said though, it gets messy and weird in fantasy. Anything goes.
While I find the 'non-human creature' definition fine, I prefer the 'human-like sentience' definition in fantasy because it better describes the function of what's going on. I obviously don't think sex with animals is wrong, but it's a different beast ethically and will play a different role in a fictional narrative. For that reason being able to differentiate between 'sex with a mentally human creature' and 'sex with a mentally non-human creature' is more important than making a distinction between 'sex with a human' and 'sex with any non-human creature'.
Plants are not animals; they are in a different kingdom. :|
That's my point. Likewise, aliens would not be animals - even if they acted like animals, they would be from a fundamentally different tree of life than the animals of our planet.
Most likely they'll call it alienphilia or some shit like that XD
the term already exists -- xenophilia
Wow, imagine that life is very common in galaxies, and every planet with it has at least one kingdom. Those names, EBLMJ0555-57AB-KG1
It's not a precise measure by any means, but the Drake equation is an attempt to put forth an approximation of how common intelligent life is.
And I didn't want it to be. If the fourth factor of equation were 0.01 for example, we would definitely give up with giving normal names. Just like for planets and stars. There is nothing else I wanted to share in that reply.
"If anthropomorphic animals with human intelligence emerged on earth one day, I´ll guarantee a sizeable percentage of the population would be dating and banging them soon after"...yes, and that percentage of the population is the Furry Fandom...;) Rather disturbing though you don´t even seem to include the question whether these anthropomorphic animals would bang humans...
Society´s thinking isn´t so bad, objectively seen. It is a fact that animals can´t give verbal consent and that, in a strictly legal sense, makes it rape. I really believe the inability of animals to talk is the gamebreaker for society as a whole and the two strongest arguments against zoophilia are indeed the consent argument and the power imbalance argument. Both sides, the anti as well as our pro side, have strong beliefs ("An animal cannot consent!" - "It can consent nonverbally!"), but sadly, no side has any proof. The only thing that could change that would be a human animal translator. If such an accurately working device is invented and animals can actually "say" what they want and what they don´t, bestiality and zoophilia will slowly, but surely be reevaluated by society.
And chances are pretty high such a device will be on the market sooner or later. The advancements that have been made in the artificial intelligence segment of science are overwhelming, today we can imitate real humans in social networks with bots, to a degree that makes it impossible to separate actual person and computer program for the average person. We can create creeplily accurate personal profiles just from the things a person bought on the internet. And I´m pretty sure that somewhere, scientists are already researching animal-human translation possibilities. In a joke gadget shop, I have seen what can be called the prototype: several devices claiming to correctly "translate" babies, or dogs or cats. I believe we´´ll see the first halfway decently working UHATs (Universal human animal translator) in about 20 years from now.
"But apparently loving animals who don´t think exactly like humans, and who possess two more legs, makes you a rapist"....no, neither the different way of thinking nor the two additional legs make it rape in their eyes. What makes it rape in their eyes is the fact you cannot talk to the animal. If an animal gets raped , it cannot just simply walk to the next police station or cop and tell that it was raped. An animal also cannot speak about abuse and violence within its "relationship". Since most zoophiles massively tend towards enormous exaggeration of their communication abilities with animals and really believe they understand them better because they fuck them, I really see big potential for rap, unintentional rape, but still rape. In a scene in which apathy of the animal is widely accepted as consent and love, remaining sceptical may not be the worst decision you ever made...should you be interested more in the truth than just finding lame excuses and justifications for your "zoophilia". (Addendum: Not meant personally, but just as an observation of our community´s main role models)
I really cannot hate society for pointing out the basic flaws in the average "zoophile"´s weltbild; with all our anecdotal stories, with all our experience, we still only have clues and hints, not proof.We still don´t know for sure what an animal feels when it has sex with a human. We still don´t know for sure if an animal is capable of love although science and observation indicate towards such a capability, but still not watertight proof.
..waiting for something like this to happen automagically 'because scientists' only lead to great frustration in 'my' dolphin/cetacean related circle...scientists today too much part of society (=egoistic, and driven by money flow (not personal greed, may be, but still money matters for them much more than teh truth/Reality) for relying on them for something truely revolutionary ....
Has anyone seen this movie with the leopard, "passion in the dessert", something like that, they said the book got super-disliked because the guy fell in love with the leopard (or that's what the comments say), and somehow they still got a movie, still tuned down for less hinting, but with some licking here and there.
I keep meaning to watch that one!
I watched it back when it was free on youtube. I don't remember too much about it tbh. It isn't super zoo though, his relationship is more about him being lonely and projecting/anthropomorphising than being a person who was attracted to cats.
The movie isn't from what I heard because it was toned down, but anyway you are right. Not the best zoo representation but hey that's something, plus this scenario is better than being cast away and only having wilson as your friend XD
Maybe we should give the book a try then, lol
It's French so it's "different". Basically, the female leopard saves his life and befriends him in an isolated desert area where all the humans want to kill him. He thinks of her as a pet but when she comes into heat she wants more. He can't so she goes looking for and finds a male leopard. He tries to become a male leopard for her and competes with the male leopard. About then rescue shows up and he has to choose between worlds.
It looks really cute! How applicable it'll be to zoos is debatable though.
I don't think it has anything to do with zoophilia or real-life interspecies relationships but I just have to mention I'm FUCKING PUMPED for this movie, del Toro is one of my favorite directors/creative minds and I can't wait for this. I've been watching like a hawk for the trailer to drop. The way he creates adult "fairy tales" is incredible and I've enjoyed all of his movies, Pan's Labyrinth is my favorite.
Side note, I love anything with monsters/creatures, including romance. Dunno if I'd be that way if I wasn't zoo, since it's always the non-human aspects of monsters that appeal to me physically. I'm really into creature design/practical effects so I think I'd be into monsters in general, but don't know if I'd be into romance/sex stories with them (though I have a non-zoo friend who's that way, so who knows!).