Outside human race/species romance in fiction!

[Egon1982]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Why this is a thread?

Also, that thing in the first post on this page is...ugh...my nightmares looks less horrifying than this.

First post? what do you mean horrifying?

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by Egon1982

First post? what do you mean horrifying?

Bestiality

[Egon1982]

Originally Posted by neatoman

Bestiality

No it's not! they are all people who are different.

Your saying the same thing they said in colonial times about mixing ethnciity or in old times about same sex relationships

[PApagreg]

Originally Posted by neatoman

Bestiality

You don't know what bestiality is do you?

[IndigoErth]

I meannnn...if we wanna get technical and based solely on the real world because that's the only real experience there is to go by, the definition of course refers to animals who can't consent. Innocent regular little animals who can't agree to be involved in some weirdo human's fetish.

However, the real world has kind of a blank space where intelligent sentient anthro beings are concerned since they're, you know, not real. (Well, unless aliens show up, though they probably won't understand Earthling -- human and otherwise -- mating stuff either.)

Though if anything interspecies in fiction counted as bestiality, then given their history of non-mutant-turtle romantic interests...those Turtles are sooo guilty of it themselves. And it's not just Leo and his human lady friends... no no... Raph and Mona Lisa and his fox/coyote ladies, for example, are so equally guilty. Being mutants or fellow anthro animal people still does not make you the same! lol

But, they're all people. And maybe a being that can be considered people should not be left on the same lowly level of a regular little animal that can't makes its own sentient decisions.

(And yes I'm overthinking it because it's fun.)

[Egon1982]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

I meannnn...if we wanna get technical and based solely on the real world because that's the only real experience there is to go by, the definition of course refers to animals who can't consent. Innocent regular little animals who can't agree to be involved in some weirdo human's fetish.

However, the real world has kind of a blank space where intelligent sentient anthro beings are concerned since they're, you know, not real. (Well, unless aliens show up, though they probably won't understand Earthling -- human and otherwise -- mating stuff either.)

Though if anything interspecies in fiction counted as bestiality, then given their history of non-mutant-turtle romantic interests...those Turtles are sooo guilty of it themselves. And it's not just Leo and his human lady friends... no no... Raph and Mona Lisa and his fox/coyote ladies, for example, are so equally guilty. Being mutants or fellow anthro animal people still does not make you the same! lol

But, they're all people. And maybe a being that can be considered people should not be left on the same lowly level of a regular little animal that can't makes its own sentient decisions.

(And yes I'm overthinking it because it's fun.)

Yes furries, aliens, cyborgs/androids, mutants and magical creature folk are all people who are different.

How do you feel if an alien dated an android?

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by Egon1982

No it's not! they are all people who are different.

Your saying the same thing they said in colonial times about mixing ethnciity or in old times about same sex relationships

Originally Posted by PApagreg

You don't know what bestiality is do you?

I know the difference, it's just that I get that this sort of thing tends to get associated with bestiality, which is why some people don't like it. Personally I don't care, it's about fictional species.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Egon1982

No different than in real life like in the US in the old times, the white man felt they were "superior" to the Native Americans and thought the Native Americans were "inferior". Even saying things like " Indians are… inferior to the Anglo-Saxon. (Henry Clay, Sec. of State, 1825)", " The life of these [aborigines] is…not human. (Author Hugh Brackenridge, 1779)" and " The Indian…is an wild untamable, carnivorous animal. (Dr. Josiah Nott, 1847)". And no different than in Nazi times when Hitler said " Jews are undoubtedly a race, but not human." as Hitler and the Nazis thought they were "superior" to the Jews and Gypsies as they thought those people were "inferior" and had propaganda stuff which depicted them as "parasites" and "rats". Or in Rwanda Africa when the Hutus thought the Tutsis were "inferior" and made anti-tutsi propaganda depicting them as "cockroaches" and "snakes".

Comparing lack of desire to **** cartoon animals with real world racism and discrimination is sad and weird.

Maybe you should get some help or at least take a breather.

Originally Posted by Egon1982

First post? what do you mean horrifying?

It looks like an uncanny version of a realistic cartoon rabbit.

[Egon1982]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Comparing lack of desire to **** cartoon animals with real world racism and discrimination is sad and weird.

Maybe you should get some help or at least take a breather.


It looks like an uncanny version of a realistic cartoon rabbit.

Hatton Slayden is not uncanny valley stuff, i like realistic anthro folks in his art and you have to admit that is a good work of art.

Anthros, mutants, cyborgs and aliens are races of beings as aliens do exist somewhere yet cyborgs/androids might be created sometime and race doesn't mean skin pigmentation/ethnicity you know.

Why say animals? they are people who are different. How do you feel about Cherokees who were called "animals" and "inferior to the ango-saxton" in the old days even when they said "the constitution does not include Indians as persons" in 1881 even Author Hugh Buckenridge in the late 1770s saying "they are not human"?


Mutants are people in X-Men's world you know and they were hated because of how they look and have abilities and humans find them "inferior" race of beings compared to humans. Even anthros in some stories where they coexist with humans are considered "inferior" by bigoted humans.

thin line on anthros? nope, only ignorant folks make that line blurred. basically boils down to cognitive abilities verses looks

and yes i can blame them because of the blatant intent behind their arguments. and domination. no different than a book that was published in the south in the US long ago in the 1800s and was a guide to why people of different skin color were not human by Buckner Payne. Or Nazi propaganda in holocaust time where the Nazis felt they were "superior" and thought Jews and gypsies were "inferior" even a book published in Germany in 1940 that was a guide to why Jews were not human but "rats" or "parasites" with pictures of Jews and gypsies as parasites and rats and cockroaches.

Even in Rwanda Africa when Tutsis were at war with Hutus, Hutus made anti-tutsi propaganda pamphlets depicting Tutsis as "cockroaches" and "snakes".


Those who say any person who does not look human is ""if it is different it is inferior" and anthros with aliens, mutants and cyborgs are not "inferior", they are equals to humans in stories and some are even prettier than humans even in Hatton's artworks.

Me and Hatton are similar as we were raised not to judge people by how anyone looks but as equals who are different with special skills and abilities. And Anthros (even Minerva Mink to Hatton's artworks) are people too like aliens and mutants.

And in stories any human or alien attracted to an anthro or mutant or nonhuman looking alien is no different than being attracted to someone of a different ethnic background, different culture, religion and all. And no different than two homosexuals having a relationship.


Why like Twilek's? those those are so overrated and poor lowest common alien designs.

Now these are superior female aliens to humanaliens like Twileks.

[Egon1982]

Originally Posted by neatoman

I know the difference, it's just that I get that this sort of thing tends to get associated with bestiality, which is why some people don't like it. Personally I don't care, it's about fictional species.

Anthros are people who are different, it doesn't go in beastiality as just because they have an animal like appearance don't mean they are actually a lower animal creature on 4 legs like Pluto or anyone's pet dog. To say it's beasitliy is the same thing they said about mixing ethnicity in colonial times.

I mean like in Bojack Horseman or Hatton Slayden's artworks as anthros are people who are different even Rebecca Cunningham on Talespin is hot and so is Krystal, M'ress in Star Trek franchise (alien cat woman as she is more woman than lower animal) and Cheetah on Justice League to Hatton Slayden's anthro women.

There's such a variety of possibility of combination of aesthetics and personality. Ultimately isn't it the personality that matters, not how they look or are shaped?

I roll my eyes at anti-*insert species here* silliness and stereotyping. People are impatient to get to know anyone. But, ultimately, priorities make a person... and priorities rarely involve actually giving a **** about what is ACTUALLY going on and taking time to understand one another.

And in stories, anthros and aliens and mutants are not "inferior" as some humans who don't find anyone who doesn't look human as "inferior" and think humans have a "superiority" complex, those who say they are "superior" are usually inferior minds themselves who believe in that stuff. Just like the Nazis thought they were "superior" to the Jews as the nazis are the inferior minds themselves.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Egon1982

- stuff -

You are very disturbed and obsessed person.

Also, you comparison between nazi's treatment of Jews and how people "treat" fictional cartoon animals / robots / aliens / whatever is distasteful and moronic. It is either speaks of your insanity or lack of understanding.

[Egon1982]

Originally Posted by Sumac

You are very disturbed and obsessed person.

Also, you comparison between nazi's treatment of Jews and how people "treat" fictional cartoon animals / robots / aliens / whatever is distasteful and moronic. It is either speaks of your insanity or lack of understanding.

animals? you mean people who are different and robots? androids/cyborgs you think are machines but are people as are mutants and aliens.

Disturbed? screw you.

Don't make me go Goku on you.

How do you feel about live action interspecies relationships like Vastra and Jenny's relationship on Doctor Who? the cat man and that woman on Doctor Who or Deckard and Rachel in Blade Runner?

[Andrew NDB]

Egon = SuperGoku?

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by TommyT

He's barely funny, and constantly wants to commit suicide.

OK, that's really true. He doesn't even want to be alive most of the time, yet he's pulling Ariana Grande and Kate Beckinsale. Maybe we're approaching things all wrong?

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Egon1982

animals? you mean people who are different and robots? androids/cyborgs you think are machines but are people as are mutants and aliens.

But are mutants and aliens are robots? as they are humans that are? Diffenret?

Originally Posted by Egon1982

Disturbed? screw you.
Don't make me go Goku on you.

A totally rational and nob-disturbed person reaction.

Originally Posted by Egon1982

How do you feel about live action interspecies relationships like Vastra and Jenny's relationship on Doctor Who? the cat man and that woman on Doctor Who or Deckard and Rachel in Blade Runner?

Dude, calm down. I am laughing my ass off of your meltdowns and "arguments", but really, stop it.

We got it, you want to **** some furry pussy. It's OK, dude, everyone has their kinks and fetishes and what not.

Just stop trying to convince people that it is normal and that "fictional cartoon animals are people too". It sounds like some sort of cult nonsense or some crazy autistic ****.

[Egon1982]

Originally Posted by TommyT

I totally buy some people being interested in beastiality. It totally exists.

Those people are also mentally ill, but still...

"Though, for some reason, I fully expect you to try and **** octopus just to prove me wrong.

There is a difference between ugly and average. Most people in fact are average / mediocre.

The lies about "true beauty is on the inside" is such a childish nonsense, nonetheless.

Humans do indeed have certain traits they usually look in their partners, thanks to the million years of evolution, as well, as some social conditioning."

You are all about looks versus special skills and abilities Sumac. Appearances should never matter.

and yes i can blame them because of the blatant intent behind their arguments. bullying and domination. no different than a book that was published in the south long ago when slavery still legally existed and was a guide to why people of different skin color were not human. And it was written by clergyman Buckner payne saying "the negro is not a human being and not descended from adam and eve".

And you gotta admit Hatton is a damn good artist at making realistic anthros and alien women. And i like realistic anthro and alien women like in his artworks.

Anthros are people who look different even Krystal to Hatton's anthro women.

[Egon1982]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Hmmm you do raise a good point. The woman does seem to fall for the beast despite appearances, but the female version usually does need some sort sexual allure.

I guess women want to see some sort of 'romamce story', while for men, if there isn't some sort of 'yeah, I'd hit that' factor there's a bit of disconnect. Like it's hard to empathize why the male character would risk their lives for the female entity if she isn't at least somewhat attractive.

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

Exactly. While there does seem to be a bit of inequality, it's certainly not in the numerical category, but rather the age-old double-standard of "hot chick falls for the nerd/geek/outcast/fat/etc. guy", while the reverse rarely happens- unless she has some hidden "hotness" that only shows after a total makeover, like in countless movies where some outcast girl is made the butt of jokes until some guy with a modicum of decency or as part of a bet/dare/whatever, deigns to show her some attention and bring her out into the light, as it were. I see cross-species stories in the same vein, since it's basically a similar situation, IE she is the outsider where he is "normal". And it certainly IS a double-standard, but it's really the same one that has faced humans of every culture through history. AKA, "if she ain't hot, it ain't worth it". I mean, given a choice, would an average guy go for Oola, or the other dancer in Jabba's palace? (Never mind that if you know the other one's backstory, it makes a huge difference....)

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

I dunno, I wouldn't say it's less common- look at all the examples you just sited, not to mention there have been plenty even before that. There are examples throughout history of human males falling for non-human females, in Celtic, Greek/Roman, Japanese, and Chinese myths. Celtic has selkies, merwomen, and other very strange fey or monstrous females marrying men, Japan has similar stories, India has naga women, China has the myth of the White Snake woman, Greece and Rome have nymphs, sirens, and harpies, all of which will lure men, and there are many others as well. And of course Star Trek is rife with it- male crewmen falling for female aliens of all sorts, even Klingons! So its plenty equal on both sides, it's just that the differences are often greater on the female side, given that men seem to be more attracted to a pretty package. And I think that is where the disparity comes in, although even that's not definite, given the VERY big differences in cross-species pairings like Donkey/Dragon in Shrek!

Well like i said they are getting rid of the dumb double standards "only human women can be with nonhuman looking nonhumans" is going away thanks to Bojack Horseman, Voltron Legendary Defender, Hatton Slayden's artworks, Regular Show and more. Now we need a game or a live action movie on it and.


And how do you all feel about the viper alien women in Xcom games? i think they are very attractive.

I think I found a newfound sexual attraction to sexy anthro cobras without a human appearance or face. I for some reason find them sexier with a more realistic, anthro look (especially the face), than a human hybrid.



And here's another one by him on a dragoness which is one of his most popular artworks.


Two people who look different from each other and accepting each other's differences.

[Sumac]

Do we have a doctor? We clearly have a mental guy here.

[Egon1982]

Hey Sumac, **** you ballbuster! i don't need a doctor, i'm unleashing my Goku on you as it feels good to be anti-conformity like him. As i don't wanna confirm to anything.

[Egon1982]

Originally Posted by IMJ

Exactly. It's a ridiculous topic.

I suppose if you really wanted to intellectualize it's use in pop culture, then we could observe that storytellers anthropomorphize animals in fantasy as a function of the story, and that the human/animal relationships in those stories are generally meant to illustrate that love transcends boundaries rather than illustrating a human desire for bestiality.

But that's it.

That literally says all that would really need to be said in this otherwise weird ****ing thread. Anything else, or protracted conversation I think just demonstrates weird needs by weird people.

But do you see anthros and aliens as people who are different even in Hatton's artworks?