Talk:Animal roleplay/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Original talk pages

Yes the addition that most won't even consider the idea of zoophilia is all correct. But I am sad to see that this page have mutated to cover special interest descriptions again. Whereas a broader informative text to explain what this is about and that would inform the general public again is amiss.

Revise this for heavens sake, and get back the paragraphs about roleplay in general as well as kittenplay!

Edit under 'Erotic use'

The text did not clearly state that most animal roleplayers would find any suggestion that their play would include zoophilia to be abhorrent. So I made one edit, and crosschecked with the zoophilia page quoted here:

"Finally, zoophilia is not related to sexual puppy or pony play (also known as "Petplay") or animal transformation fantasies and roleplays, where one person may act like a dog, pony, horse, or other animal, while a sexual partner acts as a rider, trainer, caretaker, or breeding partner. These activities are sexual roleplays whose principal theme is the voluntary or involuntary reduction or transformation of a human being to animal status, and focus on the altered mind-space created. They have no implicit connection to, nor motive in common with, zoophilia. "

This paragraph as it is, or in slightly edited form would be better than my edit in fact.

I also added a kitten play paragraph below, feel free to rephraze it if you feel any need, but please keep it. Puppy play are just as the former paragraph states more common among homosexuals. And the kitten play paragraph makes a transition to the more lighthearted kind of play in the following text.

Lastly added link to 'Cat people' a body paint website with very good photography. The material might be viewed as erotic expression but certainly nothing sexual. So hopefully one link you could keep providing one example. (All the above from a male dominant animal roleplayer with a female kitten.)

-- Although there is no link for most people, I have found that it is fairly common for full time female 'puppies' to desire to be fucked by dogs as this is what would happen to real bitches....not sure if this warrants mention, and I certainly wouldn't be confident about finding a strong source for it... Restepc 19:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:Human animal roleplay (BDSM)

Here's the picture I replaced.

File:Pony play 1.jpg

I notice from the history that it has been removed and restored previously Pretzelpaws 07:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You did well. These drawings are intended as temporary patches until more worthy images take their place, as it is the case here. Thanks ! Rama 07:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

There are two articles on very similar topics.

One, "Petplay" covers human animal roleplay for erotic but non-submissive effect, the other "Human animal roleplay (BDSM)" covers human animal roleplay for erotic submissive effect. They could be merged, with "Erotic roleplay use" and "BDSM use" (or similar titles) being 2 sections, for example.

WP:MM states that a basis for merging can be, "There are two or more articles on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there doesn't need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe."

I think these two qualify. FT2 02:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

From Petplay

There are two articles on very similar topics.

One, "Petplay" covers human animal roleplay for erotic but non-submissive effect, the other "Human animal roleplay (BDSM)" covers human animal roleplay for erotic submissive effect. They could be merged, with "Erotic roleplay use" and "BDSM use" (or similar titles) being 2 sections, for example.

WP:MM states that a basis for merging can be, "There are two or more articles on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there doesn't need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe."

I think these two qualify. FT2 02:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

(Differing view: against merging the two articles.)

Where as the Human animal roleplay (BDSM) clearly has a focus on the domination/submission aspect that can be involved, that is it's only focus.

The Petplay article states that there is more than one way or reason for the various intensities and directions of Petplay. The Human animal article focuses only on Ponyplay and Pup (puppy)play. There is no mention of other aspects that could be conceived to be more akin to spiritual persuits and have nothing sexual about them at all. Further, the Petplay article does differentiate between erotic and nonerotic examples of petplay. If anything, the two articles should be set to reference each other for a broad over view (Petplay) and a specific variation (Human animal roleplay).

The two articles seem to none the less have substantial overlap and be similar to a lay-person. Is there any reason the same article couldn't (for example) have both overview, and details of the various specific variations too? FT2 18:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge

I've merged both and tidied and reorganized. FT2 05:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Can we get some kind of photo of non-sexual use, for the article, maybe a tribal animal dance of some kind? FT2 09:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Petplay

I think we should move to petplay. It seems to be a more common term than human animal roleplay.--Sonjaaa 16:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia is not censored, and your suggestion is patently not what the article is about. Restepc (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

my edit

apparently I wasn't logged in when I made my edit so I'm mentioning it here; while I don't know much about BDSM and could be wrong, I assume that the villian from the Batman comics, Catwoman, wasn't intended to be an example of petplay; I assume they meant Catwomen, or rather catgirls, which is something I do know something about and which can be used in an erotic sense as (what I understand from this article to be at least) petplay. Feel free to contact me to debate this Kuronue 06:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Dog play

~~I doubt this will be controversial, unless someone feels that there is enough content out there to warrant Dog/Puppy play having its own article.~~ Caffeinepuppy 06:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I oppose - see Talk:Dog play--Taxwoman 11:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Having thought about it, I'm inclined to agree with you, and am removing the tags as such. Caffeinepuppy 02:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

external links

Wikipedia is not a link repository. The external link section needs to be drastically trimmed. I'll leave to those of you more knowledgable about this subject to do. ike9898 02:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

cut out some.....could justify deleting almost every link, but I peronally would rather the rules were relaxed for potentially taboo subjects where rock solid sources can be hard to come by. Restepc (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me being new to Wikipedia. I added a link to the Puppy Play Pride Symbol PuppyPlayPride.com based on a friends recommendation. It was removed for being irrelevant and I suppose I respect that. What I'd like to know is what would be considered relevant? The links that are there presently do not seem very information heavy with regard to puppy play. I suppose I'd like to know why sites that seem more informative to me such as PupOut and the International Puppies and Trainers Conference and PupZone would not be included. --Scamppuppy (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're forgiven :). The external links section of this page is pretty awful yes, indeed most or all of the remaining links would probably be removed if there were better ones, but as there aren't I've decided to leave them as being better than nothing. Although some people (myself included) take a more relaxed attitude to the rules on external links/sources for 'taboo' subjects where sources can be difficult to find, in general you should bear in mind that this is an encyclopedia, and external links should be to sites containing useful information about the subject.

Sorts of links that aren't ever allowed: pay sites, member only sites (even if membership is free), blogs, forums, galleries....and any sites that you are associated with. Not you as in you, but as in whomever is considering adding the link.

There are exceptions of course....it's unlikely that anyone would object to Stephen Hawking blog being linked on the wiki article about Stephen Hawking....if a forum also has a page with useful information on the subject at hand then that specific page may be linked.

If you could find some suitable links that'd be great, but of the three sites you've suggested: The symbol is essentially just 'something you drew', pupzone is members only, and pupout doesn't appear to contain any useful information. I assume that you know a lot more about this topic than me, so if there are any 'beginners guide to puppy play' sites out there that'd be useful. Welcome to wikipedia Restepc (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Paraphilia

Since when is roleplay classed as paraphilia?? Does anyone have a good reason why it should not be removed? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

From the Paraphilia article here on Wikipedia: "Paraphilia, sexual deviation (in Greek para παρά = besides and '-philia' φιλία = love) - in psychology and sexology, is a term that describes a family of philias that reference sexual arousal in response to sexual objects or situations which may interfere with the capacity for reciprocal affectionate sexual activity. [citation needed] Paraphilia is also used to imply non-mainstream sexual practices without necessarily implying dysfunction or deviance. Also, it may describe sexual feelings toward otherwise non-sexual objects. As the -philias within it have derived nouns, the noun derived which could be used to describe the collection of persons with paraphilias would be paraphile." Looks pretty straightforward to me. Robotman1974 01:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this the sort of thing banned at swimming pools?

"No horseplay"? 68.32.48.59 (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.160.71 (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

De-merge proposal

Move erotic human animal roleplay to Petplay, move ritualistic/tribal human animal roleplay to Therianthropy and turn the page Human animal roleplay into a disambiguation page linking to these two pages. It really is ridiculous that these were merged into one article in the first place. Therianthropy dates backs thousands of years and is more cultural, historic and spiritual. Petplay is a modern phenomenon used solely for erotic play, and isn't linked to any particular culture. There isn't going to be any overlap between the people looking for encyclopedic info regarding the ancient cultural traditions of acting like animals to summon their souls into their body, possessing them and giving them their strength, and the people looking for info regarding playing as animals in sex. Almost this entire article is on the erotic version anyway whereas all the info on the tribal version is found at Therianthropy.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If everyone is okay then I guess I will go ahead and move. Any objections/concerns?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Furries

Hi, a user has removed the "Furry Fandom" category from this. Of all the articles that could be related to the fandom, this one is undeniably related. Does anyone else care to weigh in on this? Members of our fandom want to stay closeted about certain aspects of the fandom, but that is not what Wikipedia is about, is it? Xerofox (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is related. That's why there is a link in the "see also" section. The category, however, is not for "related" topics, but articles directly about the topic, like Fursuit. As such, I have reverted your edit. Also, you did not even bother to explain the reinsertion of the zoophilia category. --Conti|✉ 20:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

But I did explain it, right here on this talk page. :( Xerofox (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

And I explained why you are wrong. :) --Conti|✉ 20:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You are makeing a differentiation between zoophilia and furries. To me, that seems like splitting fur. But ok. Xerofox (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"Of all the articles that could be related to the fandom, this one is undeniably related." I agree with this wholeheartedly. The furry fandom is a subcategory of the larger roleplay community, belonging to an animal subcategory. I'm not sure how Conti can say that it isn't. Mythpage88 (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Because, among other things, the fandom (or any fandom, really) is more than just a roleplaying community. Also, it does belong to "an animal subcategory", but it does not belong to what is discussed in this article, which certainly not about any form of "animal roleplay", but a very specific form of erotic roleplay. --Conti|✉ 17:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with Xerofox's statements/edits, this article should be, without a doubt, categorized within the furry fandom. Maractus (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article discuss animal roleplay in non-erotic contexts?

This article's lead section claims that Animal roleplay may be either a non-sexual or an sexual role-play However, this article doesn't discuss animal roleplaying in the context of furry fandom or other subcultures, which often has no sexual connotations at all. Can anything be done to correct this bias? Jarble (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is the kit/gear missing from the equipments section?

All links are devoid of the types of kit and or gear used for all of the play styles listed. Is this because most of the kit has the same names and use as the ones used on animals? Even the links to Zentai//Gimp//Catsuits all are devoid of the additional components and alterations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.106.13 (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Source for Phyllis rides Aristotle story at Alan M. Cohn, "Phyllis on Aristotle: Third Heat." James Joyce Quarterly. Vol. 9, No. 1 (Fall, 1971), pp. 131-133. Published by: University of Tulsa. Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25486954

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Animal roleplay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Folsom Street Fair IMG 6259 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead image

An anonymous user didn't like that I changed the lead image of Master/slave (BDSM), Outline of BDSM and Animal roleplay, so he reverted my edit asking for a discussion and added one more image in this article. There was a discussion in the first two articles, now I am justifying my edit for the third time.

As many people here know, Wikipedia is NOT censored. That's why there are many images with nudity in so many articles.

However, according to MOS:SHOCKVALUE and MOS:LEADIMAGE, "lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred". So the old lead image that has partial nudity was replaced with another image without nudity. Both lead images have the exact same context: pony play during some BDSM event. The only difference is the partial nudity, since female breasts are considered partial nudity, so they consequently have a higher shock value than an image without any nudity.

MOS:SHOCKVALUE also says: "sometimes it is impossible to avoid using a lead image with perceived shock value, for example in articles on human genitalia". But that's not the case here, it is possible to use a lead image without perceived shock value. Both lead images (the old and the new) bring the same information to the readers.

Nudity is not relevant to illustrate the article. So the lead image can follow shock value guidelines. If any user has a valid reason to justify not allowing a lead image without nudity, please say it here. gabibb2 ^✉ 02:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted your change for blatantly obvious reasons. You should have been able to see that it would happen from your behavior on all the other articles you have targeted. While any discussion goes on here, you don't force your hoped for change into the encyclopedia. For the record, I am not shocked in the least by the original image -- where is your data to suggest that in the context of animal roleplay (where animals are traditionally free from clothing) that nudity is unacceptable and an overtly shock value topic? Curved Space (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"I have reverted your change for blatantly obvious reasons. You should have been able to see that it would happen". Yes, I was expecting that you would do that. You're already tried to revert the revisions from Master/slave (BDSM) and Outline of BDSM that were previously discussed in the Talk pages. Fortunately, your attempts to impose authoritarianism on Wikipedia have been nullified.

"where is your data to suggest that in the context of animal roleplay (where animals are traditionally free from clothing) that nudity is unacceptable" No one has ever said that nudity is unacceptable in animal roleplay or any other BDSM article, read again my previous comment. The reasons that are being used to change the lead image here are the same reasons that were used to change the lead image of the master/slave: follow the Wikipedia guidelines. What does File:Folsom Street Fair IMG 6259 (cropped).jpg add to the article that File:Folsom Street Fair San Francisco 2017 11.jpg does not add, besides partial nudity? The answer is obvious: nothing. So there is no reason to not allowing a lead image without nudity on this article. That's why your attempts to insist on not following the guidelines will not work here, just as they have not worked in other articles. gabibb2 ^✉ 14:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor, and would make two comments: 1) the language of “ Until your crusade is also accepted (if at all) on this article you do not keep such an obviously contentious edit.” seems an aggressive way of speaking, not designed to foster rational debate. “Crusade“ for example is a very weaselly word. I would urge editors to use process, debate rationally and assume good faith. I would invite the author of those words to engage more constructively. 2). We need to beware of cultural bias: an image may be non-shocking in one culture but highly shocking in another. Both sides seem to accept the MOS guideline, so is this a clash of cultures? Is the objection to removing the image with partial nudity that it is not really shocking? But that is a claim involving cultural hegemony. If it has shock value for some users, then replacing it as the lead image seems uncontentious. It can always be included further down in the article. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I am also an uninvolved editor. Based on MOS:SHOCKVALUE I agree that the lead photo currently set to a partially-nude woman in pony play should be replaced with the one without bare breasts. There are plenty of images to offer detailed visuals showing many varieties of BDSM/animal play, Wiki rules do indeed state that the photo that is least shocking should be the lead image. I would also suggest that the proper resolution is not to simply undo someone's edit, but rather to engage the editor in discussion to come to some amicable resolution. 10Sany1? (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your opinions. Based on these two feedbacks, I think it is safe to say that there is no reason to not allowing an image that follows MOS:SHOCKVALUE and MOS:LEADIMAGE guidelines. The old lead image has been replaced by a new image that has exactly the same context, the only difference being partial nudity. gabibb2 ^✉ 13:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Pup is looking amazing in her neoprene dog hood as part of human pup pride in Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras 2016.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Spin off sections.

Hello,

This article is getting big and combines many distinct animal-related fetishes together (can be considered improper synthesis). Maybe it would be wise to spin off some or all of its sections and make this article closer to a list. I do not see how the material in the beginning of the article like "Non-sexual animal roleplay was a common and integral part of ritual in many tribal cultures both in recent and likely prehistoric times" overarches to the Pup Play section. This reads a bit like Original Research.

As a starting point, I suggest splitting away Pup play from this article. बिनोद थारू (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)