# Marriage Vs. Mateship



## oliverrook (Feb 5, 2012)

I know that this could apply to more than just anthros, but this is something that I've always been curious about. What is the difference between Human Marriage and Anthro mateship? I've heard of ways they're different, but I don't really think that there's an official difference between them.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 5, 2012)

There is no real difference. One is people getting married, the other is also people getting married but they refuse to use anything but furfag terminology. We don't like their sort here.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Feb 5, 2012)

The fuck is mateship?


----------



## Zenia (Feb 5, 2012)

One is humans, one is silly humans trying to be special but failing.


----------



## oliverrook (Feb 5, 2012)

Yes, but in some stoires I've read, it deifnes it as "less strict" than marriage.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 5, 2012)

oliverrook said:


> Yes, but in some stoires I've read, it deifnes it as "less strict" than marriage.



So in other words, they're not really married, they're just playing around on the internet with RP woofs.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Feb 5, 2012)

Why must furries furrify EVERYTHING?


----------



## Zenia (Feb 5, 2012)

Gibby said:


> So in other words, they're not really married, they're just playing around on the internet with RP woofs.


Yeah, probably just like a 'common law' marriage... but furry.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 5, 2012)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Why must furries furrify EVERYTHING?



Because the fandumb is a special place full of special people. :n


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 5, 2012)

Restating my petition to enable a 0-star voting option.


----------



## BRN (Feb 5, 2012)

The meaning of the word depends on the intention of the person saying it. Or anthro saying it.


----------



## Conker (Feb 5, 2012)

oliverrook said:


> Yes, but in some stoires I've read, it deifnes it as "less strict" than marriage.


The author's way of going "well, if I say it's less strict, then no one will raise any moral issues when these two characters start fucking everything later on"


----------



## Flarei (Feb 5, 2012)

My wife is my wife. Nothing less. Calling her my mate would sound like we're just in it to make babies.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 5, 2012)

One is a real legitimate thing and the other is furries being fucking dumb.


----------



## Htedomsa (Feb 5, 2012)

exactly my wife and I both furries and we're.......married....no special name or ritual required that simple


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Feb 5, 2012)

The word married sounds normal. Mated makes me feel like I need to scrub hard with scalding water and a brillo pad


----------



## Shad (Feb 5, 2012)

On the topic of marriage: what the fucking fuck? I will never understand marriage. >:C I mean if you want to spend the rest of your life (or, at least, a portion of your life) with someone, than do so. I see no real long-term benefit to getting married when, in this day and age, marriage doesn't last more than a few years. It seems like a gigantic waste of time, effort, and money for something that, given the statistics, wont last very long and will probably end in screaming matches over money in the middle of the court room. :\


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 5, 2012)

Shad said:


> On the topic of marriage: what the fucking fuck? I will never understand marriage. >:C I mean if you want to spend the rest of your life (or, at least, a portion of your life) with someone, than do so. I see no real long-term benefit to getting married when, in this day and age, marriage doesn't last more than a few years. It seems like a gigantic waste of time, effort, and money for something that, given the statistics, wont last very long and will probably end in screaming matches over money in the middle of the court room. :\



Sounds like you need somebody to love you. :V


----------



## Bornes (Feb 5, 2012)

Shad said:


> On the topic of marriage: what the fucking fuck? I will never understand marriage. >:C I mean if you want to spend the rest of your life (or, at least, a portion of your life) with someone, than do so. I see no real long-term benefit to getting married when, in this day and age, marriage doesn't last more than a few years. It seems like a gigantic waste of time, effort, and money for something that, given the statistics, wont last very long and will probably end in screaming matches over money in the middle of the court room. :\



I don't know how it is in Canada, but in the USA there are all sorts of benefits: tax, health, insurance, etc..
If you are living for a long time together, it is very beneficial to get married. That's why so many people are fighting for (or against) gay marriage here.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Feb 5, 2012)

Shad said:


> On the topic of marriage: what the fucking fuck? I will never understand marriage. >:C I mean if you want to spend the rest of your life (or, at least, a portion of your life) with someone, than do so. I see no real long-term benefit to getting married when, in this day and age, marriage doesn't last more than a few years. It seems like a gigantic waste of time, effort, and money for something that, given the statistics, wont last very long and will probably end in screaming matches over money in the middle of the court room. :\



Do ho ho some one doesnt know about financial benifits. Tisk tisk


----------



## Kitutal (Feb 5, 2012)

It's the ultimate expression of love and commitment to show how much you care about someone. Or something.
Anyways, I'm going to get a few rude comments most likely but I like the term mate, it's cute. I've never understood it to necesarily refer to an official marriage, though I guess in many cases it might well do, more to just generally any sort of long romantic relationship. One day I want to be able to say I'm mated to someone. Or possibly mating with, sounds even better.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 5, 2012)

Kitutal said:


> It's the ultimate expression of love and commitment to show how much you care about someone. Or something.
> Anyways, I'm going to get a few rude comments most likely but I like the term mate, it's cute. I've never understood it to necesarily refer to an official marriage, though I guess in many cases it might well do, more to just generally any sort of long romantic relationship. One day I want to be able to say I'm mated to someone. Or possibly mating with, sounds even better.



DD, fetch my furry-beating goose.


----------



## Haru_Ray (Feb 5, 2012)

Flarei said:


> My wife is my wife. Nothing less. Calling her my mate would sound like we're just in it to make babies.


I actually know people who call their spouses their mate, and it always just seems a bit odd.
At least to me.


----------



## The_Mask (Feb 5, 2012)

Bornes said:


> I don't know how it is in Canada, but in the USA there are all sorts of benefits: tax, health, insurance, etc..
> If you are living for a long time together, it is very beneficial to get married. That's why so many people are fighting for (or against) gay marriage here.



And in Texas it means half of everything you own belongs to your spouse. And _that_ never causes problems.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Feb 5, 2012)

Gibby said:


> DD, fetch my furry-beating goose.




Oh hey there


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 5, 2012)

The difference between marriage and matespritship is that humans are basically monogamous, while trolls have four different romantic quadrants, each with specific purpo--

Oh we're talking about furries?

Fuck this I'm out.


----------



## Carnie (Feb 5, 2012)

A mateship is for those that are too awkward to get with anyone interested in a normal marriage.


----------



## Bornes (Feb 5, 2012)

Based on the other responses, it seems like a mateship is more of an open marriage.


----------



## The_Mask (Feb 5, 2012)

Bornes said:


> Based on the other responses, it seems like a mateship is more of an open marriage.



I'd call mateship marriage minus the legal binders.


----------



## Calico-Feathers (Feb 5, 2012)

I've seen the term "mate" used to describe new couples, too, so I definitely wouldn't call it anything with a specific definition. :\ I've also seen the term "mates for life" to describe people who are married/would be married/intended life-partners.

I've always found calling your SO your "mate" to be a little weird, though.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 5, 2012)

There's really no difference, except the latter sounds like you are just a baby making factory (or an STD factory :V).




Shad said:


> On the topic of marriage: what the fucking fuck? I will never understand marriage. >:C I mean if you want to spend the rest of your life (or, at least, a portion of your life) with someone, than do so. I see no real long-term benefit to getting married when, in this day and age, marriage doesn't last more than a few years. It seems like a gigantic waste of time, effort, and money for something that, given the statistics, wont last very long and will probably end in screaming matches over money in the middle of the court room. :\


Ermm...That's just basically almost every relationship, partner. :V


----------



## Ikrit (Feb 5, 2012)

lol australia


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 6, 2012)

oliverrook said:


> Yes, but in some stoires I've read, it deifnes it as "less strict" than marriage.



Probably because it doesn't involve a marriage licence by some state "authority".


----------



## Benufon (Feb 6, 2012)

What is furry, keep it only to furries.


----------



## Greg (Feb 6, 2012)

I call Athenai my mate because I intend on spending the rest of my life with her. I just can't afford marriage. Hell, I can't even afford the engagement ring. I'll stop calling her my mate once we're married.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 6, 2012)

egregrious said:


> I call Athenai my mate because I intend on spending the rest of my life with her. I just can't afford marriage. Hell, I can't even afford the engagement ring. I'll stop calling her my mate once we're married.


Whatever happened with boyfriend/girlfriend?


----------



## Calico-Feathers (Feb 6, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> Whatever happened with boyfriend/girlfriend?


I always hated using boyfriend/girlfriend. It sounds so... childish? Idk when you're living with someone/talking about marriage it seems silly to still say they're your boyfriend/girlfriend, like you're still on the playground or something. But there's nothing really better. There's "significant other" but that's usually just as awkward, imo.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 6, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> Whatever happened with boyfriend/girlfriend?



Becuase saying mate makes you sound like an animal guiz!


----------



## Keeroh (Feb 6, 2012)

Calico-Feathers said:


> I always hated using boyfriend/girlfriend. It sounds so... childish? Idk when you're living with someone/talking about marriage it seems silly to still say they're your boyfriend/girlfriend, like you're still on the playground or something. But there's nothing really better. There's "significant other" but that's usually just as awkward, imo.



What about partner? It implies long-term and serious, and it doesn't have the childish connotations with "boy/girl friend".


----------



## BRN (Feb 6, 2012)

Thingymabob said:


> What about partner? It implies long-term and serious, and it doesn't have the childish connotations with "boy/girl friend".


 Sounds like one of those times you'd get forced into pairs by a teacher back in a school, to be fair.

Considering how humans are animals, what's the problem with animalistic terminology that's basically exactly applicable? Marriage refers to a legal state and, rough as it is, long-term significant others are basically "mated".


----------



## Mentova (Feb 6, 2012)

SIX said:


> Sounds like one of those times you'd get forced into pairs by a teacher back in a school, to be fair.
> 
> Considering how humans are animals, what's the problem with animalistic terminology that's basically exactly applicable? Marriage refers to a legal state and, rough as it is, long-term significant others are basically "mated".


Because it sounds dumb and like you're trying too hard to be a different special snowflake.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 6, 2012)

As if saying "mate" sounds any more grown-up.


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 6, 2012)

SIX said:


> Sounds like one of those times you'd get forced into pairs by a teacher back in a school, to be fair.
> 
> Considering how humans are animals, what's the problem with animalistic terminology that's basically exactly applicable? Marriage refers to a legal state and, rough as it is, long-term significant others are basically "mated".



Because with animals, it basically means little more than, "they have sex". The same word is used for life-long pairings and quick one night/day/hour/minute stands. To call someone a "mate" seems a little degrading. I supposed it could be fairly accurate for most furry relationships though :V


----------



## Aetius (Feb 6, 2012)

Ohh look....another one of these threads : /


----------



## Brazen (Feb 6, 2012)

Marriage is when a man and a woman have their love officially recognized by a church or government body.
Mateship is when a bunch of guys go out and drink and socialize together, maybe watch a football match or similar.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 6, 2012)

LizardKing said:


> Because with animals, it basically means little more than, "they have sex". The same word is used for life-long pairings and quick one night/day/hour/minute stands. To call someone a "mate" seems a little degrading. I supposed it could be fairly accurate for most furry relationships though :V



It's an apt term for furries who want to screw a lot, screw in a group, screw while eating, screw with a toy, screw with a non-human animal, screw with a common household item, screw with produce, screw with a pre-adolescent, or just screwing in general. :V


----------



## jcfynx (Feb 6, 2012)

I think it's cute.

I like cute things. ]:


----------



## Shad (Feb 6, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Sounds like you need somebody to love you. :V


Gigantic dildos made by dragons and lube is all the love I need, thank you very much. :V



dinosaurdammit said:


> Do ho ho some one doesnt know about financial benifits. Tisk tisk


I'm well aware of the possible financial "benefits" of marriage. I am also aware of the possible financial *deficits*. In the end, it probably isn't worth it... unless, of course, your just using the person you marry (eg. you're a gold-digger).


----------



## Piroshki (Feb 6, 2012)

I hate that word as a furry term. It makes me cringe.


----------



## thewall (Feb 6, 2012)

One is a culturally acceptable institution, the other is fanboy retardation.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 6, 2012)

Shad said:


> Gigantic dildos made by dragons and lube is all the love I need, thank you very much. :V




That's analagous to just getting a hooker. At least hookers will talk dirty to you. :V


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Feb 6, 2012)

Shad said:


> Gigantic dildos made by dragons and lube is all the love I need, thank you very much. :V
> 
> 
> I'm well aware of the possible financial "benefits" of marriage. I am also aware of the possible financial *deficits*. In the end, it probably isn't worth it... unless, of course, your just using the person you marry (eg. you're a gold-digger).




Some people get married for all the wrong reasons. This is why I fully push prenups on people. Keep that ho in line. Or dude. Which ever stands to gain from a split.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 6, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Some people get married for all the wrong reasons. This is why I fully push prenups on people. Keep that ho in line. Or dude. Which ever stands to gain from a split.




DD has an awesome pimp hand for a white chick. :V


----------



## Kitutal (Feb 6, 2012)

thewall said:


> One is a culturally acceptable institution, the other is fanboy retardation.



I would like to disagree with this, retardation means something has been slowed down and prevented from developing at the usual speed, whereas the use of worlds like mateship and other sub-cultury terms suggets an overly developed idea of what it means to be a part of all this furry stuff.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 6, 2012)

Kitutal said:


> I would like to disagree with this, retardation means something has been slowed down and prevented from developing at the usual speed, whereas the use of worlds like mateship and other sub-cultury terms suggets an overly developed idea of what it means to be a part of all this furry stuff.



Retard in internet slang means "Stupid; idiotic; not worth a damn".


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Feb 6, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> DD has an awesome pimp hand for a white chick. :V




I was raised by wolves. My pimp hand is furry. FEEL THE FUZZ AS IT SLAPS YOU


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 6, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> I was raised by wolves. My pimp hand is furry. FEEL THE FUZZ AS IT SLAPS YOU



Shave your hand. A slap from your hand with support isn't a pimp slap. You have to let the bitch know when he/she's out there, they are makin' yo money. You might as well say that you give ass-whoppin's with a pillow.


----------



## BRN (Feb 6, 2012)

Mentova said:


> Because it sounds dumb and like you're trying too hard to be a different special snowflake.



 It does sound dumb, but you're in the minority in the fandom if you _don't_ use it. :U

"Hey, meet my boyfriend."
"Uh, so what, he's like, a mate?"

It's easier to fit in if you use the terminology of the culture you're in. You know, when in rome, and all.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Feb 6, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Shave your hand. A slap from your hand with support isn't a pimp slap. You have to let the bitch know when he/she's out there, they are makin' yo money. You might as well say that you give ass-whoppin's with a pillow.




The core of my hand is lead. Its fuzzy lead filled "put-them-in-their-place" hand


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 6, 2012)

I use "mate" in the context of friend or pal. I could blame Fable for that. :V

Me: "Trp is my best mate and she is awesome".
Furry response: "So you are a couple/screwing each other?"
Me: -exasparated sigh-



dinosaurdammit said:


> The core of my hand is lead. Its fuzzy lead filled "put-them-in-their-place" hand




A pimp hand isn't supposed to have cushion. SHAVE IT OR PERISH!!!


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Feb 6, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I use "mate" in the context of friend or pal. I could blame Fable for that. :V
> 
> Me: "Trp is my best mate and she is awesome".
> Furry response: "So you are a couple/screwing each other?"
> Me: -exasparated sigh-



whats worse is furries using MATE as a sex term

"So we mated last night and it was awesome." "Oh yall are so cute have yall mated yet?" "How often do you guys mate?"- my answer is never... I never mate just fuck. 

ten points if they say "i wish i had a knot to live the full experience"


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 6, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> whats worse is furries using MATE as a sex term
> 
> "So we mated last night and it was awesome." "Oh yall are so cute have yall mated yet?" "How often do you guys mate?"- my answer is never... I never mate just fuck.
> 
> ten points if they say "i wish i had a knot to live the full experience"




You cannot see me but I just want to let you know that I slammed my head onto my keyboard.


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 6, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> whats worse is furries using MATE as a sex term
> 
> "So we mated last night and it was awesome." "Oh yall are so cute have yall mated yet?" "How often do you guys mate?"- my answer is never... I never mate just fuck.
> 
> ten points if they say "i wish i had a knot to live the full experience"



That's worth at least 15 shots.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 6, 2012)

LizardKing said:


> That's worth at least 15 shots.



In the head.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Feb 6, 2012)

Gibby said:


> In the head.


and maybe a couple in the kneecaps >_>


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Feb 6, 2012)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> and maybe a couple in the kneecaps >_>




5 to the groin to insure it never breeds just in case


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 6, 2012)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> and maybe a couple in the kneecaps >_>





dinosaurdammit said:


> 5 to the groin to insure it never breeds just in case



That's just inhumane.

Lets do it.


----------



## Kitutal (Feb 6, 2012)

But it's so cute, though, and nice and fluffy-sweet and fuzzy-warm and all that lot...


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 6, 2012)

Kitutal said:


> But it's so cute, though



It would work if they were little fluffy animals for real and not people.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 6, 2012)

Mating with your asshole.
Giggity. :V


----------



## Mentova (Feb 6, 2012)

SIX said:


> It does sound dumb, but you're in the minority in the fandom if you _don't_ use it. :U
> 
> "Hey, meet my boyfriend."
> "Uh, so what, he's like, a mate?"
> ...


Or you can not worry about fitting in and not force yourself to sound dumb. :V


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Feb 6, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Mating with your asshole.
> Giggity. :V



you mean murrhole right?

GIGGITY GIGGITY GIGGITY GIGGITY GOO


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 6, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> you mean murrhole right?
> 
> GIGGITY GIGGITY GIGGITY GIGGITY GOO



Sorry, I was trying to break the obvious furfaggotry in this forum by saying ass-hole.
I have heard furries discuss things like "Cleaning out your murrhole with cum". :V


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Feb 6, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Sorry, I was trying to break the obvious furfaggotry in this forum by saying ass-hole.
> I have heard furries discuss things like "Cleaning out your murrhole with cum". :V




I eavesdropped on sl to a group of furs relating to their mates and how they use their cum to lube up butt plugs that they leave in all day- at work, church it dont matter.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 6, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> I eavesdropped on sl to a group of furs relating to their mates and how they use their cum to lube up *butt plugs that they leave in all day*- at work, church it dont matter.



Why.

Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.


----------



## FiiCoon (Feb 6, 2012)

The way I see it's just a way to say that you intend to be together for at least a long period of time. It's like a promise ring only cheaper lol. I do have problems with people who have a new "m8te fer lyfe" every damn week.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 6, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> I eavesdropped on sl to a group of furs relating to their mates and how they use their cum to lube up butt plugs that they leave in all day- at work, church it dont matter.



LOL STDs FTW! :V



FiiCoon said:


> The way I see it's just a way to say that you intend to be together for at least a long period of time. It's like a promise ring only cheaper lol. *I do have problems with people who have a new "m8te fer lyfe" every damn week*.



Those are called "Fuck buddies", good sir. And most likely the person fucking them has to go in for tests once a month. :V


----------



## Mentova (Feb 6, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> I eavesdropped on sl to a group of furs relating to their mates and how they use their cum to lube up butt plugs that they leave in all day- at work, church it dont matter.



Why am I in this fandom? ;_;


----------



## Carnie (Feb 6, 2012)

Mentova said:


> Why am I in this fandom? ;_;



Because you're totally into this stuff.

Or you're as lonely as the rest of us .-.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Feb 6, 2012)

If I had a furry bf/gf, I would probably call him Or her my mate. Boyfriend Or girlfriend kind of implies you only have one. And mate sounds nicer than fuckbuddy.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 6, 2012)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> If I had a furry bf/gf, I would probably call him Or her my mate. Boyfriend Or girlfriend kind of implies you only have one. And mate sounds nicer than fuckbuddy.



I think you're confusing BF/GF with fuckbuddy. You generally don't have more than one girlfriend or boyfriend...


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Feb 6, 2012)

I've always hated when furries used the word mate. It is like they are sugar coating a relationship they are unsure about.


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Feb 6, 2012)

Mentova said:


> Why am I in this fandom? ;_;



Because if the fandom didn't have anybody remotely sane, it wo- nevermind. You're a fox.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 6, 2012)

HAXX said:


> Because if the fandom didn't have anybody remotely sane, it wo- nevermind. You're a fox.



shutup slut >=[


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Feb 6, 2012)

Mentova said:


> shutup slut >=[



No, I'm a dalmatian. Not a slut! Also, stop projecting your own qualities on me...

http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/90833-Furs-By-Species-3


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Feb 6, 2012)

Mentova said:


> I think you're confusing BF/GF with fuckbuddy. You generally don't have more than one girlfriend or boyfriend...



Exactly what I was saying...

Can I has fuckbuddy plz?


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 6, 2012)

HAXX said:


> No, I'm a dalmatian. Not a slut!




"Yip yip yip!" Noooope, seems like a slutfox to me! Or maybe you're not as bad, maybe just a slutmatian instead :3


----------



## Mentova (Feb 6, 2012)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> Exactly what I was saying...
> 
> Can I has fuckbuddy plz?


No.


----------



## kyle19 (Feb 6, 2012)

Scotty1700 said:


> "Yip yip yip!" Noooope, seems like a slutfox to me! Or maybe you're not as bad, maybe just a slutmatian instead :3



Nah, hes still a fox, he's always gonna be a fox


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Feb 6, 2012)

Stop being derps, you fruits. Skype call. Now.


----------



## Littlerock (Feb 6, 2012)

"Sup mate, how's it hanging today?"
"Oh just a bit of the same old thing."
"I know the feeling. Catch a film with me?"
"Sounds grand!"

What? You're all using the word incorrectly >:C


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Feb 6, 2012)

Hey haxx!

Its yiffeh time! woof! woof! =^_^=


----------



## Aleu (Feb 6, 2012)

So much furfaggotry omg


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Feb 6, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Hey haxx!
> 
> Its yiffeh time! woof! woof! =^_^=



' Omgosh!

can it be sammich time nao?


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 6, 2012)

HAXX said:


> ' Omgosh!
> 
> can it be sammich time nao?



While you're in the skype call clicking on the gestures "I want", "giant member", and "please!!?" consecutively :V

Derpmatian!!

You want the yiffeh times all right


----------



## j4haxx (Feb 6, 2012)

HAXX said:


> I've always hated when furries used the word mate. It is like they are sugar coating a relationship they are unsure about.



i like it. i dont think its sugar coating, and 'mate' is part of my vocabulary.

as for the topic? uhh...

well, Sean Hannity said on the air once that he thinks the point of marriage is to 'focus all of your desires on your spouse', which i take to mean, you might feel like you want to date someone else, but you dont, and you commit.  so, i guess 'mate' doesn't really get to that level.. um, but then again you're comparing a concept thats been around for basically forever to things that aren't really exactly solidified concepts, so ..

the main difference between all this other stuff and marriage is that if you're married to someone, you can go around and say, 'person X and myself are basically the same person' and that will be accepted, and, i guess respected?  but if you want to have some kind of other relationship, well, you're going to get a different level of respect or acceptance on, uh, a, um, case-by-case basis :3c lol


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Feb 6, 2012)

j4haxx said:


> well, Sean Hannity said on the air once that he thinks the point of marriage is to 'focus all of your desires on your spouse', which i take to mean, you might feel like you want to date someone else, but you dont, and you commit.  so, i guess 'mate' doesn't really get to that level.. um, but then again you're comparing a concept thats been around for basically forever to things that aren't really exactly solidified concepts, so ..



But isn't Sean Hannity a douchebag? Why would you take advice from a douchebag?


----------



## j4haxx (Feb 6, 2012)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> But isn't Sean Hannity a douchebag? Why would you take advice from a douchebag?



lols.  i look forward to the day i can have opinions about guys like Sean Hannity without feeling the heat from everyone.. i was walking through my kitchen the other day, i saw a book from my sister's studies, called 'hunger games'.  my mind plays tricks on me, sometimes i see things that aren't really there..

i misread the title!  i glanced at it for a second, and i thought it said 'hunter games'.  Hunter games!  omg hunter games.  lol... DO NOT WANT TO PLAY!  I don't konw where i'm going with this, but i dont want to read a book called 'hunter games', thats all im saying.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 6, 2012)

Let's change the meaning of mate to "Spontaneous fuckbuddy".


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 6, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Let's change the meaning of mate to "Spontaneous fuckbuddy".



Or we can just not be atrocious faggots.

I also get a laugh every time people engage in the 'ironic' furfaggy stuff; Just embrace who you are, you'll be happier.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 6, 2012)

Zaraphayx said:


> Or we can just not be atrocious faggots.
> 
> I also get a laugh every time people engage in the 'ironic' furfaggy stuff; Just embrace who you are, you'll be happier.



"Spontaneous fuckbuddy isn't isolated to 2 males or 2 females". :V


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 6, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> "Spontaneous fuckbuddy isn't isolated to 2 males or 2 females". :V



I guess this insists that I should qualify that 'atrocious faggotry' isn't isolated to homosexuals.

Or you could just be being a smartass; as the :V face would connotate.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 7, 2012)

Zaraphayx said:


> I guess this insists that I should qualify that 'atrocious faggotry' isn't isolated to homosexuals.
> 
> Or you could just be being a smartass; as the :V face would connotate.



I am being a smart ass, genius. :V
When using faggotry in the fandom, it is assumed that you are referring to two of the same gender engaging in unsafe practices.
And pick one, you used ironic.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 7, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I am being a smart ass, genius. :V



I have a hard time telling :[



> When using faggotry in the fandom, it is assumed that you are referring to two of the same gender engaging in unsafe practices.



Can someone show me the rulebook or dictionary for this stuff please I am so confused.




> And pick one, you used ironic.



Wat.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 7, 2012)

Zaraphayx said:


> I have a hard time telling :[



Lower the density.





> Can someone show me the rulebook or dictionary for this stuff please I am so confused.



Once you remove your head from your rectum, I can show you. :V






> Wat.



Atrocious or Ironic. pick one. :V


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 7, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Lower the density.



Oh man...



> Once you remove your head from your rectum, I can show you. :V



Does the lesson involve the use of condescension as a replacement for humor or wit?

I can hardly wait :V.



> Atrocious or Ironic. pick one. :V



I was referring to two different things with each adjective.

So, no u.


----------



## morphology (Feb 7, 2012)

I have a variation of Alien Hand Syndrome where my arm lashes out and smacks the shit out of anyone unironically using furry slang.

In all seriousness, it irks me when folks use furry lingo like "mate" and all that.  Cmon, we aren't 7-year olds hanging out in our Secret Internet Clubhouse with special code words and handshakes.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 7, 2012)

morphology said:


> I have a variation of Alien Hand Syndrome where my arm lashes out and smacks the shit out of anyone unironically using furry slang.
> 
> In all seriousness, it irks me when folks use furry lingo like "mate" and all that.  Cmon, we aren't 7-year olds hanging out in our Secret Internet Clubhouse with special code words and handshakes.



Except we kinda _are_.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Feb 7, 2012)

Zaraphayx said:


> Except we kinda _are_.


We need to develop THE furry handshake, and make it extra difficult :v


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 7, 2012)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> We need to develop THE furry handshake, and make it extra difficult :v


Wouldn't that just be anal sex?


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 7, 2012)

morphology said:


> I have a variation of Alien Hand Syndrome where my arm lashes out and smacks the shit out of anyone unironically using furry slang.
> 
> In all seriousness, it irks me when folks use furry lingo like "mate" and all that.  Cmon, we aren't 7-year olds hanging out in our Secret Internet Clubhouse with special code words and handshakes.



It's alright when you're living in the correct place. AWRIGHT, MATE is ok, but otherwise, not so much.


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Feb 7, 2012)

So...to be furry is to be 7 years old again. Crap.


----------



## BRN (Feb 7, 2012)

HAXX said:


> So...to be furry is to be 7 years old again. Crap.


Good times, tbh. At least it's not 9 or 10.


----------



## Kaibunny94 (Feb 7, 2012)

I love how the internet is a place where people can hold the moral high ground. Even after throwing the word "Faggot" around so much I'm almost physically sick.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 7, 2012)

Kaibunny94 said:


> I love how the internet is a place where people can hold the moral high ground. Even after throwing the word "Faggot" around so much I'm almost physically sick.



You gotta remember the concept of context, and the fact that so many members here are anything but heterosexual.


----------



## Kaibunny94 (Feb 7, 2012)

Case and point. But it's not a nice way to refer to someone. It just seems sad that were all in yet another fandom that can't even get along with itself. Everyone seems to blame other people within for dirtying it or clogging it up with stupid. Then there are the people who think we should be less accepting as a group. This is one of if not the biggest forum and there is just a lot of hate, hooray for the internet.

I suppose rather than just complain I should comment on the Marriage/mated thing.

It's just a term of endearment, if I referred to my partner as my mate most people I know would assume soul mate. For me it's the same as dating someone who follows Norse Paganism and treating the binding together as hand fasting. Some people are more into the whole "Antrho/Furry/Feral" thing and so they call their other half their mate. The people i talk to most refer to each other as their mate and it's a nice bi word for life long partner for them.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 7, 2012)

Kaibunny94 said:


> This is one of if not the biggest forum and there is just a lot of hate, hooray for the internet.



But we're a family.


----------



## Kaibunny94 (Feb 7, 2012)

Gibby said:


> But we're a family.


Is that why we constantly bicker and harbour a deep resentment for the fandom? In the deperate hope that we will look more acceptable to the outside world as a functioning family unit? Or so that we can feel a bond together? 

I only recently started admitting I liked having my bunny fursona, and that i found Anthro stuff just amazing. I joined a couple of forums and felt like I had made the wrong decision. Im sticking with it because I have also found some great people who are caring and great to talk to, I just wish i didn't have to sift through so many people who were so filled with hate for "their own".


----------



## Aetius (Feb 7, 2012)

HAXX said:


> So...to be furry is to be 7 years old again. Crap.



I feel like I have never mentally matured past that point.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 7, 2012)

Kaibunny94 said:


> Is that why we constantly bicker and harbour a deep resentment for the fandom? In the deperate hope that we will look more acceptable to the outside world as a functioning family unit? Or so that we can feel a bond together?
> 
> I only recently started admitting I liked having my bunny fursona, and that i found Anthro stuff just amazing. I joined a couple of forums and felt like I had made the wrong decision. Im sticking with it because I have also found some great people who are caring and great to talk to, *I just wish i didn't have to sift through so many people who were so filled with hate for "their own".*



They aren't 'my own' though, and I'm sure many other people feel the same way.

Furry is not the defining attribute of my life, it is an interest I dabble in as an extension of my love for fantasy artwork (And porn, don't forget that!).

The people who make this the defining point of their life, who embrace the subculture and all of it's (sometimes very disturbing) behaviors, who believe themselves to have animal spirits or adopt the actions and habits of their fursona's species ( BECAUSE FUCK YOU I'M A DRAGON DAMNIT) are, in my opinion, delusional and pathetic.

Having furry in common to me holds no more significance than both of us liking the color red. We are not brothers in arms, we are not members of a religion or cult. I do not have to like or respect you for sharing an interest of mine. At best it is common ground to start a discussion, at worst it is an indication that I shouldn't get downwind of you because "Dragons don't take showers!".


----------



## VoidBat (Feb 7, 2012)

There is no mateship. Now pop that silly, dream bubble and move on. 
To me the term mate will always refer to your best friend, who always has to carry you home on his back when you've had too many shots/glasses of beer at the local pub.


----------



## Kaibunny94 (Feb 7, 2012)

*Zaraphayx

*So its a passing interest for you? That's fine. 
But the fact you don't see it as anything more than just a like confuses me. It must me a little more to you than the colour red or your favourite food as you post on a forum about it. Considering your post count you do it a reasonable amount too, I don't get people who truly believe they are animals either, but I still would consider another furry fan to be at least someone to talk to. No we aren't a band of brothers or a unit, but we share some common ground which whilst it shouldn't exclude pointing out stupidity could at least exclude random hatred for the fandom. I have no problem with people who like furry stuff but think some people are over the top, my problem is with people who say offensive things just as a passing term. My original point was that it made me sad so many people use the word faggot on here, it seems a bit strong to refer to a bunch of people as. But then again that's probably just my sensitive "Faggot" side talking.


----------



## Kitutal (Feb 7, 2012)

You have a good point there, but I was quite liking the fact that we've pretty much destroyed that word and made it mean something nowhere near as bad as it used to be. Then again, I readily admit I am a little more into this than most people here, I find it cute and spend a lot of time in places like this, I like the feeling of being a part of a group, even if some people here do not, and I am interested in learning even more cute furry words and phrases and using them more often, just for the fun of it.
Yes, I am immature, come join me, it's fun.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 7, 2012)

Kitutal said:


> You have a good point there, but I was quite liking the fact that we've pretty much destroyed that word and made it mean something nowhere near as bad as it used to be. Then again, I readily admit I am a little more into this than most people here, I find it cute and spend a lot of time in places like this, I like the feeling of being a part of a group, even if some people here do not, and I am interested in learning even more cute furry words and phrases and using them more often, just for the fun of it.
> Yes, I am immature, come join me, it's fun.




Your first furry word of the day is: *Murrhole*.
_Mur*hol_ (n) : Furry Slang term for rectum.
"I went to a furry room party at Anthrocon and had 10 furries clean out my murrhole". :V
*Synonyms:* Tailhole; anal

Everytime I see it used in seriousness or jest, it cracks me up.


----------



## morphology (Feb 7, 2012)

Kaibunny94 said:


> Case and point. But it's not a nice way to  refer to someone. It just seems sad that were all in yet another fandom  that can't even get along with itself. Everyone seems to blame other  people within for dirtying it or clogging it up with stupid. Then there  are the people who think we should be less accepting as a group. This is  one of if not the biggest forum and there is just a lot of hate, hooray  for the internet.
> 
> I suppose rather than just complain I should comment on the Marriage/mated thing.
> 
> It's just a term of endearment, if I referred to my partner as my mate  most people I know would assume soul mate. For me it's the same as  dating someone who follows Norse Paganism and treating the binding  together as hand fasting. Some people are more into the whole  "Antrho/Furry/Feral" thing and so they call their other half their mate.  The people i talk to most refer to each other as their mate and it's a  nice bi word for life long partner for them.



Yeah, I have  to agree with you here partially, I'm not too happy about people  throwing around "faggot" either.  I mean sure, a lot of folks here  aren't straight and somewhat have f-word privileges, but it's still not a  mature way to work through an argument.  And yeah, it can hurt folks  who are standing by and watching the conversation, even if it is being  used just in jest.  I took a look and was like, "really?  We're going to  be like the 13-year old Xbox Live players today?" There are other ways of expressing our dislike. :/

"Mate"-related:  in retrospect I should have clarified my opinion somewhat.  Context  does have to be taken into account.  Maybe I should have stated that it  irks me when people use furry slang way more than regular vocabulary, or  use it out of furry situations.  If you go around using "mate" and  "murr" and "yiff" and whatnot in regular context, it's going to come  across as obsessive and immature.  It's like how I take similar irking  to anime fans who are insistent with peppering random broken Japanese  into their conversations, or bronies and their lingo, or  internet-dwellers who speak in netspeak and memes in real life.  Context  is everything, but it doesn't make you look very smart or mature if you can't or refuse to switch to the appropriate conversations for a certain social sphere.



Kaibunny94 said:


> Is that why we constantly bicker and harbour a  deep resentment for the fandom? In the deperate hope that we will look  more acceptable to the outside world as a functioning family unit? Or so  that we can feel a bond together?
> 
> I only recently started admitting I liked having my bunny fursona, and  that i found Anthro stuff just amazing. I joined a couple of forums and  felt like I had made the wrong decision. Im sticking with it because I  have also found some great people who are caring and great to talk to, I  just wish i didn't have to sift through so many people who were so  filled with hate for "their own".



I don't harbor a deep resentment for the fandom, in fact, I love being a furry. I've met so many amazing folks here.  But just because I love the fandom doesn't mean I have to turn a blind eye to the things that are annoying or downright harmful to it.  When you can step back from the fandom and constructively critique it, then you can help improve it and simultaneously not get as worked up when people criticize it.



Zaraphayx said:


> They aren't 'my own' though, and I'm sure many other people feel the same way.
> 
> Furry is not the defining attribute of my life, it is an interest I  dabble in as an extension of my love for fantasy artwork (And porn,  don't forget that!).
> 
> ...



Pretty much this.  And thinking you have to defend or respect people in your fandom regardless of their actions is silly.  I'm going to correct someone if they're spreading misinformation about my involvement in the fandom, but I'm not going to be an apologist for some of the more depraved things people do.  I believe that the only obligations I have to the furry fandom is to present a good image through my words and actions, and to critique the fandom when it's doing something harmful to itself in order to contribute to the fandom's improvement.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 7, 2012)

Kaibunny94 said:


> *Zaraphayx
> 
> *So its a passing interest for you? That's fine.
> But the fact you don't see it as anything more than just a like confuses me. It must me a little more to you than the colour red or your favourite food as you post on a forum about it. Considering your post count you do it a reasonable amount too, I don't get people who truly believe they are animals either, but I still would consider another furry fan to be at least someone to talk to. No we aren't a band of brothers or a unit, but we share some common ground which whilst it shouldn't exclude pointing out stupidity could at least exclude random hatred for the fandom. I have no problem with people who like furry stuff but think some people are over the top, my problem is with people who say offensive things just as a passing term. My original point was that it made me sad so many people use the word faggot on here, it seems a bit strong to refer to a bunch of people as. But then again that's probably just my sensitive "Faggot" side talking.



Just because something is comprehensible to YOU doesn't make it an invalid stance. While I hold my own opinions of the people who are 'furry 4 lyfe' I at least make an effort to understand where they are coming from. I don't hate furries; I don't hate anyone who hasn't given me a valid personal reason to hate them. I do not go out of my way to find people to ridicule and mock; they manage to wander into my path with big red targets painted onto their asses and then do a dance in my face.

My post count is also fairly insignificant considering the time I've been subscribed here, and most of it is admittedly substance-less musing or humoring people who have some sort of need to assert their superiority over the internet. 

I just want to know, what is there to talk about regarding furry in and of itself? The only good conversations I've had about the fandom were ones where the topic of discussion was how strange some of the people in it are. The subject of anthropomorphic animals as characters is fairly uninteresting outside of it's setting.

Also, jokes, words, phrases, and actions are not offensive; people are merely offended BY them.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 7, 2012)

Given the right incentive, I _might_ be persuaded to admit that I seek out more than my fair share of trouble.


----------



## Kitutal (Feb 7, 2012)

morphology said:


> Yeah, I have to agree with you here partially, I'm not too happy about people throwing around "faggot" either. I mean sure, a lot of folks here aren't straight and somewhat have f-word privileges, but it's still not a mature way to work through an argument. And yeah, it can hurt folks who are standing by and watching the conversation, even if it is being used just in jest. I took a look and was like, "really? We're going to be like the 13-year old Xbox Live players today?" There are other ways of expressing our dislike. :/
> 
> "Mate"-related: in retrospect I should have clarified my opinion somewhat. Context does have to be taken into account. Maybe I should have stated that it irks me when people use furry slang way more than regular vocabulary, or use it out of furry situations. If you go around using "mate" and "murr" and "yiff" and whatnot in regular context, it's going to come across as obsessive and immature. It's like how I take similar irking to anime fans who are insistent with peppering random broken Japanese into their conversations, or bronies and their lingo, or internet-dwellers who speak in netspeak and memes in real life. Context is everything, but it doesn't make you look very smart or mature if you can't or refuse to switch to the appropriate conversations for a certain social sphere.
> 
> ...



Basically all of this, exactly. There, question answered, topic finished.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 8, 2012)

Zaraphayx said:


> The people who make this the defining point of their life, who embrace the subculture and all of it's (sometimes very disturbing) behaviors, who believe themselves to have animal spirits or adopt the actions and habits of their fursona's species ( BECAUSE FUCK YOU I'M A DRAGON DAMNIT) *are, in my opinion, delusional and pathetic*.




And yet, I imagine you don't think the same thing of transexuals, who suffer from the delusion that they are the opposite gender and "stuck" in the wrong-sex body.  After all, isn't that the "defining point" of _their_ lives?  In other words, if a person can suffer from "gender dysphoria", couldn't they also suffer from "species dysphoria"...?




Zaraphayx said:


> Having furry in common to me holds no more significance than both of us liking the color red. We are not brothers in arms, we are not members of a religion or cult. I do not have to like or respect you for sharing an interest of mine. At best it is common ground to start a discussion, at worst it is an indication that I shouldn't get downwind of you *because "Dragons don't take showers!"*.




Actually, that depends on the individual dragon...  :V 


If you want a definitive... well, _definition_ of the word "mate", all you have to do is look in a dictionary:  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mate

Notice definition 2 under noun:



> A spouse.



You can also note definition 3a and 3b, in the animal context.  Also note the definition of the word "mated" under verb, definition 2 (v.tr.):



> To unite in marriage.



In other words, there is no definitive definition of the word... context is everything.


----------



## Kaibunny94 (Feb 8, 2012)

What I like most about this fandom is the ability to write and create stories with other people. So I guess that's what I talk about. I think Morphology has given the best middle ground/ point of few on this subject and so I have no more to rant about. 

Other than that, Jokes and slurs are what is offensive which is the reason people are offended by them. That said if people weren't offended by them they wouldn't be offensive, I just think that in a world where no one is offended by racist/homophobic jokes or by slurrs


----------



## Attaman (Feb 8, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> And yet, I imagine you don't think the same thing of transexuals, who suffer from the delusion that they are the opposite gender and "stuck" in the wrong-sex body.


This post, Roose, is _so goddamn insulting_ to people that I'm surprised no-one's called you on it yet. How you can think "I fink I'm a dwagon" and "I feel like I was born the wrong sex" are "Ketchup / Catsup" is beyond me. I'm curious to see what comment you have about women born with CAIS, or how you'll try to spin that there's nothing different between thinking you were born the wrong sex and _thinking you were supposed to be born a Dragon-wolf_.



Roose Hurro said:


> After all, isn't that the "defining point" of _their_ lives? In other words, if a person can suffer from "gender dysphoria", couldn't they also suffer from "species dysphoria"...?


 Tell you what: Show me one person who came out of the womb and Doctors went "Whoops, this should have been a cat. Look at the genetics." Take your time, and feel free to link-scrounge. You only need one example to prove me wrong, after all. :V


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 8, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> And yet, I imagine you don't think the same thing of transexuals, who suffer from the delusion that they are the opposite gender and "stuck" in the wrong-sex body.  After all, isn't that the "defining point" of _their_ lives?  In other words, if a person can suffer from "gender dysphoria", couldn't they also suffer from "species dysphoria"...?



Haha, oh wow. Coming from anyone else, I'd assume they were trolling. That's just... wow. You really have absolutely no idea do you.

I'm almost tempted to sig quote that to preserve it's magnificent absurdity.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 8, 2012)

Attaman said:


> This post, Roose, is _so goddamn insulting_ to people that I'm surprised no-one's called you on it yet. How you can think "I fink I'm a dwagon" and "I feel like I was born the wrong sex" are "Ketchup / Catsup" is beyond me. I'm curious to see what comment you have about women born with *CAIS, or how you'll try to spin that there's nothing different between thinking you were born the wrong sex and thinking you were supposed to be born a Dragon-wolf*.



I remember that my teacher discussed the difference between CAIS and DID in Social Psych, and we discussed that people who claim they are the wrong species trapped in a human body classififes them as as Dissociative Idenity Disorder. :V


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 8, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> And yet, I imagine you don't think the same thing of transexuals, who suffer from the delusion that they are the opposite gender and "stuck" in the wrong-sex body.  After all, isn't that the "defining point" of _their_ lives?  In other words, if a person can suffer from "gender dysphoria", couldn't they also suffer from "species dysphoria"...?



I think everyone else already got to you before I got home, but I'm not going to even dignify that with a response :V




> Actually, that depends on the individual dragon...  :V



 - Roose 'the clueless contrarian' Hurro


----------



## Onnes (Feb 8, 2012)

Attaman said:


> This post, Roose, is so goddamn insulting to people that I'm surprised no-one's called you on it yet. ...



This is hardly the first time Roose has expressed that sentiment. I think at a certain point people would rather pretend he doesn't exist than bother responding.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 8, 2012)

Attaman said:


> This post, Roose, is _so goddamn insulting_ to people that I'm surprised no-one's called you on it yet. How you can think "I fink I'm a dwagon" and "I feel like I was born the wrong sex" are "Ketchup / Catsup" is beyond me. *I'm curious to see what comment you have about women born with CAIS*, or how you'll try to spin that there's nothing different between thinking you were born the wrong sex and _thinking you were supposed to be born a Dragon-wolf_.


First off, I'm talking about perfectly normal, healthy males and females, not individuals with CAIS.  So you briniging it up is not relevant to the discussion.  So, we have a man with perfectly normal genetics and genitalia wanting to have perfect healthy and natural sexual organs cut off, just so he can look and feel like a woman.  Conversely, we have a woman with perfectly normal genetics and genitalia wanting to have her boobs cut off, and her genitalia mutilated, so she can look and feel like a man.  This is a recognized psychological condition known as "Gender Dysphoria"... so, I ask again, given the parallels (including people wanting themselves surgically alterned to look and at least in part _feel_ like their "animal" inner self), what makes the one a delusion and the other not?




Attaman said:


> Tell you what: *Show me one person who came out of the womb and Doctors went "Whoops, this should have been a cat. Look at the genetics."* Take your time, and feel free to link-scrounge. You only need one example to prove me wrong, after all. :V



Don't need to, since we're not talking about people with a "genetic" condition like CAIS.  In fact, you should be providing me info showing that most if not all transexuals are those with CAIS, since that condition seems to be the core of your argument.




LizardKing said:


> Haha, oh wow. Coming from anyone else, I'd assume they were trolling. That's just... wow. You really have absolutely no idea do you.
> 
> *I'm almost tempted to sig quote that to preserve it's magnificent absurdity.*



Feel free, I don't mind.  And may I say, personally speaking, you don't seem to have an idea, either.  Never heard of "Devil's Advocate"...?  Don't like hearing things to make you think?  Though the very fact I've gotten a reaction indicates I've accomplished what I set out to do.  If all you can do in return is try and denegrate me with your "Coming from anyone else" comment, then you've failed to engage in the spirit of discussion.  If an unpleasant/unpopular view is expressed, roll with it.  If we all agreed, or all said the same thing, then debate/discussion would be worthless, would it not?  The question I asked is valid.  Answer it or not, at your discretion.




Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I remember that my teacher discussed the difference between CAIS and DID in Social Psych, and we discussed that people who claim they are the wrong species trapped in a human body classififes them as as Dissociative Idenity Disorder. *:V*



Unfortunately, the ":V" makes what you said not really of value.  Perhaps you could simply remove that mark, and give your reply seriousness instead of sarcasm?  Thanks...




Zaraphayx said:


> I think everyone else already got to you before I got home, *but I'm not going to even dignify that with a response* :V



Your loss, then.  :V




Zaraphayx said:


> - Roose 'the clueless contrarian' Hurro



LOL...

You have a future in comedy, Z... never give it up.

And just because I ask such a question... such a "contrarian" question... doesn't mean I'm "clueless".  It simply means I've stirred the water.  And you've refused to go swimming, acting as if I'd just peed in the pool.




Onnes said:


> *This is hardly the first time Roose has expressed that sentiment.* I think at a certain point people would rather pretend he doesn't exist than bother responding.



How nice of you to notice.  But I keep bringing up such "angles" because no one else here does.  Have to keep everybody on their toes.  And if you pretend I don't exist, you have simply confirmed your own lack of ability, not mine.  I could throw curve-balls all day.  One of the reasons I stick here, despite the "attitude" I get in return... watching you run from the ball can be just as amusing as watching you swing for it, whether or not you miss.  The fact Attaman responded with a counter-argument, when no one else above has done so, well, I at least found one person here willing to return the ball with some gusto.

By the way, nice avatar... the eyes really stand out.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 8, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> First off, I'm talking about perfectly normal, healthy males and females, not individuals with CAIS.


 So, you are going to be perfectly willing to provide a _factual, unbiased_ source saying that the majority of people who are transexuals and not afflicted with CAIS are "perfectly normal, healthy males and females", without any sort of mental or chemical imbalance whatsoever?



Roose Hurro said:


> So you briniging it up is not relevant to the discussion.


 But it is. I'm also glad that you think that the default transexual is:



Roose Hurro said:


> we have a man with perfectly normal genetics and genitalia wanting to have perfect healthy and natural sexual organs cut off, just so he can look and feel like a woman. Conversely, we have a woman with perfectly normal genetics and genitalia wanting to have her boobs cut off, and her genitalia mutilated, so she can look and feel like a man.


Bravo, Roose, Bravo.



Roose Hurro said:


> This is a recognized psychological condition known as "Gender Dysphoria"... so, I ask again, given the parallels (including people wanting themselves surgically alterned to look and at least in part _feel_ like their "animal" inner self), what makes the one a delusion and the other not?
> 
> Don't need to, since we're not talking about people with a "genetic" condition like CAIS.  In fact, you should be providing me info showing that most if not all transexuals are those with CAIS, since that condition seems to be the core of your argument.


 Or... not? I love how you're trying to switch the burden of proof, while switching goalposts to your argument within _the very same post_. You made the first claim, burden of proof is on you to show that there's no difference between "Whoops, was supposed to come out male / female / hormonal imbalance", and "Whoops, a human was supposed to be born as a _goddamn mythological creature_".


----------



## Onnes (Feb 8, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> How nice of you to notice.  But I keep bringing up such "angles" because no one else here does.  Have to keep everybody on their toes.  And if you pretend I don't exist, you have simply confirmed your own lack of ability, not mine.  I could throw curve-balls all day.  One of the reasons I stick here, despite the "attitude" I get in return... watching you run from the ball can be just as amusing as watching you swing for it, whether or not you miss.  The fact Attaman responded with a counter-argument, when no one else above has done so, well, I at least found one person here willing to return the ball with some gusto.



At least you admit that your mode of argument involves repeating the same thing until every potential respondent has given up.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 8, 2012)

Onnes said:


> At least you admit that your mode of argument involves *repeating the same thing* until every potential respondent has given up.



Sorry, but the very fact I get mostly responses like yours means, when the same subject comes up, then the "alternate" view has to be repeated.  People so easily forget.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 9, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> Unfortunately, the ":V" makes what you said not really of value.  Perhaps you could simply remove that mark, and give your reply seriousness instead of sarcasm?  Thanks...



Only when you take your head out of your ass and when you do some added research on transsexualism beyond "People who are masochists that moonlight as female hookers". Other than that, serious responses to you are worthless.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 9, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> First off, I'm talking about perfectly normal, healthy males and females, not individuals with CAIS.  So you briniging it up is not relevant to the discussion.  So, we have a man with perfectly normal genetics and genitalia wanting to have perfect healthy and natural sexual organs cut off, just so he can look and feel like a woman.  Conversely, we have a woman with perfectly normal genetics and genitalia wanting to have her boobs cut off, and her genitalia mutilated, so she can look and feel like a man.  This is a recognized psychological condition known as "Gender Dysphoria"... so, I ask again, given the parallels (including people wanting themselves surgically alterned to look and at least in part _feel_ like their "animal" inner self), what makes the one a delusion and the other not?


I sort of knew where you were getting at but then came this.

This is a VERY offensive and uneducated way of describing transsexualism. You don't just "cut off" the dick and I'm pretty sure you don't do that with breasts either. And sex reassignment surgery is NOT "mutilating genitalia". Sweet Jesus.



Roose Hurro said:


> By the way, nice avatar... the eyes really stand out.


Haha, that's what everyone who runs out of arguments and give up says.


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 9, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> Never heard of "Devil's Advocate"...?  Don't like hearing things to make you think?



I'm fine when the thing being suggested isn't absolutely preposterous. But I'm not going to get into and endless roundabout argument with you about it. It's pointless.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 9, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> *Only when you take your head out of your ass* and when you do some added research on transsexualism beyond "People who are masochists that moonlight as female hookers". Other than that, serious responses to you are worthless.



Yes, someone here definitely has their head up their ass, but it isn't me.  The very words you put in quotes indicates you don't have a grasp on what I said that has any basis in fact.  When you have a group who believe they are a woman trapped in a man's body, or a man trapped in a woman's body, and another group who believe they're an animal trapped in a human's body, well, the parallels are quite obviously there, whatever the details.  Plus, you and others here accept the former group with open arms, yet in this thread deride the latter as "demented".  If you want to explain why you have this view, for the sake of discussion, please, feel free.  Why is one group acceptable while the other is not, even though, ON THE SURFACE, they appear to have the same/similar psychological issue?




Kellie Gator said:


> I sort of knew where you were getting at but then came this.
> 
> This is a VERY offensive and uneducated way of describing transsexualism. *You don't just "cut off" the dick and I'm pretty sure you don't do that with breasts either.* And sex reassignment surgery is NOT "mutilating genitalia". Sweet Jesus.



You obviously haven't read up on the surgical proceedures... I have.  The proceedure for a man to become a woman involves castration and removal of the penis, with the empty scrotum skin used to make the labia (at least in the first book I remember reading, though the site below details differences in proceedure).  According to what I read, sexual function is completely destroyed, and those who go through with the surgery are advised about this.

Here you go:  http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/SRSlink.html  (NSFW)

Hmmm... reading the above, it appears a doctor did come up with a proceedure that didn't involve complete penile removal, and indicates this is the method used today.  So apparently that first book I read was out of date.  Or simply flat out wrong.  Well, live and learn.

Oh, and here's my search page, in case you want to educate yourself further:  https://www.google.com/search?sourc...RA_enUS377US377&q=gender+reassignment+surgery

As for breast removal (FtM):  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_reassignment_surgery_(female-to-male)

So, what again do you find offensive?  And after reading all of the above, can you again say it doesn't involve mutilation?




LizardKing said:


> *I'm fine when the thing being suggested isn't absolutely preposterous.* But I'm not going to get into and endless roundabout argument with you about it. It's pointless.



So, you describe the comparison as "preposterous"... why?


----------



## Attaman (Feb 9, 2012)

Attaman said:


> So, you are going to be perfectly willing to provide a _factual, unbiased_ source saying that the majority of people who are transexuals and not afflicted with CAIS are "perfectly normal, healthy males and females", without any sort of mental or chemical imbalance whatsoever?
> 
> Or... not? I love how you're trying to switch the burden of proof, while switching goalposts to your argument within _the very same post_. You made the first claim, burden of proof is on you to show that there's no difference between "Whoops, was supposed to come out male / female / hormonal imbalance", and "Whoops, a human was supposed to be born as a _goddamn mythological creature_".


I'm still waiting for this, Roose. Or a withdrawl / concession of this claim. Don't dilly-daddle about how you didn't have time now, you responded both to a person who posted after me and people who posted after you responded to them. Can you provide some factual, unbiased sources that there is a negligible difference between the mindset of the average Transexual, and the average person who wishes to become a mythological being / animal? One that has not come under excessive amounts of scrutiny from the scientific / sociological community?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 10, 2012)

Attaman said:


> I'm still waiting for this, Roose. Or a withdrawl / concession of this claim. Don't dilly-daddle about how you didn't have time now, you responded both to a person who posted after me and people who posted after you responded to them. *Can you provide some factual, unbiased sources that there is a negligible difference* between the mindset of the average Transexual, and the average person who wishes to become a mythological being / animal? One that has not come under excessive amounts of scrutiny from the scientific / sociological community?



See, just like when you brought up CAIS, you now take what I originally said, and twist it with the words "negligible difference".  I never said there was a "negligible difference", I simply noted the parallels, and questioned why one group is accepted, while the other is rejected.  YOU are the one who brought up CAIS, so you are the one who has to back up the implication that all/most transexuals have CAIS, and are therefore not normal males/females.  If YOU can provide such info to prove what YOU brought up/implied, then I can conceed.

Oh, funny you should bring up the "mental or chemical imbalance" issue.  I find it strange... if a transexual doesn't have CAIS, but has some other chemical imbalance or mental issue... especially the mental issue... doesn't that put them in the same class as someone who's mental issue is, they don't believe they're human inside?  I also find it strange... why, if transexualism is a mental/chemical issue, yes, why do we treat it with surgery, rather than correct the mental/chemical issues that cause it?  For someone with CAIS, I can understand, given the condition has a very easy to determine base, and can involve deformed genitalia as well as other _physical/hormonal_ issues.  But for someone who has a perfectly normal, properly formed and functional reproductive system, it just doesn't jive.  Why haven't we come up with a medical treatment to correct the chemical imbalace, so that a man no longer feels like a woman trapped in a man's body?  Why do we instead change the body to fit the person's feelings?  Rather than changing the person's feelings to fit their perfectly normal and healthy body?  Again, this is for transexuals who don't have CAIS as justification.

You know, since YOU brought it up.

Heh, found this thing on "theris" amusing:  http://www.angelfire.com/games3/wwp/She_Blinded_Me_with_Science.html ... shame, no pics.   :V

I found this interesting:  http://akhila.feralscribes.org/essays/trans.php

Need to move on, so I'll leave you with this Google search:  https://www.google.com/search?sourc...&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS377US377&q=species+dysphoria  ...  I'll see what I can find later, but my search under "scientific transpecism studies" didn't come up with anything.  In fact, I only got 13 hits, which included the two above this search link.  Still, hopefully you'll understand the "connection" I made in my original post, after you're done reading the linked material.


----------



## Fenrari (Feb 10, 2012)

mateship is without ceremony and/or legal/tax benefits. Then again you also can't claim half of your spouses property if you break up either.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 10, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> See, just like when you brought up CAIS, you now take what I originally said, and twist it with the words "negligible difference".





Roose Hurro said:


> And yet, I imagine you don't think the same thing of transexuals, who suffer from the delusion that they are the opposite gender and "stuck" in the wrong-sex body. After all, isn't that the "defining point" of _their_ lives? In other words, if a person can suffer from "gender dysphoria", couldn't they also suffer from "species dysphoria"...?





			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> So, we have a man with perfectly normal genetics and genitalia wanting to have perfect healthy and natural sexual organs cut off, just so he can look and feel like a woman. Conversely, we have a woman with perfectly normal genetics and genitalia wanting to have her boobs cut off, and her genitalia mutilated, so she can look and feel like a man. This is a recognized psychological condition known as "Gender Dysphoria"... so, I ask again, given the parallels (including people wanting themselves surgically alterned to look and at least in part feel like their "animal" inner self), what makes the one a delusion and the other not?


Regardless of whether you did or did not _directly_ state that there is a "negligible difference", how pray-tell can you describe this otherwise? Or are you saying you were talking out of your ass and there is a noticeable difference between the two, you just purposefully ignored it in two separate posts?



Roose Hurro said:


> I never said there was a "negligible difference", I simply noted the parallels,


 Which is it, Roose? There are very vague and loose parallels that didn't warrant asking how one feels about one then the other, or they are close enough that you feel there's a negligible difference and someone needs to define why they might feel different about one than the other?



Roose Hurro said:


> YOU are the one who brought up CAIS, so you are the one who has to back up the implication that all/most transexuals have CAIS, and are therefore not normal males/females.


 I never said that. Maybe I should quote my own post so people can see what you're trying to say I said:


			
				Me said:
			
		

> This post, Roose, is so goddamn insulting to people that I'm surprised no-one's called you on it yet. How you can think "I fink I'm a dwagon" and "I feel like I was born the wrong sex" are "Ketchup / Catsup" is beyond me. I'm curious to see what comment you have about women born with CAIS, or how you'll try to spin that there's nothing different between thinking you were born the wrong sex and thinking you were supposed to be born a Dragon-wolf.


 CAIS was brought up due to its similarity / relation to Transexuals, but at no point do I even imply "Most Transexuals are CAIS afflicted". I will concede that bringing up CAIS was similarly irrelevant besides trying to bait you into a bad answer, and I apologize for that... but I'm still awaiting an answer of how it isn't insensitive and makes perfect sense to compare "Feel like I was born the wrong sex" and "Feel like I should have been born a Griffon".



Roose Hurro said:


> Oh, funny you should bring up the "mental or chemical imbalance" issue.  I find it strange... if a transexual doesn't have CAIS, but has some other chemical imbalance or mental issue... especially the mental issue... doesn't that put them in the same class as someone who's mental issue is, they don't believe they're human inside?


 ... Roose, stop digging yourself a deeper hole. That, or apologize for lumping up pretty much every single hormonal and mental issue into the same bundle. Unless you're willing to argue why someone who, say, is ADD is the same as someone such as Anders Breivik (I mean, they both have mental issues :V), that is. 



Roose Hurro said:


> I also find it strange... why, if transexualism is a mental/chemical issue, yes, why do we treat it with surgery, rather than correct the mental/chemical issues that cause it?


 Because psychology is a big fucking unknown field that's extremely easy to cause permanent damage in, and it's typically more feasible to alter someone's body to their image than throw chemicals / slice at their brain until they think the way you think they should? 



Roose Hurro said:


> Why haven't we come up with a medical treatment to correct the chemical imbalace, so that a man no longer feels like a woman trapped in a man's body?


 I don't know, why don't we come up with a medical treatment to treat "The Gay".

... Don't answer that. It was a sarcastic question.



Roose Hurro said:


> You know, since YOU brought it up.


 Yes, and I brought it up to get your opinion on it. Something which, coincidentally, you didn't answer until this post. And, furthermore, you still have yet to clarify whether you were just pulling Transexuals out of your ass when you compared them to "I should have been a Selkie" (in which case apologize for your comment) or you _do_ think they're similar enough to comment upon (in which case I - again - ask for some articles and / or journals that show a connection between the two, or that you withdraw the claim and apologize).



Roose Hurro said:


> Heh, found this thing on "theris" amusing:  http://www.angelfire.com/games3/wwp/She_Blinded_Me_with_Science.html ... shame, no pics.   :V


 Shame it also has no relevance at hand and is literally the same as me linking to a piece of fanfiction to prove that Humans can jump a hundred feet straight up.



Roose Hurro said:


> I found this interesting:  http://akhila.feralscribes.org/essays/trans.php


 And here, way to miss everything from "Impartiality" to "Scholarly". Roose, you can do better than this.



Roose Hurro said:


> Need to move on, so I'll leave you with this Google search:  https://www.google.com/search?sourc...&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS377US377&q=species+dysphoria


 So instead of doing what I ask, you instead go through a fancy "No YOU look for it!" dance-around and try to portray it like the last three links are definitive proof that they're similar (by the way, I'll take this as confirmation that you believe that there is a negligible difference between the two, unless you want to apologize for wasting my time to check these links and admit "I don't want to concede defeat by saying that I was wrong implying most-Transgenders are no different than "I think I'm supposed to be a Sparkledog").


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 10, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Regardless of whether you did or did not _directly_ state that there is a "negligible difference", *how pray-tell can you describe this otherwise?* Or are you saying you were talking out of your ass and there is a noticeable difference between the two, you just purposefully ignored it in two separate posts?



Differences come in many degrees.  Some are negligible, some are small, some are notable, and others are arguable.  My viewpoint puts it somewhere between negligible and arguable, though it seems you're more in the notable ballpark, while I'm more in the small.  Well, at least now we should have this part settled.




Attaman said:


> Which is it, Roose? *There are very vague and loose parallels* that didn't warrant asking how one feels about one then the other, or they are close enough that you feel there's a negligible difference and someone needs to define why they might feel different about one than the other?



Oh?  Let's see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_dysphoria



> *Species dysphoria* is the experience of dysphoria *(depression, discontent), sometimes including dysmorphia (excessive concern over one's body image)*, associated with the feeling that one's body is of the wrong species.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder



> *Gender identity disorder* (GID) is the formal diagnosis used by psychologists and physicians to describe persons who experience significant gender dysphoria (*discontent with their biological sex and/or the gender they were assigned at birth*).



Here is the Wiki on just the word "Dysphoria":



> The following conditions may include dysphoria as a symptom:
> *Clinical depression (unipolar) and dysthymia
> *Bipolar disorder[1] and cyclothymia
> *Premenstrual Syndrome
> ...



Hmmm... so far, lots of scientific stuff on gender dysphoria, but pretty much zilch on species dysphoria, unless you consider material on Otherkin/Therianthropy sites.  Which in a way, makes sense, given the attitudes shown here.  And obviously shared by the scientific community.  According to the Wiki on "Species Dysphoria":



> Species dysphoria has not been officially defined by the psychological community, and is mostly a term that has been informally used in psychological literature to compare the experiences of some individuals to those in the transgender community.[3] Otherkin and therian communities have also used it to describe their experiences.



So, hard to find something that hasn't even been "officially defined" by professional psychologists.




Attaman said:


> I never said that. Maybe I should quote my own post so people can see what you're trying to say I said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the problem you're having is due to your involvement in the furry fandom, where such fantasies are rife.  However, out in the "real world", we still have Otherkin and Therianthrops.  Not all of whom have an involvement or interest in "Furry".

Then we have this:  http://www.essortment.com/legend-were-wolf-64876.html



> *Lycanthropic Disorder* is a mental illness which causes the victim to believe that they are actually a werewolf. If someone truly believes that they turn into a werewolf under the full moon, they may be capable of committing crimes consistent with this delusion - thus perpetrating the werewolf legend into modern times.



So, now we have the Wiki on "Lycanthropic Disorder":  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_lycanthropy ... which is, by the way, a valid psychological delusion.  See any parallels between this and species dysphoria?




Attaman said:


> CAIS was brought up due to its similarity / relation to Transexuals, *but at no point do I even imply "Most Transexuals are CAIS afflicted"*. I will concede that bringing up CAIS was similarly irrelevant besides trying to bait you into a bad answer, and I apologize for that... but I'm still awaiting an answer of how it isn't insensitive and makes perfect sense to compare "Feel like I was born the wrong sex" and "Feel like I should have been born a Griffon".



Ah, good... then we can drop the CAIS afflicted from our discussion.




Attaman said:


> ... Roose, stop digging yourself a deeper hole. *That, or apologize for lumping up pretty much every single hormonal and mental issue into the same bundle.* Unless you're willing to argue why someone who, say, is ADD is the same as someone such as Anders Breivik (I mean, they both have mental issues :V), that is.



Again, you carry things into more irrelevant territory.  Oh, by the way, your comparison of ADD sufferers to Anders Behring Breivik is really going way overboard.  Looks to me like you stole my shovel and dug your own hole with that one.  I'll say no more.




Attaman said:


> Because psychology is a big fucking unknown field that's extremely easy to cause permanent damage in, and it's typically more feasible to alter someone's body to their image *than throw chemicals / slice at their brain until they think the way you think they should*?



I'm not presently able to dig (I'm again running out of time, other things to do, then bed), so I'll leave you with this:  Has it not been shown that behavior changes... people _like_ Anders Breivik... have sometimes suffered from lesions on the brain?  And that the surgical removal of those lesions... "slicing" at their brain... has corrected their abberant behavior?  Not to mention, we already "throw chemicals" at children with ADD and ADHD, don't we?  If you really wanna throw yourself further into the hole you've dug with your above comparison, why do we drug children with those conditions, but not transexuals, for their condition?  Why, Attaman?  And what, better to slice at their bodies than at their brains?  What about my mother?  She takes medication to treat anxiety... to calm her panic attacks.  Is that not throwing chemicals at her problem, to change her thought processes?  Why is it okay for ADD/ADHD kids and those with depression/anxiety to be medicated, but not for transexuals?  This is what I'm getting at.




Attaman said:


> I don't know, why don't we come up with a medical treatment to treat "The Gay".
> 
> ... *Don't answer that.* It was a sarcastic question.



Alright, I won't.




Attaman said:


> Yes, and I brought it up to get your opinion on it. Something which, coincidentally, you didn't answer until this post. *And, furthermore, you still have yet to clarify whether you were just pulling Transexuals out of your ass* when you compared them to "I should have been a Selkie" (in which case apologize for your comment) or you _do_ think they're similar enough to comment upon (in which case I - again - ask for some articles and / or journals that show a connection between the two, or that you withdraw the claim and apologize).



Oh, no, I wasn't pulling them out of my ass... I got them from what others were saying here, specifically the one person I quoted and commented on that got this whole discussion here started.




Attaman said:


> *Shame it also has no relevance at hand* and is literally the same as me linking to a piece of fanfiction to prove that Humans can jump a hundred feet straight up.



I said it was "amusing", not "relevant".  I just wanted to share the laugh.




Attaman said:


> And here, way to miss everything from "Impartiality" to "Scholarly". *Roose, you can do better than this.*



Sure, I could, but I had other things to do, and all I could find under the given keywords were 13 hits, the two links I provided the "best" out of those thirteen.  So I'm sure you can see the difficulty.  Especially when you take into account the lack of impartial scholars in this discussion.  But hey, what can you do?




Attaman said:


> *So instead of doing what I ask*, you instead go through a fancy "No YOU look for it!" dance-around and try to portray it like the last three links are definitive proof that they're similar (by the way, I'll take this as confirmation that you believe that there is a negligible difference between the two, unless you want to apologize for wasting my time to check these links and admit "I don't want to concede defeat by saying that I was wrong implying most-Transgenders are no different than "I think I'm supposed to be a Sparkledog").



First off, I'm not under your command.  Second off, I had other things that needed my time.  Now that those things are cleared, I can put more time into discussing any findings in that search, or in any others I may choose to perform, to find better info.  Which you may have found above, by the way.  If you want, I can always dig up more tomorrow.  Any suggestions for keywords?


----------



## Kitutal (Feb 10, 2012)

how has a discussion on cute terminology turned into a debate on a debate on something else entirely? you know, there is a thread on this very topic just down the page a little way.
I tried to read through all the arguments and work out what it actually is people are disagreeing on, bu I couldn't be bothered, it rambles on for pages and pages and I can't keep track. No chance someone could simplify it all down for an idiot like me to understand?


----------



## Attaman (Feb 10, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> Differences come in many degrees.  Some are negligible, some are small, some are notable, and others are arguable.  My viewpoint puts it somewhere between negligible and arguable, though it seems you're more in the notable ballpark, while I'm more in the small.  Well, at least now we should have this part settled.


 Once more, you dodge giving an answer, because you know that giving an answer means you either were blatantly disrespectful to transexuals, or you have an axe to grind and were hoping no-one'd call you out on it.



Roose Hurro said:


> Oh?  Let's see:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_dysphoria


 Did you look at the citations? I'm going to go out on a limb and assume "No," as the only article even slightly related to what you're trying to argue here (as opposed to, say, being books about _Faith Healing_, giving an overview of Otherkin, or dealing with Furry Fandom polls) is "Lycanthropy: alive and well in the twentieth century", which mentions "The syndrome was generally associated with severe psychosis, but not with any specific psychiatric diagnosis or neurological findings, or with any particular outcome. As a rare but colourful presentation of psychosis, lycanthropy appears to have survived into modern times."

Of course, again, if you wish to assume that Psychosis and Gender Dysphoria are "Ketchup-Catsup", this sounds right along your alley.

Furthermore, did you happen to notice these bits:
"*Species dysphoria has not been officially defined by the psychological community*, and is mostly a term that has been informally used in psychological literature to compare the experiences of some individuals to those in the transgender community"
*"The psychological community has not officially proposed any treatment for species dysphoria, as it has never been officially defined."*

Again, I could cite fanfiction and be about as factually based as what you're trying to propose right now. Pony up a proper source.



Roose Hurro said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder


 I'd really advise against throwing links in the vague hope that they say what you think they say. So far, it hasn't worked 2/2 posts (that you purposefully put off and admit to doing so).



Roose Hurro said:


> Here is the Wiki on just the word "Dysphoria":
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... so far, lots of scientific stuff on gender dysphoria, but pretty much zilch on species dysphoria, unless you consider material on Otherkin/Therianthropy sites.  Which in a way, makes sense, given the attitudes shown here.  And obviously shared by the scientific community.


 Because some of the claims are so far-fetched that they're written off as psychosis (ex: "I can twansform into a wulf every full moon!") or are almost entirely in the realms of "faith"?




Roose Hurro said:


> According to the Wiki on "Species Dysphoria":


 Again, that wiki page is crock cited by - of all things - pages saying people should be able to turn into an Eagle on a whim and Furry members who think that becoming 0% human would drastically improve their life / character.



Roose Hurro said:


> So, hard to find something that hasn't even been "officially defined" by professional psychologists.


 Oh, funny, hard to find something officially defined... but that sure didn't stop you for stating "Ketchup? Catsup? They're all the same to me."



Roose Hurro said:


> I think the problem you're having is due to your involvement in the furry fandom, where such fantasies are rife.  However, out in the "real world", we still have Otherkin and Therianthrops.  Not all of whom have an involvement or interest in "Furry".


 Yes, such as Otakukin, or believing they're Elves, or (etcetera). You aren't helping your case with continued Otherkin reference, and now you've thrown yet more fuel on the fire by saying Otherkin - Therianthropy - Transgender are all synonymous. 



Roose Hurro said:


> Then we have this:  http://www.essortment.com/legend-were-wolf-64876.html


 Roose, seriously, read your goddamn articles. Not only is this non-scholarly, but it also mentions the following as causes: Rare genetic mutation causing mass hair growth (as opposed to, say, "born a dog"), Lycanthropic Disorder (which is typically associated with people who are _psychotic_), Ergot (I hope you aren't trying to make any parallels between Transgender people and Ergot-afflicted people), and the diseases of Rabies and Porphyria. Either stop with pointless link spam under the hope that someone won't read them, admit you're trying to make very insulting parallels, or concede defeat / apologize.



Roose Hurro said:


> So, now we have the Wiki on "Lycanthropic Disorder":  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_lycanthropy ... which is, by the way, a valid psychological delusion.  See any parallels between this and species dysphoria?


 Again, your "Species Dysphoria" argument is currently based on a load of crock, and if you assume Clinical Lycanthropy synonymous Gender Identity Disorder you're suggesting GID is an expression of psychosis.



Roose Hurro said:


> Again, you carry things into more irrelevant territory.  Oh, by the way, your comparison of ADD sufferers to Anders Behring Breivik is really going way overboard.  Looks to me like you stole my shovel and dug your own hole with that one.  I'll say no more.


 The thing is, I'm making that comparison as an example of how far-fetched it is. You're making these comparisons _repeatedly_ because you'd rather warble on about how "No I'm not!" "What's that then?" "I've said worse..."



Roose Hurro said:


> Has it not been shown that behavior changes... people _like_ Anders Breivik... have sometimes suffered from lesions on the brain?


 You're not about to suggest... you can't be about to associate Transgender with... no way...



Roose Hurro said:


> And that the surgical removal of those lesions... "slicing" at their brain... has corrected their abberant behavior?


Yes, and sometimes made things a damn sight worse too. Again, people are generally iffy about ticking around in the brain outside life-threatening complications, because it's kind of an extremely vital and unknown organ.



Roose Hurro said:


> Not to mention, we already "throw chemicals" at children with ADD and ADHD, don't we?


 And perhaps you haven't seen or heard some of the side effects? I'll Wiki link you myself now... but notice that the citations for this article (and its adverse effects) are a bit more... scholarly, scientific, than the ones you have.



Roose Hurro said:


> If you really wanna throw yourself further into the hole


 Says the one that just implied the common link between Therianthropy, Otherkin-ism, and Transgenders is Rabies / Ergot.



Roose Hurro said:


> you've dug with your above comparison, why do we drug children with those conditions, but not transexuals, for their condition?


 Again, because trying to completely re-write someone's sexual identity is hilariously complex and has a great deal of room to cause irreparable damage without "fixing" the "problem"?



Roose Hurro said:


> Why, Attaman?  And what, better to slice at their bodies than at their brains?


 See above - multiple-time repeated - comment that it's extremely dangerous to try dicking around with someone's brain, but it's marginally less dangerous to put them under the knife?



Roose Hurro said:


> Oh, no, I wasn't pulling them out of my ass... I got them from what others were saying here, specifically the one person I quoted and commented on that got this whole discussion here started.


 Roose, I can read their post, you're the one who brought up Transexuals and claimed that they're synonymous / closely related to "Fuck you I'm a Dragon!"



Roose Hurro said:


> Sure, I could, but I had other things to do,


 Like respond to other posters, and pretend my posts don't exist until called out on it, and dance around the bush giving non-answer links / replies...



Roose Hurro said:


> and all I could find under the given keywords were 13 hits, the two links I provided the "best" out of those thirteen.  So I'm sure you can see the difficulty.  Especially when you take into account the lack of impartial scholars in this discussion.  But hey, what can you do?


 Admit that you based your argument on a reprehensible opinion?



Roose Hurro said:


> First off, I'm not under your command.  Second off, I had other things that needed my time.


 Such as responding to Onnes within twenty minutes of their post, and then replying to _three other users at once_. Furthermore, "I admit that my comment was based on opinion and not any readily confirmable scientific fact" would only take about five seconds to post.



Roose Hurro said:


> Now that those things are cleared, I can put more time into discussing any findings in that search, or in any others I may choose to perform, to find better info.  Which you may have found above, by the way.  If you want, I can always dig up more tomorrow.  Any suggestions for keywords?


 Yes, some suggestions (but not on key words). Dig up some psychological textbooks and / or journals. Ones from before days that "Sterilize Gays" was seen as the proper medical solution. Look up articles on Gender, Sex, and so-on. Read up on them, and understand why Transgender people aren't merely "Lol off wiff mah deeck".


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 10, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Oh, no, I wasn't pulling them out of my ass... I got them from what others were saying here, specifically the one person I quoted and commented on that got this whole discussion here started.



You pulled them entirely out of your ass then, because the post you quoted (mine) contained absolutely no mention of transsexuals at all. You just thought you were going to be clever by making the connection from "I'm a vixen trapped in a man's body" to "I'm a man trapped in a woman's body"; which, on the surface doesn't sound like too outrageous of a claim. You fail to account for the following facts, however.

- Men and Women are both of the human species, the makeup of our brains (and for the most part, bodies) is extremely similar because of this.

- While biological sex isn't synthetic, gender is. The proclivity towards certain human behaviors is a better indication of someone's gender identity than their biological sex is. 

- There are no animals that exist in reality on planet earth that are sapient other than human beings. It is impossible to be an animal mind trapped in a human body, as an animal mind has no concept of it's own mind; I can name the number of animals who are even self-aware on one hand.

- Dragons, anthromorphs, and other 'fantasy' creatures, do not  exist: they are ideas manufactured inside of the human mind. People of  the opposite biological sex DO exist, and unlike non-human animals they are relatable.

Don't let the lack of scholarly support for your position get in the way or anything, who needs facts when I have a hunch :V

I hope you will reconsider your extremely unsound position, but this is the internet and no one is ever wrong.


----------



## Dreaming (Feb 10, 2012)

I have to admit, ''mateship'' is a new one to me. Seems like another attempt at Furryfying things.


----------



## Sar (Feb 10, 2012)

Marriage means marriage.
Mateship is a vauge description of relationship, including marriage.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 10, 2012)

@Roose

A study in Barcelona found that female-to-male transgenders have a more masculine neural composition than typical female-bodied individuals even before they begin hormone therapy, which may account for their gender dysphoria. 

Find me one study, any study at all, which shows that someone has a more wolf-like or dragon-like or anime-character-like brain structure than typical humans.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 10, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> So, what again do you find offensive?  And after reading all of the above, can you again say it doesn't involve mutilation?


Oh for god's sake, Roose. Listen to yourself.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 11, 2012)

Kitutal said:


> *how has a discussion on cute terminology turned into a debate on a debate on something else entirely?* you know, there is a thread on this very topic just down the page a little way.
> I tried to read through all the arguments and work out what it actually is people are disagreeing on, bu I couldn't be bothered, it rambles on for pages and pages and I can't keep track. No chance someone could simplify it all down for an idiot like me to understand?



That's easy... Zaraphayx made this post:



Zaraphayx said:


> The people who make this the defining point of their life, who embrace the subculture and all of it's (sometimes very disturbing) behaviors, who believe themselves to have animal spirits or adopt the actions and habits of their fursona's species ( BECAUSE FUCK YOU I'M A DRAGON DAMNIT) are, in my opinion, delusional and pathetic.





And I simply asked these questions:  *And yet, I imagine you don't think the same thing of transexuals, who suffer from the delusion that they are the opposite gender and "stuck" in the wrong-sex body. After all, isn't that the "defining point" of their lives? In other words, if a person can suffer from "gender dysphoria", couldn't they also suffer from "species dysphoria"...?*

Only to be told I was insensative, that there was no comparison, yadda yadda.  So, I've simply been pointing out the parallels between these two forms of dysphoria, while everyone else who's commented is either blasting my observations, or making it a point to indicate they aren't interested in replying V)... so, somehow, we have this "little" side discussion going.  Oh, and it only started on the same page you posted on, just a short ways down from the top.  It doesn't "ramble on for pages and pages".

As for the whole "Marriage Vs. Mateship" thing, I've already commented on that.  A married couple can be refered to as mates, though a "mated" couple, according to some, doesn't need to be married.  Call it a difference in terminology.




Attaman said:


> Once more, you dodge giving an answer, because you know that giving an answer means you either were blatantly disrespectful to transexuals, or you have an axe to grind and were hoping no-one'd call you out on it.



The only "disrespect" I have towards transexuals has to to with this scenario:  I see an attractive woman in a social situation.  I make the effort to socialize, to get to know her.  We date.  We marry.  Then I find out "she" was previously a "he" (or maybe I don't).  I find that deceptive.  A lie.  No amount of surgery and hormones changes the fact that you are a man, not a woman.  Don't tell me it can't happen:  http://capablewoman.hubpages.com/hub/boytogirl

And no, I didn't dodge.  In fact, I gave you a very specific answer.




Attaman said:


> *Did you look at the citations?* I'm going to go out on a limb and assume "No," as the only article even slightly related to what you're trying to argue here (as opposed to, say, being books about _Faith Healing_, giving an overview of Otherkin, or dealing with Furry Fandom polls) is "Lycanthropy: alive and well in the twentieth century", which mentions "The syndrome was generally associated with severe psychosis, but not with any specific psychiatric diagnosis or neurological findings, or with any particular outcome. As a rare but colourful presentation of psychosis, lycanthropy appears to have survived into modern times."
> 
> Of course, again, if you wish to assume that Psychosis and Gender Dysphoria are "Ketchup-Catsup", this sounds right along your alley.
> 
> ...



No, I didn't, because that wasn't of concern in that particular link.  I took two Wiki entries, and cut/pasted the first paragraph of "Definition and symptoms" for comparison.  And yes, I did note, later in my post.  Just because there is no "official" definition... as I said, understandable, given your own reaction... doesn't mean no parallels exist.  It simply means those parallels haven't been officially defined.  Notice, it doesn't say they have yet to be officially _recognized_.  Note also that the same entry (and your quoted bit) also says:  "a term that has been _informally used in psychological literature_"... informal, yes, but recognized by use.  Because there is not yet any "officially defined" term.  No _formal_ definition.  Which, as I already said, makes finding any "official" material on the subject difficult, if not impossible.  So, we could keep going back and forth like this, without me ever coming up with what you would call a "proper" source.

But then, I'm not here to prove anything, and really, this is getting well off topic.




Attaman said:


> I'd really advise against throwing links in the vague hope that they say what you think they say. So far, it hasn't worked 2/2 posts (that you purposefully put off and admit to doing so).



Again, as I said above, I used Wiki for just the purpose of comparison, to show that the definitions for one paralleled the other.  Beyond the cut/paste material I quoted, nothing else from either article was needed.




Attaman said:


> Because some of the claims are so far-fetched that they're written off as psychosis (ex: "I can twansform into a wulf every full moon!") or are almost entirely in the realms of "faith"?



Correct.




Attaman said:


> Again, that wiki page is crock cited by - of all things - pages saying people should be able to turn into an Eagle on a whim and Furry members who think that becoming 0% human would drastically improve their life / character.



Like I said above, citations were not relevant to the specific point I was making.




Attaman said:


> Oh, funny, hard to find something officially defined... *but that sure didn't stop you for stating "Ketchup? Catsup? They're all the same to me."*



You do realize those are just two spellings for the same thing, right?  "Ketchup" or "Catsup", it all sweetened/thickened tomato puree.




Attaman said:


> Yes, such as Otakukin, or believing they're Elves, or (etcetera). You aren't helping your case with continued Otherkin reference, *and now you've thrown yet more fuel on the fire by saying Otherkin - Therianthropy - Transgender are all synonymous*.



No, what I've thrown out is that Otherkin - Therianthropy - Species Dysphoria are... well, not synonymous, but related.  Because each has both similarities and differences.




Attaman said:


> *Roose, seriously, read your goddamn articles.* Not only is this non-scholarly, but it also mentions the following as causes: Rare genetic mutation causing mass hair growth (as opposed to, say, "born a dog"), Lycanthropic Disorder (which is typically associated with people who are _psychotic_), Ergot (I hope you aren't trying to make any parallels between Transgender people and Ergot-afflicted people), and the diseases of Rabies and Porphyria. Either stop with pointless link spam under the hope that someone won't read them, admit you're trying to make very insulting parallels, or concede defeat / apologize.



Did you read it?  Did you note that animal/human "mixes" have been around in human experience going way back?

Let's see about the scholarly part:

http://www.lsu.edu/faculty/jpullia/lycanthrophy.htm ... small, but it does provide info on a modern case, in which the man afflicted proved to have a brain abnormality.

http://books.google.com/books?id=08...ge&q=scholarly studies on lycanthropy&f=false

http://www.ams.ac.ir/aim/0472/013.pdf ... this looks like an excellent scholarly source, and it's only three pages, so it shouldn't take long to read.  Has a nice list of references on the third page.




Attaman said:


> Again, your "Species Dysphoria" argument is currently based on a load of crock, *and if you assume Clinical Lycanthropy synonymous Gender Identity Disorder you're suggesting GID is an expression of psychosis.*



No, what I'm suggesting is that Species Dysphoria, "officially defined" or not, has a historical basis in clinical psychiatry through lycanthropy.  It also has an "official" definition and treatment:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14674954 ... meaning, the definition of "Species Dysphoria" may be related to lycanthropy.  So, what we have is two _different_ forms of dysphoria.  Different in that one involves gender identity, the other, belief that one is an animal, or some other non-human creature, whether that creature is real or imaginary.




Attaman said:


> *The thing is, I'm making that comparison as an example of how far-fetched it is.* You're making these comparisons _repeatedly_ because you'd rather warble on about how "No I'm not!" "What's that then?" "I've said worse..."



Oh, and you're the only one capable of doing this?  What I requested of Zaraphayx was not far-fetched, it was a simple question as to why transgendered individuals (who believe they are something they're not) differ from transpecies individuals (who, by the way, believe they are something they're not).  Unfortunately, I didn't get a straight answer, just a wave of bigotry.




Attaman said:


> You're not about to suggest... you can't be about to associate Transgender with... *no way*...



Indeed, no way.  After all, isn't it you and other here who have been using hormone imbalances and brain dynamics (or whatever) to justify treating transgendered people respect?  While at the same time showing nothing but disrepect for those who may (or may not) have valid (yet presently undefined) medical conditions?  You know, like those acknowledged to be suffering from lycanthropism?  By clinical psychiatry?




Attaman said:


> Yes, *and sometimes made things a damn sight worse too*. Again, people are generally iffy about ticking around in the brain outside life-threatening complications, because it's kind of an extremely vital *and unknown organ*.



Now it is your turn to provide scholarly info, to back up your claim.  Oh, and this:  http://www.brainnet.net/about/brainnet-foundation/

And here is some info on the history of brain surgery:  http://www.brain-surgery.com/history.html




Attaman said:


> *And perhaps you haven't seen or heard some of the side effects?* I'll Wiki link you myself now... but notice that the citations for this article (and its adverse effects) are a bit more... scholarly, scientific, than the ones you have.



Indeed I have... but, for some reason, we still use them.  Why is that?




Attaman said:


> Says the one that just implied the common link between Therianthropy, Otherkin-ism, and Transgenders is Rabies / Ergot.



Oh, please... you just made that "link" yourself.




Attaman said:


> Again, because trying to completely re-write someone's sexual identity is hilariously complex and has a great deal of room to cause irreparable damage without "fixing" the "problem"?



Ahhh...

So, it's fine to mess up the brain chemistry of ADD/ADHD kids, even though it doesn't fix the problem (and causes a whole host of new ones, not to mention the possibility of irreparable damage), but we can't dare come up with a medication to "fix" transexuals.  Got it.




Attaman said:


> See above - multiple-time repeated - comment that *it's extremely dangerous to try dicking around with someone's brain*, but it's marginally less dangerous to put them under the knife?



And yet, we do it anyway, don't we?  Case in point, ADD/ADHD kids.  Amongst others:

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/medicines/effect/brain.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_drug

http://www.healthinaging.org/agingintheknow/research_content.asp?id=138




Attaman said:


> Roose, I can read their post, *you're the one who brought up Transexuals* and claimed that they're synonymous / closely related to "Fuck you I'm a Dragon!"



Checked, and my bad...

However, as I have said, there are parallels you simply can't accept.  Never said they were an exact match, simply related in that they are both forms of dysphoria.  With _similar_ (not synonymous) symptomology.




Attaman said:


> Like respond to other posters, and pretend my posts don't exist until called out on it, and dance around the bush giving non-answer links / replies...



Like "I have to get supper/get ready for bed"... not to mention, FAF isn't the only forum I frequent, so I have other people to interact with, elsewhere.  Not to mention other RL issues to address, off and on.  I have to juggle my time, just like anybody.




Attaman said:


> Admit that you based your argument on a reprehensible opinion?



Reprehensible in your opinon, which shows you are not an impartial observer.  In other words, you appear to have your own axe to grind, not to mention your own blatant disrespect towards others.

But then, hey, this is FAF!




Attaman said:


> *Such as responding to Onnes within twenty minutes of their post, and then replying to three other users at once*. Furthermore, "I admit that my comment was based on opinion and not any readily confirmable scientific fact" would only take about five seconds to post.



I'm good at multitasking, especially when I'm multitasking in the same thread.  The whole "twenty minutes" thing was just a matter of timing... unless you're implying that I set it all up to fall that way.




Attaman said:


> Yes, some suggestions (but not on key words). Dig up some psychological textbooks and / or journals. Ones from before days that "Sterilize Gays" was seen as the proper medical solution. Look up articles on Gender, Sex, and so-on. Read up on them, *and understand why* Transgender people aren't merely "Lol off wiff mah deeck".



Oh, I understand why.  Do you understand why Transpecies people are still human?  Or will you continue to denigrate them as subhuman?




Zaraphayx said:


> *You pulled them entirely out of your ass then*, because the post you quoted (mine) contained absolutely no mention of transsexuals at all. You just thought you were going to be clever by making the connection from "I'm a vixen trapped in a man's body" to "I'm a man trapped in a woman's body"; which, on the surface doesn't sound like too outrageous of a claim. You fail to account for the following facts, however.
> 
> - Men and Women are both of the human species, the makeup of our brains (and for the most part, bodies) is extremely similar because of this.
> 
> ...



As I admitted above, my claim was off... blame my age and CFS.  Doesn't mean I pulled it out of my ass.  Still, what you wrote triggered the comparison, so just deal with it.  Go with the flow.  Oh, and thanks for such a nice, reasoned response.

And still, you didn't answer my original questions.  Yes, we can both agree on the differences, but you're forgetting something.  Humans are also animals.  And humans do relate quite strongly to animals... this is why we keep pets.  This is why we have people who treat and relate to their pets as if they were their own children.  So, men and women... being of the same species... yes, the whole sex/gender issue is what you could call "close to the cuff".  But those with gender identity issues are still human.  So too those with "species identity" issues.  Both involve the brain, both involve human psychology.  One is officially defined.  The other is not.  One is accepted as normal, the other, derided as "demented".  Is this an unsound position, Zaraphayx?  Scholarly support or not.

After all, this isn't a scholarly discussion on a thinktank forum.  It's a completely open discussion on a "furry" forum.  I don't need approval to propose an idea, however far-fetch you may think it is, based on material provided by others (like you) that may come up.  Had you provided answers, your view on why it's okay to treat one group as normal and the other as crazy, this could have been wrapped up, and we'd be discussing the main thrust of this thread.

Pardon me for taking your show of denigration and running with it.




Ad Hoc said:


> @Roose
> 
> A study in Barcelona found that female-to-male transgenders have a more masculine neural composition than typical female-bodied individuals even before they begin hormone therapy, *which may account for their gender dysphoria*.
> 
> Find me one study, any study at all, which shows that someone has a more wolf-like or dragon-like or anime-character-like brain structure than typical humans.



Indeed, yes.  Like in lycanthropism, there can be an underlying neurological cause.  Same for things like schizophrenia and a whole host of other psychological disorders.  Each of which has treatments with varying levels of success.  Just because that cause may be different in nature doesn't invalidate its existence.  I would imagine those who suffer from species dysphoria would have much different causative factors than those with gender dysphoria.  Though both share the depression and body image issues.  Unfortunately, while gender dysphoria has been extensively studied, from my efforts, species dysphoria has not.




Kellie Gator said:


> Oh for god's sake, Roose. Listen to yourself.



So, you're saying if I, for example, had testicular cancer, and had to have one or both testicles removed, that I still wouldn't have mutilated genitals?


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 11, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> The only "disrespect" I have towards transexuals has to to with this scenario:  I see an attractive woman in a social situation.  I make the effort to socialize, to get to know her.  We date.  We marry.  Then I find out "she" was previously a "he" (or maybe I don't).  I find that deceptive.  A lie.  No amount of surgery and hormones changes the fact that you are a man, not a woman.  Don't tell me it can't happen:  http://capablewoman.hubpages.com/hub/boytogirl
> 
> And no, I didn't dodge.  In fact, I gave you a very specific answer.


Sigh. A transwoman is a woman. Doesn't matter how much or how little surgeries she's had, she's a woman.

Please learn a thing or two about transsexualism before you try to apply the same logic to otherkin.



Roose Hurro said:


> So, you're saying if I, for example, had testicular cancer, and had to have one or both testicles removed, that I still wouldn't have mutilated genitals?


Nope. It's still a fully functional body part but don't bet on having children.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 11, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> Sigh. A transwoman is a woman. Doesn't matter how much or how little surgeries she's had, *she's a woman*.



Afraid not... women are female, not surgically altered males.  And don't try to tell me a "transwoman" who still has his "junk" is female.




Kellie Gator said:


> *Please learn a thing or two about transsexualism* before you try to apply the same logic to otherkin.



As if I haven't... especially here on FAF.  Doesn't change the fact no amount of surgery can make a male female, any more than my having my face altered so I look like Harrison Ford makes me Harrison Ford.  See?  My logic is sound.




Kellie Gator said:


> Nope. *It's still a fully functional body part but don't bet on having children.*



If I can't have children, then it's not a fully functional body part.  It's also not fully functional because it doesn't have all the requisite parts.  Like trying to drive a car without wheels and tires.  Yeah, my testicles would still be "fully functional" after being disposed of as biohazardous material.   :V


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 11, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> HOW DO I GENDER


Aaaaand we're done here.


----------



## Kayla (Feb 11, 2012)

Why can't we just call it marriage and leave it at that? 

"Mateship" sounds so........I can't even find a word for how stupid it sounds.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 11, 2012)

Kayla said:


> Why can't we just call it marriage and leave it at that?
> 
> "Mateship" sounds so........I can't even find a word for how stupid it sounds.


Furries are too poor or lazy to marry, I suppose.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 11, 2012)

Roose HURRRRRRRRRO said:
			
		

> As I admitted above, my claim was off... blame my age and CFS.  Doesn't  mean I pulled it out of my ass.  Still, what you wrote triggered the  comparison, so just deal with it.  Go with the flow.  Oh, and thanks for  such a nice, reasoned response.



Oh, I guess it's my fault you spouted some nonsense and called it a sound position. I wish I could have stuck to my original promise and stayed away, but you keep quoting what I wrote as some kind of justification for this musing of yours.

Also. I am a creature of habit and arguing on the internet is fun. 



> And still, you didn't answer my original questions.  Yes, we can both  agree on the differences, but you're forgetting something.  Humans are  also animals.  And humans do relate quite strongly to animals... this is  why we keep pets.  This is why we have people who treat and relate to  their pets as if they were their own children.  So, men and women...  being of the same species... yes, the whole sex/gender issue is what you  could call "close to the cuff".  But those with gender identity issues  are still human.  So too those with "species identity" issues.  Both  involve the brain, both involve human psychology.  One is officially  defined.  The other is not.  One is accepted as normal, the other,  derided as "demented".  Is this an unsound position, Zaraphayx?   Scholarly support or not.



Non-human animals and people can only relate on the most basic of emotional levels. No matter how much you falsely attribute human feelings and emotions to your dog, it will never understand or comprehend the reasoning or drive behind anything you do. People own pets for a variety of reasons but none are because "I can totally relate with my dog man". Your dog sits around in your house/yard all day and basically lives to please you; it comes whenever you call it, it fears you when you get angry at it for shitting on the carpet, and even after you smack it across the head it seeks your approval and desires nothing more than to be forgiven. People like pets because they give them a sense of security: "this is a friend for which everything is on my terms, I do not have to worry about the dog's wishes or desires because it's desires are to spend time with me and eat". Also animals are hella cute.

I don't know how to explain to you in simpler terms than I did with my last post that any mind with the capacity to recognize the existence of itself (the mind, not the physical being) could not possibly belong to a creature that houses a mind incapable of such sentient thought. 

Also, there are cases of men/women with certain characteristics and brain structure that have more in common with the opposite sex, there are zero reported cases in which someone looked at someone's brain and said "This man's brain closely resembles that of a cat".

So yes, I find your position unsound. Mostly because you're trying to play off emotional stock and attribute a malicious streak to my statements made earlier (That I find people who profess to be of a different species 'delusional and pathetic'). When in reality I made it fairly clear that I don't really care unless they start trying to pass their delusions off as reality and expect me to respect them.



> After all, this isn't a scholarly discussion on a thinktank forum.  It's  a completely open discussion on a "furry" forum.  I don't need approval  to propose an idea, however far-fetch you may think it is, based on  material provided by others (like you) that may come up.  Had you  provided answers, your view on why it's okay to treat one group as  normal and the other as crazy, this could have been wrapped up, and we'd  be discussing the main thrust of this thread.



You don't, but I sure as hell don't have to take anything you say seriously if it's all based on a crude and childlike form of Mental Association.



> Pardon me for taking your show of denigration and running with it.



Of course, _I'm_ the asshole here. :V


----------



## DKitty (Feb 11, 2012)

I don't believe in either marriage or mateship. I dare even speak them irl. It clouds your judgment on life, it pushes all your priorities to the side, & you sacrifice everything & everyone only to be left alone with nothing. Plus I hate kids. 

Fuck relationships & love, stay single, get sterilized, & always practice safe sex!


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 11, 2012)

DKitty said:


> I don't believe in either marriage or mateship. I dare even speak them irl. It clouds your judgment on life, it pushes all your priorities to the side, & you sacrifice everything & everyone only to be left alone with nothing. Plus I hate kids.
> 
> Fuck relationships & love, stay single, get sterilized, & always practice safe sex!


I'm pretty sure you can be married and still not have kids. Just sayin'.


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 11, 2012)

DKitty said:


> I don't believe in either marriage or mateship. I dare even speak them irl. It clouds your judgment on life, it pushes all your priorities to the side, & you sacrifice everything & everyone only to be left alone with nothing. Plus I hate kids.
> 
> Fuck relationships & love, stay single, get sterilized, & always practice safe sex!


Calling it now
7 years


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 11, 2012)

Crysix Fousen said:


> Calling it now
> 7 years



At least the sentiment is normal. The people who want/have kids before they turn 30 really scare me.


----------



## DKitty (Feb 11, 2012)

Crysix Fousen said:


> Calling it now
> 7 years



Which is why I'm getting both my fallopian tubes & uterine wall removed. 

Axe any future problems for good by preventing it now.


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 11, 2012)

DKitty said:


> Which is why I'm getting both my fallopian tubes & uterine wall removed.
> 
> Axe any future problems for good by preventing it now.


Not talking about kids, I'm taking about falling in love and getting married is the time frame I predicted


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 11, 2012)

so like uh, I understand not liking kids
but that shouldn't prevent you from being in a relationship

and it shouldn't weird you out if _other _people want kids. some people want to have kids, that doesn't make them horrible people just because you don't want them.
I don't know.
I find the whole teenage mindset of GROCE BABIES really irritating.


----------



## DKitty (Feb 11, 2012)

Crysix Fousen said:


> Not talking about kids, I'm taking about falling in love and getting married is the time frame I predicted



Tch, yeah right. Like I would do that shit even 7 years down the road. Love & marriage is a waste of time IMO. I have better things to do with my life, like getting a career & making a living for myself.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 11, 2012)

DKitty said:


> Tch, yeah right. Like I would do that shit even 7 years down the road. Love & marriage is a waste of time IMO. I have better things to do with my life, like getting a career & making a living for myself.



This is so goony and cringe worthy. Damn son.


----------



## DKitty (Feb 11, 2012)

Mentova said:


> This is so goony and cringe worthy. Damn son.



I know; at least it's true. I made that decision several years ago & not changing it for anything.


----------



## Onnes (Feb 11, 2012)

DKitty said:


> I know; at least it's true. I made that decision several years ago & not changing it for anything.



Because we all know how enduring major life decisions are when one is young. The world would be one fucked up place if people held onto all the crap they thought as teenagers.


----------



## DKitty (Feb 11, 2012)

Onnes said:


> Because we all know how enduring major life decisions are when one is young. The world would be one fucked up place if people held onto all the crap they thought as teenagers.



Yeah, like anime, boy bands, materialism, impulse spending, goth emo clothes, & video games. 

I gave all that up, & I'm a lot happier without all that crap.


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 11, 2012)

itt legitimately insane people


----------



## DKitty (Feb 11, 2012)

Gavrill said:


> itt legitimately insane people



That's okay if you think that, it's your right to do so. However it doesn't want to make me change my permanent life choices regardless.


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 11, 2012)

yeah you have fun with that


----------



## DKitty (Feb 11, 2012)

Gavrill said:


> yeah you have fun with that



I am; never been better than I was before.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 11, 2012)

I didn't start wanting kids until shortly after realizing that I can't have any. I'm not sure if those are actually related or if it was just coincidental, but _god damn_ it is just not going away and it's getting worse. 

DKitty, form babby for me

(No I'll probably foster but actually I want a kid that looks and acts a little like me and a little like the person I love and aksjakjf _not going to happen__ goddamn_)


----------



## DKitty (Feb 11, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> I didn't start wanting kids until shortly after realizing that I can't have any. I'm not sure if those are actually related or if it was just coincidental, but _god damn_ it is just not going away and it's getting worse.
> 
> DKitty, form babby for me
> 
> (No I'll probably foster but actually I want a kid that looks and acts a little like me and a little like the person I love and aksjakjf _not going to happen__ goddamn_)



My eggs are grade F, hun. I found out they can still be fertilized but will come out really fucked...through various, painful, traumatic ways...*shudders*

But why can't you have 'em, though? Infertility or reproductive issues...? *Shuts up*


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 11, 2012)

DKitty said:


> My eggs are grade F, hun. I found out they can still be fertilized but will come out really fucked...through various, painful, traumatic ways...*shudders*
> 
> But why can't you have 'em, though? Infertility or reproductive issues...? *Shuts up*


Well, first off, I am this. (Except, like, a hick.) But, yeah, some personal reproductive problems that would make the whole thing infeasible even if we did find a workaround. Eugenicists rejoice; the world is spared from my genetic legacy. (My brother, on the other hand . . .)

And, awh. I guess I'd say that sucks about the eggs but I suppose it's not really much skin off yer teeth.


----------



## DKitty (Feb 11, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Well, first off, I am this. (Except, like, a hick.) But, yeah, some personal reproductive problems that would make the whole thing infeasible even if we did find a workaround. Eugenicists rejoice; the world is spared from my genetic legacy. (My brother, on the other hand . . .)
> 
> And, awh. I guess I'd say that sucks about the eggs but I suppose it's not really much skin off yer teeth.



Oh yeah, I forgot you're a guy...damn memory...that's why I stopped myself cause I didn't wanna say anything in confusion to offend...


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Feb 11, 2012)

DKitty said:


> I don't believe in either marriage or mateship. I dare even speak them irl. It clouds your judgment on life, it pushes all your priorities to the side, & you sacrifice everything & everyone only to be left alone with nothing. Plus I hate kids.
> 
> Fuck relationships & love, stay single, get sterilized, & always practice safe sex!



DKitty, you are my hero!

This would ordinarily be when I would tell you to have my babies... but of course, babies suck!


----------



## DKitty (Feb 12, 2012)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> DKitty, you are my hero!
> 
> This would ordinarily be when I would tell you to have my babies... but of course, babies suck!



*Bows* Thank you, thank you.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 12, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> Aaaaand we're done here.



HOW DO YOU REALITY?




Zaraphayx said:


> *Oh, I guess it's my fault you spouted some nonsense and called it a sound position.* I wish I could have stuck to my original promise and stayed away, but you keep quoting what I wrote as some kind of justification for this musing of yours.



Because it is a sound position, from my point of view.  I'll deal with the reasoning further down...




Zaraphayx said:


> Also. I am a creature of habit *and arguing on the internet is fun*.



It is, isn't it?  Kinda like playing with PlayDoh, only without the mess... though it can turn hard and crumbly, if you play with it too long.  Or leave it sit outside the can overnight.




Zaraphayx said:


> Non-human animals and people can only relate on the most basic of emotional levels. No matter how much you falsely attribute human feelings and emotions to your dog, it will never understand or comprehend the reasoning or drive behind anything you do. People own pets for a variety of reasons but none are because "I can totally relate with my dog man". Your dog sits around in your house/yard all day and basically lives to please you; it comes whenever you call it, it fears you when you get angry at it for shitting on the carpet, and even after you smack it across the head it seeks your approval and desires nothing more than to be forgiven. People like pets because they give them a sense of security: "this is a friend for which everything is on my terms, I do not have to worry about the dog's wishes or desires because it's desires are to spend time with me and eat". Also animals are hella cute.
> 
> I don't know how to explain to you in simpler terms than I did with my last post that any mind with the capacity to recognize the existence of itself (the mind, not the physical being) could not possibly belong to a creature that houses a mind incapable of such sentient thought.
> 
> ...



Here you go, my reasoning as promised:

Have you read what you wrote and I bolded?  If you didn't care, why do you bother refering to them specifically as "delusional and pathetic"...?  Malicious or not, people who really don't care don't assign labels to the things they don't care about.  Then you say this specific line:  "... unless they start trying to pass their delusions off as reality... "  Now, tell me, if someone is trying to pass off the delusion that they are female when they are male (or male when they're female), are they any less delusional than someone who is trying to pass themselves off as not human?  Brain structure has nothing to do with it.  Males make sperm and females make eggs.  If your gonads produce sperm, you're a man.  If your gonads produce eggs, you're a woman.  THAT is how male and female is ultimately defined, no matter whether you are fertile or infertile, no matter whether your genitals are "correct" or deformed at birth.  If you are a man who sees himself as a woman, who wants to have his ("correct") body surgically altered or who otherwise wants to "become a woman" in some fashion... well, that man is delusional.  Just as delusional as someone who believes he's a tiger in a man's body.  Both have causative factors, one simply shows up in the structure of the brain, the other doesn't.  That difference doesn't change the fact both display what is clinically described as delusional behavior.  We are just expected to support the one delusion and reject the other.




Zaraphayx said:


> You don't, but I sure as hell don't have to take anything you say seriously *if it's all based on a crude and childlike form of Mental Association*.



All?  Crude?  Childlike?  Mental Association?  First, I don't belong to any "Mental Association".  Second, I'm 49 years old, not anywhere near my childhood.  Third, I'm a technically trained and experienced industrial worker who has produced everything from Tomahawk cruise missile parts to MRIs, invented a specialized tool, served on company safety committees, and been a member of kickbutt warehousing teams.  Not to mention assembled computers for a major manufacturer (who unfortunately is no longer in business).  I built my first car from two junkers, designed and produced my own circuit boards, assembled car audio components... well, I could go on.  Crude?  No.  I just like to point out things people might find uncomfortable.  I certainly do get quite a few very... vivid reactions.  Fourth, are you sure about that "all"...?  Maybe you should go back and reread some stuff, just to make sure.




Zaraphayx said:


> Of course, _I'm_ the asshole here. :V



Hey, we all have one.   :V




Gavrill said:


> so like uh, I understand not liking kids
> but that shouldn't prevent you from being in a relationship
> 
> and *it shouldn't weird you out if other people want kids*. some people want to have kids, that doesn't make them horrible people just because you don't want them.
> ...



Yeah, if nobody wanted kids, like you, the human race would die out in short order.




DKitty said:


> Tch, yeah right. Like I would do that shit even 7 years down the road. Love & marriage is a waste of time IMO. I have better things to do with my life, like getting a career & making a living for myself.



Heh, my sister was of the same mind, but she ended up marrying a guy after knowing him for only two weeks, had three daughter with him (first one died shortly after birth), then found out he was a jerk, divorced, and ended up raising her kids alone.




Onnes said:


> Because we all know how enduring major life decisions are when one is young. *The world would be one fucked up place if people held onto all the crap they thought as teenagers.*



Ohhh, my yes!  The very thought sends chills...




RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> This would ordinarily be when I would tell you to have my babies... but of course, *babies suck*!



Of course they do... if they didn't, they'd never get anything to eat.


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Feb 12, 2012)

I've used the term mate before, in reference to a partner, but I've obviously never been married. For me it's a way of showing they aren't just "the boyfriend", but that I really care for them.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 12, 2012)

Hmmm... I seem to remember hearing someone refer to their Significant Other as their Lifemate.


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Feb 12, 2012)

Not me..but I do refer to very important partners (IE, long term relationship, genuine love, etc) as my mate. 

Maybe I'll fling around lifemate when I get married. Haha.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 12, 2012)

It may have been somewhere on TV, or in a book.  And yes, save the term "Lifemate" for when your mate really is yours for life.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 13, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> HOW DO YOU REALITY?


lol, roose preaching to me about reality. That's a good one.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 13, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> lol, roose preaching to me about reality. That's a good one.



From someone who thinks something is "fully functional" when it's missing parts (the lack of which render that "mechanism" non-functional).


----------

