Talk:Human animal roleplay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Original talk pages
2 Merge
3 Petplay
4 my edit
5 Merge from Dog play
6 external links
7 Paraphilia
8 Is this the sort of thing banned at swimming pools?

[edit] Original talk pages

[edit] Edit under 'Erotic use'

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] From Talk:Human animal roleplay (BDSM)

Here's the picture I replaced.

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

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

There are two articles on very similar topics.

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

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

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

[edit] From Petplay

There are two articles on very similar topics.

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

(Differing view: against merging the two articles.)

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

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

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

[edit] Merge

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

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

[edit] Petplay

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

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

[edit] my edit

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

[edit] Merge from Dog play

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

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

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

[edit] external links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Paraphilia

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

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

[edit] Is this the sort of thing banned at swimming pools?

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