Hexi's Awesome Blog

I want to be Sual Goodman when I grow up.

 

the wire is streets ahead

when the credits come up, you hear something plop into water

 

*no spoilers here*

Lamer, is that a Community reference? My love for you multiplies ove:

 

duh doy

 

Hexi, how was your interview at Harvard?

 

obama went to harvard right? Hexi might become our 50th president in the future =p.

 

I believe that I stated somewhere on these forums that it actually went quite well.

I don't like politics.

 

Atleast alucard is updating his blog regularly.

 

I didn't post here, because I didn't think anyone would actually want to read it. But it's like 6:00 a.m. in the morning, and I'm looking for ways to creatively procrastinate doing my Greek, so I guess I'll write an update.

Now, I shall give my opinion on answering the question of whether watching cartoons of over-sexualized animals relates to the rise of people with deviant bestiality tendencies, as I have promised I would do:

So, without further ado, let us begin!*

The first misconception we have to clear up is this idea that sexualized animals are a "modern" thing, when this is patently not the case. In fact, it could be argued that the only reason why sexualizing animals is considered sexual deviant behavior is because of the monopoly Christians had on morality throughout the Middle Ages, in which they invoked Leviticus 20:15 and 20:16. Before that, human sexualization of animals was arguably a more normal occurrence, especially when we are to consider its prevalence in ancient myth, such as that of Leda and the Swan and Pasiphae and the Bull; a similar trend can be seen in societal and cultural conceptions of homosexuality and "pedophilia" (although not "true" pedophilia in the sense that the younger sexual partner is at least sexually mature).

Having cleared that up, let us examine some possible ways in which watching these cartoons could possibly dispose someone to view animals in a sexualized manner. To do this, we must understand first the sub-conscious means whereby sex is understood. For the sake of convenience, I shall attempt to adopt an evolutionary viewpoint (mainly to point out the weaknesses of this viewpoint vis-a-vis human sexuality), wherein sex and sexuality is seen first as a means to procreation, and that all desirability in a sexual partner thus stems from that. Unfortunately, this viewpoint is arguably outdated, in the sense that one could argue that humans have obtained a sense of "self-consciousness", whereby they strive for more than mere sexual fulfillment and propagation of the species. The very fact that we are given the ability to ask what ends we exist for demonstrates that we have moved past the animal drive to simply survive, and have resigned ourselves to searching for meaning in a world that seemingly defies comprehension. Hence, it would not be too much of a stretch to assert that human sexuality and an understanding of human sexuality cannot be understood within the one-dimensional view that it exists merely as a remnant of a procreative urge, for doing so would necessitate an oversimplification of standardizing human behavior, in relation to ritual stemming from so-called "abstract" or "higher thought" that is theoretically unique to humanity.

That having been said, it is still difficult to comment on what makes someone experience thoughts of zoophilia, and it would be even more difficult to attempt to relate any of these theories to the supposed "rise of sexualized creatures in childrens' cartoons". That having been said, I shall endeavor to come up with something that is not completely nonsensical. Child sexuality is a real and present thing; it is a common misconception that children have no conception of gender roles until puberty. (Which should be obvious, after all; children have to understand the difference between "Female" and "Male). The issue here is that children, to develop in a sexually normative manner, must necessarily not associate sexual feelings with any negative manner; i.e., they ought not be punished for sexual exploration. In the case that they are punished for this, a child begins to view sex as something that is more taboo than it ought to be, and begins to find outlets whereby he can surreptitiously learn about sex, and how it pertains to him or her. These animal cartoons in question can certainly provide an outlet for sexual exploration, but again, only this would occur if the child was not properly given affection, and if his or her sexual exploration were met with punishment in some manner. As Richard Laws writes in Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment, "intercourse with animals permits a release of repressed anger, and that dominance over animals affords affords a sense of control that is otherwise lacking. Other explanations for zoophilic behavior focuse on the role of incestuous desires, the relationship with a borderlines personality disorder... [it goes on and on, and I'm snipping the rest out]". Furthermore, the scholar Rappaport suggests that "animals incite envy in children due to their unrestrained exhibition of animal instincts... children are interested and aroused by the behavior... of animals... cases of zoophilia are the result of object substitution... sexual contact with animals might represent a repetition compulsion, with the animal abuse serving as a reenactment of earlier traumatic experience and as a displacement of rage felt toward the parents onto the animal."

So, what might this mean? I interpret it as an argument that zoophilia manifests itself largely because it is taboo: the self-fufilling prophecy, as it were, coupled with the inability to explore one's own sexuality in a normal and healthy way, whether be it through cultural, social, moral, ktl. repression. Of particular note is the idea that there might be a "critical period" for a person's sexual development, which, coupled with a child's underlying fascination with animal behavior, in the sense that they are "free" and "un-repressed" might activate, or even cause, latent feelings of zoophilia in children, that would last for the rest of their lives.

However, the question here is whether sexualized anthropomorphic creatures would inspire sexual feelings in children later in their life towards sexualized anthropomorphic creatures, and not actual animals. This obviously becomes a much trickier question to answer, simply because it's more of a question of aesthetics rather than a question of child development and reaching an understanding of his life as a sexual being. Namely, although these characters have both features of an animal and a human, they dress and act as humans.

Think about it this way. There are already socially normative ways whereby we incorporate animal tendencies into sex. For instance, think of the Playboy(r) bunny, or the association that cats have with sexual pleasure. These cartoons simply represent the next step in that; for all intents and purposes, we generally think of the characters projected as human. They speak like humans, walk like humans, and think like humans. They're practically human, except for the fact that they have some slightly animal features. But it is this humanization of animals, more than the sexualization of animals, that relates to the rise of "furries" in my opinion. To these ends, I shall give a quick example on cross-cultural identification of beauty:

It is a well known fact that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and that "the eye of the beholder is enslaved to the murmuring muses". For instance, a hundred years back, pale women were considered "ideal" because their pale skin was associated with being of a higher social class, whereas nowadays, tan women are considered "ideal", because the fact that they had the time or money to obtain a tan associates them with a higher social class. But regarding the cross-cultural example I said I would give: White men generally find blond women to be more attractive, and Asian men find black-haired women to be more attractive. Part of that is that there are simply very few naturally blond Asians. An Asian child would grow up in his community, surrounded by black-haired women, and would thence filter black-hair as a sexually desirable trait, whereas a white child (would would conceivably have access to media), would watch as blond women are generally more sexualized, and base his (or her) conception of sexuality off of blond hair. Now, when you have children watching cartoons of women with animal traits, it would not be that far of a stretch to consider that these might inspire latent feelings in those children, but then again, this would only make sense if the child spent most of his time watching those particular cartoons, and/or had an inability to form meaningful relationships with peers of his age to engage in the natural sexual "play" that takes place in early to middle childhood.

So, the gist of this is that the prevalence of sexualized anthropomorphic animals is likely somewhat responsible for the rise of "furries", but not necessarily from a zoophilia perspective. Rather, these anthropomorphic creatures would be thought of as "mainly human" and their animal appendages and features would be thought of as "sexually positive traits". However, this would probably only occur if the child felt socially isolated, and therefore his identification with these creatures would be symptoms, rather than a cause, of latent abnormal social behavior.

Happy?

*Hexi is not a psychologist, has no training in psychology, and literally just read some random books in about an hour to write this post. He has no formal training in anything, and most of his understanding of child psycho-sexual development comes from Freud, Jung, and Adler. Believe what you will, and do not outright dismiss Hexi's claims, but please do not incontrovertibly take them at face value either.

 

5:56 Paradox: ARE
15:56 .:.HeXi.:. emcalex329: and read another terms and conditions
15:56 Paradox: YOU
15:56 .:.HeXi.:. emcalex329: fuck that
15:56 Paradox: READING
15:56 Paradox: TERMS
15:56 .:.HeXi.:. emcalex329: I"m just gonna hit acept
15:56 Paradox: ???
15:56 Paradox: ARE
15:56 Paradox: YOU SERIOUSLY
15:56 .:.HeXi.:. emcalex329: YES
15:56 .:.HeXi.:. emcalex329: I AM
15:56 Paradox: READING
15:56 Paradox: TERMS
15:56 Paradox: JEZUS
15:56 Paradox: ...
15:56 Paradox: fucking
15:56 .:.HeXi.:. emcalex329: I ALWAYS DO
15:56 .:.HeXi.:. emcalex329: IT ESPECIALLY SUCKS
15:57 Paradox: Are you retarded?
15:57 .:.HeXi.:. emcalex329: WHEN APPLE RELEASES AN UPDATE
15:57 .:.HeXi.:. emcalex329: I HAVE TO
15:57 .:.HeXi.:. emcalex329: REREAD
15:57 .:.HeXi.:. emcalex329: 66 PAGES
15:57 .:.HeXi.:. emcalex329: OF TERMS
15:57 .:.HeXi.:. emcalex329: FUCK

 

The thing is, no matter what it says in that 66 pages, he's still going to press "I accept".

 

Just make sure not to use the software for thermonuclear weaponry.

Also, if you're using iTunes, you do not deserve to listen to music.

 

Why is no one reading my carefully thought out blog update?? You guys are the worst audience ever.

 

Can we get summeries please?
I don't mind reading but my brain stops paying attention after 15 minutes.

And reguards to terms and conditions.

You always need to read those
Always
Its fucking retarded, but if you do want to turn into a fucking human centipeede by apple. Then by all means dont read them.
(Yes I understand its a joke)

Its common practice nowadays that people create pages of pages of legal bullshit to encourage people to accept without reading.
This happens with everything, and terms and conditions is just another flavor of the same thing.
So please, always read before you sign or accept.

This goes to everybody, so don't give hexi shit for him watching his ass.

Also black women are hot.

 

Oh, look, a summary!

 

I couldn't find it in the wall of text, I apologize.

 

Honestly, I think being a furry has a lot more to do with the company of other rather than the fucking animals and masturbating to yiff. Same thing goes with bronies. Everyone wants to be a part of something, whether it being a group of gamers or a group of self-proclaimed furries / bronies. It's the feeling of being a part of something that I find comforting. I like hanging around in the EPIC TS because I know the frequenters and we (normally) have a fun time chatting and playing games.

In defence of said groups, they tend to be more friendly and welcoming compared to the average internet personality. How does it feel to hate on a group of people for being nice? Is it because you too want to be happy? Don't pull the same old "I hate them because they are creepy and watch shit made for children". There's more to it than that. I myself considered furries creepy because they were over-friendly at times. Almost like they wanted to get in my pants at all costs. I didn't ask for that.

 

Give us some Greek lessons for beginners, i always wanted to learn ancient greek.

No. I have yet to see a black woman that fulfills the criteria of hotness or beauty. It just doesn't happen with those lips and that hair...
The same goes for asian women. It's like god is telling us that we shouldn't procreate with blacks and asians.

 

hexi's blog is becoming more popular than my blog D: