Not everybody is a therian. When I came out to a friend as being therian, they immediately reacted by saying "so what kind of animal am I?". They obviously hadn't done any kind of introspection beforehand and reacted as if this one fact had just changed their outlook on themselves and their world. It felt as though there even was excitement at play when they heard of this, other kind of excitement than what you would usually expect.

Of course, this is a one time event only. However, I'm not quite convinced that there are many therians globally. I am sure there are therians who don't know they're therians but to say that almost everybody is one, is beyond logical reasoning. We're a niche community, with a very varied share of opinions among its members.

I liked the first part of your theory, though. But I think it's a bit of a faulty comparison. How can I explain?

There are so many wolves because they're social animals so the majority of human beings identifying as therians have to be wolves, dogs or cat-like themselves. But what about reptiles or poultry, like somebody suggested a while back? One hundred percent of therians are human beings, human beings that live in social structures, the way we're all familiar with them. It's not because these human beings are social animals, their theriotypes have to be social themselves. I think theriotypes can go in all directions really, be it something extinct or non existent on this earth (theriomythics, the otherkin). Of course it's easier for a human being to relate to a wolf because of its hang for living in groups, if that human being is a social creechur themselves naturally. But I'm sure that there is an equal chance somebody is not a wolf or cat but is theriomythic, dragon-like or vampire instead. Perhaps we haven't heard of the real numbers of wolves that are out there. Maybe they are wrong about their theriotypes, aren't wolves or aren't therian altogether. What I would like to see is how many of us actually still believe they're a wolf therian, who isn't and then reduce the overall amount of therians by that amount who doesn't believe they're it anymore. I think the group believing in something else (non-canine or non-feline) will soon become much larger.

I think all these theories are lovely and have equal sustenance in terms of what could be most possible!

For me, I definitely grew up among felines (spotted ones, even), so I agree with the theory that a couple others have mentioned — as humans, we tend to bond most closely to those creatures which we grew up with, and so this may perhaps be a result of sub-conscious imprinting, or the urge to seek out something that you are familiar with. I’ve grown up with Bengal cats my whole life so far, so I definitely bond well with them and see myself in them, to some uncertain extent. But I actually didn’t immediately question any spotted felines as my initial ’type — I believe I had considered a tiger or lion.

I also agree with @/elinox, though, that this theory might not hold up with most feline therians. Pretty much all feline species with the exception of lions, domestic cats, and (to some extent) male cheetahs are solitary, and will act aggressively toward any feline that intrudes on its territory or personal space. For me personally, I know that my sociability stems from the fact that I am simply human at the end of the day, and humans are social creatures. We desire group compatability, even if we might prefer to spend our time alone sometimes. We desire to be heard and seen, validated. So I don’t think we can erase that part of us, and that definitely has to be recognised.

XX,
KK.

This topic is really interesting to me, since I do love to pick apart brain chemistry and figure out why humans and critters do the things they do, and I do have a few theories for this...

Like SillyKai said, a lot of folks may feel connected with their pets in some way. With dogs and cats being the most popular pets out there, I’m sure a lot of folks have had decent exposure to these creatures. Folks may see their pets as family, as a solace, as a safe place, and this mindset could strengthen if they’ve struggled with forming close bonds with humans...something that many neurodivergent folks struggle with, and I have noticed a great deal of therians being ND. Pets tend to love their owners unconditionally, unlike humans, and that’s where a sense of belonging could come in. Also the fact that pets don’t need to bond through speech could be a big contributor, since one of the biggest things that NDs struggle with is communication. When it comes to animals, as long as another animal isn’t a predator, prey, or trying to harm them for whatever other reason, then they’re fine with just...existing near each other. They don’t even have to speak

My other theory is how much we tend to observe in dogs and cats compared to other animals. When we’re exposed to a certain animal for a long enough period of time, we’ll notice little things in their behavior and think “huh, that’s a lot like me actually...”, and with dogs and cats being so common, of course folks will be observing them the most. Since we’re so used to any other kind of animal being territorial, asocial, and...a bit dim to be frank (since we don’t learn about them as often), it’s hard for people to relate to them. But both dogs and cats have the potential to show a more cuddly, social, and intelligent side to them when we bond with them and train them, making them more relatable. However, there could be folks who do feel a bit territorial and asocial (like yours truly), and they tend to gravitate towards more wild animals. They’re not quite as common, however, which is why dogs and cats are the more common theriotypes.

But, eh, those could be incorrect. That’s just what I’ve observed from watching the therian community and my theories are greatly based off of my own experiences. It could honestly be because of a whole slew of reasons, but who knows?

I think that there are more canine and feline therians because they have many varied characteristics, and it's easier to group your experiences into these very broad categories. Since they are both mammals, as are humans, it allows for a more direct connection on many different levels whether large or small. Also, young therians may be assuming that they are either a canine/feline because they are the most common, causing a greater influx in these therianthropes. (Although this is not the case for me because I have felt like a cat my entire life, even before discovering the term therianthropy) Many felines and canines have evolved alongside humans for thousands of years, and our societies/way of life has somewhat melded together.

(2022-05-07 6:45)DustWolf Wrote:  Thinking about it now, I also find myself wondering, since I believe animals can make choices in their lives: Perhaps it's possible for animals to do "good deeds for the community" (dharma). I mean outside of pets attending religious duties with their owners. Could a dog in what she does for her family be considered to engage in dharma?

Old post, but an interesting topic. There's a reason "all dogs go to heaven" is a common saying..

To the best of my knowledge, yes animals are thought to engage in dharma as they are viewed as sentient and capable of willful/mindful acts.

A few examples that I think support this:
There's stories in Japanese Buddhist mythology of animals engaging in dharma and becoming monks, and the endpoint of foxes in Japanese and Chinese mythology is to ascend to heaven through spiritual cultivation, which I believe represents liberation from Samsara (the cycle of rebirth). Apparently Thai Buddhism has stories of cats reaching states of enlightenment, as well. Religious Buddhist depictions also frequently feature animal symbols and deities with animal features that are representative of traits beneficial to the Noble Eight-Fold Path (way of living that leads to liberation from Samsara).

In Chinese Buddhism, Animals were said to aid the Bodhisattva Guanyin with her chores due to her innate goodness, suggesting those animals were capable of recognizing the Buddhist concept of "good" and chose to engage with its furtherance. This could be viewed as an analogue to what Gautama(Buddha) taught during his life, and an example of the innateness of "Buddha Nature" in animals.

Animals are also depicted as being able to engage in acts that bestow negative karma or go against dharma:
I would argue that the stories from Japan depicting pets who transform into "evil" monsters after abuse by humans was due to the introduction of hatred and attachment into creatures that formerly had none, causing them to fall away from the path to Nirvana as they seek retribution in a form those humans feared.

Some stories depict Nekomata (a type of cat yokai) as being able to raise the dead, which I believe could be viewed as representing a violation of the normal cycle of death and rebirth similar to how reanimation is viewed elsewhere. This might suggest the ability to engage with dharma negatively, and showing they are also capable of acts that are not in accordance with dharma. This suggests to me that animals are capable of making the choices required to reach Nirvana, even if they do not understand the path itself. Thus, they are pure beings that follow dharma instinctively, unless interfered with.

(2022-05-07 6:45)DustWolf Wrote:  

(2022-05-07 3:15)Liatha Wrote:  Reincarnation and past lives do not fit that. Reincarnation works (according to Eastern traditions) in a certain way. It is not very likely that the animal will incarnate in humans immediately afterwards. I'm sorry I might cause doubts to someone. But just find out more about past lives.

So we talked about this on Discord some time ago, but to explain what @Liatha is saying here. Eastern traditions say that what you reincarnate as, depends on your "good deeds for the community" (simplified) in your previous life. Since animals live by instinct and cannot choose to do good deeds for the community, it doesn't seem possible for an animal (below on the scale) to reincarnate as a human (above on the scale).

Other people in our conversation, like @Li-lan have argued that what "reincarnation" is (aka "being born again in another body" rather than "reincarnation" the religious concept), is not owned by any religious group and therefore what the Eastern traditions say about it does not matter.

Thinking about it now, I also find myself wondering, since I believe animals can make choices in their lives: Perhaps it's possible for animals to do "good deeds for the community" (dharma). I mean outside of pets attending religious duties with their owners. Could a dog in what she does for her family be considered to engage in dharma?

LP,
Dusty

So yes, Considering the fact that reincarnation requires good deeds for the community, we could not have been reincarnated from animals to humans unless we somehow do good deeds as an animal with carnal instincts.
But, I've been doing some research after being intrigued by this subject.
When you research certain types of reincarnation, they tell you different things, and the one with your definition is normally considered to be for humans.
If you begin to dig into reincarnation with animals, you find a bunch of stuff related again, to karma, with no research. This is a bit hard to prove with citation, but after looking for a while, I've found that there are a lot of different theories, and this is the most backed up one.
As a soul, you are a contentiousness, without a mind or body. You are a spirit. Or, an "atma". With this in mind, you would have the want to become or think something like something else.
With the thought of reincarnation in mind, if you were to want to live the life of an animal, you would become the animal.
Your soul would become a resident inside the body and mind.
Once you die, you would go back, your continuousness freed from the bounds of a certain mind's structures.
As a soul again, you would look back at yourself, and be ready to become another body. You would be judged yes, but not by the same boundaries.
In Saṃsāra, or the resurrection cycle, you are judged by karma.
A person with better deeds done has the chance of being reincarnated as a higher being, with a human being the highest being considered.
But if you were to judge a human considered to a cat, you would find that the human would be in a more varied judging scale.
The human has a mind with practically no boundaries. A cat relies on instincts, as you said.
If you were to judge both on the same scale, it would always be nearly impossible for the cat to get high karma. The human could choose.
According to the research I've done, there is a Karma scale, due to the restrictions given to animals, including not having the gift of full free will, and not fully knowing the consequences.
So an animal is judged by it's capacities.

There is another theory though. One theory is that the life of an animal is paying for your past karma. It simply means that if you had a bad past life, you pay for it in an animal life. After that, your karma is reset and you live another life as a human. This one is a lot less researched, and seems a bit harder to prove, but it is a theory.

Just a quick thing I wanted to say, sorry if I offended anyone by posting this. I just wanted to do some research on a couple common theories.

Been looking for some ideas to put in my journal on this forum. I like your ideas, and may use them!

Edit: Realised this post was made in 2023... whoops!

I thought about some research prompts that can be cool to think about:

•if your theriotype(s) is/are existent and is/are not common pet(s), where could you find it in real life? (sometimes you can find out there are specimen of your theriotype in some park or ecological reserve relatively closer to you than you thought.) And following this topic...
•What would be/was your reaction if/when you meet your theriotype in real life?

I know that's an old post, but I really like the list and I would like to contribute with it

For a short time, I considered myself a misanthropist. I truly felt a negative energy for humans — some dark conglomeration of hurt, anger, resentment and jealousy. I believe growing up neurodivergent definitely played a part in shaping this belief. After being hurt by humans for so long and for such baseless reasons, you begin to feel a distinct hatred for them.

But I realised that I probably felt like this simply because I didn't understand humans. With all their strange normative behaviours and how cruel they could be, I looked at them, and I looked at myself, and I missed the similarities. But I still had family, and friends, and people — humans — that cared. We're not all bad.

A few years later, having learnt how to interact more efficiently with them, I finally began to relate to my species more. Nowadays, I crave social interactions, I crave the following of social rules, and I find myself doing very distinctly human things in order to survive. I still feel a disconnect from them, for sure — I may blend in better, but I still do not identify with them. But as I've come to appreciate the good things we do for each other, the extra lengths some humans go to to extend kindness, warmth and empathy toward one another, that old feeling of hatred begins to melt. I'm very thankful for this.

In summary, I don't think you have to necessarily understand humans to love them. But you have to feel misunderstood by humans to hate them. I think by determining for ourselves where that line between hatred and a simple feeling of 'otherness' is drawn, we can pick apart which feelings may be misanthropic, and which might simply just be an effect of being misunderstood / outcasted. I've never believed in generalising large groups of anything — just like all leopards have different spots, all humans have different personalities and intentions. Some may seriously suck and do some crappy things, but that's not all of them. I have to recognise the good in the people that truly exemplify it.

This is my two cents, I'm curious to hear what others have to say. And thank you for making this thread, I think it's a very important question and I appreciate how much depth it has.

XX,
KK.

At one point, I considered myself a misanthrope, but not anymore. When I was younger and still learning about everything going on in the world, I definitely adopted a singular sort of hatred towards humans. As I've gotten older I've learned it's more complicated than good and evil, and have come to appreciate the humans in my life and the diversity of humans across the world.

That being said, I see it as a separate thing from my therianthropy. My misanthropy developed as a response to hearing about what was going on in the world and not having the maturity to really digest the information. It was also made worse by the fact that I was going through a difficult time at home and at school, so I didn't have someone to point and go "hey, not all humans are bad!" I see my therianthropy as being something I was born with that was exacerbated by trauma. Maybe being nonhuman made it easier for me to be a misanthrope, but I believe I still would have been one regardless.

That isn't to say that I believe misanthropy is an inherently childish view, just that for me, it was an opinion I formed without a greater understanding. I understand the reasons others here have for disliking humans, and I myself still disagree with a lot of common moral or societal standards that they hold.