Why Robin Hood Gets Us Wetter Than “Zootopia”

If you ask me, a not-so-insignificant number of my friends, someone at your local bodega, in your hot yoga class, or your state senator, we will all tell you that one of our earliest sexual awakenings was the animated “Robin Hood.” Who was, of course, a fox. A sexy, sexy fox who steals from the rich and gives to the poor.

What?

Why. When I see a fox in real life my panties are not dripping. When I see pictures of foxes I don’t rush for a dildo. But animated fox Robin Hood can get it. Is it a testament to the voice acting of Brian Bedford? The writing? The animation? The story’s socialist agenda?

What about Thomas O’Malley, the alley cat from “The Aristocats?” That movie is older than “Robin Hood” by three years (1970), so it’s definitely not due to any newly-developed animation technology. Was it his sly wit? His way of slinking over the ground? His sassy, “I’ve seen some things” attitude, in comparison to the rich female cat? His jazzy numbers?

“Lady and the Tramp!” The 1955 classic brought us Tramp, yet another animal who lives in alleys and woos a rich female animal. That scene with the meatball. Get inside me Tramp. You can bring the meatball.

Then there is “Zootopia.” Jason Bateman’s Nick Wilde is another poor fox who does crime but you know, has feelings and stuff. This movie came out in 2016 and it just wasn’t the same. Sure, it stirred up similar feelings in the general crotchal region. He’s sly, he’s smooth, he cons people but totally cares deep down. He has all the same trappings as these other sexy beasts (literally, because they’re animals). But it just isn’t the same.

Is it because we saw the others in our childhoods? Because they imprinted us, like so many other kinks and fetishes do, early in life and so bring up stronger feelings?

Or maybe it’s simply that we like sex partners that are like the first three animals: grainy, low quality, and too old to actually do anything with.

recommendations