Lion and Lioness During Hunt, Chinese Netizen Reactions

A lion and lioness in the middle of a catching and killing prey.

From Sina Weibo:

@妖妖小精: What you see below is a husband and wife lion hunting together.


Comments from Sina Weibo:


Shang, shang, shang, shang shang… I didn’t say shang me… !!!

[Note: This comment involves a pun on the word 上 shang. The lioness is first telling the lion repeatedly to “join” the hunt and help her. He instead “mounts/fucks” her, which is another meaning of the word. (h/t: Nat)]


A 99999 point critical hit on the bachelor cow/ox. Hunting success.


Working women are the sexiest.


“Oh hey, my wife is hunting.” “Looks like she’s working quite hard too.” “My wife is the sexiest when she’s working hard.” “Okay, I have to bust a nut now.”




Just how sad the bull must feel.


The bachelor cow/ox must be hysterical, to have to see such a demoralizing live broadcast right before death. ⊙﹏⊙


“You little minx, I don’t want to eat him, I want to eat you!”


The big black ox is dumbfounded: TMD, are you guys going to hunt me or not?!


Honey, you’re just too sexy when you’re making food, I simply couldn’t control myself.


Male Lion: “Thank you, my ox brother! Without your help, I wouldn’t have been able to take this little bitch!”


Hahaha, the love of the young comes when it comes.


What the lioness caused was physical harm, but what the lion caused was emotional/psychological harm.


The urge came and couldn’t be held back.


It’s just that your pose was so sexy, so I got hard… The male lion’s inner dialogue.


Early in the morning, the male lion turned to the female lioness and pouted, “I’m hungry and want to eat something…” The lioness laughed, got up, and went to the kitchen, put on an apron, and the kitchen was filled with the sounds of preparing breakfast. However, throughout this, the lion gazed upon the uncovered parts of the lioness’s statuesque body, the hair that fell upon her neck, her faintly discernible breasts, her round and perky buttocks, the repeated movement of her flesh. The lion suddenly wrapped his arms around the lioness from behind, “What I want to eat is you…”


Hubby, now! Now… dammit, I didn’t say to get on me. [Involves the same pun as the first translated comment.]


…The wild ox says: Can you two please take this more seriously?

Help us maintain a vibrant and dynamic discussion section that is accessible and enjoyable to the majority of our readers. Please review our Comment Policy »
  • James


  • mr.wiener

    Another hunger came to the fore.

  • tomoe723


    JAV reference? Haha!

    • Kai

      Doesn’t even have to be JAV…

      • Mighty曹

        Hahaha… Kai, care to tell us more?

        • Kai

          Yeah, who the heck downloads videos anymore?!

          (just teasing, I know the streaming environment is generally censored or blocked in China, and also that streaming is also still technically downloading…but you know what I mean.)

          • Mighty曹

            I know exactly what you mean. ;-) ;-)

  • ScottLoar

    The quote from PaNG_PaNG_2046 is, “Get on, get on, get on, get on… (no) I didn’t say get on me!” The quote is not hard to translate and the pun easily preserved.

    • Kai

      While 上 could mean “get on”, that’s not how it is used here and they have different connotations. Don’t be mislead by the lioness actually being “on” the prey in some of the photos. 上 here is closest to what we wrote in the note. For example, 上 would be an exhortation between friends finding themselves in a group brawl whereas you’d never have someone in a similar situation saying “get on!” in English to exhort someone to join a fight.

      • ScottLoar

        Arguing with you is useless. I’ll let others competent in colloquial English and Chinese judge for themselves.

        • Kai

          Why are you so randomly prickly at times? Do you have a grudge with me that I don’t know about?

          I’m pretty competent in both colloqual English and Chinese but sure, others can judge for themselves.

          Edit: Here, let me further elaborate:

          Let’s use a simple dictionary, like this one:

          This one offers a list of defintions for 上 as a verb:

          1. go up; mount; board; get on
          2. be put on record; be carried (in a publication)
          3. place sth. in position; set; fix
          4. appear on the stage; enter
          5. forge ahead; go ahead
          6. go to; leave for
          7. apply; paint; smear
          8. fill; supply; serve
          9. enter the court or field
          10. submit; send in; present

          You’re arguing that definition #1 would suffice. We’re pointing out that the definition being used in Chinese is #9 (for the first instance), which makes a translation using definition #1 inaccurate and lacking.

          I offered the “ribald” approximation that carries the joke. What you offered is an approximation that carries the joke as well. The problem is, both fail to adequately reflect the pun with 上 in the original Chinese.

          That’s why we added the note, for those anyone who would be interested in the little linguistic nuance of this Chinese netizen joke/comment. “Get on” does not reflect the lioness’s first usage.

          • ScottLoar

            Get it on, get it on, get it on, get it on… I didn’t say get it on with me!

            You get it? I sure don’t need you to improve or elaborate on dictionaries since Mathews.

            Sure, let others judge for themselves.

          • Kai

            “Get it on” is different from “get on”. I think it is closer but still awkward. The reason we went with “now” for the first instance is because 上 as definition #9 is indeed an exhortation to take immediate action.

            “Now” therefore is an accurate translation of the first usage, but “now” doesn’t carry the pun in the joke.

            I can see a group of friends in the moment before entering a brawl shouting something like “let’s get it on!” but this is one person IN a fight telling another person to join in or make their move. That’s why I think your new suggestion of “get it on” is also awkward.

            I don’t mind you arguing your side, but what’s with you being so hostile and indignant? You presented a suggestion and arguably made a criticism. In response, I simply explained our reasoning. You’ve twice now made things personal without any provocation that I can divine. What gives, dude?

          • ScottLoar

            Arguing with you is useless. I’ll let others competent in colloquial English and Chinese judge for themselves.

          • Markus P

            You know the expression ‘mountains out of mole hills’?
            Well your making mountains out of fuck all. Congratulations.

          • ScottLoar

            Well, Markus P, let’s see how many people other than you comment. Some people find translations interesting.

          • Alex Dương

            If you find it interesting, perhaps you should not be so dismissive when people disagree with your translations?

          • ScottLoar

            Perhaps you are correct. I found Kai’s comments and subsequent dictionary citations patronizing to the extreme, the very fault I am most often accused. I also resented the implication (further advanced by another) that the Chinese is so difficult, the pun so unique to Chinese as to be impossible to translate, which further implies that only Chinese “get it” and so a foreigner cannot possibly presume to translate.

            There, you see now?

          • Alex Dương

            You dismissed him BEFORE he cited a dictionary in support of Fauna’s translation. And I’m curious: do you think you’re not patronizing?

          • Kai

            He said “the very fault I am most often accused” so I think he recognizes that at least many people have found him patronizing.

          • ScottLoar

            To satisfy Alex Du’o’ng’s curiosity:

            Do I think I’m patronizing? I do understand people think so but, no, I don’t presume to be better than others; several times here I’ve admitted fault and rendered apologies, which is rare among this group. I comment on subjects I find interesting, or address arguments I find wrong or uninformed; I said again and again I don’t know anyone here and only address comments, not monikers, but I’m not above answering sarcasm and snark in kind.

            Now, Alex Du’o’ng, I’m curious, do you think you’re not out to find fault with those you’ve disagreed?

          • Kai

            I said again and again I don’t know anyone here and only address comments, not monikers

            You repeatedly made things personal, which can be interpreted as you “addressing monikers”. Do you acknowledge this?

            Based on your previous comment, you seem to be arguing that you made things personal because you felt my comment was “patronizing to the extreme”. I obviously did not intend it to be so and still do not see how it was.

            More importantly, shouldn’t it have been clear that I had no inkling of you having misinterpreted me this way when I explicitly asked you why you’re so prickly and if you have a grudge against me that I don’t know about in my second reply to you?

            Shouldn’t that have been the point where you explain to me that I came across as patronizing to you?

            Instead, you again responded with hostility while changing your original suggestion.

            I address your new suggestion and again ask you why you’re being so hostile and indignant, and explicitly make clear that I cannot divine whatever provocation I’ve inadvertently done to you to justify your hostility.

            Your response? To repeat your earlier dismissal that is arguably snarky if not sarcastic.

            Why do I say it is arguably snarky if not sarcastic? Because you’re insinuating that I’m not competent in colloquial English and Chinese, presumably at this point because you feel “get on” is equivalent to “get it on” in colloquial English and both are equivalent to “上” in colloquial Chinese.

            I grew up with both English and Chinese. English was arguably my best subject in school. I’ve done or contributed to translations that have been vetted by others and officially used. Now, all of this is circumstantial. It doesn’t mean I can’t make a mistake or be wrong in something, but it does render your dismissal as obviously audacious. Other than your disagreement with me on this, what is your basis for questioning my competency in colloquial English and Chinese?

            Let’s also entertain a confounding factor in your audacious dismissal:

            I have never in my life among native English speakers and media heard people use “get on” or “get it on” in a way that is equivalent to how 上 was used by this Chinese netizen in the first usage. As I’ve already said, “get it on” is closer to being equivalent to ONE usage of 上, but also one that is contextually different to how it is being used in this comment (the self-referential “let’s get it on” is different from one’s exhortation to another to “join the fight”).

            The confounding factor is this: Maybe wherever you are from, “get on” or “get it on” is indeed a colloquial phrase that is equivalent or even approximates the use of “上” here. Would you not entertain that it isn’t a common colloquial usage wherever I’m from and that’s why I don’t seemingly recognize it as suitable as you do? This would reflect a completely innocuous example of different regional colloquial speech patterns instead of “competency”.

            Yet you personally attack my competency?

            At least twice?

            Despite my readiness to civilly explain my reasoning to you?

            The way you escalated your disagreement to a personal attack on my competency and thus my person arguably makes it hard for you to claim you “only address comments, not monikers”. Despite multiple instances where you had the opportunity to realize your initial grievance may be unfounded, you have persisted until now in indignation and dismissal of my explanation for why we translated the way we did, why we added the note we did, and why we’re not persuaded that your suggestions of “get on” and “get it on” proves us wrong for pointing out the difficulty of translating the pun on 上. Instead of addressing our reasoning by arguing how our reasoning is faulty, you simply attacked me (and arguably Fauna) as lacking competency.

          • ScottLoar

            I’ll let others competent in colloquial English and Chinese judge for themselves.

          • Alex Dương

            I do understand people think so but, no, I don’t presume to be better than others

            Here’s why I think you can be patronizing at times: you don’t take disagreement with your opinions / views very well, and IMO you frequently respond in condescending ways that betray a level of hypocrisy.

            Of course you know I think you’re hypocritical in your views on racial discrimination experiences. You insist that yours are valid, real cases, but you dismiss mine with a variety of excuses, and you’re not above finishing with some variant of “sorry your issues bother you so much, but they aren’t my problem.” When I say that your experiences can be dismissed in the same way, you balk and claim I have an agenda.

            And it extends to this thread too. Kai disagrees with your translation. He explains why he disagrees. You throw your hands up and basically say he’s too stupid to have a discussion with. That’s pretty clearly patronizing in my book.

          • Kai

            I didn’t intend to come across as patronizing and since I care about how people misunderstand me, can you explain to me what I said was arguably “patronizing”? It may help me better articulate myself in the future.

            That said, the only thing I currently see as possibly coming across as patronizing was my use of the word “simple” in “simple dictionary”. However, I was saying the Bing dictionary isn’t an exhaustive dictionary but merely a convenient one. It often doesn’t have all the definitions for a Chinese word but in this case, it had enough to cover 上’s various uses, thus making it an adequate reference source to explain my disagreement with your argument that the pun could be preserved.

            I don’t think anyone, least of all me, intended to suggest some uniqueness of Chinese that only Chinese “get it” and “a foreigner cannot possibly presume to translate”. Don’t you think you’re reading the worst into me or us with that? Has Fauna or I ever said anything to suggest we feel this way? Especially when we welcome and publish translations by non-Chinese contributors like Patrik or Steve? What is your basis for thinking we have such a belief and were thus expressing it here?

            I think just about every person who knows more than one language recognizes that there are often words or notions that are difficult to translate perfectly. Maybe there just isn’t an equivalent word with the same breadth of nuance or maybe the translation requires many words and loses the grace of the original. Pointing this out is meant to be transparent about a translation, not to put down or even talk down to “a foreigner” (which, if you’ll recall, I am as well).

            Try to give us the benefit of the doubt.

      • Nat

        How did it end up being translated as “now” though…that isn’t even in the list of definitions your provided in the list below. (Ok, crossing this out, ‘cuz I read your explanation below.)

        A literal translation is not always the best translation…Loar’s version conveyed the spirit of the original sentence and IMO is the better translation, since the original speaker probably intended to emphasize more on the fact of the pun rather than on the fact of the lion “entering the fray” — your point about it “not being how it is used here” is trivial. Just my two cents.

        • Kai

          I agree, a literal translation isn’t always the best translation. What we opted for here was a translation that is accurate to the usage of the word while adding a note to make clear that a pun is the crux of the joke.

          You can argue that we made the joke less funny by explaining it, but we felt the joke was less interesting than how the joke linguistically works and why it is hard to translate perfectly. Whether or not this is trivial is a matter of perspective. If all you care about is the ribald joke, sure, the nuances of the language are of no interest to you. We opted to cater to those who care about the nuances of the language. I don’t think we should be disparaged for this.

          • Nat

            Just to be clear, I’m not disparaging anyone. I meant that it was trivial in consideration of the intent of the original commenter.

            To be sure, translation is a tricky business. Even though I favour Loar’s translation, it still sounds clumsy in English. cS’ translation however, doesn’t seem to make much sense to me…it reads like a non-sequitur.

            Not saying I have a better translation, but I probably would have rendered it as, “shang shang shang shang shang…I didn’t say to shang me!” and then added a note to explain the two possible meanings of “shang.”

            Once again, translation (esp. from Mandarin to English) is tricky, and in general I think cS has done a damn fine job–only that this particular one seems iffy to me. :) (My opinion doesn’t matter of course, but I thought it interesting to exchange viewpoints.)

          • Kai

            I (we) appreciate your clarification.

            I understand what you mean about “non-sequitur”, which is why we have that explanatory note. Imagine if we didn’t. I think the note communicates our sincere interest in doing justice to both the joke and the language involved.

            If we didn’t have the note, we would’ve butchered the pun and joke.

            If we went with a translation that carries the joke, like Scott’s or my own version that WAS included in the note), we would’ve butchered the language.

            So we tried to do both, to include the joke and the nuance about the language, and avoid losing one for the other.

            I think your suggestion of a romanized “上” with an explanatory note is a really good one. I can see how that is arguably better than what we have now, avoiding the non-sequitur issue. I’m going to suggest that we edit it to what you’ve suggested.

            We totally welcome the exchange of viewpoints, as long as those doing so are sincere, earnest, and civil about it. Thanks for being so.

          • RWX

            I’d go with “Do it, do it, do it, do it….do IT, not ME!”

          • ScottLoar

            That’s good, too.

      • Mighty曹

        Also to “Advance”, as in to initiate a fight or the dirty move.

        • ScottLoar

          Exactly, the meaning of “charge” as testifies so many kungfu movies and television dramas, hence “get on” or “get it on”.

        • Kai

          Yeah, I mentioned the same in a subsequent comment.

          • Mighty曹

            You got every conceivable meaning covered. As for me, I’ve only used it in two scenarios:
            1) “Hey, those chicks are checking us out.” (pause) “上”.
            2) “Hey, that bunch (of guys) is staring down on us”. (pause) “上!!!“.

    • Irvin

      上 could also mean “fuck”, so it could’ve been “fuck em, fuck em, fuck em…..noooooo I didn’t said me.”

  • Free Man

    First quote reminds me of the beginning of Breaking Bad, Mr. & Mrs White together in bed, she’s trying to jerk him of while watching something on ebay.

  • Amused

    And you think you get fucked with at work?

    • YourSupremeCommander

      I like what you did there!

  • Markus P

    This is the moment that changed a meal into something even better. :)
    Look at his eyes looking at her behind. Somethings are just more important than food.

    • YourSupremeCommander

      Lion: go make me a buffalo sandwich.
      Lioness: ok
      Lion: that was damn good girl, now bend over!
      Lioness: ok


      • Nat

        She didn’t bend over at his behest. He merely saw an opening and slipped it in. Shit, all this dirty talk is making me feel horny. WHERE’S MY WIFE

      • Mighty曹

        So how do you like being a lioness?

  • YourSupremeCommander

    Buffet #1 vs Buffet #2

    Buffet #2 wins!

  • AbC

    Now, just imagine Sir David Attenborough narrating this.
    It’d be TV GOLD!!!

  • bossel

    Somehow I’m reminded of Al watching Peggy cleaning…

    The full episode “Hot Off the Grill”:

  • Mighty曹

    Raw meat turned him raw.

  • The Lion can copulate 100 times a day;
    Now that is the King of the Jungle.

  • ScottLoar

    Do you really understand the different meanings of the phrase “get it on”, and the situations?

    Watching a porn movie one guy yells out “Get it on!”

    Two guys facing off, ready to fight it out, or even at a cockfight, and someone yells “Get it on!”

    Two different situations but the same phrase, and no one there misunderstands what “get it on” means.

  • Vance

    I didn’t think that, in Lion culture, the men helped the women prepare dinner. I learn new stuff here every day!

  • Irvin

    This is what real hunger games look like, they even include the romance part.

  • 宋易

    “That’s not what I thought you meant when you said you were hungry.”

  • mistertibbs4u

    It’s nature’s fault. Male lions rarely help with the kill, unless the victim animal poses an immediate threat or is much smaller and nearby. Equally interesting is female lions usually hunt in packs. There should have been more lionesses in his vicinity. More proof that the nuclear family is a modern concept… hahahaha

  • Xio Gen

    Ha, I saw this picture on reddit. But I find it interesting how the naked apron is also a fetish in China. Did they too get it from GI pinups?

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»