Recently I was looking through Dr. Miletski's book "Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia" and I was wondering what other zoos thought about it. I only skimmed through some of it so far, and my thoughts are mixed. On one hand it definitely appears that Miletski put a lot of effort into it and is probably one of the better examples of research into this subject. But on the other hand, because there are so few studies I cannot help but wonder how accurate it is. In addition, I find some of the information presented within, in particular regard to the information collected from the survey, to be... threatening. Not just because I struggle with being a zoo, but also because I know that people who oppose zoophilia would likely attempt to use the information for thier arguements. Anyways, let me know what you think.
/r/zoophilia archive
I like it and always have.
The fact that there are few zoo studies is an issue, but that is to he expected given how taboo the topic is. Prior to Miletski, there weren't any proper studies carried out on zoos. We can only hope at this point that more come with time.
Do you mind elaborating? What, in particular? Of course there are going to be elements presented that we don't like, but indeed it would be more worrying, to me, if everything in the study agreed with our perspective. Miletski did her best to offer a wide sample (by zoo standards, anyway) and present the information in a way as unbiased as possible, which adds to the credibility lost through it being one of the sole studies on the topic. What comes to my mind is the zoosadist she interviewed who would cut open puppies' abdomens and fuck the wounds until they bled out - although it's undoubtedly horrid, cruel and terrifying, Miletski indeed firmly stated that she did not wish that single participant to be taken out of context, and spent a significant amount of time explaining that her evidence shows such an individual is not representative of zoophiles as a whole.
It stands, in my opinion, that Miletski's assessment is fair and that the study's findings are objectively pro-zoo. As it is practically impossible to assess any topic without presenting conflicting evidence, some anti-zoo fuel is bound to be made, but it is not our job to stop that, and doing so would damage the credibility of any objective academic work. What we can do is appreciate the conclusions made, which are in our favour.
I'm sorry - I've sent you a PM. The community is here for you.
~ T-V
Edit: correction
First, there was the reasons why people began having sex with animals. While the numbers are fairly evenly spread out among the completely/mostly true, somewhat true, and not true columns, I can't help but wonder if the people who posit that zoos are lonely people actually have a point. I know that a later question asked about whether those same things were reasons why they were currently having sex with animals, and that those answers were significantly more in the not true column, but I remember a bit about what I've read on cognitive dissonance and I also wonder whether those responses are genuine or merely surface thoughts. Then number of respondants who were sexualy abused and or have sexually abused others themselves was unnerving. Especially the one you referenced. I mean, I know that Miletski used a vague definition of abuse, but even still, the numbers seemed to be fairly high.
We also have to keep in mind, is the loneliness a result of the feelings they had or the feelings they had a result of loneliness? Plus, most of this work was done over the internet, and to be honest, that is still a self-selecting ground of folks who wind up in forums.
As far as I can tell there is a 50/50 split of "I was always this way" to "some external factor made me turn to animals" but that is in my informal polling.
As for the abuse, I think there is a couple of things here that need to be talked about. First, I know way too many zoos who had happy childhoods. Second, being zoo and out means you're used to talking about taboos around sex, which I think increases the reporting. Zoo folks have had to deal with themselves and bring out that sorta thing to the surface. Third, there is way more abuse in the "straight" world than most people think about, are you sure the numbers are not as "frighteningly high" for the non-zoos? I suspect they are considering the number of heart to heart talks I've had....
All very valid points. I was just stating my initial impression. As I said, I've only skimmed over it so far. This is why I asked about what people thought: so that I could get some perspective. And I must say, so far I am not dissappointed.
I thought it was complete. People aren't always nice, and it is unfortunate that zoos are people. There will be the same number of bad people who are zoo as in the general population. I am not entirely sure the sadist wasn't a troll what with the style of the survey. I kinda wish someone would do a followup survey on the group to give data over time.
I thought Beetz stuff was fairly objective as well. If you are looking for other research as well.
There is nothing, not one thing, anyone could write on the topic of zoophilia that an anti could not twist. It is in the nature of hate to be so.
Plz send a PM if you'd like to talk about your feelings.
Admittedly, I hadn't thought of that at the time.
That would be awesome, but I doubt it would be practicle considering how the study was done. Although, that does make me wonder if Miletski could be persuaded to continue the research... Sounds like a potential kickstarter campaign to me lol.
Do you happen to have a link to Beetz's research? Somehow I haven't ran across his stuff yet.
It's not easily found on the net, let me see if I can get a link.
Here is a link to get you started: http://www.thepress.purdue.edu/contributors/andrea-beetz
I'll see if I can find her work online.
Here's a bit: http://cultureghost.net/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=11503
She's a woman by the way.
Consider that the opposition, as you call them, frequently makes up whatever they want:
From horribly inflated numbers of animals they say are killed for sex (which is also not zoophilia, as I understand it),
to alleged animal brothels everywhere (dang, I can't find a single one if I try),
to a "growing" number of incidents or animal sex tourists (which is imho complete bullshit. They come from the belief that sex with animals is a new thing. There was certainly more in relative terms when everyone used to be a farmer and lived in the same house as his animals),
etc. How can any actual study honestly trying to find some facts be threatening in comparison? I thus like Miletski's work. Especially since she seems to really try, and stays objective over almost all of it. I have seen other research "papers" that basically start with: right, let's study these sick fucks.
To be honest, when I said I found them threatening, I meant more to my psyche than to any logical arguement. I tend to get a tad defensive at times.
As far as actual information being provided as opposed to random fabrications, it's tricky. You see, I find that many debates have a mix of emotional appeal and logical arguements, and both sides try to use that to thier advantage. Depending on the exact conditions, a shift from emotional to logical, or vice versa, could prove to put the pro-zoo side at a disadvantage. If the audience isn't already at least somewhat sympathetic to our side, a logical shift too soon can actually increase the anti-zoo side of the arguement. That's one of the sad things about human nature; we don't really care about the truth. We just want to win.
[deleted]
True for the last sentence, I have witnessed that first hand.
Why do you feel threatened/defensive though? You also said you struggle with it. You ok? I have fortunately made it to the point where I am glad wit myself and everything is alright.
I don't know how to answer that. Not without writing a text wall anyways. Suffice to say that it's just what has happened over the years.
As to whether or not I'm ok... I vary. I'm mostly just frustrated as I try to reconcile various philosophies with the data on hand.
hmm... difficult, I agree. Myself, basically I decided to just be happy with myself, be a good guy in general, and treat the animals as I would wish to be treated. Everything else can go fuck itself, or can be spun out in the ivory towers for all I really care. It's too bad that I might have randomly blown up my life should I be outed or be walked in on. But then again, I could have cancer tomorrow as well, so meh. I am cautious, but not fearful.
wall away. i think i speak for just about everybody here when i say we like to help others who are struggling with their zoophilia to become comfortable with it. for the majority of us, it was very difficult to come to terms with our feelings. for some, we still struggle with some of it. we have some idea where you're at right now, emotionally, and want to do our best to help you not go through the same agony we went through.
please, if you'd like to, feel free to open up, though of course you should be careful not to mention anything identifiable in this public setting. as others have offered, i am open to a PM if you'd like to discuss things. i finally lost my virginity this year (and i'm no spring chicken), and as wonderful as it was, it brought up new questions and doubts. it can be a long journey to self-acceptance.
There's a lot wrong with the alleged animal sex tourism.
Some of the assumptions are:
People will travel to other countries when their sexuality is criminalized. Sure, some do, but many also don't. Just look at the countries that criminalize homosexuality. People are "caught" there all the time. Why don't they just go to another country where it's legal? It's just not what people do.
There are certain assumptions about the kind of people and the kind of sexuality at play. Is that what people do when their sexuality is criminalized in their home country? Travel to neighbor countries, go to brothels and then travel back? Is that all sexuality is about? Paying for sex and then leaving?
What about the simple fact that many zoophiles will be heavily opposed to the idea of animal brothels? When do newspapers and "animal rights" organizations make any words about those?
I doubt a lot of people move permanently based on their sexuality, but tourism happens. Amsterdam.
Obviously the claims of overflowing brothels are made up, but there is a population of bestiality voyeurs that love watching women get fucked by dogs and donkeys. Shows like that do exist, don't know whether there's much interaction or not. It's going to influence their choice of travel destination like drug legality entices pot monkeys.
How do you know bestiality fans and voyeurs don't outnumber 'real' zoophiles? Maybe by a large margin? If you go by online postings it doesn't look too good.
The only reason I doubt animal sex tourism actually happens much is because the advertisement is problematic.
Well, sure, everything exists somewhere.
Also, if you look at the internet with the postings and so on: I would actually argue that this picture is definitely wrong and overpainted. "Normal" pornography/stories/online adds are typically also more numerous, adventurous etc than the "normal" sex happening from that is.
Also, let's not forget that there are "normal" brothels en mass. Hell, here where I live I could have a prostitute from the next corner. It would take 15 EURs and 15 minutes from now. If humans are more valuable or equally valuable to/than animals, then all that prostitution desperately needs to be addressed, no? But everyone freaks out because three or four or whatever animal brothels are alleged. This continuous wild mixing everything up and getting in logical quicksands is on freak proportions with this topic.
AAAaaand: In particular the alleged increase in animal sex tourism is so hilarious, I just can't grasp how people buy those allegations. How in the name of fuck do you determine such reasons of travel? Ask at passport control for "business or pleasure or animal sex"?
People freak out because time and time again they are being told that unimaginable cruelty happens there.
"occupyforanimals" was one of the worse offenders. They apparently didn't like their website enough to pay for the domain, but the website is still archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20140701113804/http://www.occupyforanimals.org/animal-rape-and-animal-brothel.html
This is what people are told happens in "animal brothels":
Well, of course this isn't the truth. No animal brothel where anything like this happens has ever been found. In no civilized country would "he" be "allowed to do this to" animals. But after such descriptions people are already too outraged to notice that.
Oh and I can only recommend reading the study that is embedded right below that section. It's particularly interesting how these activists don't even care to read about the limitations of the study. Or they did and just didn't care to truthfully represent it. For some of these people it's really hard to decide whether to apply Hanlon's razor.
some of the most notorious antis are definitely in it for the pure incitement of hatred, as well as the glorious leader position they can achieve here. an infamous example is C. Thierfelder from Germany, but many others exist. I actually wish that guy would be prosecuted for the incitement of hatred. that is a specific crime in Germany. he and the most notorious ones are well aware of the lies, fabrications and those logic problems they have in their arguments. so no, stupidity won't help them out of my disapproval.
If you want to read up on some stories, here is a German page that is very critical, but imho well informed of animal protection and activists in Germany: http://www.doggennetz.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=35&Itemid=53
Basically, it is an ideal playing field for hooligans (good reason to bully people), scammers (please donate for animals), etc etc.
I have a little hobby of semi-regularly looking at what some of these people write openly on the internet. For Thierfelder I don't understand why he has any fans. His texts are full of grammatical errors and typos, he openly admits to kidnapping dogs and he really likes images like http://animal-pi.com/Page-Bilder/ZETA-zoophiles-hundeopfer.png. I just don't get it. This image for example... the text he put onto it is clearly just wrong. I am not aware of any real accomplishment he had that wasn't really shady to begin with. It seems he mostly posts blacked out reports and answers from the police and courts where you can't see anything and his biggest accomplishment is that what he does is not ruled illegal...
Sure, he makes himself look like a hero and martyr, but then, it's not really working. He has only a hand full of fans. Not much of a leader position.
I'm not a fan of doggennetz. She tries to be funny, but isn't really. Sometimes it's quite tedious to read the texts and it doesn't really pay off..
yeah well, I am not exactly a fan either, but some of the info is good. The humor is too old-librarian like, I agree.
As for C.T. what do you mean - not illegal? He has like two or three dozen court cases that he lost, he is bankrupt from all the fines, had to go to jail several times for non-paid fines and contempt of court, and so on... I mean, the guy should be in a closed psych ward for his own good alone.
Also, I hate that fucking picture for the abuse it has in it. That is on the opposite site of the planet from what I understand myself as as a zoophile. But those bastards feed it to you all the time sneakily.
Sooo... great we agree so much, lol :) Nice talking, though. I also often wish people would orient themselves towards those with correct punctuation, grammar, and caps use. What a world that would be! ;)
If he doesn't just make it all up it seems courts have recently decided to side more with him: https://www.facebook.com/carsten.thierfelder.35/posts/1534336160145523
The thing about that image is that he suffered horrible abuse and even after he is long dead he is still abused for the purpose of slandering zoophiles. From what I read it was a member of the ZETA-Verein who reported the guy responsible so the text on that image that alleges that "ZETA" advocates this as consensual sex is more then wrong.
These people just love images like that. Have you seen https://www.facebook.com/allianzgegenzoophilie/photos/pb.213163038864241.-2207520000.1415254655./303982253115652/? Just absolutely disgusting.
Dude, I am not going to click on any of these horrible picture links.
First is a text post from C.T.
https://www.facebook.com/allianzgegenzoophilie/photos/pb.213163038864241.-2207520000.1415254655./303982253115652/ is an image of a "info" booth from the "Allianz gegen Zoophilie" who decided it would be a good idea to have a stuffed plush dog with the legs tied behind the back as a mascot for demanding laws against sex with animals (because being convicted for animal cruelty apparently isn't enough for some reason).
I know all these, thx, but no thx.
Not that it gives us anything practical, but I chuckle from the sidelines how the antis are mainly suffering under/fighting their own imaginations. I remember when they made up that one dog with a shaved genital area. - Why would a zoo shave the fur? And they can't grasp for the life of them - it seems - that you could be the bottom to a male dog for example. (Or well, the smart ones don't want to discuss that, as it ruins the facade they built for their dumb followers)
Wish there was a more stringent follow up on all the calls for violence and murder they push each other with on facebook, though. Would be funny to get 100 people cited and fined from one of these typical threads for once.
When I keep reading about the "final solution" for zoophiles, or how they wish Adolf Hitler was here to "deal with" zoophiles and how they want zoophiles to be "exterminated" I do wonder what the law would actually say to that.
At least it really sounds very close to Volksverhetzung.
In my opinion it is, first paragraph and the bullets here fit like a glove:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
And as said: Some are only in this for the fun of this persecution. - But calls for violence, calls for private investigations, bullying people etc etc are all punishable by themselves. Didn't the antis once get a ZETA member kicked out of the SPD? And then happily distributed the answer letter from SPD headquarters that 'such subjects' have no place in their party - until someone realized this was persecution for sexuality and probably an illegal thing they just did based on denunciation? Same with the banking account they nuked by writing the bank and the bank being all chicken about it instead of saying: Well, they don't do anything illegal and we are obliged to provide accounts to everyone by law.
ive met people like that....
I definitely know that no one knows enough to claim for sure. But there's a spectrum from die-hard zoophilia to pure fetishism and from observations of online populations over years and behaviors I think it's hilariously naive to expect loving lifetime relationships to dominate. Your analogy doesn't hold water.
That population is out there, a likely high proportion, even if sex shows and brothels aren't, which is more circumstantial and is not a reflection on the population. I can imagine ideal attractions and societal changes to bring them out of the woodwork, in and outside of tourism. Enough numbers to sustain an industry? No idea. But there's a potential.
Other points I have no problem with.
Ah, I see. you are right when we look at that full spectrum. I focused on just a part of it. duh, sure, then those monogamous types certainly don't dominate, alright.
I don't know it, I just guess.
If I do go by online postings, what do I see? How many are there world wide? More than 500? That looks like quite the number, but how many zoophiles are there world wide? A lot more, or not?
Yes, some surely do travel for this reason, but I can't imagine that they have any significant number and since I have still seen literally zero evidence for all the allegations, I don't think that's unreasonable.
I personally don't really get off to any type of porn. I'm much more likely to whack off to a conventional picture of a horse on a conventional website (for example the stallion section of a horse breeder's website), my personal favorites are Arabians in "native" costume, and Friesians in "medieval" tack/barding. Also flea-bitten (as in the speckles of color not real fleas) grey horses as I think they tend to sweat/smell more. The animal turns me on, not watching someone else enjoy the "fun" (In quotes because don't conventional strippers regularly have issues with management stealing tips, drugs ect. probably a way rougher lifestyle then being a zoophile) And advertisements really don't mean shit. For example while this is true less and less each day there are still some restaurants, that don't have any online presence (no website, no reviews), yet do still advertise in the phone book in the coupon section. And some of those restaurants have been around for more then 15 years in the same location. Search all you want on the internet but you would not find anything about that restaurant even though it is a legitimate business (ie they pay taxes, they are licensed, no illegal workers). If you only go by things you see online you are only seeing a fraction of the world.
Let me say that I personally would not find it worth the risk to ask the owner of a farm that boarded my horse if I could "spend the night" with him, then to go to a place that if legitimate (ie not a police sting) would be much more confidential and secure. Sort of like playing a slot machine for $1000 per spin vs playing $10 total for "free" (management can rise or lower promotions for any and all reasons or no reason) by signing up. On one hand you could just see your horse during regular business hours for the stable, and maybe ask if you could stay later one day (ie get the free $10 to gamble). Not too many boarding stables will mind if you stay later once in a while (especially if the official hours say something like "dawn to dusk" and you ask in the Summer) to ride (I'm assuming if there is enough private and fenced in land to ride in that one could ride to a more private area and then be more intimate with your horse) but ask too much they will suspect something and might say no (ie void the $10 comps and tell other casinos that you are trying to defraud them).
On the other hand one could go to a place in another country where not only nobody will recognize you, but you can relax and might be able to have sex with something too exotic or expensive in your home country (for example boarding a miniature horse in your home country might cost the same as a regular horse because boarding is charged per month not per the amount of food/grain/hay consumed, so your paying the same price for a horse to small to be ridden, plus get strange looks because your the only one in the stable that does not ride). I'm assuming any business in the services sector that knows your an international customer traveling specifically for the service (be it gambling, golf, brothels) is going to treat you pretty well. But what happens if there is no brothel and there is no mini horse just handcuffs and hard jail time. Similar fate if you gamble beyond your means and can't afford your mortgage and get fired from a lucrative job because you used company funds in a casino and lied about it to your boss.