submitted 2014-11-14 09:01:32 by furvert_tailEquine, large canid
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 2 points on 2014-11-14 09:03:25
I was rather surprised to see more women than men fantasised about animals — every time I've been able to judge the gender of a group of zoos, it's heavily biased towards men.
YearningmiceEquus 4 points on 2014-11-14 15:53:47
Internet forum selection bias, plus lots of poor social functioning me saying shit to women. I know many women who operate under assumed sex. They are just not welcomed in the community as one might expect for people without interest in humans but I think that again comes back to the kinds of folks who choose to go to internet forums for zoo porno.
Women simply are not and don't feel safe in gatherings particularly arranged around sex.
I've read this Montreal stufy a couple of times and don't think the research is all that good quality...but at least it is something.
Tundrovyy-VolkCanidae 1 point on 2014-11-15 05:04:36
They are just not welcomed in the community as one might expect for people without interest in humans
I think we need to change this. Is there anything we can do, as a sub, to help?
YearningmiceEquus 1 point on 2014-11-15 19:15:14
I can think of nothing because it is a social norm to be this way. Heard about "rape culture", well that is what you are truly fighting to get people to behaving rationally and nicely with each other. To take a no, or no response as "let it alone". It ISN'T a zoo problem it is a problem with most of western society(maybe all societies) that women are objectified. Are commodities to be used. Take a look at the #yesallwomen tag some day and you're read stories of "good men" who jump to violence and threats, and insults because some women expressed a preference for not dating, sexing, or hanging around with them.
I'm not sure how reddit moderation works, but are their ban list, block list and stuff for a forum? And even then you can only block someone AFTER he has done something despicable and it won't stop the next guy.
A lot of people suggest a female zoo forum or sub but that fragments an already small population, we just don't have the traffic for it. Could they invite men into their safe space if given control? Could they eject people who are not safe? I'm just not sure how to get that going and I've been wrestling with the issue since the turn of the century with no good solution. The problem first became apparent to me in 96 or so, but I figured it'd get better 'cause I certainly don't act like a dick all the time and I didn't understand how bad it was. My mistake for thinking others are reasonable too.
Edit:typo
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 2 points on 2014-11-15 21:33:06
Honestly, some of the comments on #yesallwomen have made me worry about us. Some rapists clearly don't believe that they are rapists. The study a few years ago about "are sex offenders and lads mags using the same language?" was also worrying for the same reason.
This is one of the things that makes me want to thoroughly study canine and equine body language before doing anything, even though my fantasies are inherently consensual especially because I think my fantasies are inherently consensual.
YearningmiceEquus 1 point on 2014-11-16 14:03:30
I find it amusing that so many folks I've talked too know about #yesallwomen, but only if they are also zoo. Most of my IRL co-workers and such are happily ignoring what they are saying. Oh well. :)
But to be fair, you have to consider the amount of indoctrination a "young lad" receives in growing up, or for that matter a young lady does in popular culture. Someone said below that humans have a problem telling the difference between sexes of animals without a "crotch shot" to know for sure. That's all about not seeing them in that context while growing up. I used to look and "quiz" myself with pictures and I am about 90% accurate at a glance, but it isn't always obvious. I think many of us learn through doing which makes it a little safer path, but human sociology and psychology does leave us wondering if we are just slaves to desire.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 2 points on 2014-11-15 11:22:39
Women simply are not and don't feel safe in gatherings particularly arranged around sex.
It's possible. A perverted acquaintance thought his local BDSM meet might be good place for me to meet people. Not my thing in the slightest, but it was fairly gender balanced.
YearningmiceEquus 1 point on 2014-11-15 19:25:42
True, but those BDSM groups have an extremely strict policy about safe, sane, consensual... they are large enough to exclude bad people without consequence. (they even have lists I'm on because of my "animal fetish" hehe.) Those groups took a LONG time to get to that stage. They also had the advantage that, once you are in the "lifestyle" you probably have had to deal with women of power and if you are in a group like that, you are likely to have grown a bit in wisdom and age.
One person described some zoos, even though they are looking for a female human partner to housekeep with, as women -haters-. I cannot say that I completely disagree with him.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 2 points on 2014-11-15 21:53:56
It's good that they have those policies, and terrifying that they need to. The prevalence of rape fantasies is one of the results from this survey that sadly didn't surprise me.
One of the reasons I couldn't stay around the BDSM group was their non-acceptance of zoo. Which is somewhat ironic, as I'm not sure I'd call what I saw at that meet "sane" or "informed consent".
wright-oneursidae canidae pantherinae 1 point on 2014-11-14 20:44:55
hm. would be fun to have partaken in that survey.
[deleted] 1 point on 2014-11-15 05:01:58
[deleted]
Tundrovyy-VolkCanidae 3 points on 2014-11-15 05:02:05
Interesting.
Though it does sadden me that the majority of perspectives of those who fantasise about bestiality do so because they find it dirty, nasty and/or degrading. The statistics are interesting but I think we'd be lying to ourselves if we were to believe that this shows any inclination towards respect for zoophilic relationships in the general populace.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 2 points on 2014-11-15 11:14:31
respect for zoophilic relationships in the general populace
Indeed. The closest I see for that amongst non-zoos who I am in a position to judge the rationale for are either "I'm in a relationship with one" or "meat is definitely worse", both of which I find rather weak.
they find it dirty, nasty and/or degrading
A majority fantasised about "being dominated sexually", so I'm not sure that's a problem in it's own right, and only becomes a problem if it's a more common fantasy amongst those who also fantasise about being degraded. Given the survey size, only 18 men and 22 women reported zoo fantasies, so it's probably just about possible (with the raw data) to check against their other answers and find out.
YearningmiceEquus 1 point on 2014-11-15 19:30:53
I've been toying with the idea of extending my moral boundaries to include those who have pets they happen to also use for sex. Assuming the pet is keen, well cared for, and unhurt I cannot fault someone for doing a deed I would myself.
I do agree that it is sad that so many talk about the "dirtiness" of it. I'm not sure that is a result of the animal sex or breaking social taboos though. Have you read the original research? I'm not sure I would have answered anything about animals if I were part of that survey and had any more than a fantasy. The numbers of the zoo fantasy people seem to be extremely skewed to me from other research I've read. Definitely under representative in my opinion.
Tundrovyy-VolkCanidae 2 points on 2014-11-15 20:54:23
I agree with you. The actions are the same, regardless of whether the arrangement is that of a relationship or fuck buddies.
My criticisms are about misrepresentation, rather than immorality - I have my doubts about the extent to which non-zoophilic bestiality is helpful in the push for zoo social acceptance though. In my experience, it is the deviant nature that people find inviting. Some do find animals themselves dirty, and others again simply are curious, and that's okay as well.
ImmortalSlave 2 points on 2014-11-15 23:51:28
Ethical sex with animals = ethical bestiality is definitely possible, zoo or not, lover or pet. It's kind of the core tenet everyone has to remember and practice, if you had to pick one thing. If you accepted only deep-rooted zoophilia and love and rainbows, there's no doubt you'd end up throwing people under the bus who don't deserve to be there. For sure that happens!
But from then on it turns into a practical sociological problem where lifelong zoophiles have the most incentive to practice ethical bestiality, everyone else having the least. I think it's super improbable most sexual contact with animals by casual interest is done ethically (and I even doubt the same for all sexual contact with animals as a whole, but that's another story). If you focus on casual sex, reality won't be in your favor, but more than that, if you care about animals the ethical thing may be to discourage it on grounds of known/expected human behavior and risk. Without condemning cases where care is shown.
That's the paradox of sex with animals as a whole. It can be done ethically but there are enough practical risks and the right thing is to avoid encouraging it on the whole, even discourage it outright. But you won't get zoophiles too hyped about that because it resembles an admission of guilt and goes against the "one of us" mentality. Same time, you have to avoid casualties of war.
You also want to focus on zoosexuals or anyone along those lines because they have the most investment and most to lose. Making bestiality illegal affects them more compared to fetishists or teenagers experimenting, and that factors into the human cost of those laws and might change someone's mind who wouldn't care about banning a simple fetish. I'm not too interested in that but on the community level it also makes sense to focus on zoosexuality since that's where the investment is and comes from along with the standards.
YearningmiceEquus 2 points on 2014-11-16 14:22:24
I will not put undue rules or pressures on zoos when Gays and Straights get a free pass.
As soon as hetrosexual sex is illegal because one in four women are raped, and gay sex is illegal because some pedophiles like same sex children then we can talk about why zoophiles should be illegal because some animals might get hurt.
That being said, I also do not agree that ethical bestiality has anything to do with long or short term relationships. The majority of people would not ever want to hurt their lover, or their pet. I would also say that beyond sex, most interaction with animals is not done ethically by the standards of sex I think you are suggesting. Factory farming, puppy mills, PMU barns, and medical testing are all stand out examples. To isolate sex as the only one which HAS to be moral IN ALL instances or we should ban it completely seems more an attack on the sex than the ethics.
I think the topic of bestiality porno is extrememly important in the acceptance of zoophilia. More so than ethics. Look, I've talked to a lot of non-zoo people about this now and they really aren't concerned with the ethics of anything. The ones who accept fall into two broad categories: the animal lover/animal protector who agrees that animals are more than children, and the ones who don't see using animals as a problem. My guess is that is about 40% of the population. the anti's fall into a few categories, the worst of which is the crazed animal rights people who hate humans, the religious, and the animal protectors who objectify animals as sub-human/the pet parents. all the categories, with the exception of the ethically challenged group, porno creates ill-will at the least.
There is also another option, that you forget to mention. We can teach people to think of their furry dildos in an ethical way. We are never going to get everyone, just like we will never get all the rapists of women to stop, but as a harm reduction strategy, in my opinion, it is the only way. Positive, ethical and emotionally controlled people out on forums like this able to take being called names with a smile.
I seem to have wandered a little off topic. One of the trends that really concerns me is the "I'm zoosexual, but I choose to never have sex." Trend that I see in the twenty somethings. Imagine if that was the choice gays and lesbians made? Repression on that scale can only lead to really bad stuff.
ImmortalSlave 1 point on 2014-11-16 22:58:15
There is additional pressure on zoos that gays and straights don't have and it should be there [where justifiable]. Zoos are the only ones in a relationship with a dependent. Whether you like it or not that adds a vulnerability and changes the game.
Ethical bestiality doesn't have tons to do with short or long term relationships. It has to do with the level of seriousness with which the relationship is approached, which will correlate with someone's outlook and level of involvement.
The majority of people would not ever want to hurt ... their pet.
Except they do, constantly, buying the cheapest store-bought foods and all around general ignorance, as if I'd have to list examples. Do you want them approaching female dog vaginas with the same ignorance they do for everything else? Because look around the web a bit, that's exactly what happens.
I would also say that beyond sex, most interaction with animals is not done ethically by the standards of sex I think you are suggesting. Factory farming, puppy mills, PMU barns, and medical testing are all stand out examples. [edit: quoted too many lines here]
That's always been a weak argument that won't stand the test of time, not interested.
I've talked to a lot of non-zoo people about this now and they really aren't concerned with the ethics of anything...
the ones who don't see using animals as a problem
Funny thing to hear in the context of what I just wrote. I too knew lots of people who didn't give a fuck about ethics of anything! I'm pretty selective myself.
Obviously you're concerned about the zoo image as seen by the public. Thing is, I'm not. I'm concerned about the actual physical welfare of animals, which gets threatened on the whole the more ethics get relaxed. It can involve the zoo image as seen by zoos put out by zoos.
The irony is: In the long run if history remembers this do you think you'll end up with a better image by pandering to the public, or by actually promoting something (standards) that happens to show you care strongly about animal welfare?
There is also another option, that you forget to mention. We can teach people to think of their furry dildos in an ethical way.
In a sense that's what I suggest! Work on your community first, worry less about the non-zoo public.
Except harm reduction is not acceptable policy for this kind of relationship. Harm reduction is what's going to happen in reality, everyone knows this [unwritten goal, I'd agree with], but you can't give people the impression it's acceptable to half-ass compromise their animals for non-essentials. That's fucked.
One of the trends that really concerns me is the "I'm zoosexual, but I choose to never have sex." Trend that I see in the twenty somethings. Imagine if that was the choice gays and lesbians made?
I know what you mean, but afaic that's only a problem if they do that because they believe it's impossible to have sex with animals ethically. If you're worried about public image then yes stands like that can be cause for concern since the act speaks louder than the reasons given likely ignored, but I'm not worried about that.
YearningmiceEquus 2 points on 2014-11-17 12:47:06
It is interesting you keep saying that I'm the one worried about what other thinks, but to sum up your argument in three sentences:
People are going to think less of us for not having impossible ethical standards, ones that no one will be able to meet.
We need to be serious in our relationships and deny a place for anyone who is not serious because it looks bad
Other ethical considerations are not important (weak argument) because they are not concerning to the public.
So, the reason I am for harm reduction is because it is the only thing that works. You can keep to your ivory tower and tell everyone how ethical you are and be the arbitrator of who can and can't have sex, but the fact is, they do. As you say yourself, look around the net.
I think we have had enough examples of abstinence education not working to remove that canard from the conversation. People will remain ignorant no matter how often you tell them to not do something. Obviously, you have a very poor opinion of people. I've seen this a lot amongst this group and I've found it to be mostly wrong, just like most zoos are not "horrid animal rapists". Your way of taking care of your pet is not necessarily the best or only way.
I would think your default position is also "People should not own animals because some people don't care for them"? What about "No one should eat meat, because some animals are cruelly treated even beyond what is normally acceptable."? This is not a solution to anything, it doesn't do one damn thing to help an animal because people will just ignore you. It might make you personally feel better to have someone to point too and say "See, I'm ethical, they are not." But that helps no one and is not a good reason. Especially when no one will take you seriously if, as you suggest, you want history to take you seriously.
I would point out that the concern I have around "choosing to never have sex" is that repression will lead in most cases to acting out, guilt, and it seems, as shown in homosexuality, a stunning career as a televangelist or right wing congressman. The people denying themselves now will be our worst enemies later from a practical standpoint due to that self loathing, or whatever, when they fail in their beliefs. And no, I'm not arguing that it is impossible to deny oneself or people "have" to have sex. Trust me, I know about that last part.
Your entire post seems like a political statement meant to be read for non-zoos. You want to know the reason I really think we should get over bestiality as a separate entity? Because it is not going away, that lowest common denominator will always be there in any conversation with an anti-zoo. I refuse to throw people under the bus because an anti-zoo, who will say the same thing no matter how good most of us are, might use that against us. I am completely unconcerned with what an anti-zoo might say, rather I want to make sure the bestialist, zoo, or animal lover understands what it means to have sex with an animal.
ImmortalSlave 1 point on 2014-11-17 18:30:04
_
It worries me when you call having any standards impossible, and no I don't give two shits if people think less of "us". 2. Not because it "looks bad", because otherwise it validates recklessness by example, encouragement and showing those looking for the easiest road to getting off it's acceptable to compromise another living being to do it, that ignorance is bliss, with real consequences. 3. Other considerations are important but they are not justifications for lowering standards for safe relations so no need for red herrings.
This is not abstinence education. Telling people no sex without care is not the same as no sex. You offer an alternative, ethical relations, you can state. It's closer to saying read up on STDs and use a condom. Sure kids defy, but given enough time experience maturing they reanalyze. Like anything else. Like fence hopping. Would you advocate harm reduction for that too? Can't stop 'em! Here comes another 20 posts.
The only problem is incentive, which can be hard to provide because it's so easy to get away with shit with animals. Ones who've tried pushing standards have also been massive dicks, alienating people more by social failure and going overboard than any fault of the concept. It's been attempted only poorly and zoos haven't kept shit together for long so saying harm reduction is the only thing that works is leaving the main road a whole state before it ends. I'm not even against harm reduction. I'm against it as an official policy and go-to solution because it compromises the examples you need to set foremost.
I would think your default position is also "People should not own animals because some people don't care for them"?
Fuck no! First, the animals that people don't own, end up in shelters, worse off, dead. Sex is facultative. Not comparable. Second, that's not the line of reasoning. It takes the form of a stopgap measure for a practical failure, closer to "People should not own animals if the large majority presently don't care for them." In this context it's not even that because exceptions are sought out.
No, I don't care if human history takes me seriously. That was a comment for your benefit.
I don't promote that zoosexuals practice lifelong abstinence, none of this does, unless they're an irredeemable danger. Yes you're right, it's a recipe for disaster, depending on the reason.
There is nothing I advocate that's based on how non-zoos will react. It's based on trying to get zoos and casuals to act with care, using examples, in a way that will be as valid and working today as in 100 years from now. If it happens to look pretty to the world, that's icing. I wrote that the last thing I want is to throw people under the bus who don't deserve to be there. The difference (besides the public) is you'd take anyone on. The real difference is you're sympathizing with the zoo first whereas I'm more concerned about the animal who can't understand any of this even though it affects them so they require a counterweight (standards).
Much of the other comment would be repetition. I'll say this. I don't live for ethics, not even close, if you knew. They have a use occasionally. The other stuff isn't being ignored, it's not relevant to this convo. It does overlap with undervaluation of animals, but affecting that without going to extremes won't influence your typical ignoramus attempting penetration very much, the ones I'm concerned with, they're more about not thinking things through and loose ethics on the whole.
edit: yep I actually wrote "gapstop", fuck I'm tired
ImmortalSlave 1 point on 2014-11-17 20:44:22
Gonna have to ask, please quit it with the strawmen. That post was one after the other, makes this a lot longer than it needs to be. Why do I bother.
Meanwhile after everything you do on here you'll be hard-pressed to convince anyone you have no rooted interest in zoo PR.
ImmortalSlave 1 point on 2014-11-17 02:27:10
Have to add because didn't entirely explain:
There is also another option, that you forget to mention. We can teach people to think of their furry dildos in an ethical way. We are never going to get everyone,
You have to press the issue that if they're not going to take the act seriously enough, then they shouldn't do it. That comes with the territory of ethical bestiality and it's the right thing to do from where you're standing. If they don't show enough interest or care, and they can clearly live without it, it should be discouraged, no matter what else you do. That's going to include most casual situations, typically, so what I'm saying is it's best to adopt the default position of discouraging them and make exceptions where warranted.
Whether you choose to answer them with personal sex tips on top of that, when they don't listen, is your decision, in the sense I'm not going to argue whether that's enabling or not [vs harm reduction which I'd be for as an unwritten measure]. But these approaches aren't exclusive and I don't consider the first one optional and it should be tried first.
YearningmiceEquus 2 points on 2014-11-17 12:58:14
You have to press the issue that if they're not going to take the act seriously enough, then they shouldn't do it. That comes with the territory of ethical bestiality and it's the right thing to do from where you're standing.
Please justify this rather than saying it is so.
If they don't show enough interest or care, and they can clearly live without it, it should be discouraged, no matter what else you do. That's going to include most casual situations, typically, so what I'm saying is it's best to adopt the default position of discouraging them and make exceptions where warranted.
You know, this is interesting in the amount of harm it could do because you might have misunderstood the intent, thoughts, or actions being performed.
Whether you choose to answer them with personal sex tips on top of that, when they don't listen, is your decision, in the sense I'm not going to argue whether that's enabling or not [vs harm reduction which I'd be for as an unwritten measure]. But these approaches aren't exclusive and I don't consider the first one optional and it should be tried first.
"Personal sex tips," lol, yea, I'll take you seriously like that.
No, I do not believe sex is inherently harmful as much as western (monotheistic) society wants to make everyone believe it is so. The problem with your first step is that, once you've impressed upon them enough they shouldn't be doing something, they will go behind your back and do it anyhow. Again, abstinence education simply doesn't work but at least they won't get anyone preggers I suppose.
Also, if the raison d'etre is to do things ethically, as per your standards, you cannot ignore all the other stuff done to animals. Your fights are not with people who have sex with animals, it is with a society that devalues animals. At least if you want the most bang for your buck. If your fight is for a PR standard of ethics, which it honestly seems like, then telling everyone you think no one should have sex with animals with the possible exception of yourself and a few people you know who do it right will be laughed at by the general public.
ImmortalSlave 1 point on 2014-11-20 08:46:57
Replying because some things I missed. Most of this was strawmen or addressed above.
You know, this is interesting in the amount of harm it could do because you might have misunderstood the intent, thoughts, or actions being performed.
Not much harm possible to the animal in suggesting someone should hold off from sex, besides omission of advice [which can still be given or pointed out as a last measure]. If you're a dick and tell them to fuck right off they might rebel and act reckless if they're that immature, that's about it.
Communication failure is a poor excuse. You could as easily give terrible advice on harm reduction if the intent or actions are misunderstood, could be even more disastrous. Then what if your harm reduction advice itself is good but completely misinterpreted? Is it responsible to give someone advice you can tell they're not in a position to understand or apply and will fuck it up? These are newbies attempting illegal intercourse with the anatomy of a different species. This can fuck up in more ways than dissuading and staying quiet, or dissuading and linking to a public guide. Doesn't work out in your favor and confounds issues.
No, I do not believe sex is inherently harmful as much as western (monotheistic) society wants to make everyone believe it is so.
Where did this come from? Not sure it was so much a strawman but damn, nothing written implied this. Let's reply anyway. Sex is not inherently harmful. Sex carries circumstantial risks. There isn't a form of sex with any species of any sex that doesn't.
JonasCliverVap vap to the Moon! 1 point on 2014-11-17 20:12:09
Just flying under the standard deviation here. The actual numbers may be up to double of the reported results.
/r/zoophilia archive
I was rather surprised to see more women than men fantasised about animals — every time I've been able to judge the gender of a group of zoos, it's heavily biased towards men.
Internet forum selection bias, plus lots of poor social functioning me saying shit to women. I know many women who operate under assumed sex. They are just not welcomed in the community as one might expect for people without interest in humans but I think that again comes back to the kinds of folks who choose to go to internet forums for zoo porno.
Women simply are not and don't feel safe in gatherings particularly arranged around sex.
I've read this Montreal stufy a couple of times and don't think the research is all that good quality...but at least it is something.
I think we need to change this. Is there anything we can do, as a sub, to help?
I can think of nothing because it is a social norm to be this way. Heard about "rape culture", well that is what you are truly fighting to get people to behaving rationally and nicely with each other. To take a no, or no response as "let it alone". It ISN'T a zoo problem it is a problem with most of western society(maybe all societies) that women are objectified. Are commodities to be used. Take a look at the #yesallwomen tag some day and you're read stories of "good men" who jump to violence and threats, and insults because some women expressed a preference for not dating, sexing, or hanging around with them. I'm not sure how reddit moderation works, but are their ban list, block list and stuff for a forum? And even then you can only block someone AFTER he has done something despicable and it won't stop the next guy. A lot of people suggest a female zoo forum or sub but that fragments an already small population, we just don't have the traffic for it. Could they invite men into their safe space if given control? Could they eject people who are not safe? I'm just not sure how to get that going and I've been wrestling with the issue since the turn of the century with no good solution. The problem first became apparent to me in 96 or so, but I figured it'd get better 'cause I certainly don't act like a dick all the time and I didn't understand how bad it was. My mistake for thinking others are reasonable too. Edit:typo
Honestly, some of the comments on #yesallwomen have made me worry about us. Some rapists clearly don't believe that they are rapists. The study a few years ago about "are sex offenders and lads mags using the same language?" was also worrying for the same reason.
This is one of the things that makes me want to thoroughly study canine and equine body language before doing anything,
even though my fantasies are inherently consensualespecially because I think my fantasies are inherently consensual.I find it amusing that so many folks I've talked too know about #yesallwomen, but only if they are also zoo. Most of my IRL co-workers and such are happily ignoring what they are saying. Oh well. :) But to be fair, you have to consider the amount of indoctrination a "young lad" receives in growing up, or for that matter a young lady does in popular culture. Someone said below that humans have a problem telling the difference between sexes of animals without a "crotch shot" to know for sure. That's all about not seeing them in that context while growing up. I used to look and "quiz" myself with pictures and I am about 90% accurate at a glance, but it isn't always obvious. I think many of us learn through doing which makes it a little safer path, but human sociology and psychology does leave us wondering if we are just slaves to desire.
It's possible. A perverted acquaintance thought his local BDSM meet might be good place for me to meet people. Not my thing in the slightest, but it was fairly gender balanced.
True, but those BDSM groups have an extremely strict policy about safe, sane, consensual... they are large enough to exclude bad people without consequence. (they even have lists I'm on because of my "animal fetish" hehe.) Those groups took a LONG time to get to that stage. They also had the advantage that, once you are in the "lifestyle" you probably have had to deal with women of power and if you are in a group like that, you are likely to have grown a bit in wisdom and age.
One person described some zoos, even though they are looking for a female human partner to housekeep with, as women -haters-. I cannot say that I completely disagree with him.
It's good that they have those policies, and terrifying that they need to. The prevalence of rape fantasies is one of the results from this survey that sadly didn't surprise me.
One of the reasons I couldn't stay around the BDSM group was their non-acceptance of zoo. Which is somewhat ironic, as I'm not sure I'd call what I saw at that meet "sane" or "informed consent".
hm. would be fun to have partaken in that survey.
[deleted]
Interesting.
Though it does sadden me that the majority of perspectives of those who fantasise about bestiality do so because they find it dirty, nasty and/or degrading. The statistics are interesting but I think we'd be lying to ourselves if we were to believe that this shows any inclination towards respect for zoophilic relationships in the general populace.
Indeed. The closest I see for that amongst non-zoos who I am in a position to judge the rationale for are either "I'm in a relationship with one" or "meat is definitely worse", both of which I find rather weak.
A majority fantasised about "being dominated sexually", so I'm not sure that's a problem in it's own right, and only becomes a problem if it's a more common fantasy amongst those who also fantasise about being degraded. Given the survey size, only 18 men and 22 women reported zoo fantasies, so it's probably just about possible (with the raw data) to check against their other answers and find out.
I've been toying with the idea of extending my moral boundaries to include those who have pets they happen to also use for sex. Assuming the pet is keen, well cared for, and unhurt I cannot fault someone for doing a deed I would myself. I do agree that it is sad that so many talk about the "dirtiness" of it. I'm not sure that is a result of the animal sex or breaking social taboos though. Have you read the original research? I'm not sure I would have answered anything about animals if I were part of that survey and had any more than a fantasy. The numbers of the zoo fantasy people seem to be extremely skewed to me from other research I've read. Definitely under representative in my opinion.
I agree with you. The actions are the same, regardless of whether the arrangement is that of a relationship or fuck buddies.
My criticisms are about misrepresentation, rather than immorality - I have my doubts about the extent to which non-zoophilic bestiality is helpful in the push for zoo social acceptance though. In my experience, it is the deviant nature that people find inviting. Some do find animals themselves dirty, and others again simply are curious, and that's okay as well.
Ethical sex with animals = ethical bestiality is definitely possible, zoo or not, lover or pet. It's kind of the core tenet everyone has to remember and practice, if you had to pick one thing. If you accepted only deep-rooted zoophilia and love and rainbows, there's no doubt you'd end up throwing people under the bus who don't deserve to be there. For sure that happens!
But from then on it turns into a practical sociological problem where lifelong zoophiles have the most incentive to practice ethical bestiality, everyone else having the least. I think it's super improbable most sexual contact with animals by casual interest is done ethically (and I even doubt the same for all sexual contact with animals as a whole, but that's another story). If you focus on casual sex, reality won't be in your favor, but more than that, if you care about animals the ethical thing may be to discourage it on grounds of known/expected human behavior and risk. Without condemning cases where care is shown.
That's the paradox of sex with animals as a whole. It can be done ethically but there are enough practical risks and the right thing is to avoid encouraging it on the whole, even discourage it outright. But you won't get zoophiles too hyped about that because it resembles an admission of guilt and goes against the "one of us" mentality. Same time, you have to avoid casualties of war.
You also want to focus on zoosexuals or anyone along those lines because they have the most investment and most to lose. Making bestiality illegal affects them more compared to fetishists or teenagers experimenting, and that factors into the human cost of those laws and might change someone's mind who wouldn't care about banning a simple fetish. I'm not too interested in that but on the community level it also makes sense to focus on zoosexuality since that's where the investment is and comes from along with the standards.
I will not put undue rules or pressures on zoos when Gays and Straights get a free pass.
As soon as hetrosexual sex is illegal because one in four women are raped, and gay sex is illegal because some pedophiles like same sex children then we can talk about why zoophiles should be illegal because some animals might get hurt.
That being said, I also do not agree that ethical bestiality has anything to do with long or short term relationships. The majority of people would not ever want to hurt their lover, or their pet. I would also say that beyond sex, most interaction with animals is not done ethically by the standards of sex I think you are suggesting. Factory farming, puppy mills, PMU barns, and medical testing are all stand out examples. To isolate sex as the only one which HAS to be moral IN ALL instances or we should ban it completely seems more an attack on the sex than the ethics.
I think the topic of bestiality porno is extrememly important in the acceptance of zoophilia. More so than ethics. Look, I've talked to a lot of non-zoo people about this now and they really aren't concerned with the ethics of anything. The ones who accept fall into two broad categories: the animal lover/animal protector who agrees that animals are more than children, and the ones who don't see using animals as a problem. My guess is that is about 40% of the population. the anti's fall into a few categories, the worst of which is the crazed animal rights people who hate humans, the religious, and the animal protectors who objectify animals as sub-human/the pet parents. all the categories, with the exception of the ethically challenged group, porno creates ill-will at the least.
There is also another option, that you forget to mention. We can teach people to think of their furry dildos in an ethical way. We are never going to get everyone, just like we will never get all the rapists of women to stop, but as a harm reduction strategy, in my opinion, it is the only way. Positive, ethical and emotionally controlled people out on forums like this able to take being called names with a smile.
I seem to have wandered a little off topic. One of the trends that really concerns me is the "I'm zoosexual, but I choose to never have sex." Trend that I see in the twenty somethings. Imagine if that was the choice gays and lesbians made? Repression on that scale can only lead to really bad stuff.
There is additional pressure on zoos that gays and straights don't have and it should be there [where justifiable]. Zoos are the only ones in a relationship with a dependent. Whether you like it or not that adds a vulnerability and changes the game.
Ethical bestiality doesn't have tons to do with short or long term relationships. It has to do with the level of seriousness with which the relationship is approached, which will correlate with someone's outlook and level of involvement.
Except they do, constantly, buying the cheapest store-bought foods and all around general ignorance, as if I'd have to list examples. Do you want them approaching female dog vaginas with the same ignorance they do for everything else? Because look around the web a bit, that's exactly what happens.
That's always been a weak argument that won't stand the test of time, not interested.
Funny thing to hear in the context of what I just wrote. I too knew lots of people who didn't give a fuck about ethics of anything! I'm pretty selective myself.
Obviously you're concerned about the zoo image as seen by the public. Thing is, I'm not. I'm concerned about the actual physical welfare of animals, which gets threatened on the whole the more ethics get relaxed. It can involve the zoo image as seen by zoos put out by zoos.
The irony is: In the long run if history remembers this do you think you'll end up with a better image by pandering to the public, or by actually promoting something (standards) that happens to show you care strongly about animal welfare?
In a sense that's what I suggest! Work on your community first, worry less about the non-zoo public.
Except harm reduction is not acceptable policy for this kind of relationship. Harm reduction is what's going to happen in reality, everyone knows this [unwritten goal, I'd agree with], but you can't give people the impression it's acceptable to half-ass compromise their animals for non-essentials. That's fucked.
I know what you mean, but afaic that's only a problem if they do that because they believe it's impossible to have sex with animals ethically. If you're worried about public image then yes stands like that can be cause for concern since the act speaks louder than the reasons given likely ignored, but I'm not worried about that.
It is interesting you keep saying that I'm the one worried about what other thinks, but to sum up your argument in three sentences:
So, the reason I am for harm reduction is because it is the only thing that works. You can keep to your ivory tower and tell everyone how ethical you are and be the arbitrator of who can and can't have sex, but the fact is, they do. As you say yourself, look around the net.
I think we have had enough examples of abstinence education not working to remove that canard from the conversation. People will remain ignorant no matter how often you tell them to not do something. Obviously, you have a very poor opinion of people. I've seen this a lot amongst this group and I've found it to be mostly wrong, just like most zoos are not "horrid animal rapists". Your way of taking care of your pet is not necessarily the best or only way.
I would think your default position is also "People should not own animals because some people don't care for them"? What about "No one should eat meat, because some animals are cruelly treated even beyond what is normally acceptable."? This is not a solution to anything, it doesn't do one damn thing to help an animal because people will just ignore you. It might make you personally feel better to have someone to point too and say "See, I'm ethical, they are not." But that helps no one and is not a good reason. Especially when no one will take you seriously if, as you suggest, you want history to take you seriously.
I would point out that the concern I have around "choosing to never have sex" is that repression will lead in most cases to acting out, guilt, and it seems, as shown in homosexuality, a stunning career as a televangelist or right wing congressman. The people denying themselves now will be our worst enemies later from a practical standpoint due to that self loathing, or whatever, when they fail in their beliefs. And no, I'm not arguing that it is impossible to deny oneself or people "have" to have sex. Trust me, I know about that last part.
Your entire post seems like a political statement meant to be read for non-zoos. You want to know the reason I really think we should get over bestiality as a separate entity? Because it is not going away, that lowest common denominator will always be there in any conversation with an anti-zoo. I refuse to throw people under the bus because an anti-zoo, who will say the same thing no matter how good most of us are, might use that against us. I am completely unconcerned with what an anti-zoo might say, rather I want to make sure the bestialist, zoo, or animal lover understands what it means to have sex with an animal.
_
This is not abstinence education. Telling people no sex without care is not the same as no sex. You offer an alternative, ethical relations, you can state. It's closer to saying read up on STDs and use a condom. Sure kids defy, but given enough time experience maturing they reanalyze. Like anything else. Like fence hopping. Would you advocate harm reduction for that too? Can't stop 'em! Here comes another 20 posts.
The only problem is incentive, which can be hard to provide because it's so easy to get away with shit with animals. Ones who've tried pushing standards have also been massive dicks, alienating people more by social failure and going overboard than any fault of the concept. It's been attempted only poorly and zoos haven't kept shit together for long so saying harm reduction is the only thing that works is leaving the main road a whole state before it ends. I'm not even against harm reduction. I'm against it as an official policy and go-to solution because it compromises the examples you need to set foremost.
Fuck no! First, the animals that people don't own, end up in shelters, worse off, dead. Sex is facultative. Not comparable. Second, that's not the line of reasoning. It takes the form of a stopgap measure for a practical failure, closer to "People should not own animals if the large majority presently don't care for them." In this context it's not even that because exceptions are sought out.
No, I don't care if human history takes me seriously. That was a comment for your benefit.
I don't promote that zoosexuals practice lifelong abstinence, none of this does, unless they're an irredeemable danger. Yes you're right, it's a recipe for disaster, depending on the reason.
There is nothing I advocate that's based on how non-zoos will react. It's based on trying to get zoos and casuals to act with care, using examples, in a way that will be as valid and working today as in 100 years from now. If it happens to look pretty to the world, that's icing. I wrote that the last thing I want is to throw people under the bus who don't deserve to be there. The difference (besides the public) is you'd take anyone on. The real difference is you're sympathizing with the zoo first whereas I'm more concerned about the animal who can't understand any of this even though it affects them so they require a counterweight (standards).
Much of the other comment would be repetition. I'll say this. I don't live for ethics, not even close, if you knew. They have a use occasionally. The other stuff isn't being ignored, it's not relevant to this convo. It does overlap with undervaluation of animals, but affecting that without going to extremes won't influence your typical ignoramus attempting penetration very much, the ones I'm concerned with, they're more about not thinking things through and loose ethics on the whole.
edit: yep I actually wrote "gapstop", fuck I'm tired
Gonna have to ask, please quit it with the strawmen. That post was one after the other, makes this a lot longer than it needs to be. Why do I bother.
Meanwhile after everything you do on here you'll be hard-pressed to convince anyone you have no rooted interest in zoo PR.
Have to add because didn't entirely explain:
You have to press the issue that if they're not going to take the act seriously enough, then they shouldn't do it. That comes with the territory of ethical bestiality and it's the right thing to do from where you're standing. If they don't show enough interest or care, and they can clearly live without it, it should be discouraged, no matter what else you do. That's going to include most casual situations, typically, so what I'm saying is it's best to adopt the default position of discouraging them and make exceptions where warranted.
Whether you choose to answer them with personal sex tips on top of that, when they don't listen, is your decision, in the sense I'm not going to argue whether that's enabling or not [vs harm reduction which I'd be for as an unwritten measure]. But these approaches aren't exclusive and I don't consider the first one optional and it should be tried first.
Please justify this rather than saying it is so.
You know, this is interesting in the amount of harm it could do because you might have misunderstood the intent, thoughts, or actions being performed.
"Personal sex tips," lol, yea, I'll take you seriously like that.
No, I do not believe sex is inherently harmful as much as western (monotheistic) society wants to make everyone believe it is so. The problem with your first step is that, once you've impressed upon them enough they shouldn't be doing something, they will go behind your back and do it anyhow. Again, abstinence education simply doesn't work but at least they won't get anyone preggers I suppose.
Also, if the raison d'etre is to do things ethically, as per your standards, you cannot ignore all the other stuff done to animals. Your fights are not with people who have sex with animals, it is with a society that devalues animals. At least if you want the most bang for your buck. If your fight is for a PR standard of ethics, which it honestly seems like, then telling everyone you think no one should have sex with animals with the possible exception of yourself and a few people you know who do it right will be laughed at by the general public.
Replying because some things I missed. Most of this was strawmen or addressed above.
Not much harm possible to the animal in suggesting someone should hold off from sex, besides omission of advice [which can still be given or pointed out as a last measure]. If you're a dick and tell them to fuck right off they might rebel and act reckless if they're that immature, that's about it.
Communication failure is a poor excuse. You could as easily give terrible advice on harm reduction if the intent or actions are misunderstood, could be even more disastrous. Then what if your harm reduction advice itself is good but completely misinterpreted? Is it responsible to give someone advice you can tell they're not in a position to understand or apply and will fuck it up? These are newbies attempting illegal intercourse with the anatomy of a different species. This can fuck up in more ways than dissuading and staying quiet, or dissuading and linking to a public guide. Doesn't work out in your favor and confounds issues.
Where did this come from? Not sure it was so much a strawman but damn, nothing written implied this. Let's reply anyway. Sex is not inherently harmful. Sex carries circumstantial risks. There isn't a form of sex with any species of any sex that doesn't.
Just flying under the standard deviation here. The actual numbers may be up to double of the reported results.