Haven't ever been there... most of the folks I've hung out with haven't either although a good portion of the people I know about do.
Comments on the story, good, bad, indifferent?
zoozooz 3 points on 2015-01-29 17:56:14
Pretty meh.
I don't understand why people are so shocked by these "howtos" so much. They are not there to recruit people into having sex with animals. They are there so that people who do already want to have sex with animals can learn how to not hurt themselves or their animal partner in the process. Why is that so hard to understand and why is that such a bad thing?
It can be hard to process just how sick these people are.
What is remarkable about these websites is how many people seem to be active on them, and the horrific scale of the animal abuse described in such cold terms by posters, including graphic details of animal anatomy.
Meh.
One suspects that if it wasn’t for BeastForum, most of its members would never have had the opportunity to express themselves in the way they do.
I think the author did not really do much research or he would have known about the various different online communities.
Also: Nice comments. /s The author seems to know his audience well.
danpetman 3 points on 2015-01-29 18:14:16
It's Breitbart, what do you expect? :P
YearningmiceEquus 2 points on 2015-01-29 18:18:19
Pretty much figured once I read the first few comments. I particularly liked the shit covered penis one directed at gay men.
danpetman 2 points on 2015-01-29 18:25:10
The irony is that Breitbart is actually one of the more reasonable conservative news outlets. There are WAY worse places.
YearningmiceEquus 2 points on 2015-01-29 18:31:01
Okay, that's pretty sad then.
YearningmiceEquus 3 points on 2015-01-29 19:02:30
So yea, went back to the article and notice the side bar... that is one of the more reasonable conservative news outlets in your experience? Holy fuck.
"Obama plans to behead you and turn you muslim."
JFC.
danpetman 3 points on 2015-01-29 20:04:14
The headline actually read "ISIS TO OBAMA: WE’LL BEHEAD YOU AND MAKE AMERICA MUSLIM." ISIS are the ones threatening to turn American Muslim, not Obama
YearningmiceEquus 2 points on 2015-01-29 20:34:52
D'oh, read that after the gun range one and apparently my eyes skipped... not as bad as I had feared then.
danpetman 5 points on 2015-01-29 21:41:21
Yeah, they may be conservative but at least they're not FOX <_<
GayTheDayAwayWithMe 2 points on 2015-01-29 18:31:53
Which comment/story about gaymens' shit peens?
YearningmiceEquus 2 points on 2015-01-29 18:59:28
One of the commenters on the link above said, to paraphrase "It is as bad as those gays with their shit covered penises"
I assume it was some kind of fundie or something. I mentioned it as that was one of the shortest representative statements of the quality of comments, which were poor... at the time it was comment 7 or so.
GayTheDayAwayWithMe 2 points on 2015-01-29 19:03:13
oh...thanks!
And beast forum sucks, but what else we going to use?
YearningmiceEquus 2 points on 2015-01-29 19:11:58
Well, ZF, knotty.me and a host of other resources to start. BF kinda sucks up everyone and I have a feeling teaches a fairly poor standard to new people who are zoosexual. Not gonna take a run at kink animal folk, but the image they portray is of animals coming in second to sexual gratification. Young men being what they are we all also tend to do anything to get laid. Zoos are no worse than any other group but that doesn't matter, we'll still wear that too.
If you want porno, obviously, not a lot of choice. Unfortunately, BF will always be a focus for the outside world, just like bathhouses and public parks at night are still talked about for "the gay menace".
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied. 2 points on 2015-01-29 19:23:45
BF will always be a focus for the outside world
Is that a bad thing though? At least they take the spotlight away from the smaller, tighter knit communities and they seem to be able to handle that kind of exposure.
YearningmiceEquus 3 points on 2015-01-29 19:50:37
It's not bad per se, I suppose. It's bad in the way bathhouses gave gays this pervasive idea of all the sex all the time, and also portrayed that image to the public.
I think gay culture really started to grow as those who participated in the bathhouses grew up and decided they wanted something more and better. Hook ups can be great but most of us need more. I think BF stands for that hook-up lifestyle. The modern manifestation of it. Again, I've never actually logged onto BF and am judging from first hand accounts, what I've seen in other forums, policies that have been put into place, and the actions of many of those who claim to use the site.
GayTheDayAwayWithMe 2 points on 2015-01-29 20:00:26
As a gay man, I only wanted to go to a bath house once :D
And my only reaaal issue with BF(been on it since '05, am 24 now) is the file size restrictions and the download timers. so many great quality vids on BF, split into 20 parts, ten megs each, with a download timer that goes up with each DL....
I like gaybeast.com
YearningmiceEquus 2 points on 2015-01-29 20:36:18
As a man of interdetminate sexuality in San Fran in the 90s, it never occurred to me to want to.... lol... but yea.... bathhouses were never "all gay men" but that didn't matter.
ShadowOfMars 5 points on 2015-01-30 15:21:16
As a zoo-curious horny teen in 2005, I lurked on BF. My impression of the community was that most were less mature than I was.
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied. 5 points on 2015-01-29 18:57:42
I always find it kind of funny how hidden in plain view we are here. A google search doesnt bring us up unless youre pretty specific but reddit itself is huge.
Also, top lol at 'secret world'. Makes it sound far more glamorous than it really is. A bunch of people with only really one thing in common.
[deleted] 1 point on 2015-01-29 20:20:07
I have been on some secret non-animal related websites. Anything that turns up by google is not secret, though the reverse is not. Having the word "beast" implies something about animals. Having a "secret" section on "Joe's Pizzeria" EST 1998 website (www.example .com/joespizza), would be secret especially if the secret section uses only numbers and requires registration.
ThrowwwayGurl 4 points on 2015-01-29 21:37:21
You mean you don't have a secret ring that gets you into all the meetings? Which reminds me I need to iron my robes for the next Great Gathering in the Underground Hall.
danpetman 3 points on 2015-01-29 22:01:31
Don't forget the secret knock for the door, and the secret handshake for the doorman, and the super-ultra-secret punch recipe for the meeting. So secret.
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied. 3 points on 2015-01-30 00:45:28
That sounds cool. I kinda want to start one now...
[deleted] 1 point on 2015-01-30 23:06:43
Yeah but certain people on this subreddit do have their personal info on their personal websites. Though there are ways like enabling protection through robots.txt, encryption, captchas ect.
[deleted] 6 points on 2015-01-29 20:12:35
Why do they call it "secret"? Did BF suddenly magically spring up overnight in 2015? And WTF does the article mention specific usernames without their consent isn't this libel?
ZoroasterTheCat 4 points on 2015-01-29 21:21:56
It sounds sexier that way. This article is a complete waste of bandwidth, and is a far cry away from anything that could be considered 'research journalism.' The guy read a few posts and a few how-to's, and shat out a blog post. Didn't even bother to contact any members for an interview. Or maybe he was afraid if he did, he would catch fleas or something. It's the typical 'ew, look how gross,' type of article.
ThrowwwayGurl 8 points on 2015-01-29 21:42:45
It's a conservative site aimed at a conservative audience. I grew up listening to this kind of rhetoric witch-hunting various groups for this and that. I almost can't take it seriously anymore since I know personally that half the people who this kind of hyperbole is aimed at are... lets just say, a few shotgun shells short of a full rapture-survival bunker.
I guess it doesn't bother me because I already know this is a prevalent attitude and there's absolutely nothing any of us could say to change how this demographic feels. Most of them are going to be so grossed out by just the discussion on this article that they won't read much of it. Just one more thing to fear and pray about until that bad, bad Muslim man gets out of office.
FrostfedoraCute huskies. :3 3 points on 2015-01-29 22:12:59
Reading through its comments section. Does anyone else prefer it when conservatives complain about zoophilia rather than "progressives"? At least conservatives are honest and don't try to hide bigotry. But when you scratch a "progressive", you'll almost always find a reactionary or a coward who only supports social movements when it's convenient to do so. They're two sides of the same coin when it comes to zoophilia and will just try to pretend that their disgust is logical by repeating their "Dogs can't consent! They're just like fur babies!" bullshit.
ShadowOfMars 2 points on 2015-01-29 23:33:56
See the front page of ShitRedditSays today...
Equine_Aficionado 1 point on 2015-02-09 02:06:30
I was thinking kind of the same thing. Only, I was wondering whether the same reactionary progressives who bash on zoophiles now would suddenly begin standing up for us, because we're now the target of conservatives.
I guess it just depends on what gives them the greater feeling of moral superiority: ripping on zoos, or standing up for a perceived underdog?
/r/zoophilia archive
Haven't ever been there... most of the folks I've hung out with haven't either although a good portion of the people I know about do.
Comments on the story, good, bad, indifferent?
Pretty meh.
I don't understand why people are so shocked by these "howtos" so much. They are not there to recruit people into having sex with animals. They are there so that people who do already want to have sex with animals can learn how to not hurt themselves or their animal partner in the process. Why is that so hard to understand and why is that such a bad thing?
Meh.
I think the author did not really do much research or he would have known about the various different online communities.
Also: Nice comments. /s The author seems to know his audience well.
It's Breitbart, what do you expect? :P
Pretty much figured once I read the first few comments. I particularly liked the shit covered penis one directed at gay men.
The irony is that Breitbart is actually one of the more reasonable conservative news outlets. There are WAY worse places.
Okay, that's pretty sad then.
So yea, went back to the article and notice the side bar... that is one of the more reasonable conservative news outlets in your experience? Holy fuck.
"Obama plans to behead you and turn you muslim."
JFC.
The headline actually read "ISIS TO OBAMA: WE’LL BEHEAD YOU AND MAKE AMERICA MUSLIM." ISIS are the ones threatening to turn American Muslim, not Obama
D'oh, read that after the gun range one and apparently my eyes skipped... not as bad as I had feared then.
Yeah, they may be conservative but at least they're not FOX <_<
Which comment/story about gaymens' shit peens?
One of the commenters on the link above said, to paraphrase "It is as bad as those gays with their shit covered penises"
I assume it was some kind of fundie or something. I mentioned it as that was one of the shortest representative statements of the quality of comments, which were poor... at the time it was comment 7 or so.
oh...thanks!
And beast forum sucks, but what else we going to use?
Well, ZF, knotty.me and a host of other resources to start. BF kinda sucks up everyone and I have a feeling teaches a fairly poor standard to new people who are zoosexual. Not gonna take a run at kink animal folk, but the image they portray is of animals coming in second to sexual gratification. Young men being what they are we all also tend to do anything to get laid. Zoos are no worse than any other group but that doesn't matter, we'll still wear that too.
If you want porno, obviously, not a lot of choice. Unfortunately, BF will always be a focus for the outside world, just like bathhouses and public parks at night are still talked about for "the gay menace".
Is that a bad thing though? At least they take the spotlight away from the smaller, tighter knit communities and they seem to be able to handle that kind of exposure.
It's not bad per se, I suppose. It's bad in the way bathhouses gave gays this pervasive idea of all the sex all the time, and also portrayed that image to the public.
I think gay culture really started to grow as those who participated in the bathhouses grew up and decided they wanted something more and better. Hook ups can be great but most of us need more. I think BF stands for that hook-up lifestyle. The modern manifestation of it. Again, I've never actually logged onto BF and am judging from first hand accounts, what I've seen in other forums, policies that have been put into place, and the actions of many of those who claim to use the site.
As a gay man, I only wanted to go to a bath house once :D
And my only reaaal issue with BF(been on it since '05, am 24 now) is the file size restrictions and the download timers. so many great quality vids on BF, split into 20 parts, ten megs each, with a download timer that goes up with each DL....
I like gaybeast.com
As a man of interdetminate sexuality in San Fran in the 90s, it never occurred to me to want to.... lol... but yea.... bathhouses were never "all gay men" but that didn't matter.
As a zoo-curious horny teen in 2005, I lurked on BF. My impression of the community was that most were less mature than I was.
For some reason that made me think of https://imgur.com/a/40fNX
I always find it kind of funny how hidden in plain view we are here. A google search doesnt bring us up unless youre pretty specific but reddit itself is huge.
Also, top lol at 'secret world'. Makes it sound far more glamorous than it really is. A bunch of people with only really one thing in common.
I have been on some secret non-animal related websites. Anything that turns up by google is not secret, though the reverse is not. Having the word "beast" implies something about animals. Having a "secret" section on "Joe's Pizzeria" EST 1998 website (www.example .com/joespizza), would be secret especially if the secret section uses only numbers and requires registration.
You mean you don't have a secret ring that gets you into all the meetings? Which reminds me I need to iron my robes for the next Great Gathering in the Underground Hall.
Don't forget the secret knock for the door, and the secret handshake for the doorman, and the super-ultra-secret punch recipe for the meeting. So secret.
That sounds cool. I kinda want to start one now...
Yeah but certain people on this subreddit do have their personal info on their personal websites. Though there are ways like enabling protection through robots.txt, encryption, captchas ect.
Why do they call it "secret"? Did BF suddenly magically spring up overnight in 2015? And WTF does the article mention specific usernames without their consent isn't this libel?
It sounds sexier that way. This article is a complete waste of bandwidth, and is a far cry away from anything that could be considered 'research journalism.' The guy read a few posts and a few how-to's, and shat out a blog post. Didn't even bother to contact any members for an interview. Or maybe he was afraid if he did, he would catch fleas or something. It's the typical 'ew, look how gross,' type of article.
It's a conservative site aimed at a conservative audience. I grew up listening to this kind of rhetoric witch-hunting various groups for this and that. I almost can't take it seriously anymore since I know personally that half the people who this kind of hyperbole is aimed at are... lets just say, a few shotgun shells short of a full rapture-survival bunker.
I guess it doesn't bother me because I already know this is a prevalent attitude and there's absolutely nothing any of us could say to change how this demographic feels. Most of them are going to be so grossed out by just the discussion on this article that they won't read much of it. Just one more thing to fear and pray about until that bad, bad Muslim man gets out of office.
Reading through its comments section. Does anyone else prefer it when conservatives complain about zoophilia rather than "progressives"? At least conservatives are honest and don't try to hide bigotry. But when you scratch a "progressive", you'll almost always find a reactionary or a coward who only supports social movements when it's convenient to do so. They're two sides of the same coin when it comes to zoophilia and will just try to pretend that their disgust is logical by repeating their "Dogs can't consent! They're just like fur babies!" bullshit.
See the front page of ShitRedditSays today...
I was thinking kind of the same thing. Only, I was wondering whether the same reactionary progressives who bash on zoophiles now would suddenly begin standing up for us, because we're now the target of conservatives.
I guess it just depends on what gives them the greater feeling of moral superiority: ripping on zoos, or standing up for a perceived underdog?