Honestly I think it is a fitting term. I have done my research on a myriad of different sexualities and preferences including this one and I think this is a good term for some. They seem convinced that zoophiles are going to rape their pets anytime they get the slightest chance even threatening to "practice my 2A rights" on them. This is clearly zoo phobic behavior. I have noted such behaviors in other sexualities as well, but second only to pedophilia (the main fear is that all pedophiles are all child molesters, which just is not the case. Most know better than to act on their attraction and would never do such a thing to a child.), zoophiles get the most phobic behaviors thrown at them. I thought dealing with people's reactions to me being asexual was bad, I honestly say I feel really bad about how people treat those of you who are zoophiles. It sickens me. Even just trying to talk about it get me in some deep crap and I am not even a zoophile (thought I get accused of being one for bringing it up...). So much hate towards something they know so little about... It keeps me up at night. I am not sure how you all handle it, but I would not do well in your shoes I would think
/r/zoophilia archive
Hey, thanks for your comments. There really is not a point in calling anyone zoophobic in public at the moment... While they are completely zoophobic; the target of public conversations is to engage someone who sees the hate but isn't so phobic. A calm rational response without name calling is going to win that other person over while not creating worse feelings in the zoophobic.
This will change when the common arguments against zoosexuality are more widely understood and accepted. I'm not sure when that might be. You see yourself how difficult it is to even ask a question or make a comment on zoosexuality without being accused or suspected of some horrid animal attack.
Edit: Puncuation is good.
I would like to think the tides will change at least within our lifetimes. I have seen open discussion with some promising results online, so maybe there is hope for it. Even though it does not involve me it really hurts seeing what some people say though. Hate is such a terrible thing. I do not care what the reason for it. I can never see it as a good thing.
[deleted]
In my opinion because 1) it sounds stupid, at least off of my tongue. And 2) even with homophobic, the only example applicable where the word is constructed like that, it is a stupid word. People are not 'afraid' of homosexuals like arachnophobics are afraid of spiders. They are simply being assholes trying to press everyone in the scheme of living they decided is best - theirs.
Even with pedophilia, I would not call it a phobia. A phobia is something that renders you incapable of continuing with a normal reaction. A phobia can make you want to kill yourself rather than stand the height/other people/water/etc a moment longer. A phobic's physical reaction when presented with the trigger is almost literally off the charts, they get heart attacks and uncontrolled panic from that.
Even with pedophilia, i would rather call it some kind of mass-hysteria, that the media has managed to achieve in parts of the world. Sure, abusing kids is bad. But not every man does it. Yet the permanent ambush with the topic in the news, and even double-twists (the worst pedophiles are those you least expect) made it really bad, sometimes I actively walk away from kids so I don't look weird. Still, even that is not a phobia really. That is just mass-stupidity. And if the mob once in a while attacks a real or suspected guy alleging whatever, that is also not a phobia. That is lynching or vigilantism.
I think the point the OP was making with pedophilia (the sexual attraction itself) is that it's not inherently related to sexually abusing kids just as zoophilia (the sexual attraction itself) is not inherently related to sexually abusing animals. Yet, there is a deep fear of pedophiles being inherent child molesters - you can see it in the common conflation between the two terms itself - just as there is a deep fear of zoophiles being inherent animal abusers, regardless of what evidence there might be to the contrary. I think it is that which is a phobia.
That sounds more like being misinformed about something that is alien to someone. And people fear the alien and/or strange, making up all kinds of stuff in their fantasy to scare themselves. But a phobia? I still think that is a medical condition where your body-reaction is in no relation any longer to real danger. So I still kind of disagree, but everyone accepted homophobic, too. So meh.
I was using the term "phobia" to refer to an irrational fear of something that causes anxiety in oneself, which I do think people nowadays have towards pedophiles and zoophiles and to a lesser extent, homosexual people. I think that there should be another term for those who don't fit that criteria of having fear/anxiety but are instead prejudiced and uninformed, and hateful (though hateful could be its own category) towards certain groups.
That other term is "asshole"
that I am aware it is loosely fitting but still fits. Phobia is an irrational fear of. People seem to have an irrational fear that all zoophiles rape and abuse animals in horrible ways, just like homophobes seem to think all homosexuals will try to have sex with them/push "their lifestyle choice" on everybody else. I think it fits the description of a fear, just not the same kind of fear.
I agree that there is much of people trying to hold other people to their own standards as though it is law or something. Almost everybody does it, it seems.
Yes, sometimes it really looks similar.
http://www.nature.com/news/homophobia-and-hiv-research-under-siege-1.15201?WT_ec_id=NATURE-20140515
It's not so common, but you can also find many people being concerned about zoophilia being "promoted" to their children like http://www.speroforum.com/a/26760/Spain-promotes-bestiality-to-school-children
I'm not saying it is that bad, but I have heard stories of researchers stopping their research into zoophilia because they didn't want to deal with radical "animal rights activists" (in quotes) anymore. Not really sure how believable they are though.
Ex-zoophiles, "recovering" zoophiles, "former" zoophiles:
This is the article that convinced me personally that people just reuse homophobic statements with a new "target": http://www.yourtango.com/2013188025/sex-animals-head-germany
The way it marginalizes sexuality:
If that's not the exact same way homophobic people talk, I don't know...
And the constant mixing of zoophilia and sadism towards animals? Well, you better not google "homosexuals rape children".
I handle it by being very secretive about myself, never talking about my feelings, letting off steam online anonymously and alienating myself from most people. Probably not the healthiest way.
For most people, a human having sex with a non-human animal is rape. Thus, zoophiles who have sex with animals are rapists and are in the wrong.
Generally, the terms that end in "-phobic" only come around when you have a significant amount of the population who believe that a certain group is unfairly marginalized and is actually "in the right" as opposed to being in the wrong.
While I understand your frustration, I would never use the word "zoophobic" to describe someone in this context. When I imagine a conversation that goes into that word, I can't help but think there would be either an immediate thought that zoos are comparing themselves to LGBT people without having earned that level of respect (in their minds, at least), or a dismissal because their response to zoos isn't so much fearful as disgusted, if they don't understand what "phobic" means in this context.
Perhaps. I suppose it depends on the way it is used, but there is a chance it may put them on the defensive as they may be insulted somehow, and once you put somebody on the defensive you have pretty much removed all chance of convincing them of something they do not want to be convinced of.
I don't think we need to make up new words and use them in conversation with non-zoos in a debate. It's awkward.
That being said, yes, it's the same thing homosexuals faced with being sterotyped. It's just bigotry, we don't need a special name for it.
I can feel the stress in your words, and you're not even talking out loud. Take three deep breaths.
In my mind, there are a few fundamentals that pertain to society and functioning within it when you lie outside. They are: 1) Life is about learning to best play the hand you've been given. 2) Many people are assholes. 3) There are good people.
The negative actions of those we wish to label as "zoophobic" are powered by irrationality, misconceptions or malice, but that does not mean we must be angered or upset - that is what they want, is it not? Personally, I filter what I do and don't wish to take into account, and hate speech falls firmly in the "do not" category. Being outwardly offended gives them the power over us they crave. Free speech is a gift, and while the downside of it is having to face what others believe, they are entitled to their opinions as we are to ours, validity notwithstanding.
Back to the question at hand though, I have no issues with referring to bigots as "anti-zoos"; it seems to work well and is more strongly tailored to our collective interests than "zoophobes", which technically speaking already means "those who fear animals", not "those who harass zoophiles".
You are right. I had just done some more recent research on zoophilia after moving on to a few other topics for a while and I had almost forgotten how bad it was. I mean I was seeing people giving out blatant death threats. Even though the struggles faced by zoophiles to do not directly affect me, such strong hatred is just a hard thing for me to see. It is one of the reasons humans tend to be my least favorite species on the planet, though there are good people, this world still has so much hate out there.
I would not personally use the term "zoo phobic". I think using that term is like name calling, at least in this point of time.
I really don't recommend using the term, it sets a precedent of victimization, that if unchecked can evolve into Anita Sarkesian levels.