So I have some problems with empathy, and therefore I'm going to the psychiatrist.
I spoke about the post I made here: the guidelines. He told me I shouldn't bother, because the people here cannot be convinced of anything.
He also mentioned that he is not so much worried about welfare, but what he perceives as the purpose of sex: To bring people together.
That since an animal only perceives the libido, then is as if you made it with an object, that you didn't transcend anything as they like to believe and tell.
Any observant people will notice the catholic principles in action.
Basically, we are only on this world to fill up an evil quota, before we can earn heaven, and that obeying the urges of the body, is equivalent to downplay heaven.
I still want to know what you think of what he said.
Umm, I think you need to find a real psychiatrist and stop coming here and insulting us. Look for credentials like a PhD in clinical psychology not from a religous school, and 20 years of clinical practice in a variety of settings. Just for your information, my psychologist is catholic and seems to feel I am not in need of treatment. I only see her to deal with the murder of a friend by her husband. Both were religious, just as an aside.
Your world is filled with assumptions about us, what we do, how we encounter people and so forth. For the most part your assumptions are not true, yet you continue to judge by those same assumptions. You want us to be wrong and by that you decide we are and declare we cannot be convinced. Even if it was the words of your doctor, you obviously agree or wouldn't post them.
It is interesting that your claimed psychiatrist is worried about us rather than asking you why you felt the need to come here and outline principals? It is your actions he would be concerned about, not ours. His definition of the purpose of sex is... unique.. amongst the literature I've read on human sexuality, let alone animal sexuality.
Very moral of him and not very convincing. He wants us to "transcend" what exactly? A higher moral purpose? There is no argument here, just mental masturbation. I would argue that my relationship with my mare has brought me closer to people than you have experienced. That empathy, particularly the kind required to love a horse, is not a wasted experience but that the joy she and I have shared has brought people to us. You have lost your way by focusing on sex.
Finally, I am not of your faith, and mine doesn't require the dominance of man. Do not dare to think you can impose your faith and its moral code on me.
I came here because I want to know what did you think what was wrong in his reasoning, and if you read catholic scholars, they will tell you that sex only transcends when reproduction is achieved, that's why they are opposed to condoms.
And since I don't know you, I made no assumptions about you (name one).
Never once did I mentioned you need treatment, never did I mentioned I agree with him (quote me), in fact I am an atheist.
Do you want to stay inside a bubble? To keep the practice underground is too keep it illegal in most contexts, that's why is important we break with the taboo.
When you start talking about it, then you are gonna get stupid rebuttals like the ones I presented, if you react so on the defensive, then you are just gonna give him the victory.
Unless zoophiles learn to respond civically and analytically, then we are doomed from step one.
Far from it. You can see in the sidebar that, "/r/zoophilia is devoted to the discussion and the sharing of information regarding zoophilia, the attraction to animals." Open mindedness to sexual possibilities is a common theme around here, but is by no means the whole point of the sub.
This twenty part philosophical argument is a very strong implication that you only support a specific range or zoophilic relationships, and suggests that we ought to conform to your incomplete guidelines. That many of us need treatment, if you will.
You never directly state that you agree with him, I will give you that. But based on your rather condescending history around here, I'm inclined to believe that you only recant your encounter with him as a means of stirring things up.
As T-V said, I think you mean well. But whatever your intentions are, you seem to be going about them in the wrong way.
And oh did it work! Tell me, you want the government being able to arrest you only for what you do, even though it hurts no one?
Your quote about me making a set of guidelines, in no way implies anyone needs treatment.
I do appreciate you exposed me when I made an assumption, I guess I am not allowed to say you should or are open minded, my apologies.
It doesn't matter what my intentions are, what matter is your reaction, if you keep being inside your protective bubble, many more zoophiles will suffer. If you cannot react to an outsider in general in a civil manner, then many more of you will end up in jail, many more will be lead astray and become abusive, many more will commit suicide.
This is only the first step, next is creating strategies to make the responsible zoophile point of view be heard.
Nobody here is opposed to outsiders. We however, are opposed to someone new and unfamiliar trying to dictate what we should do which is why your "proposed guidelines" in particular ruffled quite a few feathers.
On another note, us replying to your psychiatrists thoughts in a closed thread that he is unaware of is not going to change anything regarding the social status of zoophilia. The only way to change it is to engage those arguments when people make them and most people aren't willing to out themselves for that.
Read my second comment to you for what a guideline is.
Why do you think it won't change anything? To the contrary, I now have very useful data on how much you are willing for the things to remain like they are.
You said it yourself:
Why should that be the case?
Nobody wants things to remain the way they are, I'm pretty sure all of us would be happier if nobody hated us. Of course nobody is going to out themselves in public because it contains a lot of ramifications for doing so that are detrimental to a good quality of life. I'd rather not have things remain the way they are but I'm not about to toss my life away.
And about your guidelines, I'm pretty sure i speak for more than a few of us, when I say that it is very arrogant for you to come in and tell us how we should go about our sexual activities. Whats more, you seem to think that you have the only solution to acceptance of zoophilia. If you wanna stay in the community fine, but stop trying to dictate how we should act.
Then let us make an strategy, an strategy that does not require public knowledge of your identity.
In the very last paragraph of the guidelines I explained how I expected your feedback, and that it wasn't a final document, what part of that is arrogant? Guidelines are defined as non mandatory, non binding, I already told you this.
The fact that you put yourself in such a position immediately is extremely arrogant of you. You immediately interposed yourself as someone who would draft a bill for an oppressed community so that they could be accepted.
You don't seem to understand the definition of arrogant.
I don't see you making any effort to revert the situation, and it's not about drafting a bill, we first need better definitions before anything near that gets to pass, the guidelines were an attempt at that.
If I didn't want your opinion, then I would have proposed it to my local government without any of you, now that would be arrogant.
I do need you, I wouldn't have known for the existence of the knot if it wasn't for you.
Arrogant
This pins down your attitude since coming here pretty well I'd say. All you've done is post something that tells us how to act, and then get defensive when people criticize it. You're not important enough to tell us how to act.
Why should a post be so important to you? I could have told you that you should only have sex while you are upside down, and it wouldn't violate the rules.
Thats the thing. Theyre your rules. Everybody needs to have their own moral compass. Youre doing the same thing as institutionalized religion by trying to tell people how to live.
"I wouldn't have known for the existence of the knot if it wasn't for you"
This statement pretty much sums up my issue with you. You talk with the air of someone who has something to offer the zoo community that we would be otherwise unable to obtain, yet are staggeringly ignorant of some of the most basic facts relating to zoophilia. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that you somehow feel that, despite having done zero research into the mechanics of sex with animals, you know more about how it should be dealt with than practicing zoophiles, presumably because you're just so super duper smart compared to us. You offer us nothing we can't provide ourselves. We are capable of coming up with our own "guidelines" should we feel that they are required, and we are infinitely better informed to do so than you are. You posting them was simply an act of intellectual vanity, seeking to "solve" the problems of a group you knew little to nothing about when they were more than capable of attempting to find a solution themselves.
I fail to see how that's the case, I know for example that most birds reproduce through something called a cloaca, that acts as both an anus and a reproductive end, so it is basically two orifices touching each other exchanging fluids.
I don't see you trying to solve the problems, the fact is thousands of zoophiles are in jail even though they didn't hurt anything, that's a problem.
Well done, you know one fact. You're still hugely ignorant of almost everything to do with zoophilia and what it's like to be a zoophile. You are not in a position to speak for zoophiles, or to offer zoophiles advice about zoophilia.
You don't see us trying to solve the problems because you're not part of the community. You don't know us, or what we do. Did you ever consider that the reason the majority of zoophiles weren't actively trying to change laws and stuff was because they didn't want to, rather than just being intellectually incompetent and needing outside help? You presumption in trying to solve what you perceived to be our problems for us is kind of amazing.
So basically they don't want the laws changed, because they believe they don't need to?
That is demonstrably false, the rules say:
Is that acceptable to you? If so why it should be acceptable to anyone else?
I don't believe the laws need to be changed. I put that warning in as a factual word of caution and to avoid potential altercations, not to make a political or social statement on injustice. Again, you are making assumptions on what our community wants.
Imagine a different scenario, not involving zoophilia, but rather race-related issues. Would you not consider it colossally arrogant and offensive for a white person, with not only no experience of living as a PoC but inaccurate ideas about what it entails, to stride uninvited to the NAACP and present a poorly-thought-out, largely ignorant and entirely unasked for set of guidelines for what black people should do to make things better for themselves?
The issue is not with the guidelines themselves per se (although other have already pointed out the issues with them at length) nor that you asked for feedback, but rather with the fact that you inserted yourself into a community about which you had next to no knowledge with the air of one dispensing wisdom from on high and a total lack of humility. Zoophiles do need to interact with non-zoophiles, of course, and a discourse is important, but there is a vast difference between two parties talking and exchanging views, and one person demanding attention and discussion when the other party has given no indication that such discussion is wanted. It's not a discourse if it's just you popping up out of nowhere to offer an opinion no-one asked you to give.
The whole point of such an space like this one is for voices to be heard.
You do not wish to see my post, then you don't have to click them, it's not like the mere existence is going to violate your rights or the rules.
If you don't want discussion, then fine, don't post comments and dislike my post, what else do you want me to do?
I won't disappear until I get banned, and for that you need to demonstrate that I violated the rules.
What would you have considered to be humble then? what could I have done different?
The point of a space like this one is not for you to determine. This is not a free-for-all open forum where everyone has an inalienable right to say whatever they like. This is a zoophilia-focused subreddit. Free speech is valued here, but at the end of the day, it's the community that decides on what is and isn't an acceptable voice. You can say "you don't have to read my posts" sure, but to that I say "you don't have to make them." Why, when it has been made abundantly clear to you that your input is not wanted, do you persist in demanding that people listen to you?
The fact that you say "I won't disappear until I get banned" confuses the hell out of me, because why on earth would you have that attitude if you genuinely cared about zoophiles and weren't just interested in stroking your own intellectual ego? If you try to talk to people and they don't want to hear what you have to say, the correct response is to either take a different approach or stop talking, not to say "you can't make me shut up" and keep at it ad nauseam. Who do you think is benefiting from you acting this way? Why do you think that what you have to say is so important to a community that is more than capable of determining for itself what action, if any, it should be taking?
A humble approach would have been to first ask if the zoophile community even wanted the input of a non-zoophile to come up with guidelines for "solving problems." If the response was positive, then the next step would have been to ask what the problems were, and what proposed solutions already existed, because as members of the group actually living and dealing with these issues, we are far more knowledgeable about them than you. Respecting both the opinions and existing knowledge of a group is extremely important when offering to help them as an outsider. Your approach of assuming total incompetence on the part of zoophiles when it comes to dealing with the issues we face was insulting and supremely condescending. You never once asked for input before presenting your "magnum opus," but rather approached the matter as if you already had everything figured out and we should be glad for your help.
You are wrong:
Nothing says I should only post if it is requested, so yes it is a free for all forum.
Since you can comment and I can post, our rights are not being violated, I ask why you desire to read and respond to my post, you ask why I make them in the first place, I already told you why I made them.
You say there are already solutions in place, but your rules says otherwise:
What part of my text ever suggested all of you were incompetents, I in fact responded favorably to civil comments, including the ones that made me change my mind about withdrawal.
saying "you can't make me shut up" is an statement of fact, inherent to the right of free speech, there is no correct way of doing it, only efficient ways of doing it.
You're still not addressing the key question, which is "why are you even posting here if not to stroke your own intellectual ego?" Your input simply is not needed or wanted, so why are you so hell-bent on continuously providing it?
You said in the first post of this thread "I have some problems with empathy," so let me give you a little advice. When you're trying to talk to people and they are not interested in what you have to say, take the hint. You may want to continue talking, you may think they are unjustified in wanting you to stop, but you serve nothing but your own self-interest by refusing to stop and are actively upsetting people by doing so. What do you think your continued presence here will achieve? Who, exactly, do you think you are helping, acting the way you are?
Your initial post with the guidelines could have been (and for the most part was, I think) construed as a well-intentioned if misguided and ill-informed attempt to assist the zoophile community, but your current attitude and behaviour serve no-one but yourself. The zoophile community has responded to you, and the response has generally been "please leave us alone," yet you refuse to do so. Why? "Because you can't make me stop" is no answer at all. What is motivating you to continue here despite an overwhelmingly negative reaction and a very clear message that while the thought was nice, your approach was absolutely not appreciated?
You really want to know?
Ok, I used to go to my granny's house, a house he shared with my aunt, we used to throw parties in there, everything was fine until my circumstances obligated me to live in there.
A series of misunderstandings, made my aunt hate me, to the point of violence until we moved out.
Now no parties are held there, I can't even visit my granny because of my aunt.
I thought you may find yourself in a similar situation, where you are kept away from he things you love (your partners) because people are ignorant, and they are not willing to communicate unless you force them to.
If I were a lawmaker and I only had this post to know you, how do you expect me to interpret it?
I'm telling you, I consulted this with my professors who are not zoo's, they all share the same concerns outlined in the guidelines, the non-zoophiles also need to be represented when it comes to the debate, I won't accept the lack of such debate, or the illusion we don't need it.
When I said I have trouble with empathy I wasn't kidding, sometimes I get to the point of defending the rights of vicious criminals, or sometimes I can't understand basic forms of expression, that are far from analytical talk.
You still haven't addressed why you're still posting here. Your initial motivations are irrelevant at this point, because it has been made abundantly clear to you that your input is neither bringing anything new to the table nor wanted by the community. We have heard what you have to say and we have found little merit in it. You made your well-intentioned post and it was by and large a failure. What do you think you're achieving by refusing to leave now?
What should I do then? You showed me I'm a failure, that when doing what I love to do, I made things worse, if I give in, then I'm nothing but a sack of shit, and I'm sorry if I don't want to be that.
But I'm already a sack of shit to my aunt, someone I used to love has threaten to call the cops, if I get near to visit my granny.
If I come out here defeated, then I don't think I would be able to succeed at anything.
So you're willing to bother a community because you gain meaning from it? You're openly admitting that you actually care nothing for zoophiles or our issues, and that you are simply seeking misplaced personal fulfilment, which is incredibly selfish. Maybe by "giving in", you would feel good in the knowledge that you made a community happier by leaving it alone.
Couldn't you pick an easier goal? Our community itself cannot end discrimination, so what makes you think you can, especially when you don't have our support?
K.
Why did this come to my mind?
You are not proving anything.
Oh! something else, you accuse me of trying to make you conform.
The document you see right now, was edited thanks to the suggestions of THIS community, it now allows for subjects to engage if the physiology prevents withdrawal, like the knot of the dog.
You also seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of a guideline or a suggestion, they are not mandatory, non binding.
I do not have the authority to say who needs treatment and who doesn't, that's the job of the psychiatrist, and even in this case he failed, don't you want to prevent that?
I'm in full agreement with what has been said by YM. A view of humans as having something to transcend is subjective and should not be preached by a professional in a clinical setting.
For the benefit of everyone here, I'd like to request that you leave us alone. I don't want to ban you, so I will not force you to leave at this stage, but you are on thin ice, my friend. You're wasting your time and ours, and your arrogance is unbelievable. I think you mean well, but you are not doing this community any favours whatsoever, and you bring nothing to the discussion even though you seem to think you speak of unheard concepts. I think you need to sort your priorities and start dabbling in things that concern you.
We cannot assume that all psychiatrists practice as optimal can we?
You tell me you know what is for the benefit of everyone, why should I believe that?
You tell me I should leave you alone, will law enforcement leave YOU alone?
Saving peoples lives from jail, informing people what is and isn't zoophilia from the outside, do you classify that as a waste of time?
The status quo is unacceptable, and I don't specially care if what I said is new or not, what I care is if I can make a difference. Who are you to tell me, that I shouldn't start here?
It's my responsibility to be in touch with this community and what its members desire. Can't you see that you are being met largely with suspicion, hostility and resentment?
While I know others here disagree, I'm not in favour of zoophile rights beyond the hypothetical, and would rather find ways to hide than fix the issues.
It is when you have almost no clue what this community really is. You think you're doing us a favour by coming into our community and telling us who we are. You're not.
That, right there, is precisely your problem. You cannot just go doing whatever you want to communities you don't belong to. You ask who I am to tell you what to do: I am a member of this community and you are not. The nerve! You're trying to make a difference, but you never once asked us what we want. Maybe we want to be left alone.
You are a mod aren't you? Your job is only to enforce the rules.
You only want me gone, because I "waste time" or I'm "arrogant", cite me what part of the rules ban that, otherwise I will have to reject your suggestion.
Why?! You are being asked politely by the representative of the community to leave and yet you refuse to do so. How can you possibly justify this as "wanting to help" anymore and not just trolling?
I've been diagnosed with brain cancer. Thanks OP.. Please go back to posting in \r\minecraftsuggestions (back slashed for a reason) as 94.76% (Yes I did the math.) of your posts are there.
And so what? Nothing about the rules forces me to stop posting because of the opinion, even though they are the majority. Although I do appreciate your kind language, you have not convinced me, only well put forward arguments can.
I do believe /u/Tundrovyy-Volk told you to stop posting.
Quote:
You are not proving anything.
http://i.imgur.com/qa0M0BT.png
yes, yes i am. /u/Tundrovyy-Volk halp.
Then he is abusing his position as a mod, the rules of this reddit explain:
Who cares. He is not as he has given you multiple warnings. Please kindly fuck off and go vent in /r/oppression for some sweet sweet karma.
Who cares if he violates the rules? Can't you see what that would entail? Anyone could get banned if that were the case.
And? He will not be violating any rules. He's a mod. You're not. Please get over it. and, as always, put me on /r/shitredditsays, /r/cringe, and /r/oppression please.
You are a really bad troll. Visit /r/trollschool to learn more.
Funny you say that, because if I were a troll, you would be giving me what I want.
You are a troll, and as a troll your objective is to offend. I am a sociopath. By definition, I have no conscience, shame, or respect for anybody but me. I am a troll on tumblr and everywhere else where there are whiny liberals. There was a study that stated that many trolls are sociopaths and some other shit. I have no shame. I can not be offended. Therefore, as a troll, you have failed.
I <3 downvotes. MMMMMMMMMMMM
What? Are you okay?
[deleted]
You are staring to sound incomprehensible. You mention "whiny liberals" even though no one mentioned that, I do not understand you. If I wanted to offend anyone, I would have used a much more destructive language.
Curious. I seem to be more willing to give you the benefit of the doubt than others here.
You may be interested to know that my counsellor has told me I seem very willing to consider alternative viewpoints besides my own.
I think these two things may be connected, as I have a history of winding people up by looking for the good in the people they dislike.
Thank you good sir. I am interested in all things civil discussion related.
That chat you had with him is all bollocks. As a non religious person I couldnt give a rats ass about anything the church has to say about anything.
I dont get what the point of this thread is supposed to be.
You should give a shit, they are the ones presenting the loudest case against zoophilia, to win them is to win the entire conflict.
If you can't present counter-arguments to such a weak argument, then you have no hope of changing the status quo.
religious people will always be religious. they only listen to what the bible says. Arguing with logic doesnt work.
\>Implying that getting one religious person on board will do anything for zoo acceptance.
The media controls the masses, we can only hope they put out some more articles that show us in a positive light.
If we want to change the way things are, a law is needed, if we propose a law, the religious people would get involved. Time and time again, it has been demonstrated that when religious arguments are brought in distinct legislation, that they can only fail if someone who understands them, presents a counterargument.
You cannot hope the media will paint you in a positive light, all they report are the cases of abuse, but a new legislation, that is the stuff that gets the hits.
Once again you're proving how out of touch you are.
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/11/what-its-like-to-date-a-horse.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwu1XfqlTgE
and apparently Malcom recently did a radio interview (its pretty bad though): http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/kyle-and-jackie-o-forced-to-dump-interview-with-a-man-who-had-sex-with-a-dolphin/story-fnndfy6b-1227221074786
A law wont make us socially acceptable to religious people and we already have animal abuse laws that protects animals.
Who's we?
Those report are no more than 4 months old, the change in focus is only recent and it may reverse at any moment, in any case this is the right moment to push forward for education and civil discussion.
I guess I grouped together the responsible zoophiles with me, when I said we, but at this point I have no right to say that.