The sexism of Zoophiliac studies (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2015-02-22 09:22:30 by WatIsAPerson Felidae
Have you ever noticed that almost all if not all of the studies done on zoophilia tend to involve only men?
I've tried to do research into my sexuality - if only to understand it better - but I find almost all of the information is only about men and as a "hobby" rather than a legit sexuality.
Which is strange is you look at it. After all, 98% of the videos involve women, as do almost every single ancient legend involving bestiality (hidden god and actual animal alike). It just seems purposefully short-sighted not to research the female aspect of us.
Any one else notice this? Or, if I'm wrong, have any links to useful studies or research into female zoophiliacs?
I'm sure that most of us, myself included, would like to see more female presence in academic studies on zoophilia. The problem is that studies using a sample group must be sourced from somewhere, and it is communities similar to this one from which they are drawn, in which lies an issue.
I only know of a few women active around here, and one of them is trans. Seemingly, all zoophile communities have an overwhelming gender bias. Why is this, and why are there so many women in porn but not on forums? There is some debate as to the reasons, but I think women tend to be concerned that they will be treated with disrespect by the large numbers of men, and will be harassed for pictures, videos and such, which includes those who make amateur porn. Another contributing factor is that the women who make (non-amateur) porn are likely not zoophiles in the first place. Just as men in such industries can be "gay for pay", women may take an animal for many reasons other than having an attraction to said animal.
Edit: why say "zoophiliac"?
I've always seen a practitioner of zoophilia being called a zoophiliac, and it's what I call myself. I've noticed here a prevalence of the term zoophile, but here is the only place I've seen that, and I can't say I'm a fan of the term. It doesn't rid itself of the damning "phile/philia" suffix, so what's the point? The only other term I've seen is zoosexual.
(Edit: But just because I don't like the term "zoophile" for myself doesn't mean I'll force "zoophiliac" on other people. No worries. I just posted before fully realizing that was the term here)
That seems to be normal in a lot of communities though.
You'd think professionals would be even more curious about the female slant then.
Before this subreddit, I've only seen the "-iac" suffix used for "necrophiliac". While I can't say I have a problem with that if it's arranged in a will and subject to the same restrictions as cremation, I don't think it really helps us more than the "-phile" suffix, especially when it looks like the biggest problem is a disgust reflex rather than logical extensions of existing morality. Although I've referred to myself as a zoophile since I figured it out at about 15, I'm starting to think "zoosexual" is better.
I've never seen any variation of -phile used for acceptance.
Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, asexual - all accepted and respected sexualities. . . to a degree.
Zoophile, pedophile, necrophiliac, all are see as ultimate taboo. Hell, homosexual was originally know as homophile before becoming more accepted. Zoosexual is better for trying to be seen as a legitimate sexuality.
I went through corrective therapy, and I was always called a zoophiliac when the "proper term" was used. I am new to interacting with the community so please do not be angry at me for my mis-speak.
'Zoophiliac' is an extremely rare term. Up until now I've only seen it used by people extremely hostile to zoophilia.
It's certainly not the academic term. Compare the number of results on google scholar:
'Zoophiliac' gets 38 results
'Zoophile' gets 1170
Even 'zoosexual' gets 63 results.
So it's like a slur then?
To us (here) it seems more like the made up word by people who had no clue how to call those people they want to rant about.
I've only really heard the -ac terminology used as a pejorative.
I can only speak for myself, but I feel no anger. The choice of words is for me an interesting intellectual exercise, not something to become upset by. (Usually).
I actually like zoophile more, as it is a proper science term. I don't see it as damning in itself, as audiophile and bibliophile are used too.
In fact, I have only seen "zoophiliac" being used by people who didn't know much about the topic most of the time.
Also, some say zoophiliac is the adjective of zoophilia/zoophile (a person having zoophilia). But idk. I'd use zoophile as the adjective too. The adverb is a tricky question, but then again, who'd ever have a need for that.
actually, the adjective form would be "zoophilic".
I am perhaps going to be called out for that, but my observation is that the more "extreme" something is, the more it is men who do it. This is true both for negative things (mass murder etc... - which today's society focusses on when discussing males), but also things that turn out massively positive (doing such stupid, ludicrous and extreme things like sailing over the open ocean to see if there is new land there; or getting into a stupid flying contraption - that'll lead to certain death and it's a dumb idea to begin with - that started the airline industry).
While I've heard similar claims, I think there is also an element of our media's preferred narratives. Amelia Earhart got the nickname Lady Lindbergh (after Charles Lindbergh), for example.
[If you ask me, I personally think] at least 9 of 10 active zoophiles are men. The fantasy is just as big a turn-on for women (about 10% of the population). But when it comes to actually doing it, it is almost all men (which might be in fact the much more important mark when asking who is a zoophile). So asking for 50/50 or something would actually not be a fair representation.
The videos you mention are/were produced 95% of the time at least for bored heterosexuals by a commercial industry. That's why most of them are crap and have the constellation woman/dog or woman/horse. Conveniently, that is also easier to arrange and film than men and female animals. I wouldn't go by these to derive any facts in that direction.
The myths are also... mh hm yeah ... what is the dominant gender in inventing religion again? ;)
*edited the fact part in []
Does active only relate to sex? I have a feline partner, but I don't engage in sexual activity with her for several reasons.
I guess I'm just curious about if other people see it as a legit sexuality, rather than just a fetish or whatever. I've researched sexuality itself, and as far as I can see, it seems to manifest exactly like het/bi/homo/asexuality does, even down to the age range. (Though some zoos figure out fairly late, at 15-16. I recognized it closer to 8-9, which would be normal for a straight kid to start noticing the opposite sex. Is the later blooming based on shame, such as gay folks not acknowledging it until later? And what is the root cause of that shame?) I just get frustrated because I have so many questions and almost no good sources to find answers.
Hell, I'd consent to being used for a study if I was promised to at least be treated with dignity. My "therapy" left me with zero tolerance for dehumanization on any level.
Well, by no means. An asexual zoophilia (like you say a very very deep emotional attachment to a cat that doesn't involve sex) is perfectly possible. And it is in no way "lesser" than - say - someone shagging his beloved mare often.
Yet when people study zoophilia (the claim your sexuality is directed towards animals), I can see why they go and seek people who had sex with animals in the first order of discovering this new land. Basically this goes back to the question how finely this needs to be splintered up versus what is a useful classification system. As well to: What do we define as constituting something. If someone watches 10% gay porn, are they gay? Bi? Perhaps at 11%? Or when they actively stroke themselves to the thoughts? Thoughts, feelings, motivations etc are things that are hard to preposterous to measure. An act like shagging a mare is more easily to "measure".
Oh yeah, I know :(
I would argue it is a "legitimate" sexuality, but I might be biased :P
Oh, I am very, very far from asexual, haha. I just have difficulty with my "chosen breed". It's weird being turned on something fierce by dogs while also simultaneously disliking dogs and all the aspects of taking care of them. And they made me sick last time. :(
I wonder if the sex of the animal counts towards sexuality. I've only seen reports of zoos like me, who are flexible and don't actually care about the sex of their partner, but my reading here is showing definite preferences.
naturally, I think horses are Awwwwesommmmmeeeee-e! but that is just me :D
Could you post the study where your 9 out of 10 act comes from please, or is it just your person observation? None of the studies suggest anything so extreme, maybe 2 to 1 at the "worst".
Hm, ok. I take the fact thing back and admit that is my conclusion if you would ask me: How many people out of all the people having sex with animals are male?
I derive that from the online communities, and the usual sign up numbers to surveys, i.e. battlecrops' survey (what was the result of that btw?). Admittedly, there could be self-selection bias etc etc...
let me go editing the comment. Also - hey, I am beginning to grow quite old in the zoo spectrum... the fall-off of people "sticking with the lifestyle" is huge with older age. Perhaps I am misled by that, too.
Is there a reason for the older zoos to fall off the lifestyle?
Just speculating, but to be honest - quite a lot of the current 15 year old who claim to be zoo are just socially awkward with either girls, or the fact that they might be homosexual, aren't they? Animals are an "emotional escape" for the twist they are in: Feel desire for love and sex, but die from embarrassment trying to ask someone to stick their penis in them.
The older those get, the more likely they pick up the game by experience. Eventually they leave the zoo phase behind because they managed to get comfortable with human partners.
Also, a lot of zoos are not 'exclusive' in fact. They find human partners and start human families. They perhaps can go on with their other desires here and there, but the more and the older the kids, the less possible it is to have a pony in the garden or a bunch of dogs that are after your butt all the time without things becoming awkward.
Another mechanism is perhaps that people start to have careers. Careers are extremely difficult to obtain, and very easy to lose. They also leave little time for unusual spare time activity. You work hard and want to participate in zumba? There's 15 fitness studios on the way to your single apartment from the office. There's after-office classes at 20:00 hours. For a stupid thing making you look like an inflatable advertisement tubular man. You work hard and want to maintain a good relation with your horse? The first stable from the office outside town is 20 km away, and if you finally are there at 21:30, it's cold, dark, and nobody else is there (which might be good, hehe, but you need to travel back home and sleep for 7 hours before the office grind starts again...)
etc etc
I think this is so full of bad stereotypes I don't even know where to begin. Pitting zoo exclusive against those who are, labeling zoophilia as a phase, using "warm holes" because they can't get any.. I suppose some of that happens, it is bound to, but they were saying the same thing when I was 15, 20 years ago.
The last paragraph is true to an extent, although you make sacrifices for what you love, and move or whatever needed. Also, dogs are something I've had in my life since I've moved out so more true for large animal folks...
I think that some of the groups you are missing include people who have more in their lives than the internet and zoophilia. I am closer to more horse people who simply are not on the internet in any reliable way than I am with those on the internet. Rural areas have poorer internet services although this is changing. People also become more protective of their privacy as they get more to lose. Older folks tend to be less idealistic when it comes to what is right, and rather focus on the practical so do more and say less. Sexuality can define your life at 20 as you come to grips with it but at 30 it may be just a welcome companion along the journey. So motivations change. Sex drive in men also goes significantly down with age, routine, marriage and a bunch of other things, although it doesn't have to.
Finally, these things come in waves as people and groups push their way out and have reactions to the process, either amongst their own or from the outside.
Unfortunately there are whole lists of reasons selection bias appears in zoo studies, particularly self selected ones. Better to say we don't know. Unfortunately.
1) Women avoid online sex-based communities out of fear of harassment, especially if there's deviant sex involved.
2) Films and myths reflect the fantasies of men who want to see deviant women and fap to their deviancy, not of the deviant women themselves (see also: dildogging, yoghurt creampie).
I have a few non-expert opinions on the topic:
1) Studying a category of people brings more attention and legitimacy to them. Isn't it easier to just ignore us, because who wants to deal with zoosexuals?
2) Women are generally more discreet about their sexual experiences, regardless of what it is. This helps boost the stereotype that it's a perverted men's fetish. I believe men are the majority but not as lopsided as people think.