In my mind even the most vile criminals don't deserve to be killed and they don't deserve to be tortured either.
When I asked all my classmates their positions about zoophilia, they all responded with the same outlook: "It's abuse", they did the equivalence even with pedophilia, where even though you haven't committed any action, you still should seek therapy.
I have several fetishes where I really, really like inflatable toys, I also like spandex and latex. I can under certain circumstances express my liking for the last two, but I can't for inflatables; it is primarily because they are objects that were not designed for sex and they are common place, it's like having a fetish for cardboard or ice-cream; if your friend knows it, then it could be very uncomfortable, walking past an ice-cream shop, because we tend to prefer to handle sexual themes on a private setting, and a packaging store is certainly public.
I may not feel the same vibe you feel when you see an animal you really like, but I dare say I know how uncomfortable it can be to address it.
And it shouldn't be, since no one is getting hurt, and the alternatives of permissible practice, just won't fill the void for many, and trying to persecute won't decrease the demand, since it is something our body demands, but instead would push the offer underground, where non-regulation is the norm, and therefore abuse is common place (just like drugs).
I don't want a dark market of animal sex, I don't want persecution and intolerance of all things zoophile, so in the meantime while we have the responsible zoophiles here willing to speak up, the we should use our energies to avoid such a scenario.
That's where the guidelines came in. The status quo is a mere interpretative honor system, where in some parts of the world the laws technically allow responsible practice, but at the end don't set a precedent on what zoophilia is or should be, while the majority outright ban the practice; hell the rules of the subreddit show this:
... content related to it may be illegal in your jurisdiction ...
You are not even allowed to talk about it, without being considered a criminal.
So I am trowing a dart in the dark here, not knowing if I failed again, and should retire permanently, or if I actually have something to offer, something to make the experience better for everyone involved, even the non-zoophiles, because they deserve to be heard to as well to be responded upon.
I am planning to re-structure the guidelines anyway, to make them more efficient and taking into account the feedback I have received from you, but I won't post it here unless you want me to. The reason I am so insistent to be here, is that you are the closest I can get to experienced first hand feedback, so as to make my arguments stronger, because that's what I like to do: discuss.
Please deposit your response below.
mfw I see your posts
I take that as a complement, thank you.
It wasnt really meant one way or another. I've not got much to say on your topics but the resulting discussion is always entertaining.
I don't think anybody would disagree that having zoophilia be less taboo would be an entirely bad thing. That said, I do think you are taking it one step too far. The whole "social justice warrior" and "equality for all" campaign can tend to ruffle some feathers, especially when taking it outside of an online anonymous scenario. I would caution you against arguing with classmates about it, since many would jump to the conclusion that you are a zoophile. (which would be bad). Unfortunately, the world isn't fair to all its citizens, but its not whats fair or not that determines anything, It's what we do with what we're given.
I personally believe that we should find some way to potentially de-escalate tension surrounding zoophilia and attempt to remove some of the assumptions about who we are. I have also heard it argued that making zoophilia less taboo, could potentially create a situation where people actually begin to use animals purely for sex more often which would clearly be an undesireable result. In the end, it's impossible to tell what would happen from such a change, and there hasn't been enough high end research on either side of the playing field to warrant an entirely academic discussion about the objections to zoophilia. I simply don't believe there to be enough irrefutable scientific evidence to support either side without personal interpretation and involvement. We can all yell at each other what we believe until our throats are bleeding but at the end of the day, nothing is very likely to change. While I clearly believe that animals are capable of consent to sexual activity and can clearly communicate their interests to any activity, it would be a fools errand to suggest that it wasn't at least partially influenced by my desire to have a relationship with one. Likewise, the other side is likely to believe that animals cannot do this, because they view them in a different light.
tl;dr : The world isn't fair, it sucks but it happens. Not much is going to change without significant scientific research into zoophilia.
Research requires consenting participants, so all research right now, pretty much requires that all zoophiles' identity to be secured, in order to avoid the consequences that you mention, so many research ideas may be hindered by this condition.
In any case, research requires to follow ethical guidelines, which are not specifically well established on this particular subject, hence the guidelines.
I don't understand your argument on the whole "social justice warrior" thing, I do understand that the term is derogatory an a synonym with a victim complex scenario. That is not equivalent to what I'm trying to accomplish here, you can argue against the slippery slope, but I'm arguing for changing the status quo for the better, if I'm missing something like incentivised experimentation, then I'm willing to address such points.
As you said:
Hence the guidelines.
You begin looking like a social justice warrior when you come in here looking like you're willing to fight for us. pretty much 99% of everything you've said has been along the lines of "I'm here, lets rise up and fight!"
The guidelines arbitrarily drafted aren't going to change anything in my honest opinion. For social opinions on zoophilia to change, I believe that others must take the first step. One thing I encountered in my explorations, is that those who vehemently hate zoophiles, often see our justification as a rationalization of rape. Therefore, I doubt that they will accept a set of rules drafted by those who would use them.
Another point about the rules is that nobody wants to live within a rigid set of rules, especially with their love life, thus the protests for allowing gay marriage and the recent swoop across the nation with that.
But unlike social justice warriors, I'm actually addressing a real problem like you showed.
You are making a preaching to the choir fallacy; the dogmatist are not going to change their view, but what about the ignorant or misinformed people with an open mind? what about the ones who are neutral on the issue?
The whole point of seeking acceptance is not because that is the ultimate goal, but because I see it as a necessary step to make legislators start addressing this issue on a positive light, if you believe we can do it otherwise, please elaborate.
We already live with a rigid set of rules with respect of regular sexuality, you can´t have sex with minors or with the dead, you can't rape and you can't do it in public.
All social justice warriors address a real problem, but it doesnt make them less annoying. Acceptance starts with how we act and i doubt many people would tske kindly to your approach given that the community that you think youre trying to help didnt either.
Misogyny in games is not a real issue, but even so I fail to see your point beyond name calling. What do you mean by annoying? Isn't that something subjective and therefore out of the conversation, I'm obviously not annoying to everyone here.
What do you mean by how you act? Many people already don't like how you act, to the point of making it a crime, so I completely lost what you were trying to say.
If my approach is so flawed, then why is it I'm getting what I asked for? I asked for feedback and I improved with it.
If we act like upstanding members of society, which a lot of us are, that speaks a lot louder than what youre trying to do.
Except people consider the practice of zoophilia to be the opposite of what you say, and I'm not denying that you behave on a civil manner, in fact I acknowledge just that in the text. People who see you behaving in a civil manner won't relate that behavior with zoophilia, for the simple reason that people don't know you are zoo, because if they knew you would lose a lot as you said.
Yup, so they have to find out after they know were good people.
That's not quite the same as what zoophiles are dealing with. You're trying to bridge the gap, and the effort is appreciated, but there are some major differences to consider.
There's the fact that zoohpilia is cripplingly ostracizing, whereas your interests are taboo, but can be recovered from. There's the fact that there really are plenty of legitimate ways to debate against zoophilia, whereas your thing doesn't leave as much room for reasonable debate. And there's the fact that zoophiles are incredibly misunderstood when it comes to our desires, whereas you seem to have a fairly straightforward infatuation.
I'm sure you'll correct me if you feel I've spoken out of line, but the point is that this isn't the same. Yes, they're both uncomfortable subjects for the public to address, but that's the case for many things. We stand to lose our livelihood, our social standing, and our love. You simply run the risk of getting embarrassed.
Anyways, I feel that you're pushing the slippery slope envelope a little much here. A dark market for animal sex isn't the likely result of this being pushed underground, considering that's where it already is.
I agree that the system is thoroughly flawed. I agree that open discussion should be permissible. I just have a hard time believing that any one of us can spearhead a complete overhaul of the scientific apathy, the legality kerfuffle, and the social stigma.
Here's my suggestion. Take 40mg of chill pill, sit back, and wait for the zombie apocalypse to come. Maybe when we rebuild, we'll actually do things right.
I am not entirely sure what you are asking.
However, as for the problem that you have X or Y, and that it is a taboo or otherwise a problem because society is all freaky about it, and you in turn are all jittery because your friends could be funny or it could be awkward when you walk through the inflatables section at the mall (or - god beware - there could be an Uncle Sam look-alike jumping from a corner, point at you and shout: That man is here to peep at your inflatable pool-crocodiles!...) - breathes in - why don't you just relax about it? You are not going to change society or right what was wronged so far. I think you should go dance with an inflatable, and leave your friends behind - because if your friends don't dance then they are no friends of mine !!
And to bring another song in: Your thoughts are free, nobody can guess them. Indulge into your thoughts as much as you like and be happy with them. If you chose to share them with a friend, and the friend disapproves, you need new friends, not new thoughts.
Do what makes you happy in the privacy of your home, or - with new friends - make the kinky remarks in the mall's inflatable section. Just disregard other people. Are you fully dressed? If yes the offense some soccer-mom takes at you saying to yourself "oh wow, now that's a bouncy inflatable" is her problem. Not yours.
Be weird. Be happy. Every idiot can be a conformist with a car a student and a home loan, and be unhappy.
*Although I do think people with pedophilia should seek therapy - preventive therapy that teaches techniques to control yourself. If someone would want to shag foals, I too would tell them that's wrong - please work on not doing that.
**Also I am still interested if you find a source for a giant and good looking horse-inflatable.
I thank you very much for your kind words, I just see it as very difficult to just ignore the discomfort, but maybe I'm missing something.
btw, does it matter if the horse is made of latex?
I like everything horse, in the first approach ;)
BTW, I was asking if you want to see the guidelines restructured.
Well, you know my opinion to those guidelines. But don't feel inhibited by me - I could be wrong and in the ditch of history soon while your idea could take off.
The way you write reminds me of myself roughly half a lifetime ago. When I was still in school, I tried to write a system of laws all by myself. It was way more than I could do, of course, but the style and the thought behind your guidelines… it was very familiar.
Is that encouragement or downplaying?
Neither. Reminiscing.
I used to think that I could convince people of things with rational arguments. I still do sometimes. But global warming, vaccination, homeopathy… and that's just the "advanced" world. ISIS throw gays of towers. Humans are chimps, and it's a shame we're not Bonobos. Right now, I think I'd have to figure a way to make humans smarter and kinder for us zoosexuals to win any debates.
It's not about convincing all the people, it's about convincing enough to make a difference; debates do make a difference maybe they have less influence, but the alternatives are non-civil, so I don't agree with them.
Agree.
And, we can't win any debates. I've witnessed many and a draw is about the best you can do, lol. You can easily shoot down the "consent issue", but their arguments always end up boiling down to "animals have been used for thousands of years for food and clothing, but not for sex" so it's wrong. You just can't get beyond that ever. It's like arguing with Christians about if the bible is 100% error free or not, lol, they simply won't listen to any evidence you present.
The christians I know are somewhat wiser than that. But then, I've also convinced at least one person that zoophiles care about consent too. Perhaps I only socialise with highly intelligent people. ;)
Perhaps the Christians you know are not Evangelicals. Many protestant sects fall into the evangelical category and those are the most hard core fundamentalists around. Ken Ham is one of them. And a famous quote from his debate with Bill Nye says it all. What would change your mind? Nye-Evidence. Ham-Nothing.
These types of fundies don't care about evidence. Nothing will change their minds. The bible says it and they follow it. I've seen debates with them where evidence is presented and they stop up their ears and yell THERE ARE NO ERRORS IN THE BIBLE BECAUSE WE SAY THERE ARE NO ERRORS! 0_o
If they cannot will not accept evidence that their holy book has errors, they are not going to accept any evidence that zoophilia is ok in any way. And sadly, Christian thinking rules the western world. There are cracks appearing in their wall of blind faith however, but bringing down that wall takes time. The longer we have the internet, the more cracks will appear and the weaker that wall will get. It's only a matter of time.
Most of the Christians I know are British, and it seems few British Christians are of the type you describe. The one exception, if you even count it as "knowing", is a young-Earth Baptist creationist I argued with, whose accent sounded American. I mainly argued because of a mixture of boredom and wanting to improve my public speaking and debating skills, which was fortunate as otherwise my complete failure to make any of my points might have been embarrassing rather than just aggravating.
I don't know what you mean by "restructure the guidelines". Do you mean rewrite the rules? The rules of the forum? They look fine to me as is.
As far as attempting to convince non-zoos that zoophila is ok, it aint gonna happen, lol. I'm in my 50's and have been a practicing zoo for 15 years now and have seen a lot. You're no more going to convince anyone that we're ok, than you are going to be able to convince a Christian that they are worshiping the wrong God. Out biggest problem is dealing with Christians whose holy book plainly states that those who have sex with animals should be killed. You're never going to convince them otherwise. We can debate then while anon and a rare few might change their minds, but it will never become common. This is just one of those things in life you keep to yourself. Thankfully we have the internet and forums like this at least.
I'm speaking about the guidelines I wrote a while ago to guide zoos in a clear legal sense.
It's not about convincing people that zoophilia is right, is about convincing enough so we may get legalization, after that anyone can have his own minds.
I don't like you defeatist attitude, we haven't even fought and you are already giving up.
I'm just being real. It's not going to happen for the foreseeable future. LGBT's are still fighting for full rights and Christians are doing their damnedest to foil their plans. Some states are passing or trying to pass laws making it legal to discriminate against LGBT's on religious grounds. Perhaps when the day comes that LGBT's get full legal rights and the Christians realize their God is not going to punish them because of it, we zoos might be able to plead our case also. Till then, we'd do well to be very private about our fetish.