When all you people express that you want to keep your zoophilia as a secret it makes me (and non-zoos) think that you want it like this because you really do believe that what you are doing is an immoral thing to do (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2015-06-28 02:55:01 by ursusem
I don't get why the strong desire for secrecy
Privacy is an integral part of a free society. If we were all restricted to doing things that we'd have no problem with everyone knowing about, then we'd be living in a totalitarian state.
Just because I want privacy, security, and in this case safety for myself and my partner, doesn't mean I think my sexuality is wrong. It's my sexuality and my personal life, so I'm allowed to do whatever I want with it and handle it how I see fit.
Currently in today's society, being "out" and visible about my zoosexuality would have significantly more negative than positive consequences for me, and I think that extends to zoosexuality as a whole. Feel free to disagree with my opinion and ideas about that, but no one has the right to tell me how to live my own life.
You guys are okay with living in a world that believes that what you do is immoral and evil and bad and you could get in big trouble with the law if ever found out even though you believe that what you do is not wrong?! STAND UP FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN FOR GOD'S SAKES. DON'T LET THEM CALL US CRIMINALS!! WE DESERVE TO BE RESPECTED, don't we?? I want zoophilia to be legalized. Or in the very least, decriminalized. This would be easier to do if we worked together. We are a small group enough as it is. Why would you settle for this?? I AM NOT A CRIMINAL!!!
While that's fine in principle, if standing up personally for zoophilia would endanger my lover (which, with the current state of things, it would), then I must choose to stay hidden for their sake.
Exactly. I'm not going to do anything that will put my partner in danger, which is how things are now. As wonderful as being able to be more adamant about my sexuality would be, it's not worth her life.
That's true. But ultimately I think this is the goal we should have, this is the direction that we should be heading- toward decriminalization. That doesn't mean that we make foolish steps, however. We should never give up and accept the label of 'criminality' that society stamps on our foreheads.
Ursusm, I can understand your furor, but you need to view this a little bit more rational. As it is now, we have two options:
So summed up, the first option has a very low chance of loss (being exposed et al.) and the ultimate price of living your life with your animal partner uninterrupted. Very good win-loss ratio. The second option leaves us with an exponential increase of the risks; even higher if the zoos manage to stir up shit so effectively to gain the interest of the authorities. On the gain side, we have only a very small improvement to win, as I don´t think the legal status wouldn´t change the general hostility and opposition against zoophilia for a longer time.A bad Win-loss ratio, increased risk of loss and only a small detail of our problems would vanish, the legal persecution. So, what is the option you would choose? Literally no risk of losing, with a very high prize to win? Or would it be the option with the high risk of loss and a comparably small part of our general problems removed? So the decision whether to engage in a fight with society or not comes down to the question of the bet´s height; how much is going into the "pot"? If you are living in a relationship with an animal, you are literally "all in"; if you´re not, then the bet is comparably much smaller and losing wouldn´t hurt so much. So it´s no surprise the vast majority of animal owning zoos prefer to stay undercover as much as possible. The stakes for them are too damn high. We have to wait for another time, when people will be a little more permissive regarding zoophilia. Right now, the whole world experiences a strong comeback of religions, a general conservative atmosphere around the globe and good old scapegoat politics suddenly reappeared in the repertoire of the average politician.Not the very best scenario, wouldn´t you agree? They can stamp what they want on my forehead, as long as they can´t stamp it INTO my forehead by catching me in flagranti, everything is right. I remain crouched down, below the radar, waiting for the right moment, the right opportunity to strike. I wait for a time more open to this topic, when the dust has settled down, for a time with more valid data about zoophilia/bestiality available; we should get the psychiatrists involved more into this topic. The sexologists and researchers of interspecies relationships. One big step for us would be if more scientists would research zoophilia and come up with more positive studies, like the ones from Beetz and Miletski. When more scientific research can be quoted, the arguments with the opposing side will become a little bit more winable. Now we need to remain calm and patient; we should put more effort in preparing the future battleground than doing the "Leeroy Jenkins" out of frustration and get our ass whipped immediately. I can understand you and, gosh, I hate being a "criminal", too. But our chances to win are at best within a "slim to none" range.Changing the legal status of zoophilia would only remove a very small part of our problem.First, we have to find a way into the hearts of Joe and Jill Average, then we´ll talk about the laws,okay;) A more permissive and friendly attitude towards zoophilia has to be achieved, then our chances to overcome prohibition might increase constantly. As hard as it may seem, but we´ll have to endure the recent harder times. Duck and cover until the earthquake is over, pad the dust off and rise to rebuild, this time more solid and flexible until our structure developed enough to survive the next disaster. We´re outnumbered by nearly a million to one, outgunned as the zoo opposition has total control right now, with the public´s general negative attitude towards zoophilia, so our only chance is to outsmart them by patiently preparing your weaponry while waiting for a better opportunity.
As others have said, I really and truly do understand where you're coming from. And I wish everything you've said was possible. But in today's world... It's just not feasible! It's social suicide, and the fact remains that for most people it would ruin their lives and everyone, animal or not, that they hold dear would be affected. How is that worth fighting for "rights"? This is not like fighting for gay rights- to a much MUCH broader group of people we are deviants. Society does not put the same value on our chosen relationships as with a gay HUMAN couple. Most people cannot comprehend how they could be similar. As much as I get why you don't want to be though of as a criminal... We don't have any other choice but to hide from this world. For those of you that have come out, and lived through it, I am envious.
Society used to have the same views towards homosexuals that they now currently have towards zoophiles. Things were just as hard for gays 50 years ago as it is for zoos now. So it is not that we are harder to accept, it's that we haven't done the hard work of fighting to get the same acceptance. Now a lot of zoos express that they wish to avoid having to do that for various obvious reasons.
Pleeeaaase, stop comparing zoophilia to homosexuality and the gay´s struggle for tolerance to our struggle. Homosexuality doesn´t involve the "consent" argument, nor does it involve the participants been seen as little, fourlegged kids like most people see their dogs, for example. The two battles are totally different and have nothing in common, except that both are seen as "against nature" by conservatives.
That pretty much sums it up. We are in our own corner when it comes to acceptance and judgements. Whether it's right or wrong is besides the point, the fact remains that they are two very different things, that I am willing to bet that will never change. It's just how the world is, wishing or comparing it to how it SHOULD be is a deadend
I can't see anything good coming from the comparison anyway, even though I can see where it comes from, since we already have been compared to gay/bi people. As a negative thing. By conservatives. Us doing that ourselves isn't going to make the average person OR any LGBT people want to help us. Comparing zoosexuality to LGBT is already established as a negative thing, no matter how much we might want to change that.
Except that our struggle IS similar, even if our base attraction is not. We are BOTH dealing with stereotypes, "ick" factor, and general illegalization.
Having a human-to-human connection has validation in most people's minds, regardless if sex, because its between HUMANS. Bringing an animal into the picture changes that completely.
Doesn't change the fact the actual struggle is near identical... Just our hill to climb is a lot steeper.
This all makes me think that you guys are really just in this for the sex... We should be able to say one day that your animal partner is your significant other just like anyone would be able to say about their connection with other humans. Are you all ashamed of your relations with animals? I'm as hell not! (even though I've never had a zoo relationship- I might have one some day). There is a way to do this. There is a smart way to do this. It may take a long time is all. But don't become closed-minded about it!
Please don't take this the wrong way, and it might not be true at all, I'm just throwing this out there- you might find your opinion changing some once you do have an animal partner who would be in very real danger. Most animals from bestiality arrests aren't just rehomed, they're killed. I'd love to be able to tell people about my relationship, she means the world to me, but that's exactly why I won't. Nothing is worth the real possibility of her being taken away from me and killed. I understand where you're coming from, I really honestly do, but that's the reason most zoos don't want to be open in today's world.
Also for what it's worth, I don't even have sex with my partner. And it's still a risk for us. So no, I'm not in this for sex.
Wait if you don't have sex with your partner why is this a concern at all for you? Is this something that you kind of have an interest in and maybe would act on? Why are you here?
It is true what you say that I can never know how I may feel in the future. But really I'm at risk now. If people know how I really feel (don't know if I'd reveal it so flippantly) maybe then they will prevent me in various ways from being near animals? Maybe- I don't know- perhaps. That would be very very bad for me. I'd probably never get to meet the person of my dreams then. It would be horrible from my perspective.
I'm romantically and sexually attracted to animals, that's why I'm here. That's what zoosexuality is. I would have sex with an animal partner in the future if they were interested. Just because I don't have sex with my current partner doesn't make me any less zoo.
Honestly, if the average person found out I was zoosexual, with all the negative stereotypes and beliefs society has about us, do you think someone against zoophilia would believe me if I said I'm not in a sexual relationship? Society views us as sex-crazed deviants who'll have sex with any animal that moves. No one would believe me, so it doesn't matter. I honestly think antis would still find a reason to take my partner away, they're very willing to go to extreme lengths to persecute zoos, even if we haven't explicitly done anything. So in my opinion it applies to me currently, and would still apply to any future sexual relationships with animals I plan to have anyway. I have the same concerns as you: if people found out I was zoo, I wouldn't be allowed to be around animals, and that would be hell for me.
Yeah, okay, you're in a similar boat as me. I live with some animals. None of which are the species of my zoophilic attraction. I am pretty sure that if society knew you were a zoophile they would probably want to take your partner away that is for sure. And they wouldn't believe you when you say that you're not in a sexual relationship. It sucks. But I won't accept the position in society that they hand out to us.
Exactly.
Are there any official statistics or is this just what people think?
I haven't seen any real statistics, but I've seen this said multiple times by shelter workers and vets. They say that the animals involved in bestiality cases are too psychologically unstable to rehome so it's kinder to kill them.
yes and how do they know that they are "psychologically unstable"?
They probably aren't really in actual non-abuse cases, but that's what anti-bestiality people will think. Honestly I don't know if it's so much that people really think they are unstable and abused so much they're not mentally healthy and they're doing the most humane thing, but the animals are deemed "unadoptable" because they show sexual behavior, and you know. That bothers people, and they don't want to deal with it. So they put the animals down. I don't want to get too "conspiracy theory," but that doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to me.
But yeah /u/zoozooz, I don't think you'll find any "official statistics" because no one exactly wants to publish stats on bestiality cases, but I've seen it said multiple times from people in the animal rescue world and in reading about cases themselves. IIRC, the author who was writing about Spink's case was adamantly told at first that his dogs were neutered and rehomed, but when she looked into it the rescue organization became uncooperative, even hostile, started avoiding the question of "are the dogs alive?" and she never found out where the dogs went, even though at the start she was assured they found homes. If they found homes, why wouldn't the rescue be willing to tell her that again? They wouldn't even answer the question if the dogs were alive or not. So make of that what you will, I suppose.
I don't know how shelters evaluate that, I never asked. I do know most shelters do health and temperament evaluations to see if an animal is 'adoptable' or not. I do know that animals brought in with a history of attacking humans (and sometimes animals, that varies) are generally not rehomed due to risk.
If the evaluation is just looking at the animal's history, that could explain it. It also could be because of these being the absolute worst cases as opposed to zoophiles rehoming an animal voluntarily, since I doubt zoos are going to go "I got evicted and can't care for Fluffy anymore, also I fucked him."
lol, "we should all risk ourselves for the greater good, but you go first thanks"
What does that quote of mine that you've picked out have anything to do with this notion of "everyone should take risks but someone else goes first"?
you imply the people who have animals are ashamed of their relationship even though you have no experience of the position theyre in. you then say we should push for acceptance despite not having been on both sides of the zoo fence.
You seem oddly "patriotic" on this matter. But trying anything would most likely cause more harm than good. Like people getting their partners taken away or jail time or whatever the punishment may be.
So basically you're just going to have to eat the bullet if you get found out? There's ways to change minds. People don't think that zoophilia is fully consensual. They don't think it's mutually felt. They think that zoophiles only see what they want to see. These opinions can be changed with education. Education can be done anonymously. Wouldn't you be patriotic if the world was saying that you are a criminal for something that you know is not wrong? Wouldn't that piss anybody off?
I dont think youd be happy if your mate got taken away from you for publicly advocating zoophilia. I dont know the feeling either, just to clarify. I dont care if they call me or others a criminal. They have a right to what they believe, just as we do.
I disagree with keeping this thing a secret. I think it's the totally wrong thing to do. Let's call the whole thing off.
Alright, how about you go put signs in your front yard saying you support Zoophilia. Lets see how that works.
Well I'm not saying that we should just go and do things that would be obviously stupid or would obviously bring us great trouble. What about the argument "animals can't consent?" We have not yet successfully rebutted that. They want to see the science. We don't have it. We could get it. It would take effort.
I think there's a lot of evidence to support that animals can consent and are aware. I apologize if my comments are seen as rude. I mean no respect
There may appear to be a lot of evidence to you. You may know a lot about animals. Your layperson probably doesn't know as much. People don't have as much contact with animals as they have in the past. Where exactly is this evidence? I'm sure there's no ethology textbook that says, "and here the creature was showing the human that it wanted to have sex with that human." Does this evidence come only from your own personal experience? But you're a zoophile, so how can we trust you to interpret the animal accurately without reading a sexual advance into their behaviors that you feel are directed at you?
Im looking it up now and Im having a hard time finding respectable sites and information on the matter
Sorry that I get frustrated with our community sometimes. This sexuality can be frustrating at least from my feeling.
You aren't alone in that frustration: I, too, feel that our hiding ultimately hurts us in the long run. But I get why there is such fear in the zoo community, since public shunning and jail time are no laughing matter. Though there is a massive libertarian streak running through our community, thanks in large part to our disagreeing with some major tendencies in the community at large, this isn't universal, and I don't believe it will be permanent.
My advice (for what little it's worth) is to try to get scientific studies of anonymous zoophile volunteers and their partners done, funded by us and done by scientists without an axe to grind. Without such studies, all we have are anecdotes and appeals to biology in general, and ethology and endocrinology in particular, which is poorly understood by laypeople. It's hard to educate people when there aren't any real facts with which to educate them.
I think it will take a long time. I don't know how long. Maybe it won't happen in my lifetime. What do you mean about this "libertarian streak?" What are the details on that?
What I mean is that a lot of zoos, when asked what they want from society, will reply "leave me and my animals alone". The biggest example (though obviously not representative) is Doug Spink, whose work in cryptography and his choices of living areas (in the mountains of Washington) are motivated by both his proclivities toward animals and his desire to protect himself and others from government oppression. He blames his arrest and subsequent legal problems in Enumclaw on a conspiracy between corrupt law enforcement officials too.
Ultimately, push comes to shove, there's no "us". I'd never risk anything for anyone in this "community" or its ideologies. It's not even remotely a consideration or worth it. As blunt as that.
That settled, good luck convincing me it's for my own benefit.
hi, someone here that uses zoophilia to mean attraction but in my case not acting on it.
if people know i will:
lose my job
lose my pets
probably lose many of my friends and family
quite possibly be physically harmed/harassed.
but more importantly why the hell SHOULD i be telling people about sexual preferences? i don't tell people how i fuck my boyfriend. i don't talk about what sex toys i use or what porn i watch. i don't detail every fetish or attraction i have so why should i, at the cost of my well-being, tell everyone i'm sexually attracted to animals?
EDIT: after reading some of your replies....there's not enough of us to do anything. if every single zoophile stood up and said WE ARE ZOOPHILES AND WE ARE PROUD! there's more than enough hate and law enforcement to handle every single one of us, take our animals and shun us to oblivion. if we were a significant part of the population, maybe, but we aren't big enough to do that.
Let's say 10, 20 years down the road one of us manages to gather the funds needed for a preliminary study into zoophilia and the effect that it has on the animal in the relationship, as well as bestiality (if you recognize it as different); and if there's any psychological markers in either of the two partners to help show when abuse exists that wouldn't conceivably be argued (eg; in cases of clearly forced sex, in cases of zoosadism, etc)
Would the study really change anything?
Would it be worth undertaking regardless of whether it would change anything?
Would you sign up as one of the participants?
Remember that - at the least - I'm proposing that it would be funded by a zoophile.
I don't really think having a funded study would change anything about people's perspectives or opinions. Religious morals, in my mind, are the #1 reason for the bigotry and hatred zoophilia faces. Most people who don't have a religious underpinning to their thoughts are either understanding of our situation, OR disagree because of logical, personal reasons. America has a deeply seated religious side that I do not think most people take into account in these kind of topics.
Your views are a little extreme. We do not have a divine duty to be out and proud as zoos, and some of us prefer to lay low and be secure and comfortable. I'm glad you stand behind your beliefs, but don't push them on others.
Contrasting opinions are welcome here, and I encourage them. What I do not encourage, is the notion that zoos who believe differently to you are inferior, or not zoos at all. You are toeing the line of a dangerous fallacy, however you wish to paint it.
I want protection in the law and I feel like we would likely need to work as a group to get that. Just a hunch
No one wants to get arrested due to zoophilia. But that doesn't change the fact that some people want to live private lives.
But would you be willing to get arrested due to something else? Is it just only zoophilia?
I think being secretive minimizes unwanted action such as being outed and ending up in jail. It has nothing to do with morality of zoophilia.
By all means, call me a coward for it but I don't think I could publicly advocate anything like this. As some people have said, the only outcomes of that would be being shunned by everyone I know or being jailed (or other similiar punishments). Personally I'd feel far more comfortable not talking about it or sharing it with anyone.
Having to be discreet seems like a small price to pay for my personal safety and security
I hate these "zoophiles" that have no animals of their own and no experience, pushing a public agenda.
All my zoo friends seem to share the same opinion. They would like not to be persecuted, and they dont care what people think about them, or if they get arrested or not. The only thing they are afraid of is loosing their animal lovers. thats a risk most zoos arnt willing to take.
So if you want have an agenda, go for it. But if you expect everyone else to be a martyr /u/ursusem, you better be first in line. or STFU.
Unfortunately, from the perspective of lawmakers, we are doing something wrong.
Our secrecy is only in response to public sentiments and legislation, not out of a intrinsic sense of right or wrong.
I'd ask that you reflect on what you think as an individual, where those attitudes come from, and empathize with a community that doesn't feel their sexuality is inherently bad. Only then can you judge our behavior.
It's the perfect hen and the egg problem. I want to keep it secret because I know the pure mention of the concept will make flip people out, make them confiscate my horse, the whole rights and rule of the law thing goes out of the window because of the extreme reaction some people will show based on ridiculous assumptions.
But I always said: You know, if people wouldn't flip out and would instead just come visiting and follow me around for a week they'd conclude there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
But can't do that since they'll flip. And can't help them not to flip since I can't inform them this way.
Also, just visit deep Alabama and casually mention that you are gay at the village truck stop Diner. Now you know why the need for secrecy. Go on, try it - you are not really gay, what's the worst that could happen? If it really is bad you can just announce you are not gay. People will calm down and believe you./s
Look, man. I need to keep my job and my reputation, and as nice as it would be for zoophilia to be acceptable, it's not.
So while I don't think that what I'm doing is immoral, almost everyone else does. I value my quality of life over zoophilia's acceptance.
It might never become accepted. Sorry.
I think the rather pointed case, just posted to the sub, from florida of a man actually not diddling his dog, might solve your conundrum.
I honestly don't care how many people know so long as none of them have power over me. And the law currently gives everyone power over me and my animals.