Mostly I wanted to open this for discussion, but the points I'll raise as an opener are:
Despite how gung-ho must people tend to get about animal abuse and sexual exploitation, remarkably few seem to have any idea (and in my experience few care) how the livestock animals they rely on for foodstuffs are treated.
Even if you would posit a case where the animal is unlikely to suffer or be incapable of defending itself (stroking an unbound male horse is a good example) remarkably few people would agree that the animal is okay.
We enable selective breeding, possession, and usage of animals for labor - frequently with as paltry thin consent as people concerned with "rape" would claim zoophiles have - quite openly and without argument.
Overall there's a double standard that you can see (and is in part exemplified by the above points) where animals are possessions with personhood rights, a status on par with slavery in the USA when it was still legal.
Posits: The easier fight is to end the double standard. If they're possessions, anything we do doesn't matter. If they're individuals, they're free to make their own decisions and at the least we'll have done something good for animals.
Don't get me wrong - I love steak! But I love animals as a whole more than I love steak.
Aside: This previous Friday (as of this posting) was a tremendous day for me personally. I love gay buttsex \^_^
Being said, it also was a victory against too many people who hide behind a bible when they needed to just openly admit they found gay buttsex gross.
It's okay if people find sex with animals icky! But what I don't find okay is that too many people who seem to feel that way pretend that they have the moral high ground when they really just don't want gross stuff going on. I would not say such people constitute a majority but I would say they constitute a large enough slice of the pie to be a problem.
That were some interesting votes yesterday: https://np.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3b8brt/what_question_have_you_always_wanted_to_ask_but/cski3qj?context=2
But yes, I agree. I always cringe when people talk about "sharing" and "swapping" animals as if they were sex toys that are passed around.
On the other hand I don't have a problem, if people acknowledge that animals are adult individuals and that animals choose whether and with whom to have sex.
Granting that's vomit-inducing to me - by Nature, if you're going to force them to breed, artificial insemination seems at least less cruel - have an upvote.
it's not ALWAYS that simple. i don't really have any data to go on.. just my own experience. sharing isn't always done in such a callous manner. i certainly hope it's never or at least rarely done that way. in my situation, i was only offered after the person in question felt certain they could trust me just in general and specifically to be aware of the animal's wishes. if there was ever a time said animal was not ok, i backed off and we would wait for another time. it took time for the animal in question to become comfortable enough with me, and that was fine. the animal is NOT a sex toy to me nsor its owner in any way, shape or form. it's a sweet, affectionate, sexual being that has no compunctions about being involved with more than one human it feels comfortable sharing itself sexually with.
polyamory is a thing, and it can exist with an animal, as well.
Let´s just do a little exercise here:
Imagine that you´re one of the common people and have no clue about zoophilia. Search the newspapers and the net for articles related to the topic and almost every link found will lead you onto a): animal porn or b): stories of caught fencehoppers and raided "zoo circles"/ animal swapping circles/ the infamous "animal brothel" suspicions. Given the fact that there is a great manifold of negative press out there and literally no "good" examples, can you blame Joe Average for thinking all of us are vile animal rapists? We have to realize that there is certain high risk conduct shaping the public image of zoophilia. This is one big reason why I am completely against uploading porn, sharing animals, even only with your "friends" and all the other stupid things that will reassure Joe Average we zoos are nothing more than sexual predators placing their own sexual gratification before everything else. The main part of the public´s antipathy is IMO well deserved and justified. I myself am repulsed by the way our group presents itself to the public, through porn, fencehopping and sharing animals. For me and many non-zoos, this has nothing to do with love at all. Love for sex, yes. Love for easily accessible sex, yes. But love for a single animal individual? No. Just a little example: In BF, there´s a user named Calfboinker. He uploaded several porn vids clearly showing the abuse of a cow that was tied with a rope around it´s neck. And while this asshole was having his fun, the cow shied away often. The rope was bound to a sling tightening when the cow moved, so she basically strangulated herself by moving away. A very sickening flick, as the animal clearly shows discomfort, wants to get away from the "totally harmless" sex forced by the asshole and even begins to panic . As you might know, in BF you can comment of uploaded vids. And now guess what kind of replies our "zoo hero" got...."Well done, you fucked her well", "This cunt deserves it." and "Yes, you did her rough."For an outside beholder, it definitely seems like our group is lying about how we care for animals when in a debate, but when pants are unzipped, every rule, every code of conduct becomes meaningless.
To change people´s minds, we have to become more aware of what certain things do to our overall image. In Germany, the new animal welfare laws prohibiting zoophilia were made because of the general image our scene gives: once it was said that only single individuals were involved in this and that they were no danger to society. But when the internet became really popular and easily accessible for everyone, the animal porn craze exploded. What formerly was a practice of but a few, turned into an internet sex cult with huge amounts of new porn uploaded daily, groups of people indulging into this deviant sexual practices in sex parties and more and more possibilities to get animal sex for money or other benefits for the owner of the animal. This is what I call the commercialisation of animal sex. The negative reactions of the government prohibiting all interspecies sex is the logical consequence from that.
Our entire community needs to realize that having rules for zoophilia isn´t a matter of intolerance for certain sexual practices, but necessary for our public image and to protect our already slim reputation. So, I say we should all become more aware of our opposition´s perspectives and should ask ourselves if all this negativity towards us is completely irrational or is justified by the general negative image we give, with all of this crap I described still continues to happen, without any efforts made by us zoos to subdue such negative things. Of course, there´s irrational hate of zoophiles...but, we have failed in forming a more pleasant and tolerable image ourselves. We are associated with this conduct and unless we as zoos don´t position ourselves more clearly, the negativity will remain. Educating people about zoophilia? Valid demand, but first, we need to educate our own group so the evidence supporting the negative viewpoints will vanish. Ban all AP, ban animal sharing, ban fencehopping first...then we can talk about educating the public.
I personally don't use AP or do any of that other stuff that makes us look bad. I wonder how other zoophiles would take to a ban on these things. I also think it's doubtful that the people who do the things you describe are really 'zoos' Those people are really probably just animal-fuckers (beasties, bestialists). Do you think those people give a rat's ass about the "image" of sincere zoophiles? People who do those things probably don't care- they are probably attracted to the taboo/illegal aspect of this sexuality. I wouldn't think they would care about zoo people getting acceptance. They're not zoo. They're just perverts who enjoy the supposed criminality of this thing because they're evil shits or lonely/bored kids. But because of all that crap, yes, I can see why the general public has an irrational hatred of us
The general problem is everyone feels entitled to change the definition of zoophilia to meet his/her personal preferences. All of the folks you describe as non-zoo bestialists would insist on being a "genuine, full blown zoophile" , if asked. There seems to be much fascination about the z-word...maybe because it sounds better, more scientific than "bestialist". When the term "zoophilia" was coined, at the beginning of the nineties, it meant that, as a zoophile, you are not interested in humans at all, fell in love with ONE specific animal and refrained from everything like fencehopping, cheating on your animal partner etc... very much the aequivalent of the term "loving and caring husband". Notice that zoophilia, correctly translated from greek, means friendship and brotherly love towards ONE animal. It´s the accusative singular form of "to zoon" that is used in zoophilia. If it meant having sexual affairs with more than one animal, it would read "ZoAphilia", as "ta zoa" is the accusative plural form of "to zoon". You see, the word zoophilia has a very specific meaning; someone who is exclusive with animals, but engages with several animals sexually would not meet the criteria to call himself a zoophile. And the second part of the z-word, "hae phileia" is NOT about having sex, phileia has a totally different connotation of emotional love and feelings of partnership. Nowadays, not even the partially very vague definitions of Krafft-Ebing apply, anyone yearning for animal sex is using the z-word without any consideration.
If we, the ones involved in it, can´t consent about what and what isn´t zoophilia, how should the uninformed public be able to tell the difference? When I start an argument with self proclaimed "zoos" and show them they´re NOT meeting the definition, I usually get a shitload of negative replies calling me an asshole and an intolerant idiot. I don´t do this to feel superior to the bestialists, I do it to straighten out the common misconception of what zoophilia is. I do not fell better than someone just into it because of the sex. But these people calling themselves a zoo don´t realize what damage they do to the entire movement trying to form a more tolerant environment for zoophiles. So, the worst enemy of tolerated zoophilia isn´t located within the opposition, it is located within our own lines. Anything you try to convince the public of is sabotaged by porn and sharing/fencehopping...if we want people to recognize zoophilia is love, we have to abstain from anything that makes us look like we´re only up to our own sexual gratification. But go and tell this to the users of BF, those mostly in it for perversion and breaking taboos. Try to make ´em stop using the wrong word...I´ve tried and failed; although BF´s rules are very clear on the distinction between zoo and beasty, no one cares and continues calling himself what he definitely isn´t. Before we can educate society, we have to educate our own group. Without a precise definition of zoophilia , accepted by anyone, we will not succeed. Nobody wants to be "downgraded" to a simple bestialist, so expect severe resistance to a strict interpretation. We zoos experience what happens when indifference is mistaken as tolerance. "Hell, you do it with your entire lifestock, any species, any individual? You´re definitely a zoo." No, you´re not, mate. Even if you feel denigraded, you´re not a zoo by definition. We zoos made a fatal mistake some 20 years ago: there was a certain group of people proposing, in order to gain more momentum and impact on society, we should team up with the beasties to increase our numbers. But it has shown to be the neckbreaker for any positive development within the last few years...it´s almost every time the beasties getting caught and ending in the newspapers.
"Tie two birds together; They won´t be able to fly, although they now have four wings." Rumi (1207-1273), persian mystic and poet
That's true that there is a lot of groundwork to be done amongst ourselves before we can ever hope to attain tolerance in the external world
I'm not an expert, but I think that is quite the overinterpretation of the word, mainly because I don't remember reading something like this anywhere, not in scientific studies that explain the different meanings, not in wikipedia. Have you tried changing it in wikipedia and what were the opinions of the other editors?
I have difficulties understanding how this doesn't mean you yourself are conflating sex with "philia" here...? And yes, I personally find your specific definitions weird too. What is it about monogamy that's so important? Can people love two people at the same? Or three? Why not? This might be less acceptable to society, but there are still many people talking about it: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469_full.html
I personally don't have much experience with these things but watching a lot of TV series and movies, it's a very common trope that someone loves two people and has to "decide" between them and I don't get it. Why do they have to decide? I don't want to give too much spoilers, but watching Hemlock Grove how this situation was resolved was quite refreshing. I just feel that often the monogamy thing is sometimes a completely unnecessary self-inflicted restriction that will soon fall. I'm not talking generally, of course. Many people will still want monogamous relationships and value "fidelity". But many won't. Perhaps. Can people be in love with one person and have sex with others without being in love with them? Can people be in love with two or more persons and only have sex with them?
And that's how I view relationships with nonhumans too. I've met one other zoo (according to you he isn't) so far and if you really want to know it, we slept together a bit (actually my only sex so far). And I dare you to ask him about the death of animals close to him, listen to what he says and then look him in the eyes and tell him he didn't have the "proper" kind of love for the animal.
Contrary to what you may think not everyone who doesn't see the value of monogamy is a sex crazed beasty who goes around having sex with as many animals as possible. The thing is that not everyone is like you. The kind of love you or other people describe... I don't see that for me. I'm open to it, but so far I think that's just not me. Not with humans, not with nonhumans, not with anyone.
Instead of arguing what the one true definition of zoophilia is and whether the general public can find it acceptable, we can agree on that the government has absolutely no business criminalizing people who do not force or coerce animals into sex and who do not harm animals in any way. Because that's the baseline of what I expect and that's where I see every single legislation against sex with animals failing: They never give an explanation why they ban sex in general and not only sexual abuse that would hold up to any standards we should require for legislation.
As far as banning all sex goes, this is done because people don't believe that animals can say whether or not they want to have sex with humans so therefore they believe that any kind of inter-species sex is rape. It's an animal abuse practice in their minds.
First, the definition thing: Can you believe there are some people out there who actually have learned greek and thus can deduct the meaning of it? I could have changed it in wikipedia, of course. But to what avail? Only to be changed in an instant because someone like you doesn´t accept what he reads? You can have 99% of people defining it falsely and 1 % with the right definition...guess what group of people will change the wiki article...they may be the majority, but, as you should know, being the majority will not inherently say that you´re right. Check out the greek words to zoon and hae phileia yourself, then you´ll see that my definitions are correct. Philadelphia = the city of brotherly love, not the city where incest between brothers takes place...
About promiscuity and polyamory: When having several "loved ones", love becomes something that´s watered down IMO. For me, it is a sign of love to cohabitate with your partner, but it is an equal sign of love if your partner declines sexual contact and you don´t run off to your other partner because the only thing that counts is basically your own needs. This is what I call "supermarket mentality". If you marry, you´ll have to speak the words "being faithful in good and bad times", for me this is real dedication, sticking to your partner even in bad times. In polyamory, the whole love and sex thing gets way more optional and if your partner has a bad mood, well, then you have the option to switch to your other partner(s). Additionally, with animals a monogamous relationship can and will lead to a whole different level of union. You literally know anything about your partner, can interpret every single slight hint of emotion without even looking at the animal because you two grew together really close over time. You would be astonished if you could witness what a relationship of 22 years with my mare has turned us two into, I promise. As far as I have experienced it, dividing love will affect the intensity of love negatively. Call me old fashioned, but I simply don´t buy the whole poly-crap...people are very diligent and innovative when it comes to fool themselves, you know. I also know human emotions and how fast envy and hatred can invade a polyamorous relationship, we have gone through this during the 60s and 70s before, with dim results." Free love " turned out to be rather egoistic in the end.
What does change for your friend you "slept with a bit" (wonder how to sleep with someone just "a bit" ^^ ) if he isn´t a zoo, but a bestialist? Does this diminuish his love for his animals? No. Does it belittle him in any way? No. The simple fact that he slept with you, although it just was "a bit", determines that he´s not a zoophile anyway. How many folks of the opposite gender a homosexual is attracted to? None, or he would be a bisexual.How many folks of the same gender a heterosexual is attracted to? None, or he would be a bisexual, too. So, according to that, how many humans a zoophile is attracted to? Can you guess the answer? With your reply you only prove what I wrote above: anyone tries to bend and change definitions to meet his/her own preferences. I don´t know what you folks are up to by thinking you can simply decide for yourself what you are...even when definitions are quite clear. You can´t simply put on a tutu and declare yourself primaballerina of the Bolshoi ballet...^^ I never said that being a beasty is inferior to being a zoo, so why the fuzz about being excluded from the zoo category because you don´t meet the criteria? But as a monogamous zoo, my life, my reality greatly differs from the reality of a beasty. Just accept it for once. If you have an interest in humans also, you don´t share the same reality with a genuine zoophile. For you, our oversexualized world isn´t as painful as it is for me; I cringe when I see tits on adverts, you probably won´t if you are interested in female humans. Being a zoo is not only determined by the things you do, but also by the things you DON´T do.
One last thing: Legalization and society´s approach towards zoophilia and bestiality will definitely not profit from bringing in the whole polyamorous issue. Hell, the poly stuff isn´t even widely accepted when only humans are involved.How can anyone expect it would be suddenly seen as an appropriate expression of love if society will not even accept a monogamous interspecies relationship? We should take the first step before the last, right? If people can sympathize with the idea that mutually satisfying relationships between one animal and one human are possible and tolerable, then would be the right time for trying to push the level of tolerance a bit further. Insisting on illusionary demands will make everything fail, mono as well as poly stuff. And yes, it is of major importance to come up with a definite explanation of what zoophilia is. It is the key to connect with the majority of normal people. Remember: we want something from them, not they from us. So, we have to play according to THEIR rules; and their rules say that only a small minority accepts poly and FATW (fucks anything that walks) attitudes, with the majority refusing to call this love. I really get the notion that you´re not interested to get zoophilia legalized, you want a general abolition of any limitation, so you can engage in any kind of sexual conduct. Life as an 24/7 orgy. Two men, three women, some dogs, some horses,maybe some exotic animals too....bring ´em all in, I´m hard already...;) But seriously, for how long we are trying to change things with the usual accusations "The stoopid, intolerant society...". We want them to change completely, but we ourselves can´t even give a little bit, can´t change a tiny bit for a better future? We´re not in the position to demand anything from society, with the whole crap that´s happening in our name, daily. Another "zoo" caught fencehopping, another "zoo" exposed because he hosted sex parties, recorded everything and uploaded it for download credits.... One final word: I myself am living out of the closet, have around one hundered people at the stables where I work. I assume the "normals" wouldn´t be so permissive if I would show anything else than my monogamous relationship with my mare. They remain silent because they can definitely count on me and that I won´t ever touch one of their horses. In my stables, there are more than 50 mares, I could easily cheat on my mare. But restraining myself to my mare gives all the other horseowners soothing certainty that their horses won´t be touched by me. Like a silent agreement: You stick to your mare and leave our animals alone and we won´t make a big deal out of your orientation. Sort of a compromise...and exactly that´s the keyword. We need to make compromises to get anywhere. Stubbornly insisting on promiscuous conduct won´t get us anywhere. Hate me now, but that´s how I see it.
That's why you need a proper source for the meaning...
I meant the thing that it means you're strictly only in a relationship with one animal.
K.
Long distances, we don't meet often.
According to you.
So.. what's the problem?
I could have gone into more detail, but it doesn't really matter. It's pretty widely accepted that sexuality is a spectrum where people don't need to firmly be on one side. I'm pretty sure it was Miletski who suggested to add more dimensions for zoophiles. He's mainly attracted to dogs and only a bit to humans.
So people don't get criminalized for any kind of sexual conduct that doesn't harm any human or nonhuman. There's a difference.
False dichotomy.
And everyone who is not monogamous would?
Sure. I'd tell them that I respect that they wouldn't want me to get close to their horses in that way and that they don't need to worry. Just because I don't see anything inherently wrong with it, doesn't mean I need to do it... There, compromise. Unless of course, they'd take me for a liar.
In germany the wast majority doesn't have such a negative picture of zoophilia. In fact for a long time there have been petitions to ban sex with animals but our parliament always rejected them, reasoning, that "animals are protected against animal cruelty, already".
It was a huge amount of rabble-rousing and a renegotiation of out animal protection laws in which our government wanted to push through some economy friendly laws, that led to a ban of sex with animals. Most of our interview we had with journalists went well and were very understanding. I personally came out to many friends of mine and there has only been one negative reaction so far.
And it's not like those who oppose zoophilia would take their arguments from zoo - oder beasty-websites. Often, these pictures don't have a sexual context, but they make up their own story to those pictures and propagate them. And no matter wether we can proof that they are lying, they will stick to their made up »story«. We are even accused of a case of animal cruelty where a zoophile helped the police to convict the perpetrator of his crime.
These people don't want to know, they don't want to understand. But there are many people who can and who actually try to understand. I think we should focus on these people instead of trying to convince thise who don't want to be convinced.
That would be an interesting question for a representative poll. For my subjective impression I get the feeling that the german anti-zoophilia groups are relatively successful in radicalizing people on social media. Sure, I have seen some english threads where people were over the top opposed to zoophilia, but from my impression these threads pop up more in german and get more people shouting for castration, torture and death penalty. But maybe I'm just not seeing many of the english ones. And I don't know how representative it is of the general attitude in germany..
Rabble rousing is always successful if you don't have enough counter-speakers. In social media on their "pages" they can delete everything that doesn't fit their oppinion or would proof that they're lying and they deliberately do so.
But they even turn against those who even dare to speak with us. They'll tell their friends "Do you know what kind of a friend you have there? He/She supports animal rape!". So as (almost) nobody dares to speak up against the fascists except ourselves, we have had a hard stand in the beginning. And they started to export that method to Denmark and still are doing the same with #OpBeast at twitter.
You will find a big difference in their way of "argumentation" when they're pages that don't belong to them like YouFM or hyperboleTV. They can't just ignore or delete us there, so you can point their accusation back on them, easily. And also I see more and more people being upset about the hate against us zoophiles, they state their respect for the courage to stand up in front of a camera and tell everyone about our feelings.
But today whenever they hype the topic in a country, we get ore journalist request than we can answer to in a short time, wo get more and more interviews to the public over time that we can refer to in future debates and that will be the basis for those debates, too.
But there is another thing I'd like to point out that I couldn't earlier as I didn't have the time. We don't only need to educate people about zoophilia or concept of sexuality, we also need to educate about animals and thus in all aspects of it (not only their sexuality). There is so much knowledge about astounding skills that animals have and many people still believe in the dominance theory regarding dogs. People often define animals by their believed differences to humans, so we need to find an explain all the things that humans and nonhuman animals have in common.
Those who can think will recognize the difference between people who just want to fuck animals and those who actually care for them.
"It's getting better" they say to young homosexuals that are assulted for what they are. It's getting better for us, too, but we need the courage to come out (for example at "zoophile rights day 2016" that will happen next year).
"Uh, yes sir, I know I'm a homosexual, but I respect that you don't want me to make sexual advances at you or undress you with my eyes, so you don't need to worry."
THIS ENDS BADLY
No. I call you different than me. I acknowledge that it is not for everyone and that many people will still prefer a monogamous relationship and that's fine.
But just like you talk about your relationships, so do polyamorous people. Recently I have seen this article in the news: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/26/dating-two-people-at-once-why-im-polyamorous-and-proud
I personally don't see a reason to call their relationship any less valid than yours.
I said above in some form (see that for more) and will say here: Actually, when it comes to communication, the majority is the right answer. How someone would be mot likely to understand you when you say a thing is of more significance than a technicality that nobody knows.
i'm with you. all i'm seeing is a bunch of holier-than-thou bullshit taking up the majority of this page.
I see you're the sort of person that would show up to a gay pride rally shouting "GO EUROPEAN AMERICANS!"
A word gathers its definition not from what it is directly but rather from how it is commonly used. Due to this property words frequently change meaning as time rolls on.
An easy word to snipe and point out this with is the word "gay", which used to mean "happy" but now means "homosexual", except for when it probably means something more akin to "stupid". And worse still that the transition from "homosexual" to "stupid" has occurred in my own lifetime, the last quarter-century.
Yes, you can dig in the roots and make any argument you want, but it's not nearly as powerful as how people use the word and what they understand it to mean. Rarely is the court of public opinion won on technicality.
Did you ever consider that perhaps they just never cared and the criminality doesn't factor in at all for them? (At least in term of what gets them aroused.)
Precisely why "counterpropaganda" is so important in this little adventure. It's proven effective, and if we do nothing, it will only get worse.
It's less propaganda on "the other side's" part and more normalized behavioral norms. Truth is that 4 in 5 women in the USA with pets have experimented with them sexually in some way, so it's not like people never think of it - it's just too taboo to work with.
Where did you get that statistic? I'm all for being optimistic, but that sounds really high.
I hesitate to withdraw the figure as the only other general populace one I see is that one study, but I can't for the life of me locate the study that found this figure.
As I recall, this was something I saw within the last five years. But I'm having a devil of a time locating it.