submitted 2015-08-15 06:21:22 by zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 11 points on 2015-08-15 06:24:11
Someone actually went and found some zoo women to talk to and write about. Unfortunately their main correspondent doesn't actually seem to be a zoophile and their source is BeastForum. At least they tried?
30-30amator equae 0 points on 2015-08-15 07:44:15
Due to the fact that BF is the biggest site hosting "zoophilia" (whatever THEY think it is...), it´s only logical for any journalist to start searching there if he wants to speak with a "zoo". The same goes for ZETA-Verein....if journalists want to write about anything "zoo related", they will contact them first.
It´s sad that interviews with people clearly not zoo are presented as an insight into the zoophile community. We´re badly respresented, folks. Even within our community, definitions are fuzzy; how can we expect an "outsider" journalist to only ask proper zoophiles for an interview ? That´s why I strongly support using the term "zoophile" exclusively for people only interested in animals; this wasn´t done 20 years ago because "we", the exclusive zoos wanted to feel superior, it was done to establish a "trademark". But this trademark has been watered down to a point where real zooishness isn´t obligatory anymore to call yourself a zoo.And the result can be seen in almost any article about "zoophilia"...now the z-word has become a synonym for any sexual activity with animals.
It makes me equally sad and angry to see what has become of all the veterans ideas and how quickly they were corrupted when it became "hip" to be "zoo"...culminating in BF turning into the main source for journalists serching for "zoophiles". Looking back at the endless discussions taking place in the IRCs, I feel like Don Quichotte of La Mancha.....but, unlike him, I have become tired of fighting windmills. The common backstabbing from within "our" community doesn´t help uplifting battle morale either. So I´ve decided to jump out of the saddle, lead Rosinante to her stall and make love with her rather than continuing an already nearly unwinnable fight....
The term "zoophile" has turned into a hollow shell and I wouldn´t mind if the journalists put out an interview with the "zoophile" Janis Bender (pictures of his tortured German Shepherd frequently appear on anti sites...yes, the dog with taped legs and mouth lying on a table).
It´s incredibly ironic that even the EATZP (epicenter of anti true zoo propaganda) BF makes a clear distinction between zoos and beasties....if you don´t mind visiting BF, just go and read their rules section, you´d definitely surprised by what you´ll find there...even the porn pusher platform numero uno gets it right, but no one seems to care, not even the BF members or mods...within this context, it´s completely legit to interview BF members and turn their beasty views into an article on "zoophilia".
O tempora, o mores!
incognito-cognition 2 points on 2015-08-16 10:27:51
it´s only logical for any journalist to start searching there if he wants to speak with a "zoo".
This response is directed at the whole group, not you, but since you made the quote... this is what fuels the argument of: "is it better to stay in the shadows or to speak up?" Although even if there was a site as we defined it, it would not be as big a site as BF, which then leads us back to the equally tired "do we need to do a better job differentiating ourselves?" conversation. I mean, do people know that most of what goes on at BF disgusts a lot of us, too?? But how to define us or have that definition recognized and promoted....
Battlecropsdogs, cats, snakes, ungulates 2 points on 2015-08-16 18:46:47
do people know that most of what goes on at BF disgusts a lot of us, too??
Honestly I don't think so. Not with the way most people view zoophilia.
incognito-cognition 1 point on 2015-08-17 11:36:25
Do you/others see that as a justification for active differentiation, then, or is it a point that should be understood but not acted on for some reason?
ursusem 2 points on 2015-08-17 05:33:40
The problem is that zoophilia is so "odd ball" to most people. So therefore people just assume the worst about it and don't believe there is anything else to know about it. It is just something that they personally don't get, don't want, don't need in their lives. It is something that is weird to them. It's easy to write off zoophiles as just some evil pervs. They're not going to think "there are some good people in it" -- the topic of zoophilia to them is WEIRD and their thought process is along the lines of "no normal person.. " etc etc etc etc.
This is what the average non-zoo normie thinks:
"It is a perversion. People who do it/are into it are evil. What more do I have to know? It is a topic which doesn't deserve any of my serious thought and consideration since it is lunatic immorality of the highest order!" Where in modern day human culture is inter-species romantic relationships involving humans taken seriously and openly embraced? We eat animals. We USE them for all kinds of our needs and greeds. Non-humans are second class citizens that our society has been built around and we need to sustain their low status. Humans on top, and all the rest of the Earth is at our mercy, see? All other sentient beings besides humans are "its" and "things." If we allow them to form equal partnerships with humans that will destroy our delicate system of exploitation that human civilization is based around and has been based around since the agricultural revolution. Yes, zoophiles are definitely to be feared!!
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2015-08-17 18:49:29
I get the impression the problem of incorrectly combining groups is wider than us, given this quote from the redfame paper about us:
“My research deals with zoophilia. The ambassador was involved in sadomasochism.”
zoozooz 3 points on 2015-08-15 07:44:40
There's some shitty article about that article that somehow thinks this is "pro bestiality": www.blazingcatfur.ca/2015/08/10/vice-publishes-pro-bestiality-article-on-their-new-feminist-blog-broadly/. In reality it's neutral at best...
But some lovely subreddits have picked that story up like
I wouldn´t mind those subreddits...and I also cannot see how someone could say the original article is "pro zoo". Just because there is no general damnation of it, maybe....simple minds need simple messages or else, the simple minds become quite irate...;)
The problem here isn´t haters who feast on yet another opportunity to spill their hate, it´s our own community not realizing how important proper definitions are. The article only reassures haters and antis of their already existing bad impressions of us zoos as polymorph perverts, literally capable of fucking anything that walks, as insatiable sex addicts yearning for the next "extreme" kicks and kinks, as degenerates, deviants threatening society and horny imbeciles. To be a zoo, it´s not only important what you do...it´s equally important what you don´t...
Reread the article about the horse loving "zoo exclusive" guy interviewed some months ago and compare it to the article this thread is about....can you see the difference?
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 3 points on 2015-08-15 08:04:09
Yep, I read that one. I think it's interesting how, on both sides, any article that isn't outright condemnation may be held up as something pro-zoo.
electricfoxx 7 points on 2015-08-15 19:17:07
Journalists are not your friend.
Want proof? Look at the furry fandom. When the article starts off "Furry Fans are not into bestiality", you know it's going to be bad. Why? People automatically assume the worst. Though the writer technically didn't lie, they did do it catch eyes. They don't care about anyway, except for ratings.
He's another hook: "Many zoophiles get paid to have sex with animals."
Though this is not false (it doesn't say "all"), it paints the picture that all zoos only use animals for sex and pornography. That's what this journalist did. Women and Male Dog beast porn is hot among young non-zoo guys looking for something exotic. This article is more about the porn industry than zoophilia.
According Dr. Miletski, during the spring fertility of Babylon, men and women would use dogs (in secret) for multiple-day orgies, exhausting the abused animal until it died. Then, the dead dog's penis was cut off, hardened and dried, and used for sexual escapades.
According to Miletski, it's also aggressively rumored that Hitler's wife, Eva Braun, had sex with dogs for pleasure, which explains Hitler's fascination with his German shepherds.
"To be honest, a man fucking a female dog [or] mare creeps me out beyond belief. It makes no sense, but I don't know there seems something wrong about it," she (Lilknottyone) wrote to me one night when we got onto the subject.
Really? Hitler? Are you fucking kidding me?!?!
Worst article ever. Remember, journalists are not your friend.
zoozooz 2 points on 2015-08-15 20:20:08
Well, it's not wrong. Miletski did collect a lot of this stuff. The problem is that people don't realize she just included a lot of the historical stuff for completeness' sake without explicitly saying what is credible and what is not. Here is another example from her book, page 24:
Other examples of the myth of human-animal impregnation and birth
are found in the literature: In 1110, in the Borg of Liege, Belgium, there was a creature with the head, hands,
and feet of a human being, and the rest of its body was that of a pig (Masters, 1966). A woman in Switzerland
gave birth to a lion in 1278, and in 1471, another woman was said to have given birth to a dog in Pavia, Italy.
In 1531, that same woman was said to have given birth to a male head enveloped in a film, a serpent with two
feet, and to a pig (Blake, 1972; Dubois-Desaulle, 1933). In 1547, at Cracovia (Cracow, Poland), a strange
creature was born, which lived three days. It had a man’ s head, an elephant’ s trunk, “ the hands” and feet of a
goose, and a tail with a hook on it (Masters, 1966).
It's up to the reader to decide which of the historical references are actually true. Well, some people put less effort into that.
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 8 points on 2015-08-15 22:07:11
I think that the writer's own assumptions were shown heavily. She went in knowing and understanding very little about the topic. I feel like her first answer to why a woman would have sex with an animal was 'for money' which coloured a lot of her research- she states the first thing she was looking for was any porn actress involved in bestiality.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 3 points on 2015-08-15 22:26:38
I did not like the fact that nearly a third of this article was about porn. Gives us a bad rep.
Battlecropsdogs, cats, snakes, ungulates 4 points on 2015-08-16 01:10:23
"To be honest, a man fucking a female dog [or] mare creeps me out beyond belief. It makes no sense, but I don't know there seems something wrong about it,"
Uggghh
ursusem 1 point on 2015-08-16 05:37:15
What about that "makes no sense?" And human women having sex with male non-humans makes more sense? To her?
ThrowwwayGurl 2 points on 2015-08-17 22:46:51
I don't have a lot to add, seems this is a lot of "no-brainer" info to zoophiles, and it was way too heavy into the pornography world which got tiresome to read about. I honestly don't look at much porn, zoo or otherwise, and from what I've seen 99% of bestiality porn does absolutely nothing to even remotely capture what sexuality feels like or even looks like. In my own opinion at least.
I suppose it's a pretty good introduction for some people at least and isn't too condemning. I have to roll my eyes at the notion that it's a unique surprise that there are women zoophiles. I mean, is it really so hard to accept? Especially when it seems like the majority of people who even know what bestiality is, seem to be guys completely hung up on the idea of watching women have sex with dogs. I cant help but feel a tiny sting of that ever present misogynistic attitude seeping out of the cracks of this whole story. "Wait, you mean there are girls who have sex with animals ON THEIR OWN? Without being pressured or paid to degrade themselves for our pleasure? Shocking!"
Really the part that stuck out to me was this:
the animal lovers are always dogs, a disproportionate number German shepherds.
Can we all at least agree that German Shepherds are sexy as hell? :D If my family's first dog wasn't a big, beautiful, masculine GSD I doubt I would have even had the guts to go as far as I did, but he was soooooo sexy-handsome. Truly my first crush. :heart flutter:
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 1 point on 2015-08-18 03:51:40
I get the "no-brainer" thing a lot from articles on zoophilia.
I think people misunderstood the acronym GSD, it clearly stands for Goddamn Sexy Dog. XD
SusitarCanidae 2 points on 2015-08-17 23:09:02
Uh... For an article that seems to try to understand female zoophiles, I really feel I can't connect at all with what it tries to say.
First the journalist seems to be surprised that there are women who want to have sex with animals without being paid for it. She asks "what would make anyone WANT to have sex with a non-human animal", as if it's completely absurd that human sexuality is complex and there are people into all kinds of things, without any proper reason.
Then the article tries to imply that women who want to have sex with animals do so because:
They have been disappointed by men, or
Pure erotic pleasure/fuck everything that moves (such as that comment about getting oral from a dog)
Like, Miletski mentions women having actual relationships with animals, but the journalist choses to not focus at all on that, just mentions it in a passing.
I mean, what happened to the plain old: I want to have sex with dogs because they are beautiful, attractive, smell good and I feel like I can connect with them? You know, like with humans?
Crazy_ManManNot a zoo, but a friend. 1 point on 2015-08-23 19:25:14
Honestly, this make zoophilia look more bad than good IMO, and BeastForum also does not exactly make look zoophilia/bestiality look acceptable either.
/r/zoophilia archive
Someone actually went and found some zoo women to talk to and write about. Unfortunately their main correspondent doesn't actually seem to be a zoophile and their source is BeastForum. At least they tried?
Due to the fact that BF is the biggest site hosting "zoophilia" (whatever THEY think it is...), it´s only logical for any journalist to start searching there if he wants to speak with a "zoo". The same goes for ZETA-Verein....if journalists want to write about anything "zoo related", they will contact them first.
It´s sad that interviews with people clearly not zoo are presented as an insight into the zoophile community. We´re badly respresented, folks. Even within our community, definitions are fuzzy; how can we expect an "outsider" journalist to only ask proper zoophiles for an interview ? That´s why I strongly support using the term "zoophile" exclusively for people only interested in animals; this wasn´t done 20 years ago because "we", the exclusive zoos wanted to feel superior, it was done to establish a "trademark". But this trademark has been watered down to a point where real zooishness isn´t obligatory anymore to call yourself a zoo.And the result can be seen in almost any article about "zoophilia"...now the z-word has become a synonym for any sexual activity with animals.
It makes me equally sad and angry to see what has become of all the veterans ideas and how quickly they were corrupted when it became "hip" to be "zoo"...culminating in BF turning into the main source for journalists serching for "zoophiles". Looking back at the endless discussions taking place in the IRCs, I feel like Don Quichotte of La Mancha.....but, unlike him, I have become tired of fighting windmills. The common backstabbing from within "our" community doesn´t help uplifting battle morale either. So I´ve decided to jump out of the saddle, lead Rosinante to her stall and make love with her rather than continuing an already nearly unwinnable fight.... The term "zoophile" has turned into a hollow shell and I wouldn´t mind if the journalists put out an interview with the "zoophile" Janis Bender (pictures of his tortured German Shepherd frequently appear on anti sites...yes, the dog with taped legs and mouth lying on a table). It´s incredibly ironic that even the EATZP (epicenter of anti true zoo propaganda) BF makes a clear distinction between zoos and beasties....if you don´t mind visiting BF, just go and read their rules section, you´d definitely surprised by what you´ll find there...even the porn pusher platform numero uno gets it right, but no one seems to care, not even the BF members or mods...within this context, it´s completely legit to interview BF members and turn their beasty views into an article on "zoophilia". O tempora, o mores!
This response is directed at the whole group, not you, but since you made the quote... this is what fuels the argument of: "is it better to stay in the shadows or to speak up?" Although even if there was a site as we defined it, it would not be as big a site as BF, which then leads us back to the equally tired "do we need to do a better job differentiating ourselves?" conversation. I mean, do people know that most of what goes on at BF disgusts a lot of us, too?? But how to define us or have that definition recognized and promoted....
Honestly I don't think so. Not with the way most people view zoophilia.
Do you/others see that as a justification for active differentiation, then, or is it a point that should be understood but not acted on for some reason?
The problem is that zoophilia is so "odd ball" to most people. So therefore people just assume the worst about it and don't believe there is anything else to know about it. It is just something that they personally don't get, don't want, don't need in their lives. It is something that is weird to them. It's easy to write off zoophiles as just some evil pervs. They're not going to think "there are some good people in it" -- the topic of zoophilia to them is WEIRD and their thought process is along the lines of "no normal person.. " etc etc etc etc. This is what the average non-zoo normie thinks:
"It is a perversion. People who do it/are into it are evil. What more do I have to know? It is a topic which doesn't deserve any of my serious thought and consideration since it is lunatic immorality of the highest order!" Where in modern day human culture is inter-species romantic relationships involving humans taken seriously and openly embraced? We eat animals. We USE them for all kinds of our needs and greeds. Non-humans are second class citizens that our society has been built around and we need to sustain their low status. Humans on top, and all the rest of the Earth is at our mercy, see? All other sentient beings besides humans are "its" and "things." If we allow them to form equal partnerships with humans that will destroy our delicate system of exploitation that human civilization is based around and has been based around since the agricultural revolution. Yes, zoophiles are definitely to be feared!!
I get the impression the problem of incorrectly combining groups is wider than us, given this quote from the redfame paper about us:
There's some shitty article about that article that somehow thinks this is "pro bestiality": www.blazingcatfur.ca/2015/08/10/vice-publishes-pro-bestiality-article-on-their-new-feminist-blog-broadly/. In reality it's neutral at best...
But some lovely subreddits have picked that story up like
/r/DarkEnlightenment (lol), /r/Conservative, /r/WhiteRights, /r/NationalSocialism (really), /r/LiberalDegeneracy (wow), /r/new_right
Here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkEnlightenment/duplicates/3gvfvz/vice_publishes_probestiality_article_on_their_new/
I wouldn´t mind those subreddits...and I also cannot see how someone could say the original article is "pro zoo". Just because there is no general damnation of it, maybe....simple minds need simple messages or else, the simple minds become quite irate...;) The problem here isn´t haters who feast on yet another opportunity to spill their hate, it´s our own community not realizing how important proper definitions are. The article only reassures haters and antis of their already existing bad impressions of us zoos as polymorph perverts, literally capable of fucking anything that walks, as insatiable sex addicts yearning for the next "extreme" kicks and kinks, as degenerates, deviants threatening society and horny imbeciles. To be a zoo, it´s not only important what you do...it´s equally important what you don´t... Reread the article about the horse loving "zoo exclusive" guy interviewed some months ago and compare it to the article this thread is about....can you see the difference?
Yep, I read that one. I think it's interesting how, on both sides, any article that isn't outright condemnation may be held up as something pro-zoo.
Journalists are not your friend.
Want proof? Look at the furry fandom. When the article starts off "Furry Fans are not into bestiality", you know it's going to be bad. Why? People automatically assume the worst. Though the writer technically didn't lie, they did do it catch eyes. They don't care about anyway, except for ratings.
He's another hook: "Many zoophiles get paid to have sex with animals."
Though this is not false (it doesn't say "all"), it paints the picture that all zoos only use animals for sex and pornography. That's what this journalist did. Women and Male Dog beast porn is hot among young non-zoo guys looking for something exotic. This article is more about the porn industry than zoophilia.
Really? Hitler? Are you fucking kidding me?!?!
Worst article ever. Remember, journalists are not your friend.
Well, it's not wrong. Miletski did collect a lot of this stuff. The problem is that people don't realize she just included a lot of the historical stuff for completeness' sake without explicitly saying what is credible and what is not. Here is another example from her book, page 24:
It's up to the reader to decide which of the historical references are actually true. Well, some people put less effort into that.
Also, people love to quotemine Miletski. The organization that seems to be the leading lobbyist behind the ban in spain published stuff like https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coppaprevencion.org%2Ffiles%2Fcoppa_texto_bestialismo_dra_ana_jacome.pdf&sandbox=1 (original spanish link). They quote miletski multiple times, but do not mention the actual point and results of her work in any way, just like this article.
I think that the writer's own assumptions were shown heavily. She went in knowing and understanding very little about the topic. I feel like her first answer to why a woman would have sex with an animal was 'for money' which coloured a lot of her research- she states the first thing she was looking for was any porn actress involved in bestiality.
I did not like the fact that nearly a third of this article was about porn. Gives us a bad rep.
Uggghh
What about that "makes no sense?" And human women having sex with male non-humans makes more sense? To her?
I don't have a lot to add, seems this is a lot of "no-brainer" info to zoophiles, and it was way too heavy into the pornography world which got tiresome to read about. I honestly don't look at much porn, zoo or otherwise, and from what I've seen 99% of bestiality porn does absolutely nothing to even remotely capture what sexuality feels like or even looks like. In my own opinion at least.
I suppose it's a pretty good introduction for some people at least and isn't too condemning. I have to roll my eyes at the notion that it's a unique surprise that there are women zoophiles. I mean, is it really so hard to accept? Especially when it seems like the majority of people who even know what bestiality is, seem to be guys completely hung up on the idea of watching women have sex with dogs. I cant help but feel a tiny sting of that ever present misogynistic attitude seeping out of the cracks of this whole story. "Wait, you mean there are girls who have sex with animals ON THEIR OWN? Without being pressured or paid to degrade themselves for our pleasure? Shocking!"
Really the part that stuck out to me was this:
Can we all at least agree that German Shepherds are sexy as hell? :D If my family's first dog wasn't a big, beautiful, masculine GSD I doubt I would have even had the guts to go as far as I did, but he was soooooo sexy-handsome. Truly my first crush. :heart flutter:
I get the "no-brainer" thing a lot from articles on zoophilia.
I think people misunderstood the acronym GSD, it clearly stands for Goddamn Sexy Dog. XD
Uh... For an article that seems to try to understand female zoophiles, I really feel I can't connect at all with what it tries to say.
First the journalist seems to be surprised that there are women who want to have sex with animals without being paid for it. She asks "what would make anyone WANT to have sex with a non-human animal", as if it's completely absurd that human sexuality is complex and there are people into all kinds of things, without any proper reason.
Then the article tries to imply that women who want to have sex with animals do so because:
Like, Miletski mentions women having actual relationships with animals, but the journalist choses to not focus at all on that, just mentions it in a passing.
I mean, what happened to the plain old: I want to have sex with dogs because they are beautiful, attractive, smell good and I feel like I can connect with them? You know, like with humans?
Honestly, this make zoophilia look more bad than good IMO, and BeastForum also does not exactly make look zoophilia/bestiality look acceptable either.