As others have noted before, communities of zoo-inclined folks tend to draw drama. Forums have blown up into huge interpersonal battles and plenty of folks have gotten banned and shamed out of said places over many years. Anyone who has been around the zoo part of the web for long enough can probably attest to that.
I don't know for sure why interpersonal tensions tend to run high with us, but I think a certain part of the reason they do is because we all know what it is like to feel alone. At some point we all have felt the pain of not belonging, to one degree or another.
When the people you've thought were "just like you" end up seeming like they're far from it, it's natural to feel betrayed and like you don't belong to the community anymore. When that happens, you feel like, in one way or another, you're on your own again, and it sucks. That feeling then turns into frustration and annoyance, which gets taken out on the very people in the group that you fundamentally belong to...an ironic, tragic shitstorm that makes things worse for everyone.
Let's not forget that over the past few decades what you might call the "zoo community" has gone from literally not existing to having physical advocacy groups. There are philosophical, ethical, and moral dilemmas that we face that nobody has bothered examining in detail since the dawn of civilization. Like it or not the community is not mature as an entity and still has to deal with trail blazing and growing pains. Everyone in the community is still growing and learning as a result. Even, I feel, the older folks among us. Arguments, challenges to the status quo, and shifts in personal perspectives are all results of community advancement and self-reevaluation.
But this process needs to happen in the right context to work. Disagreement is not bad. Changing your mind about something is not bad. Challenging established ideology is not bad. Making a mistake or failing is okay, as long as you learn from the experience. On many subjects we discuss, nobody is a true authority.
Being different or feeling different about something shouldn't make you feel alienated. Isn't that feeling of alienation what we're all about overcoming? If there is anything that the social movements of our time have taught me personally, it is that difference can be lauded as a strength just as much as it can be derided as a weakness.
In the end, let's not forget that the enemy is not in here. It is in many places: you needn't look far to find where. But it is not in here.
This is a good post.
Another excellent point. Let us debate, let us argue and disagree about semantics, ethics, ideals and goals, but lets do it with the knowledge that we may not be right. We may not be wrong either, there may not be a right answer.
Whatever we do however, let us do these things constructively. No personal attacks, no tempers flaring and no taking opposing views and opinions to heart as personal attacks unless there's an actual personal attack aimed at you. Then report it, ignore the poster and move on. I'm guilty of being stubborn about my views, but let me just say that it was a one-hundred-eighty degree change in viewpoint that brought me to this sub and to realize and understand things about myself as well. I went from a staunchly conservative person without any sensitivity or regard for alternative lifestyles or sexuality, to someone realizing that I'm not what I thought I thought I was, and I knew I could either embrace this discovery about myself and in doing so, have to change all my beliefs with it, or I could deny it and preserve my precious world-view and live with a lie hanging over me. I accepted the harder truth and here I am.
Sometimes being wrong about something is actually part of the process of evolving as a person and becoming free.
We have a greater responsibility than some other misunderstood online groups and fandoms, because what we say and do in this subreddit may influence people just discovering what this all means, people who may be seriously facing life or death choices about pain they are experiencing from shame and worry. Because of this responsibility I hope we can limit conflict while encouraging lively discussion as well as compassion and understanding.
care to elaborate? i'm curious. my apologies if you've already explained this elsewhere.. just point me to it.
I've never talked too much about myself personally and probably never will elaborate too much because of my position, but to make a long, odd story short, worked with animals most of my life, starting as someone who was born and raised in an environment of pickup trucks, shotguns, weekend hunting and good ol' boys complainin 'bout "the man.", I swallowed most of my culture around me until I realized I had a love for certain animals that felt exactly like attractions to beautiful people, and when I read up on zoophilia online and learned that these feelings were an actual thing, I couldn't find an argument against it knowing what I know about animal behavior and feelings and ended up changing a lot of my views about a lot of social issues with a deeper understanding that we are wired certain ways, and there are a lot of hang-ups we have as a species that need to be addressed. As a species we need to realize that we're not better than our animal cousins, not smarter or more wise, their minds are equally complex and beautifully nuanced, just different in how they make relations with the world around them. We're not their shepherds and caretakers and parents, they did fine without us for millions of years. But we are able to form connections with them and that's something unique, our ability to love outside of ourselves and meet another creature on it's level. Intimacy isn't bad, physical intimacy is only bad because people have turned it into something so very dark and dirty. We can learn a lot from some animals.
This is wonderful, I really love the way you worded it. Is it okay if I share this to my tumblr blog, with credit to you?
Thank you, of course you may.
Yes, but I'd say 40-50% were from overzealous mods, varying with the period and location.
It's also the more minor of consequences. When zoo drama erupts to its fullest potential, what you get is people outing each other. That's what elevates zoo drama above other communities' drama tons of which are just as drama-prone.
But that's more a reason to watch your safety than anything else, because drama is inevitable.
You need to take that further (even if besides the point). You need to stop seeing enemies everywhere else too. The world is shades of gray.
Out of interest, does anyone know if the gay community suffered from drama-outings in their early days? And if so, how does their experience compare to ours?
I would like to know this as well.
I can only imagine that if outing can used as a weapon, it will be.
As another thought, we should quietly look at the fallout of Ashley Madison and see how our current society, not just that of our parents and grandparents, deals with mass outings.
Okay, as someone who has been around a little while I'll just add, yep, boyo there was some serious shit going on in the past. I'll just say that I'm aware of a zoo community from the 1950s, and then sometime in the 70s the "moral majority" drove a lot of alternate sexuality underground again
In the past before the internet pre-90s lets say although there was fidonet, and BBSes and other things I am aware of two major "outings" of zoos caused by drama of the "why won't you share fido with me?" variety. Mostly just a bad choice of zoo friend I think. Before electronic communication it was pretty hard to take umbridge at what someone wrote in a letter. The communication was much less immediate.
In the 90s there was a rise of several distinct chat and forum services. Often these services were mixed in with furries but some stood alone. To my knowledge all of them had at least one major incident where people were outed over drama. These incidents seemed to be much more of a personal relationship nature as we tried to find human social comfort alongside out animal companions. I ended up having some life changing events in the 90s and so was away from a lot of the drama, although you hear it through the grapevine.
Sometime in the very late 90s and early '00 the anti-zoo witch hunts began. I avoided much of this being not very furry and also involved in my own life to the exclusion of chatting on the web. Finally, sometime around when I came back more regularly in 2008 or 2009 there was one massive clearance of zoo boards and mods started to take their roles much more seriously, and enforcing rules like no personal data even if you wanted to share it.
Over all, it is best to assume that while ideas and morals may change, people never do...
Hope that answers your questions, and obviously that is history from my perspective and I was excluded from a fair bit because I was not "an experienced zoo" no matter how many horses I shagged. I didn't do the porn, and the old guy "clique" felt the youngsters were upstarts.
I was asking more about the gay community — did LGBT people get outed by spurned partners, exes, etc? How often? Were the outers shunned or outed in revenge? That kind of thing.
Like you said, people don't change. I expect us to face the same problems as everyone else, precisely because we are just like everyone else.
Yes absolutely. There are some pretty famous examples from Victorian England amongst other places. People suck and seldom put their partner above the need for petty revenge.
Good points.
On the "enemy" thing, I was being somewhat rhetorical. Ultimately though, you are right.
First, let´s take a look onto the so called "community":
We all know that most of the people involved in "zoo forums" aren´t zoophiles themselves. You could call them curious, interested or whatnot, but they are not zoophiles. Still, they throw around the z-word like they´re getting paid for it. To prevent any accusations beforehand, I´d like to state that I don´t look down onto anybody. I don´t think it is "below" my honor to talk to non exclusives, non zoos, fantasizing manchilds etc. But if these people continue to call themselves what they clearly aren´t, I won´t keep quiet; I´m not doing this to feel superior, but to protect the essence of zoophilia from the masses of all those folks seeking attention, having psychological problems, only going through a temporary phase in their sexual development, the kink people, the taboo seekers and so on. It has become necessary to turn down the overly "tolerant" attitude so common within our "community": don´t expect me to sit and smile at people insisting on their "zoophilia" because they frequently watch animal porn. Don´t expect me to keep silent when some user clearly states that animals have been a substitute for sexual relief, but now that they´ve "found" the right human, they´ll never go back to animals, yet still calling themselves a "zoo". Don´t expect me to shut up at the ongoing "ad libenter" attitude within all "zoo communities" in the name of "tolerance". Tolerare is latin and basically means to withstand or endure something you´re not complying to. It doesn´t include the prohibition of criticism and having a closer look onto what is being presented to you. The gay community also has developed this false thinking that any form of criticism automatically is "homophobia". Tolerance should never be misunderstood as "laissez faire" or indifference. I tolerate anyone with an interest in zoophilia, I´m glad that those "outsiders" are here and willing to participate. But don´t expect me to be a "soul charmer" for those who don´t fit into the definition of zoophilia. When problematic behavior or a general misunderstanding of zoophilia shows up, I will address it regardless of the other person´s mental status. As a veteran invlved in creating the zeta rules, I strictly stick to "Don´t talk ´em in, talk ´em out". We zoos don´t need quantity...what we need is quality. We don´t need to count in anybody whose groin itches when he sees an animal, we need straightforward and honest advocates of zoophilia as a genuine sexual orientation. It´s a bad idea to convince the public by growing larger and larger in numbers, counting even the worst individual in; quite the opposite would be better: we need to keep our turf clean from those whose attitudes and behavior can easily be turned against us zoos in an instant.
Talking about feeling alone: well, many participants in "zoo forum" sites are young and haven´t experienced what it really means to be alone with your orientation. Anyone born after, let´s say, 1990 and living through his/her puberty WITH the internet does not know what feeling alone is like. Today, all you have to do is to switch on your computer/smart phone.
I´ve been active in the online community since 1991/1992. Back then, no feeling of alienation evolved. But when the net became available and affordable by almost everybody, the feelings of alienation grew. The community took a turn towards what I identify the wrong direction. Zoophilia is about the LOVE for an animal, not about fucking any animal; it´s about emotional LOVE, not sex. But all those "neophytes" coming into the community after the year 2000 brought this "new" and overly egoistic attitude with them...and sadly became the numeral majority. It´s not ME alienating from the community, it´s the community alienating from me. Porn fetishes, imposing human sexuality onto an animal and so on...all that stuff we veterans strictly despised have become suitable and acceptable for many so called "zoos". The metaphorical red lights we put up in the early nineties are commonly disregarded and ignored. Now, "zoophilia" orbits around the human ego, it is abused by those who don´t feel they belong.. "Let´s try the animal fuckers, they fuck animals and thus will accept me.....they aren´t accepted, I don´t feel accepted, so this is MY group."
Finally, let´s talk about physical advocate groups: back in the nineties, they already existed, at least in Germany. There was the IZM, founded by the author of "Zoophilia.The love for animals", Josef Maassen.So, your statement is inherently false.There was physical advocacy before the internet became widespread technology. until today, no advocacy group has made any significant progress and is thus considered as useless and selfcentered by me. ZETA is probably the finest example...apologetic attitude towards fencehopping, stupid "demonstrations" (Zoophile Rights day) attended by not even 15 people, promises not kept ( challenging the German law against any sexual activities with animals; they promised to bring this to the Bundesverfassungsgericht/Constitutional court, but now, almost three years later, they cannot even name an attorney preparing the trial). Those advocates known by name always fail to achieve improvement and almost everytime make things worse instead. Oliver Burdinski, one of ZETA, defends a fencehopper (Espenau case) and generally shows an attitude of what I call "24/7 fuck anything with blood circulation" and thus further encourages public to see zoophilia as an additional kink/fetish of those who never are satisfied. Hedonism and egoism. Who cares for the animals?
In here and other places "zoo inclined" folks meet, everybody should be mature. Maturity involves being able to deal with unpleasant questions without infantile overreactions, right? The drama you´re talking about mostly stems from those hopping in on "zoophilia" without going through the entire "thought process" a "natural" zoophile went through. For a zoo, it is vital to reevaluate and question his/her doings on a daily basis. It´s all to easy to become a non zoo by just following your sex drive. So, being confronted with non conforming thoughts and attitudes like mine when I say that only exclusive zoophiles are real zoophiles shouldn´t make you shit your pants, it should make you think, folks. What do you think when some self proclaimed gay states that he is currently living in an opposite gender relationship and happy, but still calls himself gay? Right, you would probably think that this guy is an idiot. So, why do you try to bend and twist definitions to fit your own personal situation? Is it only to be a "part" of the "community"? And why do you think no one will accept you when you speak the truth? As I wrote above, I don´t look down on you when you are non eclusive and still have human partners. But you´re not zoo. I can talk to you without prejudice if you stay honest.But if you are so inclined with the z-word, don´t expet me to remain in a Buddha-like state, sitting and smiling, when you try to steal my sexual identity, my entire life. I´ve become a riding instructor because I´m a horse zoo, I changed my entire life to be near horses because that´s where I belong. I work from 5 AM to 7 PM, sometimes even longer, without making lots of money. I did this because zoophilia isn´t a part time obsession, it´s not a kink sparetime activity I can retreat to when "normal" sex gets boring. This is my life, folks. This isn´t a lifestyle you can switch on and off as you want. So, please don´t try to turn this into crap. Many folks call themselves a zoo. For me, on many occasions it´s like slipping into a Metallica shirt to "prove" you´re a grindcore afficionado...stating that "Enter Sandman" is "really heavy music". Bullshit. With zoophilia, it´s the same....reading something on the internet, frequently watching animal porn, having a phase of temporary interest in animal sex...all of that is the metaphorical Metallica shirt.Zoophilia isn´t a shirt you can put on and off as you like, it´s like a tattoo...once you "have it", you can´t make it go away anymore.Even if you treat it with Picosure laser, the scars will remain.
Bullshit. People who think animals are sexually attractive, regardless of level of attractiveness or sexual phase or whatever other bullshit criteria you list here, ARE zoophiles. It's literally the dictionary definition of the word.
I suggest you either deal with it, or make a new word for your better zoo kind.
/r/zooromantic. That's what this sub should have been called. That name isn't taken, so there's really no excuse. The sidebar does say that it IS intended for people like him, who feel romantic attraction to animals and not just sexual attraction.
Romantic attraction usually implies sexual attraction... In most cases anyhow.
Sexual attraction does not mandate romantic attraction however. My point stands.
Don't you think it's going a little overboard to exclude people just because they feel romantic attraction towards animals AND humans? I don't see how those people make other zoophiles look bad.