This policy is arguably better than what almost all commercial porn producers have. But is it enough? Is it even possible for a porn producer to have an ethically sufficient policy?
Right now appearing in porn is somewhat dangerous for the people and animals. Is your answer the same when in the future this danger may be removed? Do you differentiate between commercial porn and homemade porn that is not for profit?
Clearly the wealth of harmless amateur/homemade porn shows that many people independently of their sexual orientation like this sort of thing. So it's not like people who would share videos of sexual acts with their loved animal are any more "perverted" than people with other sexual orientations.
I already know the answer of some of the purists here, but let's hear some more opinions.
At first I wanted to keep the questions completely neutral, but I'll be honest - they give me a somewhat creepy feeling, especially their "Gaia Gold" private club.
jrbobdobbs90 2 points on 2015-09-04 16:21:52
I wonder if they would consider a dog giving a guy a blowjob as "forcing."
Battlecropsdogs, cats, snakes, ungulates 3 points on 2015-09-04 23:07:19
I've seen their page before, I think their policy and ethics are probably the best you can do with commercial porn. (This is considered commercial, right?) The dogs in the videos I've seen always looked well cared-for, enthusiastic, and all parties involved seemed to be enjoying themselves. And I like how (at least in the ones I saw) it wasn't presented as "this is degrading to the women." I think the idea to use masks is smart too, to keep the people from being identified. And let's be honest, to most people all dogs pretty much look the same. I'm not sure how somebody would get 'busted' just from the looks of a dog alone.
The only thing I don't like...
We do not publish any media depicting female animals as this may be considered "forcing".
Sigh.
[deleted] 3 points on 2015-09-04 23:55:35
And they don't explain the "female models only" thing at all. Like they expect the reader to just forget it was mentioned. These people sound retarded.
Battlecropsdogs, cats, snakes, ungulates 2 points on 2015-09-05 01:31:38
I'd maybe assume most readers don't care very much... The market for gay bestiality is considerably smaller than the market for bestiality with a male animal/female human. Maybe they think it'd hurt their overall business if they sold gay bestiality? I don't know lol, just throwing out guesses.
coyotedriftZoo Friendly 1 point on 2015-09-05 05:03:21
why is male human/female animal considered "Gay" bestiality?
Battlecropsdogs, cats, snakes, ungulates 2 points on 2015-09-05 08:49:21
Oh, I meant in reference to their "female models only" thing, and then the "male animals only". If they only accept videos with male animals, the only other option would be male animal/male human. So maybe that's why they only accept female humans?
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 3 points on 2015-09-06 10:57:10
I don't know why, but it seems some sites (ie "gay"beast) seem to make that link.
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 3 points on 2015-09-07 04:36:51
I think it might be that it's assumed that a. the viewer is male and b. they're watching for the human. At least, that's my theory on it.
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 3 points on 2015-09-05 01:40:58
I'm not sure how somebody would get 'busted' just from the looks of a dog alone.
Recently someone got busted from pictures they posted and the dogs being compared to photos on facebook. They were really generic looking dogs too.
Hoffman compared the forum posts that date back to 2011 made by a user who went by the screen names Enygma84 and Enygma888 to Stilton’s Facebook profile. He determined the two dogs — a border collie mix and a coon hound — were the same dogs in pictures on Stilton’s Facebook page.
wright-oneursidae canidae pantherinae 1 point on 2015-09-05 04:53:30
ah, thanks for pointing that out. i don't have to check it this website at all now. :)
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 2 points on 2015-09-06 00:56:26
Yeah, the "female animals can't be here cause that would be wrong..." thing is basically masked sexism towards animals. It completely takes away the assumption that a female animal has sexual wants and desires as well. Lost any interest in the idea after they said that...
zoozooz 1 point on 2015-09-06 11:33:35
I don't know how much they thought about their word choice, but it's either intentionally or unintentionally vague.
We do not publish any media depicting female animals as this may be considered "forcing".
They don't say they consider it as such, they say "it may be considered". They also don't say by whom. By their viewers? By the average non-zoophile?
It is not our position to judge such movies, however it is our choice to endeavor to keep the delineation between cruelty and consent as clear as possible.
I think you can still read it two ways.
The way you read it that sex with female animals is somehow "more coercive" than sex with male animals
I assume it is much easier to train and coerce a female dog to passively stay still and endure a sexual act she doesn't want compared to coercing a dog to actively enthusiastically hump someone. And I assume it's less obvious to see, especially when large parts of the videos consist of closeups of the genitalia. I'm assuming on the basis of the porn with female animals I have seen so far. There are many videos with female animals, but few where you can clearly see that they're into it.
MrWooflesZoophilia Writer 0 points on 2015-09-07 17:21:54
I've read that section and it kinda annoyed me a bit but I understand it. With that kinda policy you can see who there target audience is and it's not zoo's. It's for the kinksters who just look at it like an odd source of porn, in the communities of people who don't understand it most of them usually promote the line.
"It's ok when it a male animal mounting a human."
I think this comes from the perspective that has plague many cultures and mindsets that female partners in sex some how lack agency or ability which is not true at all.
I got nothing against artofzoo personally but after reading that line I can't say I think of them as any different than any other mainstream porn company. They want money and they cater to a niche market that has a source of wealth but little competition. I don't see them as zoo positive just a porn company.
30-30amator equae 3 points on 2015-09-07 05:09:09
Huh...artofzoo?...another proof how hollow and inflated the z-word has become.
But they definitely know their customers, mainly men who like to see women degraded by having intercourse with an animal...thus the "ban" on showing clips with female animals. Their "ethicality" is nothing more than a poor mask, they still make bucks out of selling porn that´s illegal in most countries of the world.
I´ve come across this special ethics that only male animals are "sure" to be into it because "they would not hump if forced"...but that´s a very silly thing to believe. Not only because female animals can indeed consent to intercourse too, but the humping could also be seen as a reflex rather than an action willingly done. Just like the sucking reflex of a calf, for example. We all know that especially dogs will hump anything and it is beyond any reason to assume that doggy fell in love with that pillow, or your leg.
Aside from that, for me, porn is exploiting, no matter what creatures are involved. Humans can agree on being exploited by signing the usual contract involved in making porn regarding their right as an actor, all human actors know that their vid wil be published. With animals, both isn´t the case. Publishing vids without the permission of ALL involved actors, even the fourlegged ones, basically is nothing else than exploitation and equal to publishing a sex clip of you and your girlfriend without her knowing.
Yes, animals CAN consent to sex...but they definitely can´t consent on being a pornstar and jerk off material for the entirety of manus turbare devotees worldwide.
Still the statement " Animal pornography is mainly produced for non-zoo, normal people searching for a special, extreme kick" holds truth. Additionally, I still can´t grasp the concept of porn: it´s only moving dots on your screen. It´s not your own sexuality you´re exploring, but consumption of another one´s sexuality. It´s more or less "unnatural", faked...when filming stuff, you always do it for your viewers, you always have in mind that a camera is there and filming, homemade "amateur" or "professional". It´s only fantasy, a charade.
The worst point of AP: animals have unique fur patterns and could be identified. So it easily could be that you´re jerking off to a movie that has caused an animal to be put down. If a genuine zoo, that alone should keep you from "using" any AP.
There is no ethics in porn; especially not in animal porn.It´s the money that counts, nothing else.
The producers only let you see the things they want you to see; they usually don´t add the "outtakes", the treatment the animals get before and after the camera is rolling.
In BF, there once was a guy from Poland. He had a stallion and produced clips for BF. He always insisted on "treating his animals good" and everyone bought it...until he met with another guy from BF. With this other guy visiting, unpleasant truths emerged. The guy was accused of hitting his stallion fiercely when the camera was off. The visitor had no reason to just badmouth him, so I think the accusations were plausible.
This is just a little reminder you always should remember that films only show what you are supposed to see....a "gentle" and "loving" porn producer can easily turn out to be nothing more than a sadistic asshole.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 1 point on 2015-09-08 16:49:03
So you are saying there "ban" on female animals is nothing more then a gimmick and marketing ploy. If so that is some shitty "ethical policy".
/r/zoophilia archive
This policy is arguably better than what almost all commercial porn producers have. But is it enough? Is it even possible for a porn producer to have an ethically sufficient policy?
Right now appearing in porn is somewhat dangerous for the people and animals. Is your answer the same when in the future this danger may be removed? Do you differentiate between commercial porn and homemade porn that is not for profit?
Clearly the wealth of harmless amateur/homemade porn shows that many people independently of their sexual orientation like this sort of thing. So it's not like people who would share videos of sexual acts with their loved animal are any more "perverted" than people with other sexual orientations.
I already know the answer of some of the purists here, but let's hear some more opinions.
At first I wanted to keep the questions completely neutral, but I'll be honest - they give me a somewhat creepy feeling, especially their "Gaia Gold" private club.
I wonder if they would consider a dog giving a guy a blowjob as "forcing."
I've seen their page before, I think their policy and ethics are probably the best you can do with commercial porn. (This is considered commercial, right?) The dogs in the videos I've seen always looked well cared-for, enthusiastic, and all parties involved seemed to be enjoying themselves. And I like how (at least in the ones I saw) it wasn't presented as "this is degrading to the women." I think the idea to use masks is smart too, to keep the people from being identified. And let's be honest, to most people all dogs pretty much look the same. I'm not sure how somebody would get 'busted' just from the looks of a dog alone.
The only thing I don't like...
Sigh.
And they don't explain the "female models only" thing at all. Like they expect the reader to just forget it was mentioned. These people sound retarded.
I'd maybe assume most readers don't care very much... The market for gay bestiality is considerably smaller than the market for bestiality with a male animal/female human. Maybe they think it'd hurt their overall business if they sold gay bestiality? I don't know lol, just throwing out guesses.
why is male human/female animal considered "Gay" bestiality?
Oh, I meant in reference to their "female models only" thing, and then the "male animals only". If they only accept videos with male animals, the only other option would be male animal/male human. So maybe that's why they only accept female humans?
I don't know why, but it seems some sites (ie "gay"beast) seem to make that link.
I think it might be that it's assumed that a. the viewer is male and b. they're watching for the human. At least, that's my theory on it.
Recently someone got busted from pictures they posted and the dogs being compared to photos on facebook. They were really generic looking dogs too.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/crime/roanoke_county/roanoke-county-man-pleads-no-contest-to-bestiality-charges/article_48ff0059-e5d2-51db-9c9d-5e0f7ccecfc6.html
ah, thanks for pointing that out. i don't have to check it this website at all now. :)
Yeah, the "female animals can't be here cause that would be wrong..." thing is basically masked sexism towards animals. It completely takes away the assumption that a female animal has sexual wants and desires as well. Lost any interest in the idea after they said that...
I don't know how much they thought about their word choice, but it's either intentionally or unintentionally vague.
They don't say they consider it as such, they say "it may be considered". They also don't say by whom. By their viewers? By the average non-zoophile?
I think you can still read it two ways.
I've read that section and it kinda annoyed me a bit but I understand it. With that kinda policy you can see who there target audience is and it's not zoo's. It's for the kinksters who just look at it like an odd source of porn, in the communities of people who don't understand it most of them usually promote the line.
"It's ok when it a male animal mounting a human."
I think this comes from the perspective that has plague many cultures and mindsets that female partners in sex some how lack agency or ability which is not true at all.
I got nothing against artofzoo personally but after reading that line I can't say I think of them as any different than any other mainstream porn company. They want money and they cater to a niche market that has a source of wealth but little competition. I don't see them as zoo positive just a porn company.
Huh...artofzoo?...another proof how hollow and inflated the z-word has become. But they definitely know their customers, mainly men who like to see women degraded by having intercourse with an animal...thus the "ban" on showing clips with female animals. Their "ethicality" is nothing more than a poor mask, they still make bucks out of selling porn that´s illegal in most countries of the world. I´ve come across this special ethics that only male animals are "sure" to be into it because "they would not hump if forced"...but that´s a very silly thing to believe. Not only because female animals can indeed consent to intercourse too, but the humping could also be seen as a reflex rather than an action willingly done. Just like the sucking reflex of a calf, for example. We all know that especially dogs will hump anything and it is beyond any reason to assume that doggy fell in love with that pillow, or your leg. Aside from that, for me, porn is exploiting, no matter what creatures are involved. Humans can agree on being exploited by signing the usual contract involved in making porn regarding their right as an actor, all human actors know that their vid wil be published. With animals, both isn´t the case. Publishing vids without the permission of ALL involved actors, even the fourlegged ones, basically is nothing else than exploitation and equal to publishing a sex clip of you and your girlfriend without her knowing. Yes, animals CAN consent to sex...but they definitely can´t consent on being a pornstar and jerk off material for the entirety of manus turbare devotees worldwide.
Still the statement " Animal pornography is mainly produced for non-zoo, normal people searching for a special, extreme kick" holds truth. Additionally, I still can´t grasp the concept of porn: it´s only moving dots on your screen. It´s not your own sexuality you´re exploring, but consumption of another one´s sexuality. It´s more or less "unnatural", faked...when filming stuff, you always do it for your viewers, you always have in mind that a camera is there and filming, homemade "amateur" or "professional". It´s only fantasy, a charade. The worst point of AP: animals have unique fur patterns and could be identified. So it easily could be that you´re jerking off to a movie that has caused an animal to be put down. If a genuine zoo, that alone should keep you from "using" any AP. There is no ethics in porn; especially not in animal porn.It´s the money that counts, nothing else. The producers only let you see the things they want you to see; they usually don´t add the "outtakes", the treatment the animals get before and after the camera is rolling. In BF, there once was a guy from Poland. He had a stallion and produced clips for BF. He always insisted on "treating his animals good" and everyone bought it...until he met with another guy from BF. With this other guy visiting, unpleasant truths emerged. The guy was accused of hitting his stallion fiercely when the camera was off. The visitor had no reason to just badmouth him, so I think the accusations were plausible. This is just a little reminder you always should remember that films only show what you are supposed to see....a "gentle" and "loving" porn producer can easily turn out to be nothing more than a sadistic asshole.
So you are saying there "ban" on female animals is nothing more then a gimmick and marketing ploy. If so that is some shitty "ethical policy".