Not the most recent article, but I haven't seen it.
When I talked to them, they weren't breaking the law, and they didn't want to. That's part of the reason this was never a for-profit animal prostitution ring type of thing.
There are many rumors going around that they were involved with an "animal brothel" and several news articles have said so. And I was always confused why they thought so, because to me it always sounded more like what they say here.
When I was talking to the zoos in Washington, I got an impression that they thought Mr. Hands was a bit of a weakling: He was an intellectual, he worked for Boeing as an engineer. They could take a horse-fucking and not have to go to the hospital. He was effete and new to it. They thought he ruined it. If he wasn't so self-destructive, they'd still be fucking horses on weekends. Dumping him at the hospital was really dumping him into the media and mainstream, and also ending the thing they had going.
wat
One of the guys literally said he planned on eating one of the bulls after it fucked him. I found that to be very problematic. Getting fucked by something you were going to eat? He was super darkly into zoophilia in a way that was unlike the others.
Holy shit, that's creepy. I don't understand groups who tolerate people like that. I really don't. Maybe my impression of them was really wrong all along.
Coyote, the narrator of our doc, was the real deal. He was a real zoo. He had this thing with dogs and other animals. He was making love to them, not just fucking them. That was his thing. It was actual passion and love for animals. The other guys, who were into big dicks, could have just had intense fetishes.
I don't think Mr. Hands was actually a zoophiliac. I think he was just into fetishes. He was into extreme things and hurting his body. We didn't get into this in the film, but he was involved in a motorcycle accident. He lost a lot of his ability to sense things and had bad neural damage. People in this zoophilia community thought that putting the horse cock in his ass was an effort to feel things again—getting into extreme stuff was a way to regain neural sensation. He was into fisting, he was into big dildos, he was into pushing things sexually.
While I'm glad that they're actually trying to differentiate, I'm not too happy about how zoos are still portrayed as sex addicted people who get together to indulge in orgies all the time.
Or alternatively:
Zoo is a startlingly poignant film that portrays the "zoos" as tragic and lonely human beings rather than animal-abusing perverts.
And with the last sentence here it is again:
There's already enough trouble about people deciding if we should keep doing tests on chimps, but to talk about if we should be allowed to fuck them, too?
One of these is cruel, the other is harmless. Why does this have anything to do with each other? The article itself even said
At the time, bestiality was legal in Washington, and since there was no evidence of the men abusing the animals
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2015-09-17 14:36:02
You're preaching to the choir. (With the possible exception of "Holy shit, that's creepy." — I totally fail to understand how meat is acceptable to animal rights advocates, but I must accept that it appears to be acceptable to the majority.)
KynophileDog lover 6 points on 2015-09-17 21:27:59
I don't think it's so much the meat as the fact the person quoted wanted to have sex with a bull, then kill it and eat it. It's a weird ritual cannibalism, and I don't really know how it can be ethically justified other than as a source of pride for domination of the animal kingdom. There was a rumor about this being a theme for a restaurant in Japan (which was thankfully satirical and untrue), but I hate the idea of having sex with a healthy animal and immediately killing it for food. I don't know who would disagree with that here.
zoozooz 5 points on 2015-09-17 22:00:04
I'm not a fan of killing animals for food when there are alternatives, but I thought wanting to kill and eat specifically the animal that you've just had sex with, that's on a whole other level. The possible motivations I see for that are not something I could tolerate in acquaintances.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 2 points on 2015-09-17 23:59:55
Yeah eating something you just had sex with seems strange and brutal.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2015-09-18 08:36:57
It does when the "something" is an entity you count a person. I know that some people think non-humans are mindless, so for them it would be no different to using a cucumber as a dildo before eating it. Weird, certainly, but for me it's only the fact that I see animals as non-human-persons that makes me find it disgusting.
30-30amator equae 5 points on 2015-09-17 15:35:46
They shot animal porn in Enumclaw and sold it. So, it was actually a "for-profit operation".
Aside from that, this article draws the same conclusions I´m drawing; a "zoo scene" with only a few people worthy calling zoo, but many others invovled because of fetishes, psychical defects, etc.
Zoophilia has become a magnet for all types of weird folks. The overproportional representation of "dickworshippers" is something that still makes me wonder why...one would think that homo- and heterosexual zoophiles should mirror the same percentage as in the overall population, but the "animal gays" outnumber the heteros by far...maybe it´s one side effect of gay becoming more accepted and less frowned upon; some seem to miss the early days where being gay was dangerous, but also a "thrill". The thrill is gone now and maybe they switch to something that still has this kind of negative image and thrill of being eposed to it, IDK.
Yet again, I have to remind everyone tht keeping our own turf clean may be the most important task for zoos to fulfill. Keeping out those who are in it for the wrong reasons and motives isn´t intolerant, it is vital for the zoo community. The more we open up for anone, the more our core ideas , our identity as zoos is watered down. Zoophilia is NOT a fetish, NOT a thrill, NOT a "lifestyle"; it is an orientation. Until the community begins to clean up before the own front porch, any attempt to "teach" the public about it is comdemned to fail. Consistency and coherence are the keys to gaining understanding and , later maybe, even tolerance.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 3 points on 2015-09-18 04:59:39
I really think you overestimate the amount of cleaning up that needs to happen. I don't think we have become a magnet of any type, to be honest. No more than heterosexuality is a magnet for weirdness at any rate.
I do know that erecting barriers via artificial standards and calling people "weirdos" is not going to help us.
30-30amator equae 2 points on 2015-09-18 06:02:00
And I think you totally underestimate zoophilia/bestiality as a weirdo magnet. Weird people will feel drawn to weird things; just look at the amount of fetishists populating any zoo forum. (Reddit may be an exception for some reason...well, at least this subreddit, I don´t know about the subs with porn included as I don´t visit them.)
Compared to the zoo community in the nineties, the community today literally exploded with all types of nutjobs, sickos and people with a pervo level above 9000. Accomplishments from the 90s zoo community: the Zeta rules, the Zeta as a symbol for true zoophilia, many texts published that still hold value and are used as a basis for debating zoophilia with non-zoos. Accomplishments from the post-porn-explosion era zoo community: porn,porn,porn...and fencehopping. And porn made while fencehopping. If you agree with me that a community´s value can be determined by their accomplishments, well....just do the math yourself.It all shifted from serious thinking about zoophilia to this common "anything goes!" attitude, ideas diluted, lines blurred and ethics replaced by "fun".
Just read what /u/zoozooz quoted from the vice article. Even the author of this sensationalist company recognized that there is no homogenity within this special community and a broad variety of people he would not describe as zoophiles although they keep counting themselves "in"...
If you can´t follow my point of view, then try to take a look how the public perception of zoophilia changed in the last two decades:
In the nineties, there also were zoos who went public, like Actaeon, Valadan, Kurrelgyre and many more. Their homepages were accessible, their ideas free to read for everyone. The public took notice, but reactions were mild, ranging from curiosity to "I´d never do that, but if you and your animal are happy...". Today, our community is infested with so many folks gone berzerk in their minds that public reactions became very predictable within a slim range of "Hang´em" to "Burn in hell, you sick bastards!". The public hasn´t changed, it´s the same as ten, twenty years ago...it´s the zoos who have changed and failed to notice slipping down the downward spiral to polymorph pervertedness.The more perversions are brought into zoophilia, the harder it becomes to understand, the more unlikely it becomes this is tolerated and identified as non-harmful to animal and human. The whole thing shifted from relationship to orgies...an attitude brought in by those I proposed to expel from the community. In the nineties, we had a foot in the door, there were reports and articles not judging, but trying to understand. Today, this non judgemental stuff is rarely seen and I honestly think the lack of openness for zoophilia is linked to the raised level of extremeness, excessiveness. If you confess that you´re not into anything that´s sexually possible with animals, many so called zoos consider you as boring and sexually backwards with a conservative attitude. Remarkable, isn´t it?
If you deny that there has been a change in attitude compared to the nineties, you must be blind or too young. Even "normal" heterosexual behavior became more orgy-like. But the oversexualisation and pornographisation unveiled our societies major defect: everything became more extreme, more "perverted" because our whole society suffers from borderline and seems to have become unable to feel at a "normal" level due to the daily overbombardment of the senses. This has driven many people into "zoophilia"...they need to do extreme stuff because otherwise, they simply don´t feel anything anymore.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 3 points on 2015-09-18 06:05:52
I was around when Actaeon and company tried to educate the public. It went as bad if not worse than now. I'd argue that you are blind if you think otherwise. I could rattle off a list of names of people who wanted us dead and the laws passed, but I think you get my point or are blind to it, so I won't.
I guess I could be underestimating zoophilias draw for "weirdos." I just don't give a fuck. I never liked calling people weird in the first place, and the whole "clean zoo" campaign strikes me as entirely unneccesary in a world where animal abuse goes on institutionalized anyways in the meat industry. It's like, pick your battles. That one doesn't really matter, and at best, serves as a huge point of contention about what qualifies as a "fetish." I certainly wouldn't want to be the judge of that, nor would I want you to be, no offense.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2015-09-18 06:44:55
Well, the US of A isn´t the world, man. In Europe, there wasn´t much hostility towards zoophilia in the nineties. In Germany, we even had several TV shows dealing with this topic without prejudice and shitstorms following up.
It´s funny that the recent wave of anti zoo laws in Europe basically originated in the Enumclaw incident, isn´t it?
The "clean zoo" thing is nothing I propose out of malevolence. We as a community tried the opposite for more than ten years now and haven´t progressed a single step. The true definition of insanity is, according to Einstein, continuing to redo the same experiment over and over again and expect a different outcome. I think we are stuck with our "tolerance" approach and really should rethink it. If an experiment fails, change the parameters. I know the "Asshair" story, but I don´t think it failed because of the idea itself, but due to personal weakness of character.
Maybe you misinterpret the "clean zoo" approach: This never was meant to divide the community into "good" and "bad" zoos, it was meant to put those into the front line who are most easily understandable by Joe Average due to siilar morals. It´s easier for an everyday man to swallow loving an animal when the only thing that differs from his own sexual reality is the species of another persons partner. The more you differ from his morals and reality, the harder it is for him to connect to your zoo reality tunnel. So I say we should let those take over the Public Relation stuff who are closest to Average Joes reality.
Confronting him with multiple things he can´t relate to will inevitable alienate him, not only from the person he can´t connect with, but the entire idea. Hand over the mic to those who are sexually as close as possible to him, don´t confront him with more than one incomprehensible thing at a time. Of course, this isn´t a foolproof method to win over a person, but the chances of convincing him shouldn´t be reduced to zero beforehand by letting those with a completely different sexual reality tunnel speak to him. WE want something from them, not they from us, so it´s our duty to adapt to them, not they to us.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 6 points on 2015-09-18 07:18:31
I've never seen setting up barriers lead to anything good in history, is my point.
The Enumclaw incident I look at another way. The horse was male and everyone knew it, and yet, they were suddenly upset about this in europe? The horse clearly wasn't raped. Why are they upset? Surely it's not a "gay" thing. I think it comes down to the reality that people find sex with animals inherently disgusting. You can clean it up all you want, but that reality remains and that's all it takes to make most opposed. Why divide the community on silly points? It'd be insane to attempt what you describe because it makes no sense.
I hate to say it, but our lack of progress is more due to the fact that we as a community haven't enough numbers of people willing to speak up. It'll get much worse and push us much further down before it gets better. And it won't get better without a lot of speaking up, which is why we need all the zoos we can get.
I do agree with you on a small bit. The zoos in the limelight need to be... less insane. DS and the like aren't doing us any favors. I'm not so concerned with their perversity in societies eyes as their outright insanity in recent attempts to represent us. Yes, in that we certainly need a higher standard.
BaaxtenWhen in doubt, C4 3 points on 2015-09-18 13:09:28
I'm not exactly contributing here, but I'd like to say I'm willing to speak up. But... I'm diagnosed autistic borderline Aspergers.
HOWEVER! However however however, I must say that in the eyes of my friends I appear, act, and speak normally, and many are very surprised when I reveal that fact to them. Also it has been many years since the diagnosis, so maybe I have "improved" since then.
But you can see how that would be detrimental to the fact we need "less... insane" representatives. This is the secondary reason why I don't bring this up with my parents - they'll blame it on the autism and see it as a serious mental problem.
But I've had my fair share of upvotes on this board, so I must be doing something right, right?
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 2 points on 2015-09-18 23:39:35
I meant more sociopathic insanity. I'm not going to name individuals but there have been a few.
I'm borderline autistic as well. It's not the worst of fates. ;)
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 1 point on 2015-09-19 01:02:54
I wouldn't be worried about autism, honestly. It doesn't tend to show up in voice-recordings or writing, and video can be coached.
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 2 points on 2015-09-19 01:00:01
I think the speaking up bit is a bit of an awful feedback-loop, likely kicked into motion by Enumclaw. It comes into the spotlight in a very public, and very negative way, so people go quiet, so discussions become very one-sided with little to no support for zoos, seeing little support and much opposition makes people less likely to speak up, which makes things even more one-sided, and so on.
Those who are going to go public in this setting tend to be, at least somewhat, thrill seeking and exhibitionist. Unfortunately, it's very difficult (if not impossible) to tell people "Stop talking about this/stop aligning yourself with us." The best you can do is offer an alternative voice, which brings us back to the start.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2015-09-19 08:36:07
This. I don't have the strength to stand against their hate, even anonymously on twitter.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 2 points on 2015-09-18 11:02:47
I'm all for experimenting with different approaches (generally, not just when the existing approach clearly didn't work), so please do continue to try the whole "clean zoo" thing.
But that may not be enough. Other explanations for the change may include:
Cultural imperialism - from the USA, from African Christian ministries, from Islam
Culture war - Islamic groups and anti-Islamic groups accuse each other of being animal fuckers, just as in the Cold War the USA thought gays were Commies while the USSR thought gays were Decadent Capitalists
Backlash against the liberalisation of homosexuality
Backlash from South Korea against the West's disgust against eating dogs
Backlash from Jews against Denmark outlawing Kosher slaughter practices
Increased realisation that we actually exist
The economic downturn - I'm told economic downturns often lead to persecution of minorities
If you confess that you´re not into anything that´s sexually possible with animals, many so called zoos consider you as boring and sexually backwards with a conservative attitude.
That's not it. Your attitude towards your relationship is fine and it arguably is better in some regards than other relationship models.
Your views being seen as "backwards" and conservative come in when you say that others have to feel the same towards their relationships or they aren't "true" zoos and that sex without a huge commitment is somehow inherently bad. Or your word choice of "extremeness", "perversion" and "excessivity". I associate this kind of speech with a certain mindset..
That's not to say that I don't think what the people in Enumclaw did wasn't wrong. I just like to see it in the right context. You may have a point about disturbing the rest phase of horses could lead to health problems, but as far as I know the horses weren't actually harmed by their actions. With the current level of information I have I would place the "level of badness" at breach of trust of the horse owners which is way below harming the horses.
This has driven many people into "zoophilia"...they need to do extreme stuff because otherwise, they simply don´t feel anything anymore.
I don't believe this. True, there are these weird cases who turn up at /r/nofap, but I believe that these are outliers who genuinely have an addiction problem (or other mental issues) and by far not the norm.
In the nineties, we had a foot in the door, there were reports and articles not judging, but trying to understand. Today, this non judgemental stuff is rarely seen and I honestly think the lack of openness for zoophilia is linked to the raised level of extremeness, excessiveness.
And I don't. Maybe a bit. But have you looked at what happened with the rise of "online journalism"? There are thousands of small news websites that live mainly off of advertisement. Their stories need to be controversial or agitating in order to get more page views and money from ads. They don't have time and money for real investigative journalism. If you only look at reputable news papers do you see the same trend?
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 2 points on 2015-09-18 13:33:44
reputable news papers
I can only speak of the UK, but the Daily Mail is the 2nd biggest-selling daily newspaper here. It's always been awful. Literally supported the Nazis just before WW2, and as late as 1993 they infamously ran the headline "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding".
incognito-cognition 1 point on 2015-09-19 01:46:46
Zoophilia is NOT a fetish, NOT a thrill, NOT a "lifestyle"; it is an orientation. Until the community begins to clean up before the own front porch, any attempt to "teach" the public about it is comdemned to fail.
I want to save up all the upvotes I haven't used so far and apply them to this. [Apart from word choice - if you're going the "sexuality" route, might as well just say zoosexuality and not zoophilia, right?]
FNAFCommunityPls 1 point on 2015-09-23 20:57:57
By the way, Tait and his groupies are still operating. Bunch of weirdos.
/r/zoophilia archive
Not the most recent article, but I haven't seen it.
There are many rumors going around that they were involved with an "animal brothel" and several news articles have said so. And I was always confused why they thought so, because to me it always sounded more like what they say here.
wat
Holy shit, that's creepy. I don't understand groups who tolerate people like that. I really don't. Maybe my impression of them was really wrong all along.
While I'm glad that they're actually trying to differentiate, I'm not too happy about how zoos are still portrayed as sex addicted people who get together to indulge in orgies all the time.
Or alternatively:
And with the last sentence here it is again:
One of these is cruel, the other is harmless. Why does this have anything to do with each other? The article itself even said
You're preaching to the choir. (With the possible exception of "Holy shit, that's creepy." — I totally fail to understand how meat is acceptable to animal rights advocates, but I must accept that it appears to be acceptable to the majority.)
I don't think it's so much the meat as the fact the person quoted wanted to have sex with a bull, then kill it and eat it. It's a weird ritual cannibalism, and I don't really know how it can be ethically justified other than as a source of pride for domination of the animal kingdom. There was a rumor about this being a theme for a restaurant in Japan (which was thankfully satirical and untrue), but I hate the idea of having sex with a healthy animal and immediately killing it for food. I don't know who would disagree with that here.
I'm not a fan of killing animals for food when there are alternatives, but I thought wanting to kill and eat specifically the animal that you've just had sex with, that's on a whole other level. The possible motivations I see for that are not something I could tolerate in acquaintances.
Yeah eating something you just had sex with seems strange and brutal.
It does when the "something" is an entity you count a person. I know that some people think non-humans are mindless, so for them it would be no different to using a cucumber as a dildo before eating it. Weird, certainly, but for me it's only the fact that I see animals as non-human-persons that makes me find it disgusting.
They shot animal porn in Enumclaw and sold it. So, it was actually a "for-profit operation". Aside from that, this article draws the same conclusions I´m drawing; a "zoo scene" with only a few people worthy calling zoo, but many others invovled because of fetishes, psychical defects, etc.
Zoophilia has become a magnet for all types of weird folks. The overproportional representation of "dickworshippers" is something that still makes me wonder why...one would think that homo- and heterosexual zoophiles should mirror the same percentage as in the overall population, but the "animal gays" outnumber the heteros by far...maybe it´s one side effect of gay becoming more accepted and less frowned upon; some seem to miss the early days where being gay was dangerous, but also a "thrill". The thrill is gone now and maybe they switch to something that still has this kind of negative image and thrill of being eposed to it, IDK.
Yet again, I have to remind everyone tht keeping our own turf clean may be the most important task for zoos to fulfill. Keeping out those who are in it for the wrong reasons and motives isn´t intolerant, it is vital for the zoo community. The more we open up for anone, the more our core ideas , our identity as zoos is watered down. Zoophilia is NOT a fetish, NOT a thrill, NOT a "lifestyle"; it is an orientation. Until the community begins to clean up before the own front porch, any attempt to "teach" the public about it is comdemned to fail. Consistency and coherence are the keys to gaining understanding and , later maybe, even tolerance.
I really think you overestimate the amount of cleaning up that needs to happen. I don't think we have become a magnet of any type, to be honest. No more than heterosexuality is a magnet for weirdness at any rate.
I do know that erecting barriers via artificial standards and calling people "weirdos" is not going to help us.
And I think you totally underestimate zoophilia/bestiality as a weirdo magnet. Weird people will feel drawn to weird things; just look at the amount of fetishists populating any zoo forum. (Reddit may be an exception for some reason...well, at least this subreddit, I don´t know about the subs with porn included as I don´t visit them.) Compared to the zoo community in the nineties, the community today literally exploded with all types of nutjobs, sickos and people with a pervo level above 9000. Accomplishments from the 90s zoo community: the Zeta rules, the Zeta as a symbol for true zoophilia, many texts published that still hold value and are used as a basis for debating zoophilia with non-zoos. Accomplishments from the post-porn-explosion era zoo community: porn,porn,porn...and fencehopping. And porn made while fencehopping. If you agree with me that a community´s value can be determined by their accomplishments, well....just do the math yourself.It all shifted from serious thinking about zoophilia to this common "anything goes!" attitude, ideas diluted, lines blurred and ethics replaced by "fun". Just read what /u/zoozooz quoted from the vice article. Even the author of this sensationalist company recognized that there is no homogenity within this special community and a broad variety of people he would not describe as zoophiles although they keep counting themselves "in"...
If you can´t follow my point of view, then try to take a look how the public perception of zoophilia changed in the last two decades: In the nineties, there also were zoos who went public, like Actaeon, Valadan, Kurrelgyre and many more. Their homepages were accessible, their ideas free to read for everyone. The public took notice, but reactions were mild, ranging from curiosity to "I´d never do that, but if you and your animal are happy...". Today, our community is infested with so many folks gone berzerk in their minds that public reactions became very predictable within a slim range of "Hang´em" to "Burn in hell, you sick bastards!". The public hasn´t changed, it´s the same as ten, twenty years ago...it´s the zoos who have changed and failed to notice slipping down the downward spiral to polymorph pervertedness.The more perversions are brought into zoophilia, the harder it becomes to understand, the more unlikely it becomes this is tolerated and identified as non-harmful to animal and human. The whole thing shifted from relationship to orgies...an attitude brought in by those I proposed to expel from the community. In the nineties, we had a foot in the door, there were reports and articles not judging, but trying to understand. Today, this non judgemental stuff is rarely seen and I honestly think the lack of openness for zoophilia is linked to the raised level of extremeness, excessiveness. If you confess that you´re not into anything that´s sexually possible with animals, many so called zoos consider you as boring and sexually backwards with a conservative attitude. Remarkable, isn´t it? If you deny that there has been a change in attitude compared to the nineties, you must be blind or too young. Even "normal" heterosexual behavior became more orgy-like. But the oversexualisation and pornographisation unveiled our societies major defect: everything became more extreme, more "perverted" because our whole society suffers from borderline and seems to have become unable to feel at a "normal" level due to the daily overbombardment of the senses. This has driven many people into "zoophilia"...they need to do extreme stuff because otherwise, they simply don´t feel anything anymore.
I was around when Actaeon and company tried to educate the public. It went as bad if not worse than now. I'd argue that you are blind if you think otherwise. I could rattle off a list of names of people who wanted us dead and the laws passed, but I think you get my point or are blind to it, so I won't.
I guess I could be underestimating zoophilias draw for "weirdos." I just don't give a fuck. I never liked calling people weird in the first place, and the whole "clean zoo" campaign strikes me as entirely unneccesary in a world where animal abuse goes on institutionalized anyways in the meat industry. It's like, pick your battles. That one doesn't really matter, and at best, serves as a huge point of contention about what qualifies as a "fetish." I certainly wouldn't want to be the judge of that, nor would I want you to be, no offense.
Well, the US of A isn´t the world, man. In Europe, there wasn´t much hostility towards zoophilia in the nineties. In Germany, we even had several TV shows dealing with this topic without prejudice and shitstorms following up. It´s funny that the recent wave of anti zoo laws in Europe basically originated in the Enumclaw incident, isn´t it?
The "clean zoo" thing is nothing I propose out of malevolence. We as a community tried the opposite for more than ten years now and haven´t progressed a single step. The true definition of insanity is, according to Einstein, continuing to redo the same experiment over and over again and expect a different outcome. I think we are stuck with our "tolerance" approach and really should rethink it. If an experiment fails, change the parameters. I know the "Asshair" story, but I don´t think it failed because of the idea itself, but due to personal weakness of character. Maybe you misinterpret the "clean zoo" approach: This never was meant to divide the community into "good" and "bad" zoos, it was meant to put those into the front line who are most easily understandable by Joe Average due to siilar morals. It´s easier for an everyday man to swallow loving an animal when the only thing that differs from his own sexual reality is the species of another persons partner. The more you differ from his morals and reality, the harder it is for him to connect to your zoo reality tunnel. So I say we should let those take over the Public Relation stuff who are closest to Average Joes reality. Confronting him with multiple things he can´t relate to will inevitable alienate him, not only from the person he can´t connect with, but the entire idea. Hand over the mic to those who are sexually as close as possible to him, don´t confront him with more than one incomprehensible thing at a time. Of course, this isn´t a foolproof method to win over a person, but the chances of convincing him shouldn´t be reduced to zero beforehand by letting those with a completely different sexual reality tunnel speak to him. WE want something from them, not they from us, so it´s our duty to adapt to them, not they to us.
I've never seen setting up barriers lead to anything good in history, is my point.
The Enumclaw incident I look at another way. The horse was male and everyone knew it, and yet, they were suddenly upset about this in europe? The horse clearly wasn't raped. Why are they upset? Surely it's not a "gay" thing. I think it comes down to the reality that people find sex with animals inherently disgusting. You can clean it up all you want, but that reality remains and that's all it takes to make most opposed. Why divide the community on silly points? It'd be insane to attempt what you describe because it makes no sense.
I hate to say it, but our lack of progress is more due to the fact that we as a community haven't enough numbers of people willing to speak up. It'll get much worse and push us much further down before it gets better. And it won't get better without a lot of speaking up, which is why we need all the zoos we can get.
I do agree with you on a small bit. The zoos in the limelight need to be... less insane. DS and the like aren't doing us any favors. I'm not so concerned with their perversity in societies eyes as their outright insanity in recent attempts to represent us. Yes, in that we certainly need a higher standard.
I'm not exactly contributing here, but I'd like to say I'm willing to speak up. But... I'm diagnosed autistic borderline Aspergers.
HOWEVER! However however however, I must say that in the eyes of my friends I appear, act, and speak normally, and many are very surprised when I reveal that fact to them. Also it has been many years since the diagnosis, so maybe I have "improved" since then.
But you can see how that would be detrimental to the fact we need "less... insane" representatives. This is the secondary reason why I don't bring this up with my parents - they'll blame it on the autism and see it as a serious mental problem.
But I've had my fair share of upvotes on this board, so I must be doing something right, right?
I meant more sociopathic insanity. I'm not going to name individuals but there have been a few.
I'm borderline autistic as well. It's not the worst of fates. ;)
I wouldn't be worried about autism, honestly. It doesn't tend to show up in voice-recordings or writing, and video can be coached.
I think the speaking up bit is a bit of an awful feedback-loop, likely kicked into motion by Enumclaw. It comes into the spotlight in a very public, and very negative way, so people go quiet, so discussions become very one-sided with little to no support for zoos, seeing little support and much opposition makes people less likely to speak up, which makes things even more one-sided, and so on.
Those who are going to go public in this setting tend to be, at least somewhat, thrill seeking and exhibitionist. Unfortunately, it's very difficult (if not impossible) to tell people "Stop talking about this/stop aligning yourself with us." The best you can do is offer an alternative voice, which brings us back to the start.
This. I don't have the strength to stand against their hate, even anonymously on twitter.
I'm all for experimenting with different approaches (generally, not just when the existing approach clearly didn't work), so please do continue to try the whole "clean zoo" thing.
But that may not be enough. Other explanations for the change may include:
Things which are not a reason, include:
That's not it. Your attitude towards your relationship is fine and it arguably is better in some regards than other relationship models.
Your views being seen as "backwards" and conservative come in when you say that others have to feel the same towards their relationships or they aren't "true" zoos and that sex without a huge commitment is somehow inherently bad. Or your word choice of "extremeness", "perversion" and "excessivity". I associate this kind of speech with a certain mindset..
That's not to say that I don't think what the people in Enumclaw did wasn't wrong. I just like to see it in the right context. You may have a point about disturbing the rest phase of horses could lead to health problems, but as far as I know the horses weren't actually harmed by their actions. With the current level of information I have I would place the "level of badness" at breach of trust of the horse owners which is way below harming the horses.
I don't believe this. True, there are these weird cases who turn up at /r/nofap, but I believe that these are outliers who genuinely have an addiction problem (or other mental issues) and by far not the norm.
And I don't. Maybe a bit. But have you looked at what happened with the rise of "online journalism"? There are thousands of small news websites that live mainly off of advertisement. Their stories need to be controversial or agitating in order to get more page views and money from ads. They don't have time and money for real investigative journalism. If you only look at reputable news papers do you see the same trend?
I can only speak of the UK, but the Daily Mail is the 2nd biggest-selling daily newspaper here. It's always been awful. Literally supported the Nazis just before WW2, and as late as 1993 they infamously ran the headline "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding".
I want to save up all the upvotes I haven't used so far and apply them to this. [Apart from word choice - if you're going the "sexuality" route, might as well just say zoosexuality and not zoophilia, right?]
By the way, Tait and his groupies are still operating. Bunch of weirdos.