This website is for entertainment purposes only and should is not intended to provide a medical diagnosis or an alternative to a doctor.
And still it is masquerading as a medical resource. While not being able to spell bestiality correctly - or their own terms without grammatical errors. This is some really backwards stuff:
Treatment for Beastiality
Antiandrogenic drugs have been widely used as a form of therapy to reduce sex drive. However, their efficacy is limited and have many side effects. Growing of the breasts, headaches, weight gain, and reduction in bone density are to name some. Reportedly, 60%-80% of men benefit from this type of drug. Long-acting gonadotropin-releasing hormones have also been, and may still be, incorporated in treatment.
Psychostimulants have been recently resorted to to amplify the effects of serotonergic drugs in those who have a paraphilia, or paraphilias. There’s a theory that a prescription for a psychostimulant without pre-treatment with an SSRI may disinhibit sexual behavior further. But when paired with an SSRI, the psychostimulant may reduce impulsive tendencies.
Holy shit.
[deleted] 2 points on 2015-10-01 16:29:53
[deleted]
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 2 points on 2015-10-02 16:45:39
Hey, it worked on me. /s
[deleted] 1 point on 2015-10-02 17:37:28
[deleted]
NBRPony 10 points on 2015-09-30 21:43:04
How can someone trust a website discussing bestiality when the website uses the incorrect spelling of the word? Beastiality is used by the ignorant masses, while bestiality is used by folks who've legitimately researched the subject. Hell, they even pull quotes from a DSM manual so there is absolutely no excuse. Another example of people trying to twist legitimate research to fit their personal agenda, and failing horribly at it.
zoozooz 6 points on 2015-09-30 22:13:58
It doesn't even take a lot of research to get to the "bestial" origin of the word...
What got me are the "Treatment" paragraphs. Even if it's labeled "entertainment" buried in their terms, it's still just irresponsible and I can only hope that nobody in any position of power believes what they have put there.
30-30amator equae -4 points on 2015-09-30 23:13:48
Wow, an "expert" talking....
In fact, both spellings are somehow right and somehow wrong...
The word bestiality derives from the latin word "bestia", what translates as "wild (!) animal". Since the most folks stick to domesticated animals sexually, the term "bestiality" is misleading anyways.
The word "beastiality" simply is the "americanized" version of bestiality, exchanging the latin part "bestia" for the English "beast".
And /u/zoozooz, complaining about badly researched articles is like being insulted that the Ku Klux Klan is racist...everyone knows that the vast majority of people dislikes what a zoophile is doing. So your "Look at the terrible lies about zoophilia"-posts won´t change a fucking thing. Never. The battle for tolerance has been lost some fifteen years ago and you won´t change anything about it. Just live your life, quit thinking that having sex with animals is going to be the "new gay" and accepted anytime soon. Regardless of any efforts to "teach" the public about it, th fight was over before you even heard about zoophilia. You´re trying to ride a dead horse....please dismount.
zoozooz 3 points on 2015-10-01 08:29:44
everyone knows that the vast majority of people dislikes what a zoophile is doing.
Public tolerance would be nice to have, but I'm mostly concerned about laws. Even when today you can live comfortably "under the radar", the laws (in other countries at least) legitimize very intrusive stuff. From the other story I came about yesterday:
The court was told the man filmed the sex act involving the dog on the defendant’s mobile phone, which she later emailed to him. The email was traced by police and the defendant arrested in February.
Sure, any sensitive material should be encrypted and you're going to argue that people shouldn't make videos of it anyway, but if there are such laws and the people in law enforcement are zealous enough, this can get quite ugly.
BaaxtenWhen in doubt, C4 1 point on 2015-10-02 12:23:44
Public tolerance would be nice to have
Actually, I believe it's possible, if zoophilia is explained by the right people.
What must be done is to engage the (willing) audience by connecting on a personal level rather than a teacher-class level or a "I don't give a damn about your thoughts, DEAL WITH IT" level. I have nine friends I know really well at school now, and eight of them know I'm a zoo, and all eight of them have shown more curiosity and acceptance than I thought possible.
Curiosity.
The reason why they are curious about what it means to be a zoo, I believe, is because I am their friend. Get someone (or some people) to know you well enough, and they may overlook or attempt to better understand the things that make you different, possibly even throwing away any preconceived notions.
Or at least that's what I think.
zoozooz 1 point on 2015-10-02 13:43:23
friends
This is probably key. It probably helps if people get to know you as a person who wouldn't abuse animals, before you come out to them..
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 2 points on 2015-10-02 16:48:48
No, it's not the americanized version of the word. "Beastiality" despite being latin correct appears in no dictionaries, including american. It does however appear in every bestiality porn site known to man. Says more about the writer than the target audience I would say...
IDuckMyFogbitchin' 1 point on 2015-10-05 02:32:31
By "americanized" you mean "corrupted by illeterate people"?
[deleted] 1 point on 2015-09-30 21:43:04
[deleted]
KynophileDog lover 5 points on 2015-09-30 21:46:21
The DSM V disagrees. The full text is a bit clearer on this, but basically, if your life isn't negatively impacted, it's only a disorder if someone else would be hurt by it.
Battlecropsdogs, cats, snakes, ungulates 1 point on 2015-10-01 05:51:26
I don't quite see how the DSM V helps us, personally. Lots of people reference it when talking to antis but I don't understand how it's helpful.
To be diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder, DSM-5 requires that people with these interests:
• feel personal distress about their interest, not merely distress resulting from society’s disapproval;
OR
• have a sexual desire or behavior that involves another person’s psychological distress, injury, or death, or a desire for sexual behaviors involving unwilling persons or persons unable to give legal consent.
Legally, animals cannot give consent. And legal consent is what matters in the DSM criteria. So technically, the way I interpret it, zoophilia/zoosexuality is still a paraphillic disorder in the DSM. If there's a better way to understand it please tell me; maybe I'm legitimately missing it. I've seen folks saying the current DSM is more supportive of zoophilia and doesn't classify it as a disorder, but it seems like legal consent is the part that matters. I guess you could argue that animals aren't "persons," but that probably wouldn't go over well with antis/general public anyway and would reflect badly on us.
[deleted] 1 point on 2015-10-01 08:28:36
[deleted]
zoozooz 3 points on 2015-10-01 08:36:35
I would argue that it's weird for it to rely on legal consent to define whether it's a psychological disorder and/or that the animals' consent or withholding of the consent is not legally recognized is a shortcoming of the law, not of the DSM.
I don't think "legal consent" is even a well defined concept for nonhuman animals. Or what does the law say in regards to two animals having sex? They still can't legally consent to that...
KynophileDog lover 3 points on 2015-10-01 12:23:17
There is a question of whether animals would be persons in this context, and I highly doubt it. But regardless, whether a paraphilia is a disorder depends on what harm, if any, it causes to either a person themselves or their objects of affection, for lack of a better word. That last phrase is meant to include pedophilia as a disorder in all cases, and given the long term harms that often happen even to children who were in "consensual" relationships (depression, anxiety, PTSD, etc.), that is understandable. With zoophilia, I know of no such long term harms, and could argue that they are extremely unlikely to form in cases that don't have immediately apparent trauma.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 3 points on 2015-10-01 01:41:24
I don't like that they included this sentence in the causes of bestiality "Failure in finding a suitable human partner can be one cause of bestiality." It makes us sound desperate.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 3 points on 2015-10-01 14:43:54
suitable human partner
Well, in my case, "suitable" means they have thick body hair, a protruding mouth and nose merged together in a muzzle, and a tail…
I'm lucky I enjoy human personalities, and I'm lucky I seem to be able to fetishise random things — together, that means doing weird stuff with humans suffices. But yeah, humans are not my preference.
Lefthandedsock 2 points on 2015-10-01 16:37:38
Seriously. If I had to, I'll bet I could find a dude to fuck in half an hour.
What non-zoos don't understand is that most of us don't care about finding humans. If it happens, it happens. I'm not zoo-exclusive, but I'm by no means eager to find someone.
West_dogger 2 points on 2015-10-01 04:31:16
Reading this in no way improved my being or viewpoints :-/
zoozooz 5 points on 2015-10-01 08:45:20
Wait, being told they should be chemically castrated as "treatment" doesn't make people feel better? Who knew...?
West_dogger 1 point on 2015-10-02 02:24:15
Right it was a surprise to me aswell !
SusitarCanidae 2 points on 2015-10-01 12:11:35
It's also worrying how they call the "disorder" beastiality (sic). Bestiality is the act, and may or may not be a part of zoophilia, which is the name of the paraphilia commonly used. Diagnosing someone with "beastiality" would be like diagnosing a pedophile with "child rape", or a depressed person as "crying". Ridiculous.
Edog91 1 point on 2015-10-01 19:53:51
The 4 edition dues not classify us as an disorder. So this is why they only refer to 3rd edition.
/r/zoophilia archive
This is actually used by those opbeast idiots.
I know, people are going to tell me I should just ignore this stuff, but... just wow..
http://www.disorders.net/terms/
And still it is masquerading as a medical resource. While not being able to spell bestiality correctly - or their own terms without grammatical errors. This is some really backwards stuff:
Holy shit.
[deleted]
Hey, it worked on me. /s
[deleted]
How can someone trust a website discussing bestiality when the website uses the incorrect spelling of the word? Beastiality is used by the ignorant masses, while bestiality is used by folks who've legitimately researched the subject. Hell, they even pull quotes from a DSM manual so there is absolutely no excuse. Another example of people trying to twist legitimate research to fit their personal agenda, and failing horribly at it.
It doesn't even take a lot of research to get to the "bestial" origin of the word...
What got me are the "Treatment" paragraphs. Even if it's labeled "entertainment" buried in their terms, it's still just irresponsible and I can only hope that nobody in any position of power believes what they have put there.
Wow, an "expert" talking.... In fact, both spellings are somehow right and somehow wrong... The word bestiality derives from the latin word "bestia", what translates as "wild (!) animal". Since the most folks stick to domesticated animals sexually, the term "bestiality" is misleading anyways. The word "beastiality" simply is the "americanized" version of bestiality, exchanging the latin part "bestia" for the English "beast".
And /u/zoozooz, complaining about badly researched articles is like being insulted that the Ku Klux Klan is racist...everyone knows that the vast majority of people dislikes what a zoophile is doing. So your "Look at the terrible lies about zoophilia"-posts won´t change a fucking thing. Never. The battle for tolerance has been lost some fifteen years ago and you won´t change anything about it. Just live your life, quit thinking that having sex with animals is going to be the "new gay" and accepted anytime soon. Regardless of any efforts to "teach" the public about it, th fight was over before you even heard about zoophilia. You´re trying to ride a dead horse....please dismount.
Public tolerance would be nice to have, but I'm mostly concerned about laws. Even when today you can live comfortably "under the radar", the laws (in other countries at least) legitimize very intrusive stuff. From the other story I came about yesterday:
Sure, any sensitive material should be encrypted and you're going to argue that people shouldn't make videos of it anyway, but if there are such laws and the people in law enforcement are zealous enough, this can get quite ugly.
Actually, I believe it's possible, if zoophilia is explained by the right people.
What must be done is to engage the (willing) audience by connecting on a personal level rather than a teacher-class level or a "I don't give a damn about your thoughts, DEAL WITH IT" level. I have nine friends I know really well at school now, and eight of them know I'm a zoo, and all eight of them have shown more curiosity and acceptance than I thought possible.
Curiosity.
The reason why they are curious about what it means to be a zoo, I believe, is because I am their friend. Get someone (or some people) to know you well enough, and they may overlook or attempt to better understand the things that make you different, possibly even throwing away any preconceived notions.
Or at least that's what I think.
This is probably key. It probably helps if people get to know you as a person who wouldn't abuse animals, before you come out to them..
No, it's not the americanized version of the word. "Beastiality" despite being latin correct appears in no dictionaries, including american. It does however appear in every bestiality porn site known to man. Says more about the writer than the target audience I would say...
By "americanized" you mean "corrupted by illeterate people"?
[deleted]
The DSM V disagrees. The full text is a bit clearer on this, but basically, if your life isn't negatively impacted, it's only a disorder if someone else would be hurt by it.
I don't quite see how the DSM V helps us, personally. Lots of people reference it when talking to antis but I don't understand how it's helpful.
Legally, animals cannot give consent. And legal consent is what matters in the DSM criteria. So technically, the way I interpret it, zoophilia/zoosexuality is still a paraphillic disorder in the DSM. If there's a better way to understand it please tell me; maybe I'm legitimately missing it. I've seen folks saying the current DSM is more supportive of zoophilia and doesn't classify it as a disorder, but it seems like legal consent is the part that matters. I guess you could argue that animals aren't "persons," but that probably wouldn't go over well with antis/general public anyway and would reflect badly on us.
[deleted]
I would argue that it's weird for it to rely on legal consent to define whether it's a psychological disorder and/or that the animals' consent or withholding of the consent is not legally recognized is a shortcoming of the law, not of the DSM.
I don't think "legal consent" is even a well defined concept for nonhuman animals. Or what does the law say in regards to two animals having sex? They still can't legally consent to that...
There is a question of whether animals would be persons in this context, and I highly doubt it. But regardless, whether a paraphilia is a disorder depends on what harm, if any, it causes to either a person themselves or their objects of affection, for lack of a better word. That last phrase is meant to include pedophilia as a disorder in all cases, and given the long term harms that often happen even to children who were in "consensual" relationships (depression, anxiety, PTSD, etc.), that is understandable. With zoophilia, I know of no such long term harms, and could argue that they are extremely unlikely to form in cases that don't have immediately apparent trauma.
I don't like that they included this sentence in the causes of bestiality "Failure in finding a suitable human partner can be one cause of bestiality." It makes us sound desperate.
Well, in my case, "suitable" means they have thick body hair, a protruding mouth and nose merged together in a muzzle, and a tail…
I'm lucky I enjoy human personalities, and I'm lucky I seem to be able to fetishise random things — together, that means doing weird stuff with humans suffices. But yeah, humans are not my preference.
Seriously. If I had to, I'll bet I could find a dude to fuck in half an hour.
What non-zoos don't understand is that most of us don't care about finding humans. If it happens, it happens. I'm not zoo-exclusive, but I'm by no means eager to find someone.
Reading this in no way improved my being or viewpoints :-/
Wait, being told they should be chemically castrated as "treatment" doesn't make people feel better? Who knew...?
Right it was a surprise to me aswell !
It's also worrying how they call the "disorder" beastiality (sic). Bestiality is the act, and may or may not be a part of zoophilia, which is the name of the paraphilia commonly used. Diagnosing someone with "beastiality" would be like diagnosing a pedophile with "child rape", or a depressed person as "crying". Ridiculous.
The 4 edition dues not classify us as an disorder. So this is why they only refer to 3rd edition.