The zoocurious, what do we think of them? (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2015-10-26 23:28:50 by shadowwoof Canis, Vulpes, Felis
So I was thinking about this recently, and I thought about how the zoocurious may not be enemies, as they've often been made out to be. I'm not advocating for the inclusion of thrill seekers and fetishists to the zoo community. I'm saying that while we may not like them, there is no purpose in demonizing the few open-minded people who want to ethically explore interspecies relationships. I'm making two assumptions about the zoocurious here:
*The non-human is well cared for and happy
*The human is not harassing others and/or committing other crimes, such as trespassing or animal abuse.
What do you all think?
I think I'd start off warning them about the dangers, how difficult the life is, how much responsibility caring for an animal can be, etc. If they know what they're getting into, and they're still willing to take the risks, I'll be here to support them, answer questions, etc.
Agreed. They need to know the many negatives, AND the many positives.
As far as I know sexuality is not a choice, so I guess I'd rather spend time guiding them to reflect on the nature and depth of their interests, rather than trying to weed them out or scare them straight.
I'm not sure myself, but, then again, it's not an easily settled question.
"Scaring them straight" isn't really what I was getting at; more like encouraging, if you could be just as happy with another human instead, to not pursue it. But yes, letting them explore what it is they're really feeling is a good idea.
So not scaring them straight, just warning them about all the bad things animal attraction can do to their life and encouraging them to be with another human instead, if possible. :-)
Not quite sure which aspect of this you're focused on... I don't see curious people as enemies at all, and I hope most others don't either. Same with allies of any type. I think where people run into problems is that there's a significant dividing line between the authentically "zoo curious" and those deep-breathing weirdos who are casually interested in using an animal as a living sex toy.
Like most things with "zoosexuality" (we might as well use that word, if we're saying "zoo-curious"), there are parallels here with homosexuality or heterosexuality. I would probably not ask to have sex with someone's husband or wife, nor could I ever imagine offering my partner to a friend. But there are people out there who are completely fine with giving someone that experience, and animals who seem to be okay with it as near as any skilled person can tell, so as long as everyone is safe and enjoying themselves, there's nothing I can find that's objectively wrong with it... if that's where you're going with the topic.
What exactly does zoocurious mean in this context?
First, you´ll have to define what exactly is "zoo-curious". I understand this term as a description for those many who are watching animal porn, participating in animal sex fora such as BF,ZF and this reddit sub, but never had actual sex with an animal themselves. The "fantasizing manchilds", the porn binge watchers, the ones fascinated by perversion etc. Those I´d call curious. The ones who won´t judge you because you´re doing something they can´t understand and definitely aren´t gonna do themselves aren´t "curious", but simply openminded persons. Funnily, I as an exclusive zoophile feel a lot more comfortable talking with those openminded ones than taking to those "zoo-curious" people. When talking to the latter ones, I always get the notion of someone abusing my posts,personal messages and replies as wanking material. The openminded folks ask differently from those up for a "little self love support"; they ask other things, they show more respect for what you have to say.
Usually, those openminded persons don´t hang around in Bf and other "zoo" meeting places in the internet. They are "normal", have little to zero interest in interspecies sexuality and won´t ask "Do you have pics? Or vids?" So, including all those "zoo-curious" isn´t something I would recommend. They already are a severe pain in the ass of the true zoos and encouraging them by inclusion would make online life even harder than it already is. If I want to communicate my feelings , I simply don´t want the person receiving my message to abuse this as selfish wank support.It´s a matter of respect,ya know.
So, I refuse to count those "zoo-curious" in. I´d rather talk to 100 "outsiders" without the intent of having sex with an animal than to one of those spraying "eau de wank". And because it fits, I´d like to remind y´all of the zeta rules. One of them says: "Don´t talk ´em in, talk ´em out." Zoophilia is serious business. It´s not for those who can´t live up to all the responsibilities involved. It´s no playground for the sexually undecided try-outs, thrillseekers and those interested in perversion per se.
When a community opens up too much, it soon will lose its identity, its "innocence". There once was a "true zoo" community back in the nineties. Then, the animal porn hype started and many of those zoos said it would help our case to also include the porn fiends and make ´em part of our community. As anybody should know, opening up for the porn biz brought us nothing but unwanted attention, lots of trouble because many watchers turned into fencehoppers and otherwise irresponsibly acting people and, last but not least, the tsunami of new laws prohibiting interspecies sexuality all over europe. We as a community should always keep our numbers as small as we can by talking out the unprepared and "unworthy". Everything that any of "us" does falls back onto the community as a whole. If one fencehops, all zoophiles fencehop; that is what Average Joe thinks; we should act accordingly to that knowledge and keep our own turf clean. We won´t succeed in gaining tolerance by artificially enlarging our quantities, our only chance to gain understanding is quality. We don´t need one million "zoos" to be heard. Don´t talk ´em in, talk ´em out,guys.
The more "we" are, the bigger society´s fear of a "pervo earthslide"/ internet animal sex cult will become.Before we can demand from society to understand us, we have to try and understand why society is reacting so hostile.
oh yes, good post. I think I agree with everything here. I dont have a problem with the zoo curious per se, but when they use us as the material for their fetish then thats pretty disrespectful to us.
I know the term 'true zoo' is a little taboo in its own right, but I do believe its a term that has a place in our vocab.
I didn't know deviants were this elitist.
My friend, you have no idea... It's plagued us for a long time I'm afraid.
That said, not everyone here considers oneself a "deviant." shrugs
I´m not insulted by being called a deviant. Just look into this word´s latin roots: via = way, path; de = off...a deviant is someone who walks off the path, someone who travels beyond conventional ways. No negative connotations are involved in this.
Compared to the ways of the "normal" people, the "viants" and their relationships, I´m proud to be a deviant. I don´t need to cheat on my mare, I never have and would hit her (domestic violence),I don´t increase the divorce rate (over 20 years of a perfet relationship and mutual love) of the "viants"...well, sometimes it´s really an advantage to be different from the majority of "normals" who , if you dare look closer, aren´t so fucking normal as they´d like to be.
I agree with that. But not everyone thinks of it that way is my point. Deviant in modern english has an inherently negative connotation, though the roots of the word and it's true meaning are indeed harmless.
Elitist? U mad, bro? Those so called "curious" are the ones unable to live up to all the ethical and moralistic responsibilities involved in zoophilia.They usually are the ones hopping fences and getting caught, they´re the ones misinterpreting zoophilia as free fuck fest. They´re the ones fueling the multimillion dollar animal porn industry. They´re the ones dragging down our whole community and making it harder and harder for us to get connected to the average Joe.They´re the ones diminuishing the chances of tolerance and acceptance of zoophilia by their misbehavior and bad conduct. They´re the ones not taking zoophilia seriously, they´re the ones posing a bigger threat to our community´s future than any anti zoo group or individual.
If thinking ahead is elitist, if trying to increase our chances of tolerance from society is elitist, if keeping zoophilia away from the exploitive porn industry and it´s addicts is elitist, if keeping zoophilia civil and our own turf clean is elitist, then I´m fucking proud to be an elitist.
I think you just asked for the definition of zoo-curious, and then substituted what you thought it meant and went to town on it. To me, it means someone who is starting to discover that maybe they are not as fully anthro-/hetero-sexual as society thinks they should be, so they are reaching out and asking questions. Likely they have not had any specific interest in porn, beyond what a typical zoophile might have (which could be a lot, or could be none).
I am curious to hear your thoughts on the "zoo-curious" in that sense.
Everyone starts out as curious. Many start out as beastialists as there is nothing for them to go off of for guidance. True there is the internet but everyone doesn't think to go to a forum for guidance. I didn't. At first they think they are alone and that doesn't mean they are abusers.
No matter which way you look at it zoophilia is still beastiality, ethics and love doesn't change that especially in the eyes of the general public.
To be a zoo do you have to be in love with your animal? or can you still be zoo with no romantic connection, but still a connection, (say friendship) and non abusive etc,
creating a narrowly defined group identity alienates everyone else and hurts the cause.
That´s just plain wrong. There are some of us who never had to take the detour of being curious". When I came into puberty, I did not need much time to realize I was different. There never was a phase of curiosity for me, I was dead sure about my sexuality when I was 15 y. o. The old fart I am compared to most of the users in here, there was no internet for me to peek into different "lifestyles", no porn, no community, no supportive sites, only a few books. I had to sit down and think about myself, for myself instead of "outsourcing" this process into virtual reality. I never developed this "supermarket mentality" so common today. I have seen our community being severely harmed by softened definitions, I´ve seen man bad things happening to the community by including anyone regardless of their motives and attitudes, so I say that alienating those who aren´t fit for a zoophile life isn´t hurting the cause, but the opposite. Don´t talk ´em in, talk ´em out. Give ´em resistance they have to overcome by committment to this orientation.Let ´em show if they are worthy joining the "club" or just random wankers interested in perversion and fetishism. Until our community says a final farewell to this "inclusionism", our cause will be hurt by those who can´t keep their dicks in their pants, even when this would be the better choice for our scene and the public image we have. Each and every single individual zoo is an ambassador of zoophilia; we don´t need folks making decisions with their dicks instead of their brains. 100 real zoos will create a more tolerable image for society than a million "curious", porn fiends, fencehoppers, sex maniacs and FATWs (fucks anything that walks)...it´s the quaity, not the quantity that counts, you know. Just stick to the zeta rules made over 20 years ago. We invented them to increase the chances of acceptance, someday...Don´t talk ´em in, talk ´em out. Don´t be fooled, don´t invite everyone in. Check their attitudes and motives before . One rotten apple will ruin the whole basket of apples. Don´t mistake tolerance as indifference. Don´t kill our community (or what´s left of it after the year 2000 animal porn explosion) by including the ill-prepared, the ones with doubtable motives and those who will do more harm to the zoophile idea than any anti group.
To me it doesn't matter much whether you're a "true zoo" or a "fantasizing manchild" or a "porn binge watcher". What matters is that the involved animal(s) are treated with respect.
I agree, well said
Personally I have no problem with the zoocurious if they're here to learn. It's the ones that advertise for sex with someone elses animals that I have a problem with, and that is really only to point out that they are not going to find what they are looking for, but instead most likely find a LEO. They might even be a LEO themselves looking to snare some unsuspecting Zoo.
[deleted]
Teach them ethics and let them understand the dangers. Make sure to press the important points and warn of the dangers and risks of fence hopping and other actions that are risky.
An increase in numbers is always good long as they learn the basics of proper conduct.