So bad that he even added links to Beastforum...no matter how neutral and understanding he handles the topic, the set link to BF blows it immediately. As he is an outsider, people will trust him as a neutral observant to some extent....only to find plethora of disgusting animal sex, sometimes even flics clearly indicating that all our sermon of "we don´t rape/abuse" is probably a big lie for self defence. I can´t overemphasize how much of our negative public image can be traced back to sites like Beastforum.To me, linking to BF is like writing an article about the equality of all races, but including a link to the KKK or an essay speaking in favor of driking alcohol, decorating it with a link to alcohol induced domestic violence and DUI killings.
Battlecropsdogs, cats, snakes, ungulates 1 point on 2016-02-14 03:50:56
I was actually reading this one last night, referencing a paper that specifically took posts and data from an online forum, and I can't help but wish someone would revisit a paper like this with a more recent zoo site like knotty or even this subreddit.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-02-14 06:38:13
The problem of inappropriate representation will not go away until we divide these two entities that have been mixed and merged together for no other reason than creating echo chambers and virtal "feelgood" areas, so no ne has to feel "excluded". I´m not ashamed to say that the conclusions within this article match mine I drew from observing manifold "zoo forums". I do consider the four "types of excuses" brought up there as well observed; within our scene, there is a tendency to parrot "reasons" without ever noticing how they can be perceived by outsiders.
The notorious "it benefits the animal" is only the most in-/famous one. Often it´s those caring the least for the animals (what sometimes can be witnessed by watching porn these folks upload) who feel obliged to be the loudest. Our entire scene has stopped thinking....most of those "excuses" and thoughts are decades old and already failed long ago. You surely could blame BF or zoo board for giving out a wrong and corrupted image of zoophilia, but you really should accept that it´s not those boards that gather the lowest "zoos", but reddit is an exception where the "intelligentia" meets. I spoke of "crusted structures" in another post some time ago and we have to admit that our scene is indeed encrusted.Our brainwork from 20 years ago has been taken hostage by any retard whose groin starts to itch when an animal comes in sight. By becoming "tolerant" (I prefer to call it lethally indifferent)to any form of "zoophilia", we invited everyone to ruin our ideas and ideals. For me, it´s not so much the negative article embarrassing me, it´s the fact that even two decades ago, fellow "zoos" accused us, a very tiny group of zoos playing the Cassandra, of intolerance and selfishness. Articles like this that are, as we have to admit, well written and based on correct observation, are just the end of a very negative and also foreseeable development. The arguments have become weak and shallow; not because these arguments are per se weak and shallow, but because they have become a general tool for anyone to justify almost any behavior. By creating "hug zones" and shying away from any form of criticism from the in- and also the outside, we ourselves can blame us for the state our entire scene is in. I doubt that the conclusions would differ greatly if another, more "decent" forum is used as a suource of information, ´cause the tendency to form echo chambers is inherent in all same interest groups. Our different arguments like those featured in the article are turned against us easily; society and its intolerance are to blame, ignorance, prudishness, totalitarian morals, religion, blah,blah,blah...basically, anyone is to blame except us, the zoos. What once was created to START a discussion with the "norms" is now mistakenly used to END discussions and retreat back into the echo chamber where anyone is a "zoo", all the people only have good intent and everything is fluffy and painted pink.
For many people in here, my opinions may seem a little too hard and separationist, but I can assure you that I don´t intend to become the "big boss" , the one deciding who´s zoo and who´s not. This isn´t an ego thing, this simply is necessary if we ever want to get somewhere. 25 Years ago, we all were bestialists and/or sodomites, the z-word barely existed. Then, a small group tried to install another term to form a certain image. This effort now lies in ruins.
I´m not ashamed to confess that I´m completely agreeing on anything the author wrote; yes, he´s right on many different levels, yes, these arguments are weak and often nothing more than what we Germans call "Lippenbekenntnis" (lip confession). We need a radical change, we bady need it. We´re stuck in a dead end and will only reemerge from the point of no return when we start redefining everything, our terms, our attitudes, our aims, our way of thinking. We don´t need minor changes or adaptions, we need a full blown reset and we need it now.
zetacolaLoba 1 point on 2016-02-15 03:27:53
there is a tendency to parrot "reasons" without ever noticing how they can be perceived by outsiders.
By creating "hug zones" and shying away from any form of criticism from the in- and also the outside, we ourselves can blame us for the state our entire scene is in.
Our different arguments like those featured in the article are turned against us easily; society and its intolerance are to blame, ignorance, prudishness, totalitarian morals, religion, blah,blah,blah...basically, anyone is to blame except us, the zoos.
You have no idea who much this resonates with what I think. I don't like how zoos tend to shift the burden on the rest of society and I don't like how they seem to (willingly or no) fail to empathize with those who oppose us. Yes, a lot of the animosity and intolerance towards zoophilia stems from gut reactions, religious dogma, flawed morals or just plain ignorance. Yes, a lot of it doesn't make any sense. But to me, it is too much of a stretch to assume that nonsense is what makes up all of the opposing rhetoric. The thought that it is the majority of people who are objectively wrong while we are among the few to be objectively right is one I find very hard to accept (it is appeal to enlightenment as the author puts it). Can it be that the majority of human population is blind to objective truth? It seems so implausible to me.
BF and other sites may have tainted public perception of zoophilia; they may have allowed too many undeserving people to seep into the ranks of "zoophiles" and spoil the legacy built by older zoos, but it is important to remember that these sites are a product of developing information technologies. These infrastructures simply did not exist 25 years ago. The technology was not advanced or democratized enough to allow it. I personally have no reason to believe the situation would have been any different if it did.
I think that the reason why we zoos shy away from mainstream criticism, tend to reject opinions that are contradictory to our own and seclude ourselves into safe spots that feed the ever-growing availability cascade is that we start to slowly internalize that we simply will never win this battle. What good does it do to try to take the outsiders' criticism at face value? They will never understand us, they will never even care to understand us. How can there be discourse if both of the sides are locked into inflexible self-righteousness? Unfortunately, as we do not have numerical advantage, we are fighting an uphill battle and, sadly, I think zoos are starting to realize it is one we will never win.
We need a radical change, we bady need it. We´re stuck in a dead end and will only reemerge from the point of no return when we start redefining everything, our terms, our attitudes, our aims, our way of thinking. We don´t need minor changes or adaptions, we need a full blown reset and we need it now.
ugh...
FoxYiff 2 points on 2016-02-14 07:20:11
I was unimpressed by how much of the website was boilerplate, but I was interested until I read:
Bestiality (also known as zoophilia)
Being two completely different things, seeing this guy lump them into the same thing saddened me.
zetacolaLoba 3 points on 2016-02-14 23:49:10
You can't expect an outsider to really know (or care) what the difference is. The minute ramifiactions of the difference between bestiality and zoophilia is lost to anyone who isn't a zoophile to boot.
Negative_Clank 1 point on 2016-03-21 22:54:13
Interesting. Consent is the big issue at the end, but vivisection, slaughter, euthanasia, forced labour...that's all fine without informed consent?
zetacolaLoba 1 point on 2016-03-22 00:40:43
From an outsider's (non-zoo) perspective, that would indeed be the case.
Unfortunately, comparing zoophilia to other (worse) things done to animals in an attempt to justify it is fallacious. Comparisons of any kind are almost universally flawed.
The argument that should be made, in my opinion, is that animals are not held to the standard of humans at it therefore makes little to sense to make an exception to this rule only when sexual interactions are concerned. Killing a human is murder. Killing an animal isn't. Forcing a human to work is slavery. Forcing an animal to work isn't. Restraining a person in a bounded area is false imprisonment. Restraining an animal in one isn't. etc. By that same logic, the immorality of committing non-consensual sexual acts with a human (i.e. rape) should not apply to animals.
The only question that should remain is whether (non-consensual) sex with animals is abusive or not. If yes, then it should fall under animal abuse. If not, then there is no logically-sound reason to view it as immoral.
/r/zoophilia archive
So bad that he even added links to Beastforum...no matter how neutral and understanding he handles the topic, the set link to BF blows it immediately. As he is an outsider, people will trust him as a neutral observant to some extent....only to find plethora of disgusting animal sex, sometimes even flics clearly indicating that all our sermon of "we don´t rape/abuse" is probably a big lie for self defence. I can´t overemphasize how much of our negative public image can be traced back to sites like Beastforum.To me, linking to BF is like writing an article about the equality of all races, but including a link to the KKK or an essay speaking in favor of driking alcohol, decorating it with a link to alcohol induced domestic violence and DUI killings.
I was actually reading this one last night, referencing a paper that specifically took posts and data from an online forum, and I can't help but wish someone would revisit a paper like this with a more recent zoo site like knotty or even this subreddit.
The problem of inappropriate representation will not go away until we divide these two entities that have been mixed and merged together for no other reason than creating echo chambers and virtal "feelgood" areas, so no ne has to feel "excluded". I´m not ashamed to say that the conclusions within this article match mine I drew from observing manifold "zoo forums". I do consider the four "types of excuses" brought up there as well observed; within our scene, there is a tendency to parrot "reasons" without ever noticing how they can be perceived by outsiders. The notorious "it benefits the animal" is only the most in-/famous one. Often it´s those caring the least for the animals (what sometimes can be witnessed by watching porn these folks upload) who feel obliged to be the loudest. Our entire scene has stopped thinking....most of those "excuses" and thoughts are decades old and already failed long ago. You surely could blame BF or zoo board for giving out a wrong and corrupted image of zoophilia, but you really should accept that it´s not those boards that gather the lowest "zoos", but reddit is an exception where the "intelligentia" meets. I spoke of "crusted structures" in another post some time ago and we have to admit that our scene is indeed encrusted.Our brainwork from 20 years ago has been taken hostage by any retard whose groin starts to itch when an animal comes in sight. By becoming "tolerant" (I prefer to call it lethally indifferent)to any form of "zoophilia", we invited everyone to ruin our ideas and ideals. For me, it´s not so much the negative article embarrassing me, it´s the fact that even two decades ago, fellow "zoos" accused us, a very tiny group of zoos playing the Cassandra, of intolerance and selfishness. Articles like this that are, as we have to admit, well written and based on correct observation, are just the end of a very negative and also foreseeable development. The arguments have become weak and shallow; not because these arguments are per se weak and shallow, but because they have become a general tool for anyone to justify almost any behavior. By creating "hug zones" and shying away from any form of criticism from the in- and also the outside, we ourselves can blame us for the state our entire scene is in. I doubt that the conclusions would differ greatly if another, more "decent" forum is used as a suource of information, ´cause the tendency to form echo chambers is inherent in all same interest groups. Our different arguments like those featured in the article are turned against us easily; society and its intolerance are to blame, ignorance, prudishness, totalitarian morals, religion, blah,blah,blah...basically, anyone is to blame except us, the zoos. What once was created to START a discussion with the "norms" is now mistakenly used to END discussions and retreat back into the echo chamber where anyone is a "zoo", all the people only have good intent and everything is fluffy and painted pink.
For many people in here, my opinions may seem a little too hard and separationist, but I can assure you that I don´t intend to become the "big boss" , the one deciding who´s zoo and who´s not. This isn´t an ego thing, this simply is necessary if we ever want to get somewhere. 25 Years ago, we all were bestialists and/or sodomites, the z-word barely existed. Then, a small group tried to install another term to form a certain image. This effort now lies in ruins. I´m not ashamed to confess that I´m completely agreeing on anything the author wrote; yes, he´s right on many different levels, yes, these arguments are weak and often nothing more than what we Germans call "Lippenbekenntnis" (lip confession). We need a radical change, we bady need it. We´re stuck in a dead end and will only reemerge from the point of no return when we start redefining everything, our terms, our attitudes, our aims, our way of thinking. We don´t need minor changes or adaptions, we need a full blown reset and we need it now.
You have no idea who much this resonates with what I think. I don't like how zoos tend to shift the burden on the rest of society and I don't like how they seem to (willingly or no) fail to empathize with those who oppose us. Yes, a lot of the animosity and intolerance towards zoophilia stems from gut reactions, religious dogma, flawed morals or just plain ignorance. Yes, a lot of it doesn't make any sense. But to me, it is too much of a stretch to assume that nonsense is what makes up all of the opposing rhetoric. The thought that it is the majority of people who are objectively wrong while we are among the few to be objectively right is one I find very hard to accept (it is appeal to enlightenment as the author puts it). Can it be that the majority of human population is blind to objective truth? It seems so implausible to me.
BF and other sites may have tainted public perception of zoophilia; they may have allowed too many undeserving people to seep into the ranks of "zoophiles" and spoil the legacy built by older zoos, but it is important to remember that these sites are a product of developing information technologies. These infrastructures simply did not exist 25 years ago. The technology was not advanced or democratized enough to allow it. I personally have no reason to believe the situation would have been any different if it did.
I think that the reason why we zoos shy away from mainstream criticism, tend to reject opinions that are contradictory to our own and seclude ourselves into safe spots that feed the ever-growing availability cascade is that we start to slowly internalize that we simply will never win this battle. What good does it do to try to take the outsiders' criticism at face value? They will never understand us, they will never even care to understand us. How can there be discourse if both of the sides are locked into inflexible self-righteousness? Unfortunately, as we do not have numerical advantage, we are fighting an uphill battle and, sadly, I think zoos are starting to realize it is one we will never win.
ugh...
I was unimpressed by how much of the website was boilerplate, but I was interested until I read:
Being two completely different things, seeing this guy lump them into the same thing saddened me.
You can't expect an outsider to really know (or care) what the difference is. The minute ramifiactions of the difference between bestiality and zoophilia is lost to anyone who isn't a zoophile to boot.
Interesting. Consent is the big issue at the end, but vivisection, slaughter, euthanasia, forced labour...that's all fine without informed consent?
From an outsider's (non-zoo) perspective, that would indeed be the case.
Unfortunately, comparing zoophilia to other (worse) things done to animals in an attempt to justify it is fallacious. Comparisons of any kind are almost universally flawed.
The argument that should be made, in my opinion, is that animals are not held to the standard of humans at it therefore makes little to sense to make an exception to this rule only when sexual interactions are concerned. Killing a human is murder. Killing an animal isn't. Forcing a human to work is slavery. Forcing an animal to work isn't. Restraining a person in a bounded area is false imprisonment. Restraining an animal in one isn't. etc. By that same logic, the immorality of committing non-consensual sexual acts with a human (i.e. rape) should not apply to animals.
The only question that should remain is whether (non-consensual) sex with animals is abusive or not. If yes, then it should fall under animal abuse. If not, then there is no logically-sound reason to view it as immoral.