submitted 2016-02-13 20:11:16 by Battlecropsdogs, cats, snakes, ungulates
electricfoxx 1 point on 2016-02-13 20:32:02
By any chance is there is a like to the article?
I usually cringe whenever there is an article about the furry fandom. Either it is an attention-seeking fan or some "journalist" trying to be edgy. It always ends up being another Jerry Springer.
Battlecropsdogs, cats, snakes, ungulates 1 point on 2016-02-13 23:17:24
It was actually submitted to this subreddit a few months back, with some discussion there. Very poorly done article imo; Cracked has written articles about pedophiles that respected the people interviewed more than this one did. It doesn't fit in with the rest of the interview-type articles they do at all. They've always been very respectful to the folks interviewed, no matter what the subject matter, which is why I had a good feeling about this interview. I guess this was just too much for some reason.
I really dislike how he asked me to explain how I could be only romantically attracted to an animal, and after I compared it to asexuality, he actually said he recently did an article on asexuality and that it made sense. But in the finished article, it just says "Most of us would just call that "having a pet," but whatever."
There were actually some reasonable comments who disagreed with the way the author basically made the zoos interviewed a joke, but of course they got downvoted and buried. I do like the one from Thunderous which has a lot of upvotes.
electricfoxx 2 points on 2016-02-13 23:41:19
Cracked (as in the humorous Cracked Magazine) writing a good scientific article is like Fox News reporting "fair and balance" news.
Battlecropsdogs, cats, snakes, ungulates 2 points on 2016-02-14 01:25:52
I wasn't expecting it to be scientific, I'm a fan of Cracked and enjoy their articles. I also enjoyed the other articles in that series, which treated the interviewees with plenty of respect and tolerance. Imo there's a difference between writing a humorous article and treating your interviewees themselves like a punchline.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-02-14 01:34:21
I just wonder if you have done anything that takes your survey and its results a step further, like an interpretation of the results?
Surely would be interesting to analyse what conclusions your survey leads to...wouldn´t it?
For example, why is the percentage of homosexuals and bisexuals so high compared to the percentage in the "normal" population?
Why is there such a high percentage of people who are monogamous with humans , but use/love/fuck multiple animals?
The discrepancy between percentages of sexual attraction and emotional attraction for horses especially caught my attention; 70 % want to have sex with a horse, but only about 35 % could imagine falling in love with a horse. What exactly do these figures implicate?
Why is it that masturbating an animal seems to be the number one "zoosexual" activity?
Only a few of the questions tht arose in me when I re-read the survey´s results...I think we need more than just the blank percentages, something giving real insight in this whole topic.
If you haven´t already done so and it´s only my fault to miss out on your interpretation, I´d like to do such an interpretation myself.
Only if you don´t mind, of course...I try and be as neutral and independent from my own attitudes and beliefs as I can, I promise. ;)
Regarding the outcome of the interview: You were blue eyed and naive, to be honest. If you think about it, it´s only locigal for an interviewer to remain as "friendly" and neutral as possible because the interviewer wants something from you. Accusing you of animal rape would be very counterproductive, you would be pissed off and silent in a second, right?
It also shows why going public with zoophilia is an almost inaccomplishable challenge; you surely are not the first to see how his statements were somehow turned against him.Collaborating with "establishment´s" press usually backfires.That´s why I´m proposing to create a code, a "manual" on how to deal with press requests. We have to professionalize...the "zoo movement" emerged around the nineties, but until today, everyone, including the only official "zoophile interest group" ZETA, stayed on a very basic, amateur level. If only the zoo had a professionalized institution for public relations, we could have been spared of so many setbacks like George Willard´s/Mark Matthews´ appearance on Jerry Springer and many unfavorable articles painting negative pictures of zoos. This whole thing desperately needs professionalism to prevent such outcomes like that of your interview, although I can´t find any upright hostility towards zoophiles in it.
Regarding the "...then you´re just a pet owner..." remark, you should always keep in mind that it´s not zoophilia itself that´s creating so much stir, all the emotions and negativity towards our community evolves from the sexual component. It´s the sex that makes the sensationalism, generates newspaper sales, view rates and clicks. Someone like you describing his relations by comparing it to asexuality must look like a joke to someone expecting an outrageous story of abysmal sexuality, orgies and perversion. But still it´s better this way than vice versa, by telling him stories even more perverted than what he´d expected...;)
Battlecropsdogs, cats, snakes, ungulates 2 points on 2016-02-14 03:45:46
I'm just as interested in those more in-depth questions about the survey results as you are, but I don't feel I'm qualified to analyze results like that. Maybe something that could help would be a VERY in-depth survey, perhaps like asking each participant, for example, why they feel they're polyamorous with animals but not with people, or why they think their attraction to a certain species is only sexual, or why they're attracted to the same sex in animals but not people. Then an analysis would have to be based on those results, so it could be based on facts and responses, not assumptions or guesses. Feel free to fire away at an analysis or interpretation, I'd love to hear other peoples' thoughts on the survey. I do think the discrepancy between sexual and emotional attraction can be attributed to the fact that I did allow bestiality fetishists to respond to the survey. If I ever do a "Version 2.0" and make a new, updated survey (which I think about a lot, but never have the energy to do), I'd probably have two versions: one for zoosexuals, and one for bestiality fetishists/kinksters who have no romantic attraction. Then I could easily separate the results into the two groups.
I do have blue eyes, yes! ;) The main reason I was surprised was mainly just because other articles were done in that series interviewing pedophiles and even terrorists, and the people interviewed were not treated with disgust or as a joke. It was just very poorly handled compared to the other articles. The other articles handing taboo subject matter rather neutrally to begin with was what prompted the person who wrote in asking about a zoo article to begin with. I'm not bitter or anything, it's just a real shame it wasn't handled well and most of our responses weren't even used. There was a very nice (and more extensive) interview done a few months prior, "What It's Like to Date a Horse" and I know the guy who was interviewed, and he had a very positive experience. The author of the article even apologized to him that the editor focused on so much of the sexual aspects of the interview and didn't use more of the emotional/romantic attraction questions/responses.
If someone else approached me to do an anonymous interview and I could reasonably assume they wouldn't write a totally sensationalist article (like I had reason here, considering the other articles in the series, although that turned out to be false) I would do it again for sure. This experience hasn't turned me off the idea of an interview altogether at all. I'd personally rather zoos who are discovering themselves find out that zoosexuality is a thing through poorly worded articles than porn or something; at least the knowledge that there are other people out there who aren't just focused on creating porn is there.
I think no matter how much we try to be "professional" in interviews, ultimately the final outcome of how we're represented is going to be determined by the author and editor, not us. We can't choose which of our words they publish.
It's a nice goal, but honestly I can't really see the "zoo movement" getting much higher than an amateur level, since most people don't want to be public about it. And most people don't seem to have any desire for a public "zoo movement," anyway, and would much rather stay under the radar and private. I think I'm somewhere in the middle; I'm fine with interviews, but I don't want an organized lobby group trying to push for "rights" or visibility or anything. I don't think our society is ready for that yet.
30-30amator equae 2 points on 2016-02-16 07:48:37
I never meant to professionalize via an organisation like ZETA. I wonder why the internet is full of "how tos..." for animal sex, but not a single "how to deal with journalists" can be found. What exactly is important, what is to be avoided at all costs, how to find the right words and phrases that are not as easily turned against the zoos, etc...such basic and elementary stuff.
I remember reading the interview you mentioned above and I can only say that this interview just proves what I am saying for such a long time in various zoo forums...when I recall it right, he´s exclusive, monogamous, he made clear that it´s not at all about sex, but emotions and love; almost a perfect example for my point of view. He´s almost my age, maybe he also was one of those participating in the IRC discussions from the nineties, discussing how to give a tolerable and more positive public image than the average "zoo" nowadays. The key to tolerance is moderation.
Basically, talking to an outsider, especially one from the press/media, is like playing chess. Anticipation of the opponent´s moves, constantly checking your own moves, permanant adjusting strategies and tactics, stuff like this, you know...what is necessary to become a victorious chessplayer also applies to talking with the press/media. As a zoo, talking to outsiders is comparable to handing out ammo to your enemies, so it´s better to only hand out duds to your adversary if you don´t want to have your own bullets flying around your head, right? That is what I hinted at with demanding professionalism, always trying to anticipate if your words can be turned against yourself BEFORE you open your mouth. The Interview you mentioned was almost flawless, it emphasized on love, any non zoo can relate to the morals of this guy because although he´s a zoo, he still shares many morals with Joe Average.
After reading his answers for the first time, I swear he surely was influenced by the discussions we had on "Sleepy´s" and Lintilla" in some way or another.
Regarding a more in depth survey, I disagree with you; I don´t think that asking more specific questions will bring more insight as people tend to fall for self deception. They will always display their sexuality in a better way than it actually is in reality, all those surveys done by Miletski,Beetz et al. have shown that there are no bestialists out there, only "very loving and caring, bona fide zoos". But we all know from experience that this is far from reality and the real zoos are highly outnumbered by the folks leaning more to the beasty side. A common misconception: mistaking the love of having sex with animals for actual love for an animal.THese two are entirely different from each other, but go tell that to all the self proclaimed bona fide, 100% waterproof "zoos" out there....
There are things statistics can shed a light on in a more reliable way than listening to a manifold of personal bias and self perception.
For example, just take a look at the high percentage of gays/bisecuals involved in our scene. Since I reconnected to the online zoo community, I always wondered why there are so many of them into this. Reason would tell you that the percentage of gays "into zoo" should match the average percentage of gays/bisexuals in general population, but it doesn´t. One theroy: If you already have transgressed one line, one taboo, you are more easily tempted to transgress another. Theory number two: Sigmund Freud´s "polymorpous perversion" hinting at a vast number of people who would do literally anything with a pulse, having an orientation that consists of no orientation at all. Theory number three: Due to the fact that there were only a few gay/bisexual people participating the IRC chats back in the nineties (roughly about 10%, just as in the normal population), the common acceptance and tolerance towards homo-/bisexuality has "forced" many who need the taboo breaking nature to get their sexual kicks to seek something still taboo and frowned upon, so the "natural development" would lead them to "zoophilia" automatically, more or less.
It also would be interesting to redo the survey with exactly the same repliers, only some years later. For many, "zoophilia" is only a temporary stage they go through in the development of their own seuality. Oftentimes it serves as a simple substitute and is abandoned completely when they succeed in finding a "normal" girlfriend/boyfriend. I really think that the high numbers of young folks in here can only be explained partially by the general structure of the internet being populated mainly by folks who are used to all the online stuff from birth on. We all know that puberty and young adulthood is a phase of finding oneself, trying out several things, being explorative in many ways.
You see, there´s so many more that can be extrapolated from the survey and I believe that drawing conclusions like this can actually help defining what our scene is really like, apart from all the self biased " But...sob, sob, I REALLY am a true zoo".
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 1 point on 2016-02-16 00:43:25
/r/zoophilia archive
By any chance is there is a like to the article?
I usually cringe whenever there is an article about the furry fandom. Either it is an attention-seeking fan or some "journalist" trying to be edgy. It always ends up being another Jerry Springer.
It was actually submitted to this subreddit a few months back, with some discussion there. Very poorly done article imo; Cracked has written articles about pedophiles that respected the people interviewed more than this one did. It doesn't fit in with the rest of the interview-type articles they do at all. They've always been very respectful to the folks interviewed, no matter what the subject matter, which is why I had a good feeling about this interview. I guess this was just too much for some reason.
I really dislike how he asked me to explain how I could be only romantically attracted to an animal, and after I compared it to asexuality, he actually said he recently did an article on asexuality and that it made sense. But in the finished article, it just says "Most of us would just call that "having a pet," but whatever."
There were actually some reasonable comments who disagreed with the way the author basically made the zoos interviewed a joke, but of course they got downvoted and buried. I do like the one from Thunderous which has a lot of upvotes.
Cracked (as in the humorous Cracked Magazine) writing a good scientific article is like Fox News reporting "fair and balance" news.
I wasn't expecting it to be scientific, I'm a fan of Cracked and enjoy their articles. I also enjoyed the other articles in that series, which treated the interviewees with plenty of respect and tolerance. Imo there's a difference between writing a humorous article and treating your interviewees themselves like a punchline.
I just wonder if you have done anything that takes your survey and its results a step further, like an interpretation of the results? Surely would be interesting to analyse what conclusions your survey leads to...wouldn´t it? For example, why is the percentage of homosexuals and bisexuals so high compared to the percentage in the "normal" population? Why is there such a high percentage of people who are monogamous with humans , but use/love/fuck multiple animals? The discrepancy between percentages of sexual attraction and emotional attraction for horses especially caught my attention; 70 % want to have sex with a horse, but only about 35 % could imagine falling in love with a horse. What exactly do these figures implicate? Why is it that masturbating an animal seems to be the number one "zoosexual" activity? Only a few of the questions tht arose in me when I re-read the survey´s results...I think we need more than just the blank percentages, something giving real insight in this whole topic. If you haven´t already done so and it´s only my fault to miss out on your interpretation, I´d like to do such an interpretation myself. Only if you don´t mind, of course...I try and be as neutral and independent from my own attitudes and beliefs as I can, I promise. ;)
Regarding the outcome of the interview: You were blue eyed and naive, to be honest. If you think about it, it´s only locigal for an interviewer to remain as "friendly" and neutral as possible because the interviewer wants something from you. Accusing you of animal rape would be very counterproductive, you would be pissed off and silent in a second, right?
It also shows why going public with zoophilia is an almost inaccomplishable challenge; you surely are not the first to see how his statements were somehow turned against him.Collaborating with "establishment´s" press usually backfires.That´s why I´m proposing to create a code, a "manual" on how to deal with press requests. We have to professionalize...the "zoo movement" emerged around the nineties, but until today, everyone, including the only official "zoophile interest group" ZETA, stayed on a very basic, amateur level. If only the zoo had a professionalized institution for public relations, we could have been spared of so many setbacks like George Willard´s/Mark Matthews´ appearance on Jerry Springer and many unfavorable articles painting negative pictures of zoos. This whole thing desperately needs professionalism to prevent such outcomes like that of your interview, although I can´t find any upright hostility towards zoophiles in it. Regarding the "...then you´re just a pet owner..." remark, you should always keep in mind that it´s not zoophilia itself that´s creating so much stir, all the emotions and negativity towards our community evolves from the sexual component. It´s the sex that makes the sensationalism, generates newspaper sales, view rates and clicks. Someone like you describing his relations by comparing it to asexuality must look like a joke to someone expecting an outrageous story of abysmal sexuality, orgies and perversion. But still it´s better this way than vice versa, by telling him stories even more perverted than what he´d expected...;)
I'm just as interested in those more in-depth questions about the survey results as you are, but I don't feel I'm qualified to analyze results like that. Maybe something that could help would be a VERY in-depth survey, perhaps like asking each participant, for example, why they feel they're polyamorous with animals but not with people, or why they think their attraction to a certain species is only sexual, or why they're attracted to the same sex in animals but not people. Then an analysis would have to be based on those results, so it could be based on facts and responses, not assumptions or guesses. Feel free to fire away at an analysis or interpretation, I'd love to hear other peoples' thoughts on the survey. I do think the discrepancy between sexual and emotional attraction can be attributed to the fact that I did allow bestiality fetishists to respond to the survey. If I ever do a "Version 2.0" and make a new, updated survey (which I think about a lot, but never have the energy to do), I'd probably have two versions: one for zoosexuals, and one for bestiality fetishists/kinksters who have no romantic attraction. Then I could easily separate the results into the two groups.
I do have blue eyes, yes! ;) The main reason I was surprised was mainly just because other articles were done in that series interviewing pedophiles and even terrorists, and the people interviewed were not treated with disgust or as a joke. It was just very poorly handled compared to the other articles. The other articles handing taboo subject matter rather neutrally to begin with was what prompted the person who wrote in asking about a zoo article to begin with. I'm not bitter or anything, it's just a real shame it wasn't handled well and most of our responses weren't even used. There was a very nice (and more extensive) interview done a few months prior, "What It's Like to Date a Horse" and I know the guy who was interviewed, and he had a very positive experience. The author of the article even apologized to him that the editor focused on so much of the sexual aspects of the interview and didn't use more of the emotional/romantic attraction questions/responses.
If someone else approached me to do an anonymous interview and I could reasonably assume they wouldn't write a totally sensationalist article (like I had reason here, considering the other articles in the series, although that turned out to be false) I would do it again for sure. This experience hasn't turned me off the idea of an interview altogether at all. I'd personally rather zoos who are discovering themselves find out that zoosexuality is a thing through poorly worded articles than porn or something; at least the knowledge that there are other people out there who aren't just focused on creating porn is there.
I think no matter how much we try to be "professional" in interviews, ultimately the final outcome of how we're represented is going to be determined by the author and editor, not us. We can't choose which of our words they publish.
It's a nice goal, but honestly I can't really see the "zoo movement" getting much higher than an amateur level, since most people don't want to be public about it. And most people don't seem to have any desire for a public "zoo movement," anyway, and would much rather stay under the radar and private. I think I'm somewhere in the middle; I'm fine with interviews, but I don't want an organized lobby group trying to push for "rights" or visibility or anything. I don't think our society is ready for that yet.
I never meant to professionalize via an organisation like ZETA. I wonder why the internet is full of "how tos..." for animal sex, but not a single "how to deal with journalists" can be found. What exactly is important, what is to be avoided at all costs, how to find the right words and phrases that are not as easily turned against the zoos, etc...such basic and elementary stuff. I remember reading the interview you mentioned above and I can only say that this interview just proves what I am saying for such a long time in various zoo forums...when I recall it right, he´s exclusive, monogamous, he made clear that it´s not at all about sex, but emotions and love; almost a perfect example for my point of view. He´s almost my age, maybe he also was one of those participating in the IRC discussions from the nineties, discussing how to give a tolerable and more positive public image than the average "zoo" nowadays. The key to tolerance is moderation. Basically, talking to an outsider, especially one from the press/media, is like playing chess. Anticipation of the opponent´s moves, constantly checking your own moves, permanant adjusting strategies and tactics, stuff like this, you know...what is necessary to become a victorious chessplayer also applies to talking with the press/media. As a zoo, talking to outsiders is comparable to handing out ammo to your enemies, so it´s better to only hand out duds to your adversary if you don´t want to have your own bullets flying around your head, right? That is what I hinted at with demanding professionalism, always trying to anticipate if your words can be turned against yourself BEFORE you open your mouth. The Interview you mentioned was almost flawless, it emphasized on love, any non zoo can relate to the morals of this guy because although he´s a zoo, he still shares many morals with Joe Average. After reading his answers for the first time, I swear he surely was influenced by the discussions we had on "Sleepy´s" and Lintilla" in some way or another.
Regarding a more in depth survey, I disagree with you; I don´t think that asking more specific questions will bring more insight as people tend to fall for self deception. They will always display their sexuality in a better way than it actually is in reality, all those surveys done by Miletski,Beetz et al. have shown that there are no bestialists out there, only "very loving and caring, bona fide zoos". But we all know from experience that this is far from reality and the real zoos are highly outnumbered by the folks leaning more to the beasty side. A common misconception: mistaking the love of having sex with animals for actual love for an animal.THese two are entirely different from each other, but go tell that to all the self proclaimed bona fide, 100% waterproof "zoos" out there.... There are things statistics can shed a light on in a more reliable way than listening to a manifold of personal bias and self perception.
For example, just take a look at the high percentage of gays/bisecuals involved in our scene. Since I reconnected to the online zoo community, I always wondered why there are so many of them into this. Reason would tell you that the percentage of gays "into zoo" should match the average percentage of gays/bisexuals in general population, but it doesn´t. One theroy: If you already have transgressed one line, one taboo, you are more easily tempted to transgress another. Theory number two: Sigmund Freud´s "polymorpous perversion" hinting at a vast number of people who would do literally anything with a pulse, having an orientation that consists of no orientation at all. Theory number three: Due to the fact that there were only a few gay/bisexual people participating the IRC chats back in the nineties (roughly about 10%, just as in the normal population), the common acceptance and tolerance towards homo-/bisexuality has "forced" many who need the taboo breaking nature to get their sexual kicks to seek something still taboo and frowned upon, so the "natural development" would lead them to "zoophilia" automatically, more or less. It also would be interesting to redo the survey with exactly the same repliers, only some years later. For many, "zoophilia" is only a temporary stage they go through in the development of their own seuality. Oftentimes it serves as a simple substitute and is abandoned completely when they succeed in finding a "normal" girlfriend/boyfriend. I really think that the high numbers of young folks in here can only be explained partially by the general structure of the internet being populated mainly by folks who are used to all the online stuff from birth on. We all know that puberty and young adulthood is a phase of finding oneself, trying out several things, being explorative in many ways. You see, there´s so many more that can be extrapolated from the survey and I believe that drawing conclusions like this can actually help defining what our scene is really like, apart from all the self biased " But...sob, sob, I REALLY am a true zoo".
Why did the interviewer go rogue?