Thank you.

It's so slow tho.

Okay, okay, I'll be civil and honest. Completely civil and honest.

Yeah, I'm a gargantuan hypocrite, if I were a pope, I'd be pope Innocent, and the Borgias and the DiMedicis. In actuality, I never really left, I've been checking in on here some days, reading silently, not posting.

But as far as I know, I didn't post anything against either 4chan or global rules, other than animal porn. But yet, others posted far more explicitly than myself and were not banned. But I'm not going to claim innocence.

I don't get it

Since our clingy little friend hasn´t brought up anything of importance yet, I´ll accept your offer to argue...;) So, let´s do the basics. Zoophilia = a sexual orientation consisting of emotional love AND sexual attraction towards animals Bestiality = solely based on sexual attraction towards animals So, zoophilia can be compared to a firm relationship and/or marriage as the emotional part is of great importance. Porn = depicting any sexual act. The way it is depicted strongly focuses on the mere bodily mechanisms. The main interest lies on the sexual organs. Emotions are usually not depicted in porn, as this would totally interfere with the interest of the average target audience. Porn is usually categorized by what is depicted, like in "gay porn", "normal/hetero porn". It doesn´t matter what kind of relationship the actors have. So, saying that "zoo" porn exists is like saying that "marriage" porn is a thing. For the main purpose of porn, it really doesn´t matter what kind of interpersonal status the actors have. For zoophilia, on the contrary, the status of the relationship is what really matters and what sets zoophilia apart from bestiality.

In case you intend to say that "zoo" stands for zoosexual, then I have to call this BS. The term zoosexual has been just recently brought in by those who don´t qualify as bona fide zoophiles, but still want to use this enticing, scientific sounding greek term "zoo". Zoosexual basically means "having sex with animals" and is some kind of an all inclusive term as it also includes so called "zoo sadists" (who really are nothing more than sadists not "brave" enough to live out their "fantasies" with yoomans yet) and "animal crushers ". The suffix "zoo-" is used incorrectly in the term zoosexual as it is a long existing abbreviation for zoophile we already used more than twenty years ago. An example: the greek word for human is anthropos. Calling "normal porn" anthro porn would enrage the anthro/furry scene as it is their term. Although not wrong per se, the suffix "anthro- " has a completely different meaning and is the abbreviation for anthropomorph (shaped like a human). The term "zoosexual" is not only illegitimately using the "zoo-" suffix, it additionally reverses the original meaning of "zoo-". Say, do you really want to call yourself a "zoosexual" and standing in line with the sadists, the rapists, the dicks? I guess that´s not the case...society already puts us zoophiles in the same drawer as all those other dickheads "playin´around with animals", why should we not only be complacent, but ,even worse, do this mixing and misinterpreting ourselves? Zoo pride enormously depends on separation of true zoophilia from bestiality, from sadism, from rape, from using an animal as a live sex toy. The common misinterpretation of the z-word within our scene has led to the z-word being commonly used by anyone as a synonym for "fucks with animals". Do we really want that? Common and mindless misuse won´t make something into a "right". Example? "TicTac. Only two calories"....No. One TicTac has in fact two thousand calories, or two kilocalories (Kcal), but everyone uses it wrong. A weight watcher does not count calories, he/she counts kilocalories. The same goes for this "zoo-" shit; just because everyone uses it wrong, it won´t become a"right" someday.

Coming back to our starter topic: There IS NO "zoo" porn. There´s only animal porn. If I had recorded my mare and myself doin´it and decided to upload, many of the porn consumers would definitely have been disappointed of one hour of video, but no sexualized angles, no rabbit-like in-and-out, but cuddling, kissing and slow and gentle intercourse. If there´s true love, it becomes uninteresting and even boring for the average porn consumer, trust me. You can easily see that by analyzing all different types of porn, extrapolating a porn "formula". Extremely sexualized, focused solely on the reproductive organs and intromission, stupid shit like "creampies", "moneyshots" and such BS...you get the idea behind, I hope. Mechanized sexuality, meaty fuck robots....that´s the whole idea behind porn. Zoophilia, if understood as a real loving relationship between human and animal, per se disqualifies for porn.

Summary: No "zoo" porn, no such thing as "zoosexuality" because emotions aren´t recorded, can´t be recorded and "zoosexuality" is a basically meaningless term in itself and is a sloppy translation of "animal fucking".

Yep. I am a bit upset.

That may be, but I still have reason to be pissed off. I mean, it is called "NFSW" for a reason. I can post porn, but the second an animal gets involved- "You have been banned for violating global rule 1."