submitted 2016-02-29 09:34:51 by 30-30amator equae
30-30amator equae 8 points on 2016-02-29 09:45:13
Two researchers secretly monitored Beast Forum´s interpersonal structures and strategies. Surprisingly accurate evaluation and a good read for anyone who really wants to learn something about forming a less criticizable online community of zoophiles.
Although flawed in some aspects ( the 1.5 million members, for example, were not questioned, but any member knows that this figure also includes the vast army of banned people, the lurkers, the legion of double,triple and quadruple accounts; the fact that not even a dim 1 percent are true and active zoos/beasties etc.), it gives a astoudingly precise picture of BF. I can only recommend reading it.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2016-02-29 12:47:45
Sounds fascinating, but the website's not letting me download it. I'll try again later, provided that I remember.
Thanks!
zoozooz 2 points on 2016-02-29 14:36:12
In case people don't see it: You can simply scroll down and read it online.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2016-02-29 15:24:55
I can't, all I get is:
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
(And no button that seems to do that)
ZoroasterTheCat 3 points on 2016-02-29 18:07:13
I rehosted the PDF here, and made a paste of it here.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2016-02-29 23:56:10
Thanks!
[deleted] 1 point on 2016-02-29 17:19:23
[removed]
IAmAZoophileCanine 1 point on 2016-02-29 17:05:37
I don't have the time to read the entire paper at the moment, but from what I've read of it so far this looks like a surprisingly respectful view on the discussions they found on that site. Thanks for sharing it!
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-02-29 18:01:36
Can you imagine that the BF crew and members are complaining about this essay?
How blind can a whole bunch of folks be to have such a twisted perception of themselves and everything else? But this only reassures my own evaluation of BF, its commercial nature (don´t dare to disturb the cashflow or the mighty South Florida will ban you...) and its goals. They don´t want dialogue with the normals, they want absolution for anything they deem "right" and "just". Not tolerance, but immunity is what they have in mind. Criticism? Adressing all the grey and dark black areas that are part of "zoophilia" today? Not until hell freezes over...
They turned a blind eye and evade self reflection, sitting in their self made echo chamber, fading out the outside reality with an almost insane level of self righteousness.
True zoos don´t "evacuate immediately" from BF for nothing when they finally see through the facade.
anonguy99 1 point on 2016-03-03 05:20:16
don´t dare to disturb the cashflow or the mighty South Florida will ban you...
Very true. Just as two examples of them not giving a shit about their users' interests, I have seen them rapidly delete threads and even ban users for posts that:
1) Ever talked about frequent BF contributors or Caledonian performers who got arrested or otherwise outed.
2) People figure out that content uploaded to BF also gets shared on related paysites like petsex.com, not only w/o payment but without even telling users that will happen.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-03-03 07:44:44
Absolutely correct. We have to face the fact that BF is not a "zoo friendly" place built by friendly people trying to give us a voice. No, we´re the cattle they raise, milk and slaughter. We´re exploited...but all those fools uploading their clips for free are too excited they may be the next "big stars" in animal porn, they don´t realize that by uploading, you lose all your rights on your material, but still have to bear the risks completely. New Caledonian won´t help you when you face a judge or police. They even refuse to delete the evidence (a.k.a. porn).
When participating in BF by uploading porn, you become part of the professional illegal sex industry and it really saddens me to see the vast numbers of blue eyed contributors. While the runners of BF probably sit on their golden potties, wiping their fat asses with 100 dollar bills, those really creating the wealth get nothing and may even end up in jail. There were several incidents of people getting caught only because they uploaded on BF...and I can´t stop to wonder how it is possible for the police to locate them as quickly as they did. It wouldn´t be much of a surprise if BF just gave out data to prevent closure of their "oh so zoo" site.
Criticism isn´t accepted, the so called "rules" only serve one purpose, to prevent drying out the cashflow. I bet they would even allow kiddie porn if a complete shutdown of their site could be avoided. Me and my friends don´t call BF the epicenter of anti true zoo propaganda for nothing...
The worst thing is: BF is the biggest "representation" of "zoophilia" around. I really can´t blame society for despising zoophilia anymore when BF is what they base their judgement on.
I have stated it in BF and will do it here again: Society isn´t our worst enemy. Our worst enemy stands amidst us, in our own lines, backstabbing us whenever it suits him well and money can be generated from us "pervs".
I also renew my demand for a general "cleansing" of our community.We need to get rid of anything that gives us zoophiles a bad name and a vile public image. BF is one big piece of filthy junk we have to throw away before we can hope for tolerance someday.
All our ethics are rendered invalid when stuff that proves our ethics a lie is only a few clicks away.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2016-03-03 18:46:10
Finally listened to it. Interesting, but it seems like the researchers have a much more positive view of the place than you yourself do.
On a different note, the last note makes reference to a ban on ‘‘extreme fetishes such as with scat.’ - I get that scat disgusts people, but I've never understood why disgust is a sufficiently powerful motivator to get this reaction.
ZooMasil 1 point on 2016-02-29 18:38:07
Sad to say this basically a piece of academic feminist "research" and no one besides other feminist academics really will take it all that seriously.
the_egoldstein 1 point on 2016-03-01 07:40:28
Did you even read the paper?
ZooMasil 1 point on 2016-03-01 07:46:25
yes, and I wasn't criticizing the paper so much as talking about where it'll probably stay (in feminist academia) and what effect it'll likely have (not much).
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 1 point on 2016-03-03 04:14:55
It's writtent by a pair of people involved in criminal justice I think, so no.
ZooMasil 2 points on 2016-03-03 04:31:48
"His research, which is situated in criminology, sociology, cultural studies and public health, has been funded by the National Institute of Justice and has appeared in various criminology, sociology, and addictions journals." This is on Philip Kavanaugh
link: https://harrisburg.psu.edu/faculty-and-staff/philip-kavanaugh-phd
You're right, I was thrown off by the keywords part of the study where "Eco-feminism" is the second word.
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 1 point on 2016-02-29 21:48:09
started out pretty strong but petered out towards the end with the conclusion being fairly weak IMO. Worth reading for sure though.
wright-oneursidae canidae pantherinae 1 point on 2016-03-01 05:51:09
i have slow, slow internet, and the page isn't loading for me after signing up (with a fake address) at academia.edu .. damn, i was hoping to at least try to read it...
wright-oneursidae canidae pantherinae 2 points on 2016-03-01 07:52:14
nm, i see the post above with the direct link. thank you.
danpetman 1 point on 2016-03-12 21:10:27
Holy shit, one of the posts they quote there was by me. I was reading through and thought "hey, that guy's story seems familiar..." and sure enough, they'd just changed my username, but the text was from a post I'd made 8 years ago.
/r/zoophilia archive
Two researchers secretly monitored Beast Forum´s interpersonal structures and strategies. Surprisingly accurate evaluation and a good read for anyone who really wants to learn something about forming a less criticizable online community of zoophiles.
Although flawed in some aspects ( the 1.5 million members, for example, were not questioned, but any member knows that this figure also includes the vast army of banned people, the lurkers, the legion of double,triple and quadruple accounts; the fact that not even a dim 1 percent are true and active zoos/beasties etc.), it gives a astoudingly precise picture of BF. I can only recommend reading it.
Sounds fascinating, but the website's not letting me download it. I'll try again later, provided that I remember.
Thanks!
In case people don't see it: You can simply scroll down and read it online.
I can't, all I get is:
(And no button that seems to do that)
I rehosted the PDF here, and made a paste of it here.
Thanks!
[removed]
I don't have the time to read the entire paper at the moment, but from what I've read of it so far this looks like a surprisingly respectful view on the discussions they found on that site. Thanks for sharing it!
Can you imagine that the BF crew and members are complaining about this essay? How blind can a whole bunch of folks be to have such a twisted perception of themselves and everything else? But this only reassures my own evaluation of BF, its commercial nature (don´t dare to disturb the cashflow or the mighty South Florida will ban you...) and its goals. They don´t want dialogue with the normals, they want absolution for anything they deem "right" and "just". Not tolerance, but immunity is what they have in mind. Criticism? Adressing all the grey and dark black areas that are part of "zoophilia" today? Not until hell freezes over... They turned a blind eye and evade self reflection, sitting in their self made echo chamber, fading out the outside reality with an almost insane level of self righteousness. True zoos don´t "evacuate immediately" from BF for nothing when they finally see through the facade.
Very true. Just as two examples of them not giving a shit about their users' interests, I have seen them rapidly delete threads and even ban users for posts that:
1) Ever talked about frequent BF contributors or Caledonian performers who got arrested or otherwise outed.
2) People figure out that content uploaded to BF also gets shared on related paysites like petsex.com, not only w/o payment but without even telling users that will happen.
Absolutely correct. We have to face the fact that BF is not a "zoo friendly" place built by friendly people trying to give us a voice. No, we´re the cattle they raise, milk and slaughter. We´re exploited...but all those fools uploading their clips for free are too excited they may be the next "big stars" in animal porn, they don´t realize that by uploading, you lose all your rights on your material, but still have to bear the risks completely. New Caledonian won´t help you when you face a judge or police. They even refuse to delete the evidence (a.k.a. porn). When participating in BF by uploading porn, you become part of the professional illegal sex industry and it really saddens me to see the vast numbers of blue eyed contributors. While the runners of BF probably sit on their golden potties, wiping their fat asses with 100 dollar bills, those really creating the wealth get nothing and may even end up in jail. There were several incidents of people getting caught only because they uploaded on BF...and I can´t stop to wonder how it is possible for the police to locate them as quickly as they did. It wouldn´t be much of a surprise if BF just gave out data to prevent closure of their "oh so zoo" site.
Criticism isn´t accepted, the so called "rules" only serve one purpose, to prevent drying out the cashflow. I bet they would even allow kiddie porn if a complete shutdown of their site could be avoided. Me and my friends don´t call BF the epicenter of anti true zoo propaganda for nothing...
The worst thing is: BF is the biggest "representation" of "zoophilia" around. I really can´t blame society for despising zoophilia anymore when BF is what they base their judgement on. I have stated it in BF and will do it here again: Society isn´t our worst enemy. Our worst enemy stands amidst us, in our own lines, backstabbing us whenever it suits him well and money can be generated from us "pervs". I also renew my demand for a general "cleansing" of our community.We need to get rid of anything that gives us zoophiles a bad name and a vile public image. BF is one big piece of filthy junk we have to throw away before we can hope for tolerance someday. All our ethics are rendered invalid when stuff that proves our ethics a lie is only a few clicks away.
Finally listened to it. Interesting, but it seems like the researchers have a much more positive view of the place than you yourself do.
On a less serious note, "masterbatorium" immediately made me think of this: https://youtu.be/B489CYtEGS8?t=9s
On a different note, the last note makes reference to a ban on ‘‘extreme fetishes such as with scat.’ - I get that scat disgusts people, but I've never understood why disgust is a sufficiently powerful motivator to get this reaction.
Sad to say this basically a piece of academic feminist "research" and no one besides other feminist academics really will take it all that seriously.
Did you even read the paper?
yes, and I wasn't criticizing the paper so much as talking about where it'll probably stay (in feminist academia) and what effect it'll likely have (not much).
It's writtent by a pair of people involved in criminal justice I think, so no.
"His research, which is situated in criminology, sociology, cultural studies and public health, has been funded by the National Institute of Justice and has appeared in various criminology, sociology, and addictions journals." This is on Philip Kavanaugh link: https://harrisburg.psu.edu/faculty-and-staff/philip-kavanaugh-phd
You're right, I was thrown off by the keywords part of the study where "Eco-feminism" is the second word.
started out pretty strong but petered out towards the end with the conclusion being fairly weak IMO. Worth reading for sure though.
i have slow, slow internet, and the page isn't loading for me after signing up (with a fake address) at academia.edu .. damn, i was hoping to at least try to read it...
nm, i see the post above with the direct link. thank you.
Holy shit, one of the posts they quote there was by me. I was reading through and thought "hey, that guy's story seems familiar..." and sure enough, they'd just changed my username, but the text was from a post I'd made 8 years ago.