submitted 2016-03-09 11:30:48 by furvert_tailEquine, large canid
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2016-03-09 11:40:04
Thought this might be of interest. The full-text is only available for a short time, so for any who miss it, kink may be "common in general population", but we're still grouped into the "other" section:
Other behavior: “Have you ever been sexually aroused by an animal, fecal matter, enema, urine, cadavers, or other unusual things? If yes, please specify.”
For this broad category, 4.8% of men and 2.5% of women have some interest. However, it's also noteworthy that, 5.9% of those who responded over the internet reported this, versus only 1.0% who responded over the telephone, so take the results with a pinch of salt.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-03-09 13:11:16
An interesting study.
But I really wonder where the enormous discrepancy between Kinsey´s results and this study comes from. The whopping number of 8% of men sexually active at least once in their lifetime seems to be just "too damn high". If we take into consideration that anything animal related was thrown in with scat play and necrophilia, with probably most of the responders being aroused by feces and urine, I´d like to know exactly how many of the 1000 people who have been participating are "aroused by animals". Note that "arousal" says nothing about the depth of involvment into bestiality/zoophilia, you can be "aroused" by animals without even considering to do it with a quadruped yourself at all. Animals as a means for degradation and master/slave relationships, fantasy, the thrill of doing something that is referred to as one of the last three taboos etc.
If asked directly whether someone identifies himself as a zoophile, I guess the right scale would have been ppm (parts per million)...
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 1 point on 2016-03-09 21:28:31
"If asked directly whether someone identifies himself as a zoophile, I guess the right scale would have been ppm (parts per million)..."
You really think true Zoophilia is that rare?
KynophileDog lover 2 points on 2016-03-09 22:46:15
Technically yes, at least in terms of self-identification. I'd estimate that figure at roughly 1 in 10000, and there's a thread on here going over my sources for that. If I could define the term for this purpose, I'd say it's anyone who fantasizes about, emotionally connects with, and wants to have sex with animals primarily (more than, or at the same level as, their desires for other human beings). But it's nearly impossible to get broad agreement on that.
30-30amator equae 0 points on 2016-03-10 06:50:56
I disagree on your broad definition of zoophilia. Watching gay porn does not make you gay, nor does fantasizing about gay sex...
If we´re talking about zoophilia as a genuine orientation, then one would only qualify if sex with animals is his/her predominant or only sexual outlet.
Even occasional, one time sexual experiences with animals don´t turn you into a zoophile. All the kinksters and fantasizing ones are no zoophiles IMHO. I really have problems accepting the "emotionally connects with" part in your definition as it would include almost any animal owner that doesn´t view his animal as lifestock or natural resource.
I know that some do see me as a judgmental dick, but I can´t see any benefit in definig zoophilia as loosely as you do. It only waters down the essence of zoophilia IMO. I hope we do agree that the life reality of someone fantasizing about it from time to time and a full blown, genuine zoo with a life completely centered around his orientation totally differs from each other.
From my experience, I stand by what I said. I estimate that 2 - 5 individuals out of a million qualify as genuine zoos. This totally matches with my perceptions of the German zoo scene: roughly around 250 - 450 folks with this orientation.
Swibblestein 2 points on 2016-03-11 02:28:47
Both "Gay" and "Zoophile" are identities. Technically the only thing which can really make someone gay, or make someone a zoophile, is identifying in that way. It is possible to have exclusively same-sex attractions and sexual activity and yet not consider yourself gay.
That's why cross-cultural studies use the term MSM and WSW - men who have sex with men, and women who have sex with women, respectively.
If you want to look at zoophilia across the world, you would probably need to do something similar. That is to say, you would look at humans who have sex with nonhumans.
If we're looking at it as an orientation though, we can actually look at factors like fantasy, attraction, and so on, as contributing factors. And yes, that is done with homosexuality as well.
I used a very similar metric to that when looking at whether or not zoophilia was a sexual orientation. I don't think it's improper to take those other factors into account.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-03-11 05:23:44
"It is possible to have exclusively same sex attractions and sexual activity and yet not consider yourself gay"....Yeah...it´s called fooling yourself.
Homosexuality and zoophilia are no "identities" you can change at will, they both are orientations. Sexual orientations, to be precise. All sexologists agree that an orientation is something that cannot be changed, but identities surely can...
I´ve met quite a lot of "100%, hardcore zoos" in the past 25 years whose interest or "identity" changed very rapidly after they had their first human boy- or girlfriend. How do you explain that, especially when defining zoophilia as an orientation?
Sorry, but I don´t agree on your point of view. I even don´t agree on transferring this "gender identity" stuff to zoophilia. Really, it gets kinda ridiculous at some point...I quit believing in this hocuspocus after Facebook brought in more than 60 different "descriptions" of "gender identity...cis,trans,male,female,inter, under, over, hyper,whatever...and don´t get me wrong here: I do acknowledge that there are some individuals who feel trapped in the wrong body...hell, I´m also one of them, if you extend it to being born into the wrong species. But when "identity" is totally disconnected with this dirty bitch called reality, it gets silly at some point. What if I insisted on my identity as a three dicked satyr with seventeen testicles, eight arms and a vagina on my forehead? How much BS are you willing to take before you say "Stop shitting me" ?
An orientation is something real, an "identity" is all made up, basically a fantasy, either a common one ( to identify as "male" in a male body) or an uncommon one like the one I jokingly made up above. Don´t believe me? Just swallow 900 micrograms of LSD to learn that identity is fantasy.
"You can be whatever you want to be"....well....no, you can´t. That´s called biological reality.Even with surgery, you simply can´t fool reality, a fact that´s been portrayed by Mr/Mrs/ Mr again Garrison of South Park.
I guess I´ll quit it here before I write something that pisses off you folks in here....but as a horse in a human body, I just have to say that you humans are completely bonkers. Nutjobs. In an era where actors are the most popular and adored individuals, it´s very likely that you start thinking that life is like playing a role, like an actor. But playing a zoophile does not make you a real zoophile. Playing a judge does not make you a real law expert. Playing a ballet dancer does not turn you into the real primaballerina of the Bolshoi ballet.
So, go on playing zoophiles, go on, count everyone in...I don´t mind anymore. It´s just a total waste of time. Call me Zooprah Winfrey from now on..." You get zoophilia...and YOU get zoophilia...you get zoophilia...everyone gets zoophilia!!!"
Just ridiculous....
Swibblestein 4 points on 2016-03-11 07:05:33
It's not necessarily fooling yourself.
Say, hypothetically, that a person's sex is male. They are attracted exclusively to males, they fantasize about males, and they have sex with males. If they told you they are not gay, you would say they are deluding themselves, yes?
But now let me add in the additional information - they consider themselves transgender. Their sex is male. That is inarguable. But their gender is female. Thus, their male attractions make them straight, not gay.
I'm currently writing a paper on homosexuality in China, and one of the interesting things is that historically, homosexual inclinations were not treated as identities. They were treated as behaviors, tendencies, preferences, and actions, but not as something which you could "be".
Here is another example of where the term "gay" falls apart when looking across cultures.
I'm barely skimming the topic, bu the point I'm trying to get across is this topic is far more complex than you are giving it credit for. Identities have a significant cultural basis. Identities and orientations are not the same thing, but they are both ways of understanding certain patterns of thought and behavior.
Zoophilia is an identity. There is also an orientation wherein someone is attracted to other species. These two things impact each other, but they are not exactly the same.
You seem determined to make zoophilia an "exclusive club". You hold the key as to what makes someone a "true zoophile". You've used that phrase in just about every post I've seen from you. But here's the thing. Regardless of what you consider a true zoophile, regardless of the criteria you try to impose, the term has different meanings to different people. The terminology relating to zoophilia is vague, at best. And yes, even if animal attractions are an orientation (and I argue they are), that does not mean that zoophilia is not an identity, because they are. And your attempt at redefining terms to suit your own purposes is quite honestly benefiting no one.
Quite honesty, you frustrate me. You seem so focused on trying this issue of what to call people that you are hindering any attempt to actually understand the phenomena. You say that zoophilia is an orientation, but at the same time you refuse to apply our understanding of orientations to zoophilia. Let me repeat myself. I feel like you are actively hindering understanding of this issue, and that frustrates me.
30-30amator equae 0 points on 2016-03-13 09:33:09
If you´re truly writing a paper on that, please do yourself a favor and read Adler,Sigmund Freud, Carl Gustav Jung and Wilhelm Reich. Maybe they will shed some light onto you ...
Swibblestein 3 points on 2016-03-13 09:51:15
You have a rare talent at being condescending.
I've read some of their work in my free time, and I stand by my previous statements.
However, I don't have much of an interest in discussing with someone who refuses to address anything I have to say, nor with someone who is, again, as uniquely talented in being condescending as you are.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-03-10 06:28:20
The ZETA-Verein says that an estimated 100.000 people in Germany are "zoophiles", with a total population of 80 million Germans. If Kinsey´s results were accurate, you´d expect roughly 6 million Germans(men and women combined) with "animal sex experience", what is truly far from any reality.
I even disagree on ZETA´s figures and say that it´s around 20.000 Germans somehow involved in bestiality/zoophilia, with a meager 1-3 percent of what I call true zoophiles.
ZooIam 2 points on 2016-03-10 03:42:07
I thought Kinsey's sample was rural. Might explain the number being somewhat higher just from an accessibility perspective.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-03-10 07:18:20
Yes, the accessibility plays a certain role. But I think that it also depends alot on the different era in which Kinsey had lived and made his surveys and interviews. At that time, contraceptives were seen as immoral and the now outdated excuse "...if he fucks animals, at least unwanted pregnancies don´t occur..." was a legit justification. We can see this state of mind in today´s North African countries, where having sex with "halal" (clean according to the Q´ran) animals is a commonly accepted method of providing a sexual outlet for horny young men without the danger of pregnancies and expensive marriages. That´s the only reason why in countries like Morocco, Libya etc... having sex with donkeys is a common practice, although Islam is similarly sexually restrictive as Christianity and Judaism.Simple understatement, "the better of two evils".
We also have to take into consideration that some individuals tend to lie a lot when asked about their sexuality. Now transfer this to an era where even talking about "normal" sex was considered a sin...chances are high that those Kinsey asked were carried away by the sex positive atmosphere and would have admitted basically anything, giving false info unintentionally as well as intentionally.
Even today, in an era with high sexual liberalism, I frequently stumble across people who are insisting that they had sex with a mare, but when asked for some basic facts about the anatomy and sexual behavior of equines you simply can´t miss to recognize if you have a little actual experience, they miserably fail to answer appropriately. Taboos seem to support liars who are craving for attention, in the 50´s as well as today. That´s what I call the "giggle" factor and even Beetz´and Miletski´s results are far from reliable because of that.
I´ve just ordered a 48 page study by German researcher Dr Frank Rosenberg; in the preview of his book, he gave some interesting statements about zoophilia and Kinsey´s surveys. Hopefully I´ll get it within the next few days and if it proves to be as interesting as the preview was, I´ll gladly translate it so everyone in here can read it themselves.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 2 points on 2016-03-13 02:12:25
Did you really have people lie to you about having sex with mares? I mean I wish I could say I had sex with a mare, but to actually lie about it.... is just plain wrong.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-03-13 09:31:01
Been lied to many times about that...it´s like in every specific group of people, you´ll have multiple individuals who desperately want to "join the club", but aren´t accepted due to lack of any experience.
Also, social dynamics come into play here. We all know that there are some folks out there who have no real interest in the actual thing, but feel comfortable with the community. To raise attention, lies are also an appropriate means for them to be accepted and taken seriously. And a third group of individuals has to be mentioned: the ones who mistake their fantasies for reality and can´t keep those two things apart because a) psychological problems b) they´re pathological liars c) utter insanity d)internet e) whatever.
As I said before: zoophilia is one of the biggest weirdo magnets. The internet makes it incredibly easy for someone with an unstable mind to get carried away from reality by creating a virtual "identity", a "persona" (derived from the latin word for person AND masks usually used in theatrical impersonations alike(!!!) ).
You only have to watch the show "Catfish" once to see the mechanisms of anonymity of the internet and what it brings people to do. Sometimes I even believe that the net has given us zoos the benefit of being able to connect with each other, but at the same time is corrupting anything by the sheer malevolence of the ones using it. Weirdo magnet,remember? Liars, impersonators, fools, fantasizing manchilds, they all infuse more and more weirdness and malice into our scene.
ursusem 2 points on 2016-03-13 21:52:36
Honestly if anyone's an imposter here it's probably you. Because you are a horse (And a basically bigoted one at that. You view horses as being some type of morally superior race). You're not a human who wishes to relate to OTHER species in this manner in which we speak of. What would you know of TRUE INTERspecies sexuality? I reckon if you were to really think about it you'd probably discover that you actually are against REAL cross-species sexuality. What's the point of this 'zoophilia' concept if all the 'humans' who identify with it also identify themselves as the creatures they are attracted to? Wouldn't that suggest that true interspecies attraction never actually happens? That such a thing really is just a myth after all?
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-03-14 03:35:49
I´ve asked myself exactly this many times in my life. What if zoophilia is but a hoax, self foolery by the bipeds? What if the only reason I was allowed to continue my relationship with my mare although anyone was at least suspicious was because humans feel that I´m not one of them, no "zoophile", but really born into the wrong body?
You hit the nail on the head here, I have to admit. Since I strictly rely on horses reactions when it comes to my self perception and "identity", unlike furries and other "zooanthropoi", it is valid to ask if I even am a "zoophile", a human interested in animals sexually and emotionally. But I´m sorry to say that I can´t give you an answer to that. When I´m with horses, I instinctively "know" what I am, but looking into a mirror tells me otherwise. I just don´t know.
But what I know is that there are many "zoophiles" out there who tend to impose human concepts of sex and love onto my species, many who intentionally or unintentionally misinterpret sexual behavior of horses (winking is no sign of orgasm, nor is peeing, for example...). I do know that it´s common to misintepret the love for having sex with an animal with actual love for the animal ("It lets me fuck it, therefore I love it").
I do know that making up an "identity" of a Superbowl winner does not turn me into a real Superbowl winner. I do know that the human mind is doing very odd and creepy things in order to cope with reality. I do know that there is no "I" ,biologically.
I do believe that being in a relationship of real love should mutually mutate both of the participants, you become more and more like your partner and vice versa. I do know that people hide their real selves behind masks because society teaches them to do this right from the day of birth; and I do know that over time, people become unaware that they´re wearing masks, changing them ad libenter as the situation affords it or as it suits them well. One of these masks is the "zoo" mask.
I know that science will never even come close to finding the real source of "zoophilia", it´s basically as pointless as searching for the reason why the universe exists. I know that things can get ugly and out of hands at any party when people start to invite themselves; "zoophilia" seems to be such a party.
Before I quit this, let me give you something to think about, a word of wisdom:
"Let us remember that Transactional psychology has proven that, contrary to common sense and the prejudices of centuries, our minds do not passively receive impressions from the external world. Rather we actively create our impressions: out of an ocean of possible signals, our brains notice the signals that fit what we expect to see, and we organize these signals into a model, or reality tunnel, that marvelously matches our ideas about what is really out there." Robert Anton Wilon, Quantum Psychology
Addendum from me: It also marvelously matches our ideas of what we really "are".
"There are no facts, only interpretations." Friedrich Nietzsche
/r/zoophilia archive
Thought this might be of interest. The full-text is only available for a short time, so for any who miss it, kink may be "common in general population", but we're still grouped into the "other" section:
For this broad category, 4.8% of men and 2.5% of women have some interest. However, it's also noteworthy that, 5.9% of those who responded over the internet reported this, versus only 1.0% who responded over the telephone, so take the results with a pinch of salt.
An interesting study. But I really wonder where the enormous discrepancy between Kinsey´s results and this study comes from. The whopping number of 8% of men sexually active at least once in their lifetime seems to be just "too damn high". If we take into consideration that anything animal related was thrown in with scat play and necrophilia, with probably most of the responders being aroused by feces and urine, I´d like to know exactly how many of the 1000 people who have been participating are "aroused by animals". Note that "arousal" says nothing about the depth of involvment into bestiality/zoophilia, you can be "aroused" by animals without even considering to do it with a quadruped yourself at all. Animals as a means for degradation and master/slave relationships, fantasy, the thrill of doing something that is referred to as one of the last three taboos etc. If asked directly whether someone identifies himself as a zoophile, I guess the right scale would have been ppm (parts per million)...
"If asked directly whether someone identifies himself as a zoophile, I guess the right scale would have been ppm (parts per million)..." You really think true Zoophilia is that rare?
Technically yes, at least in terms of self-identification. I'd estimate that figure at roughly 1 in 10000, and there's a thread on here going over my sources for that. If I could define the term for this purpose, I'd say it's anyone who fantasizes about, emotionally connects with, and wants to have sex with animals primarily (more than, or at the same level as, their desires for other human beings). But it's nearly impossible to get broad agreement on that.
I disagree on your broad definition of zoophilia. Watching gay porn does not make you gay, nor does fantasizing about gay sex... If we´re talking about zoophilia as a genuine orientation, then one would only qualify if sex with animals is his/her predominant or only sexual outlet. Even occasional, one time sexual experiences with animals don´t turn you into a zoophile. All the kinksters and fantasizing ones are no zoophiles IMHO. I really have problems accepting the "emotionally connects with" part in your definition as it would include almost any animal owner that doesn´t view his animal as lifestock or natural resource.
I know that some do see me as a judgmental dick, but I can´t see any benefit in definig zoophilia as loosely as you do. It only waters down the essence of zoophilia IMO. I hope we do agree that the life reality of someone fantasizing about it from time to time and a full blown, genuine zoo with a life completely centered around his orientation totally differs from each other.
From my experience, I stand by what I said. I estimate that 2 - 5 individuals out of a million qualify as genuine zoos. This totally matches with my perceptions of the German zoo scene: roughly around 250 - 450 folks with this orientation.
Both "Gay" and "Zoophile" are identities. Technically the only thing which can really make someone gay, or make someone a zoophile, is identifying in that way. It is possible to have exclusively same-sex attractions and sexual activity and yet not consider yourself gay.
That's why cross-cultural studies use the term MSM and WSW - men who have sex with men, and women who have sex with women, respectively.
If you want to look at zoophilia across the world, you would probably need to do something similar. That is to say, you would look at humans who have sex with nonhumans.
If we're looking at it as an orientation though, we can actually look at factors like fantasy, attraction, and so on, as contributing factors. And yes, that is done with homosexuality as well.
http://www.americaninstituteofbisexuality.org/thekleingrid/
I used a very similar metric to that when looking at whether or not zoophilia was a sexual orientation. I don't think it's improper to take those other factors into account.
"It is possible to have exclusively same sex attractions and sexual activity and yet not consider yourself gay"....Yeah...it´s called fooling yourself. Homosexuality and zoophilia are no "identities" you can change at will, they both are orientations. Sexual orientations, to be precise. All sexologists agree that an orientation is something that cannot be changed, but identities surely can... I´ve met quite a lot of "100%, hardcore zoos" in the past 25 years whose interest or "identity" changed very rapidly after they had their first human boy- or girlfriend. How do you explain that, especially when defining zoophilia as an orientation?
Sorry, but I don´t agree on your point of view. I even don´t agree on transferring this "gender identity" stuff to zoophilia. Really, it gets kinda ridiculous at some point...I quit believing in this hocuspocus after Facebook brought in more than 60 different "descriptions" of "gender identity...cis,trans,male,female,inter, under, over, hyper,whatever...and don´t get me wrong here: I do acknowledge that there are some individuals who feel trapped in the wrong body...hell, I´m also one of them, if you extend it to being born into the wrong species. But when "identity" is totally disconnected with this dirty bitch called reality, it gets silly at some point. What if I insisted on my identity as a three dicked satyr with seventeen testicles, eight arms and a vagina on my forehead? How much BS are you willing to take before you say "Stop shitting me" ?
An orientation is something real, an "identity" is all made up, basically a fantasy, either a common one ( to identify as "male" in a male body) or an uncommon one like the one I jokingly made up above. Don´t believe me? Just swallow 900 micrograms of LSD to learn that identity is fantasy. "You can be whatever you want to be"....well....no, you can´t. That´s called biological reality.Even with surgery, you simply can´t fool reality, a fact that´s been portrayed by Mr/Mrs/ Mr again Garrison of South Park.
I guess I´ll quit it here before I write something that pisses off you folks in here....but as a horse in a human body, I just have to say that you humans are completely bonkers. Nutjobs. In an era where actors are the most popular and adored individuals, it´s very likely that you start thinking that life is like playing a role, like an actor. But playing a zoophile does not make you a real zoophile. Playing a judge does not make you a real law expert. Playing a ballet dancer does not turn you into the real primaballerina of the Bolshoi ballet.
So, go on playing zoophiles, go on, count everyone in...I don´t mind anymore. It´s just a total waste of time. Call me Zooprah Winfrey from now on..." You get zoophilia...and YOU get zoophilia...you get zoophilia...everyone gets zoophilia!!!" Just ridiculous....
It's not necessarily fooling yourself.
Say, hypothetically, that a person's sex is male. They are attracted exclusively to males, they fantasize about males, and they have sex with males. If they told you they are not gay, you would say they are deluding themselves, yes?
But now let me add in the additional information - they consider themselves transgender. Their sex is male. That is inarguable. But their gender is female. Thus, their male attractions make them straight, not gay.
I'm currently writing a paper on homosexuality in China, and one of the interesting things is that historically, homosexual inclinations were not treated as identities. They were treated as behaviors, tendencies, preferences, and actions, but not as something which you could "be".
Here is another example of where the term "gay" falls apart when looking across cultures.
I'm barely skimming the topic, bu the point I'm trying to get across is this topic is far more complex than you are giving it credit for. Identities have a significant cultural basis. Identities and orientations are not the same thing, but they are both ways of understanding certain patterns of thought and behavior.
Zoophilia is an identity. There is also an orientation wherein someone is attracted to other species. These two things impact each other, but they are not exactly the same.
You seem determined to make zoophilia an "exclusive club". You hold the key as to what makes someone a "true zoophile". You've used that phrase in just about every post I've seen from you. But here's the thing. Regardless of what you consider a true zoophile, regardless of the criteria you try to impose, the term has different meanings to different people. The terminology relating to zoophilia is vague, at best. And yes, even if animal attractions are an orientation (and I argue they are), that does not mean that zoophilia is not an identity, because they are. And your attempt at redefining terms to suit your own purposes is quite honestly benefiting no one.
Quite honesty, you frustrate me. You seem so focused on trying this issue of what to call people that you are hindering any attempt to actually understand the phenomena. You say that zoophilia is an orientation, but at the same time you refuse to apply our understanding of orientations to zoophilia. Let me repeat myself. I feel like you are actively hindering understanding of this issue, and that frustrates me.
If you´re truly writing a paper on that, please do yourself a favor and read Adler,Sigmund Freud, Carl Gustav Jung and Wilhelm Reich. Maybe they will shed some light onto you ...
You have a rare talent at being condescending.
I've read some of their work in my free time, and I stand by my previous statements.
However, I don't have much of an interest in discussing with someone who refuses to address anything I have to say, nor with someone who is, again, as uniquely talented in being condescending as you are.
The ZETA-Verein says that an estimated 100.000 people in Germany are "zoophiles", with a total population of 80 million Germans. If Kinsey´s results were accurate, you´d expect roughly 6 million Germans(men and women combined) with "animal sex experience", what is truly far from any reality. I even disagree on ZETA´s figures and say that it´s around 20.000 Germans somehow involved in bestiality/zoophilia, with a meager 1-3 percent of what I call true zoophiles.
I thought Kinsey's sample was rural. Might explain the number being somewhat higher just from an accessibility perspective.
Yes, the accessibility plays a certain role. But I think that it also depends alot on the different era in which Kinsey had lived and made his surveys and interviews. At that time, contraceptives were seen as immoral and the now outdated excuse "...if he fucks animals, at least unwanted pregnancies don´t occur..." was a legit justification. We can see this state of mind in today´s North African countries, where having sex with "halal" (clean according to the Q´ran) animals is a commonly accepted method of providing a sexual outlet for horny young men without the danger of pregnancies and expensive marriages. That´s the only reason why in countries like Morocco, Libya etc... having sex with donkeys is a common practice, although Islam is similarly sexually restrictive as Christianity and Judaism.Simple understatement, "the better of two evils". We also have to take into consideration that some individuals tend to lie a lot when asked about their sexuality. Now transfer this to an era where even talking about "normal" sex was considered a sin...chances are high that those Kinsey asked were carried away by the sex positive atmosphere and would have admitted basically anything, giving false info unintentionally as well as intentionally. Even today, in an era with high sexual liberalism, I frequently stumble across people who are insisting that they had sex with a mare, but when asked for some basic facts about the anatomy and sexual behavior of equines you simply can´t miss to recognize if you have a little actual experience, they miserably fail to answer appropriately. Taboos seem to support liars who are craving for attention, in the 50´s as well as today. That´s what I call the "giggle" factor and even Beetz´and Miletski´s results are far from reliable because of that.
I´ve just ordered a 48 page study by German researcher Dr Frank Rosenberg; in the preview of his book, he gave some interesting statements about zoophilia and Kinsey´s surveys. Hopefully I´ll get it within the next few days and if it proves to be as interesting as the preview was, I´ll gladly translate it so everyone in here can read it themselves.
Did you really have people lie to you about having sex with mares? I mean I wish I could say I had sex with a mare, but to actually lie about it.... is just plain wrong.
Been lied to many times about that...it´s like in every specific group of people, you´ll have multiple individuals who desperately want to "join the club", but aren´t accepted due to lack of any experience. Also, social dynamics come into play here. We all know that there are some folks out there who have no real interest in the actual thing, but feel comfortable with the community. To raise attention, lies are also an appropriate means for them to be accepted and taken seriously. And a third group of individuals has to be mentioned: the ones who mistake their fantasies for reality and can´t keep those two things apart because a) psychological problems b) they´re pathological liars c) utter insanity d)internet e) whatever.
As I said before: zoophilia is one of the biggest weirdo magnets. The internet makes it incredibly easy for someone with an unstable mind to get carried away from reality by creating a virtual "identity", a "persona" (derived from the latin word for person AND masks usually used in theatrical impersonations alike(!!!) ). You only have to watch the show "Catfish" once to see the mechanisms of anonymity of the internet and what it brings people to do. Sometimes I even believe that the net has given us zoos the benefit of being able to connect with each other, but at the same time is corrupting anything by the sheer malevolence of the ones using it. Weirdo magnet,remember? Liars, impersonators, fools, fantasizing manchilds, they all infuse more and more weirdness and malice into our scene.
Honestly if anyone's an imposter here it's probably you. Because you are a horse (And a basically bigoted one at that. You view horses as being some type of morally superior race). You're not a human who wishes to relate to OTHER species in this manner in which we speak of. What would you know of TRUE INTERspecies sexuality? I reckon if you were to really think about it you'd probably discover that you actually are against REAL cross-species sexuality. What's the point of this 'zoophilia' concept if all the 'humans' who identify with it also identify themselves as the creatures they are attracted to? Wouldn't that suggest that true interspecies attraction never actually happens? That such a thing really is just a myth after all?
I´ve asked myself exactly this many times in my life. What if zoophilia is but a hoax, self foolery by the bipeds? What if the only reason I was allowed to continue my relationship with my mare although anyone was at least suspicious was because humans feel that I´m not one of them, no "zoophile", but really born into the wrong body? You hit the nail on the head here, I have to admit. Since I strictly rely on horses reactions when it comes to my self perception and "identity", unlike furries and other "zooanthropoi", it is valid to ask if I even am a "zoophile", a human interested in animals sexually and emotionally. But I´m sorry to say that I can´t give you an answer to that. When I´m with horses, I instinctively "know" what I am, but looking into a mirror tells me otherwise. I just don´t know. But what I know is that there are many "zoophiles" out there who tend to impose human concepts of sex and love onto my species, many who intentionally or unintentionally misinterpret sexual behavior of horses (winking is no sign of orgasm, nor is peeing, for example...). I do know that it´s common to misintepret the love for having sex with an animal with actual love for the animal ("It lets me fuck it, therefore I love it"). I do know that making up an "identity" of a Superbowl winner does not turn me into a real Superbowl winner. I do know that the human mind is doing very odd and creepy things in order to cope with reality. I do know that there is no "I" ,biologically.
I do believe that being in a relationship of real love should mutually mutate both of the participants, you become more and more like your partner and vice versa. I do know that people hide their real selves behind masks because society teaches them to do this right from the day of birth; and I do know that over time, people become unaware that they´re wearing masks, changing them ad libenter as the situation affords it or as it suits them well. One of these masks is the "zoo" mask.
I know that science will never even come close to finding the real source of "zoophilia", it´s basically as pointless as searching for the reason why the universe exists. I know that things can get ugly and out of hands at any party when people start to invite themselves; "zoophilia" seems to be such a party.
Before I quit this, let me give you something to think about, a word of wisdom: "Let us remember that Transactional psychology has proven that, contrary to common sense and the prejudices of centuries, our minds do not passively receive impressions from the external world. Rather we actively create our impressions: out of an ocean of possible signals, our brains notice the signals that fit what we expect to see, and we organize these signals into a model, or reality tunnel, that marvelously matches our ideas about what is really out there." Robert Anton Wilon, Quantum Psychology Addendum from me: It also marvelously matches our ideas of what we really "are".
"There are no facts, only interpretations." Friedrich Nietzsche
It's well known that Quebecers are deviants.
Source: I am a Quebecer.