I posted this earlier here but I believe it got buried and I think it presents some fair points about an interesting idea so here it is again:
As far as how it is that I can be proud of this thing goes, I understand that all that zoophilia really means (at least in our context) is that someone loves animals and is also sexually attracted to animals and either does or would like to make love to animals/ an animal and yes, I can see why one would think there is nothing to be proud of in that because this sort of thing just is what it is. Everybody in the world is attracted to something and to someone. It's not really a choice. People just like what they like. This is neither a good nor a bad thing. It is a neutral. And I agree that there is nothing really to be proud of as far as that understanding of zoophilia goes (which I would also say is the correct understanding).
The thing is, it is strange that some people are open to the idea that a being of another species would make a good “love interest” for them. The logic follows that people that are like that likely view animals more like equals. Those people do not recognize that humans are superior to animals (meaning that humans are “made” of a sort of greater intrinsic value). Animals are worthless. Humans are worth something. A human soul is of value simply because it is human. That is the way that our human society views this world. The soul of an animal, on the flipside, is insignificant/meaningless and of course wretched. While a lot of people care about animal welfare and call themselves ‘animal lovers,’ animals are still considered by many of these people to be only so-so important. They are creatures to have around as companions but that is where the line is drawn. Animals are just animals. They are simple beings not worth too much of our time in thought. Now how does that make you feel? How does it make you feel when there are all these creatures on this planet and humans are mainly just interested in humans? I feel like it is actually kind of “mean” how most people consider animals to be “just animals” and therefore do not focus on them, do not inquire about them, and do not wonder about them. I do not feel comfortable about relating to non-human animals in that way although it is the way that I see most humans relating to animals. I feel that I am a better person for seeing the wrongfulness of this attitude towards other species that most humans seem to possess. I believe that within zoophilia, there are these kinds of underlying beliefs at play. The beliefs being that it is wrong for us humans to “discount” animals- to see them as being lower or inferior to us etc. I personally hold these convictions strongly. My zoophilia is like a sacred religion to me. I feel very strongly about these ideas! Anyway…. But that is the root of where my pride comes from. I’m proud of myself for not regarding animals in the lowly way that most people do. I’m proud of the person I am, the character I have, the way I turned out. Being a zoophile is something to be proud of, indeed.
Well, that's just natural. Any species where the members are mostly attracted to members of other species will have a harder time reproducing in enough numbers and possibly die out much easier than others. The same with homosexuality - there is nothing wrong with either of them, but they're not going to be the majority in a species that isn't on their way to die out...
What you describe is called Speciesism and the first logical conclusion from it is veganism. Yet I don't see terribly many zoos being vegans. So I am not convinced that zoos inherently see it that way.
I don't think it is right to be vegan because you are still discriminating against plant life.
Plant life that has no consciousness and no sentience.
We don't really know what "consciousness" and "sentience" mean. We can't tell either way. Plants can respond to damage by sending a chemical signal that alters the behaviour of nearby plants to make them less edible.
Right now it's a moot point: I can't be a photovore (even though I'd choose that if it were an option) so all I can do is minimise my chances of causing suffering to a mind capable of it. I must eat something, so I eat things which are least likely to suffer — plants. Some day, we may know what the words mean, and then we could start to discover which things have minds. May turn out that forests have them when individual plants don't at one extreme, or perhaps only some humans do at the other.
All that said, I'm still eating cheese and products containing milk and eggs despite trying to go fully vegan. I'd like to be fully vegan, but I don't seem to have the willpower to go all the way yet.
Well, that's an evolved chemical reaction. Without a nervous system that is complex enough to produce a consciousness, there is nothing to "experience" pain or emotions or anything.
There is something called "Hormonal Sentience". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_%28physiology%29#Plant_intelligence. I'm not a biologist, but to me likening this to actual sentience sounds more like esoteric pseudoscience. I.e. when reading
then my first thought is that this stuff doesn't sound like it needs to be the product of sentience. More likely these processes are governed by simple automata that have evolved.
Oh you mean a breatharian? That's a fun crank conspiracy theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasmuheen
My gut feeling is to agree, the point I was making is just "nobody knows what it is, so we can't properly know".
Hah! Nope. "Photovore" means "light eater" in the way "carnivore" means "meat eater". Plants do it with photosynthesis — Photosynthesis being the way it happens rather than what it is, just as stomach acids and intestines are what animals use but not what they are.
I like this attitude. Allow me to express it my own way.
Many people view sexual orientation as a ternary position: you're either straight, gay, or bi, period, end of discussion. More sophisticated parties might view orientations on a Kinsey-scale, having anywhere from 0 to 100% of sexual attraction toward one gender or another. Being zoo means, in my case, having to recognize far more variation in sexuality than simply preferred gender.
It's analogous to the novel Flatland: it seems that everyone else is running around on a tiny segment of possible sexual desires, while I am free to stay above them, an invisible observer or, if desired, an insightful commentator with a very different view of things. It might be isolating at times, but it does not have to be, so long as I'm careful in how and when I reveal my true nature and the source of my observations.
Nicely put. I read Flatland and Flatterland recently. Not much I didn't already know from a maths point of view, but it helped me visualise such spaces.
Those books are great for helping laypeople understand what weird things can happen with more than three spatial dimensions. You have good taste.
You seem to imply that only zoophiles can see non-humans as equivalent to humans and, therefore, non-zoophiles are automatically human supremacists. I don't think this is the case. I'm pretty sure there are some people out there who hold biocentrist point of views and who don't discriminate between any animal, human included.
Don't be proud of what you are, be proud of what you do.
I don't think she meant non-zoos are human supremacists, i think she meant that her zoophilia is an expression of her values. That said many zoos hold animals in unusually high regard compared with the rest of the population.
Yes, many zoophiles hold animals in high regard. But not all of them do. And some non-zoophiles hold animals in the same regard, too.
The title of this post is "Why it's possible for one to be proud of being zoo" and the reason is "zoos tend to see animals as equivalent to humans." But other (normal) people also see animals as equivalent to us, so I fail to understand why she would feel the need to single out zoophiles in that aspect.
To me, the text read as if falling in love with animals was a prerequisite to being able to see them as our equivalent, and that therefore, people who don't fall in love with them are automatically anthropocentric (human supremacists), which is something I don't agree with.
I agree with you 100% on this. Pride on the basis of things you can't control (race, ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation) is very silly. And yet there are situations in which these things can lead one to actions worthy of pride, in which they played a significant role in motivating an accomplishment. To use myself as an example, I am not proud of myself for liking dogs more than humans in a physical way. However, that experience, along with whatever other virtues I might have, has led me to a deeper understanding of biology, neurology, philosophy, and history, because of a driving need to understand where I fit in a world that largely does not acknowledge this part of me. I am proud of this understanding and of my ability to articulate it clearly.
I give affection and care to animals in my life more so than most people would because I love animals in a special way. And I am proud of that. But I am proud to make the lives of these animals better, not that I am a zoophile. Being a zoophile is nothing to be proud (or ashamed) of, it's just stuff in your mind.
If your beliefs don't affect your actions, they have very little value.
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
[/r/offensiveflags] Zoophiles Discuss Why They're Proud to be Animal Lovers
[/r/publichealthwatch] Redditor says that being a zoophile is something to be proud of
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. \(Info ^/ Contact)
Sorry to play the Cassandra once again, but how does your, uhm,let´s call it "problematic" relationship to canines fit into your statement above?
It fits because it is true that I don't view dogs as being lower than humans-- which is a big part of the reason why I expect the same decency out of them as I expect from any other creature. The thing about dogs is their genetics are put together in such a way where it is in the biological nature of a dog to put other beings in these hierarchical social structures. Now of course, this is the way that social societies among animals (including humans) often work. However, there is a difference between being a fair leader and an unfair one. It is fine to be domineering and the one in charge but it it is not okay to treat others in a cruel, bullying kind of way while you are that. I see dogs as having a certain kind of mind that has it so that they can't see the difference. It's just this genetic inability to be kind in the same way that humans understand the concept that I take issue with. And couple this nature with all of the very negative experiences with pretty much every dog I've met throughout my life and I start to think that there may be something inherently not right about them. I judge the morality of all creatures by the same yard stick. The difference between myself and other humans is that most humans could care less about animals because to them animals are nothings and nobodies. Animals are not worth the time spent in contemplation according to most people. Dogs do not view others as equal to them- you are either superior to the dog or inferior to the dog. I am about accepting others as being equal to me.
You´re projecting your fears onto another species. You also are overly romanticising animals, maybe due to the lack of real experiences. The leading stallion of a herd won´t "treat you as an equal" , too...at least, if you don´t put some effort in trying to understand him and earn his respect. Mares can be bitches, too. Cats are the ultimate dicks IMHO...;)
I really don´t believe that superimposing human ideals ("equality") onto animals shows maturity or experience. All animals can be dicks, it mostly depends on you, basically. Can´t you see that your own subconscious judgement on dogs is what evokes your non favorable impression of canines? Remember that animals and their communication is heavily based on empathical abilities. Maybe any dog you´ve come across was only sensing your subconscious negative emotions, turning yourself into the basic source of miscommunication.
I´ll tell you something inconvenient: zoophilia is not only a sexual orientation, it also includes the duty to plunge into your own subconscious and sort out all of that rubbish that has been installed by human society,education and your own ego. Putting on fursuits and pretending to be an animal won´t suffice, neither will this special form of fantasy escapism so common amongst the "romantic zoophiles". You literally have to alter your consciousness to provide a proper mindset that makes real interspecies communication possible. Zoophilia is psychedelic.
An integral part of it is to overcome prejudices: negative ones as well as positive ones. My riding instructor once told me that any animal is a mirror. It only reflects your own self. The more you learn about animals, the more you learn about yourself. So, I challenge you to find out who´s the cause for your problematic relations to canines the next time you encounter one. Try to control your fears, try to actually learn something from it. Maybe enlightenment wil pay you a visit...
You know what's really going on though right? You've had severe trauma in your relationships with people that have caused you to rationalize (somehow) that having sex with another species of animal is mentally or medically healthy. In short, if you received any kind of proper parenting, this shouldn't have happened to you.
What makes you know that? You know next to nothing about my upbringing nor personality. I have very strong feelings about animals and I don't feel the same way about humans. I don't hate humans. I like humans. I just don't feel that sort of way about humans. Open up your mind.
https://i.imgflip.com/jvc45.jpg
ah, good. now that this thread has been crossposted elsewhere we can get bombarded by judgemental people who have no understanding of zoophilia.
But we have nothing to fear, right? I'm sure they'll get bored after a day or so anyway.