A new round of bestiality discussions on reddit (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2016-05-31 19:23:44 by fuzzyfurry
https://np.reddit.com/r/morbidquestions/comments/4lshey/is_bestiality_wrong_in_all_cases/
https://np.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/4lw8a4/why_is_bestiality_wrong/
https://np.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/comments/4lw5td/why_is_bestiality_wrong/
These questions have been asked so often on reddit already and still, they get asked again.
Yeah. These always seem to run the same course, and providing input or commentary 'as a zoophile' very rarely actually positively contributes to the discussion.
If the people talking about this stuff actually thought about the animals and people who love (or have sex with) them when having these conversations maybe they'd go places, but the discussions are always framed as these short-sighted 'if we KILL animals why can't we SEX them?' moral puzzles.
I dont like that argument as I feel it misses the point a lot of people are thinking of when it comes to consent (also I like eating meat so I find it completely hypocritical). What they mean to say is 'I cant be sure when animals are consenting or not, and because I'm a solipsistic idiot that means that no one else can either'. Now, anyone who's actually had sex (90% of redditors gone right there) knows that getting an actual yes or no just doesnt happen when youre in the mood. Of those, the ones that work with dogs (0.01% maybe?) know for damn sure they can tell you what they want without actually saying in english 'yes I want a back scratch'. Unfortunately they are a tiny minority.
Instead of framing it in a way that compares zoo stuff with shitty farming practises (thus putting zoophilia in a bad light) we should frame it in a way that says that yes, animals do have agency of their own, and that is something that people should be made aware of and celebrated.
Yeah, but as soon as you try to do that you get labeled as a crazy dog fucker or accused of overly 'personifying' dogs (which is apparently only acceptable in certain contexts).
I try to stay out of that sorta stuff these days.
There's a risk of getting labeled with any argument, and sure, not participating at all will avoid that risk. But if someone chooses to speak up, it's pretty terrible if their best argument is "at least we're not killing them."
Let´s analyze the situation:
Through constant nagging and pushing it into people´s faces, how many allies have been won? I´ll be generous here and presume a 1% success rate...one out of one hundered participants who may turn out to alter his/her mind a little bit, becoming tolerant. At the same given moment, you enrage about 50% of a thread´s participants, they simply don´t want to hear about you and your sexual adventures with animals. Another 20- 25 % condemn it, no matter what your argument is.
I don´t say that we have to hide completely, but starting threads surely is the wrong way to get zoophilia discussed. The usual approach (" why is zoophilia frowned upon, but eating meat isn´t..." etc.) misses the point entirely and also is counterproductive. I strongly propose another approach. If you really need to get into a dispute about zoophilia with outsiders, then, for gods sake, leave the "logical" approach aside and try an emotional approach instead. Start a thread that is more personal, maybe something like "I have fallen in love with an animal, what should I do?". Keep it entirely personal and stress out on your emotions; don´t rely on the worn out tactics of "debunking",namecalling and digging a metaphorical trench. Show respect even for the worst and hostile opinions, try to invalidate them with actual personal experience, not this theoretical logic warfare. Never forget the huge discrepancy between us zoos and the outside world; "they" don´t know the difference between zoos and beasties, for them, we´re all alike. Never forget that strong evidence against "zoophilia" is easily accessible for anyone out there, a quick search for animal porn will bring up the worst examples of "zoophilia" in an instant. Don´t fall for the illusion that we zoos have the "right" to do animals and anyone denying us this "right" is an intolerant asshole, this is something we have to earn from society...and let´s be honest for a second here, all these headlines and reports unveiling the vile structures behind the scene logically lead to the apparent hostility and closedmindedness we perceive today.
Don´t discard other opinions quickly; in order to conquer an enemy, it is vital to be able to think as your enemy. Try to get behind their anti arguments more in depth. Ask yourself what exactly makes your opponent think the way he/she is thinking.
Never be fooled by the idea of a general absolution for human-animal sex, this won´t happen. Beware of the fallacies involved and try to give an image to the public that´s as coherent as fucking possible...for example, demanding your "right" to fuck an animal and also being a meateater will leave your "opponent" with the notion of incoherence. By the way: I still can´t comprehend how a zoo can support the meat industry with all the torture and suffering the "edible" animals face.
Don´t turn a blind eye to all the black spots "zoophilia" has to offer; for an outsider, it IS ultimately important what your opinion on fencehopping is, how your morals work and how trustworthy you appear to be. Never duck out of it when stuff comes up that IS invasive and affects the "norm`s" everyday life. One common question I ran into is "Can I keep my animal outside when my neigbor is a zoo?"...don´t ridicule outsiders for bringing up actual questions, instead try to build up trust.
Without respect for even the most hostile anti position, we will not be able to gain tolerance and trust. By creating a black-and-white scenario, we just dig more trenches and thus turning the whole thing into an even more severe SNAFU scenario. Note that there´s only one way out of the deadlock and the tsunami of laws against having sex with animals and that´s the way of compromise. The latin origins of this word should give a hint what is meant, it translates to "mutual promise"...in order to get anywhere, we have to GIVE something to society in exchange for the tolerance we demand. Without a clear and binding statement addressing fencehopping and animal porn (AP IS IMHO poisoning society and plays a vital role in generating more and more "zoo" wannatryouts), we will never be deemed trustworth enough to permit zoophilia. Just ask yourself: would you hand over your animal to another "fellow" "zoo"? Would he/she refrain from abusing this situation to his/her advantage? And if you answer both of these questions with a clear "Hell,no!",then tell me how could any outsider trust us zoos enough? Trust is the keypoint here, folks; and trust has to be earned, not demanded. Outsiders will need to trust us when our bedroom/barn door closes behind us; they are dependent on being sure that we don´t force/abuse/coerce our animals to sex when we´re alone with them. Without more openness from our side, without more honesty, without less stubbornness and without more willingness to compromise, you can waste your time with "educating" the public on reddit as you see fit. But you gain nothing, I promise...and you´d definitely better off using the time invested to type for having a nice and gentle tete-a-tete with your quadruped partner...... Well, maybe my perception isn´t tricking me that much, whenever someone puts loads of efforts into "teaching the public about zoophilia", he/she´s probably subliminating; usually those who are the biggest loudmouths do actually lack an animal partner and experience and do all the talking only to reassure themselves and others of their "zoophilia"...don´t know whether this holds truth, but hints strongly point in that direction...;)
I think you need to be more optimistic 30-30. 1% seems too low.
I agree with much of what you said, but not sure how this ties in to logical vs. emotional arguments. Either one can be done right, or done horribly wrong. There are plenty of cringey movies and TV appearances from well-meaning zoophiles demonstrating emotional arguments which illustrate this beautifully.
With logic, there is at least something tangible. The bad parts can be argued and the parts which remain can be re-used in the future.
Many people have argued that zoophiles are anti-abuse and anti-porn and anti-fencehopping, but that "clear and binding statement" (or as you said it elsewhere, "black and white" statement) will only be as valid as the definition of the group of people it applies to. And even if the definition were figured out, aren't you telling them in other posts to all hide and stay invisible? So then who really is the human face to be sympathised with? Or what value is a bunch of invisible people arguing against abuse?
It seems to me you are not against people "being out" or against logical arguments, but rather that you are against irresponsible, clueless idiots. And sure, I think we can all sympathize.
Yep, that summarizes it perfectly. I wouldn´t be so upset if there was some kind of improvement, some kind of progress in professionalisation, but until today, the spokespersons for zoophilia are bloody amateurs often completely clueless about the effects and consequences of their "PR" work.
I also wonder why our own community hasn´t managed to establish something that I´d like to call "zoo culture". Our art hardly exceeds drawings of cartoon characters with dicks, cunts and tits, there is no literature that deals with zoophilia in another way than that pleasurable for the one-handed readers; there is no zoo music,no zoo art, no zoo literature. If you look back at the beginning of the LGBT movement, the fact is hard to miss that especially gay art and music did tremenduously good in gaining understanding and sympathy. Why are we still stuck with masturbatory prose and pornographic pictures?
There needs to be more than just the animal fucking, you now...without a culture behind it all, we´re just perverts.
Again, I absolutely agree, here.
The art/culture concept is interesting. I think online culture in general tends to reward porn seekers and instant gratification, so maybe it is partly because this "movement" is so tied to the Internet. But I agree that would be useful.
and lol which one of you was this.
Whenever threads like the ones linked above emerge, I can´t help but think of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory
Keep forcing it down the throats of society, folks...just create some more throwaway accounts and redo the same fruitless discussions based on "logic" and the "harm principle"...for each individual you´ve won over by this, you also created an army of new enemies...but who cares for that, we gotta teach the public how harmless we are, no matter what it costs....hail and all glory to thee, Pyrrhus...charge!
There's a difference between forcing it down the throat of society and presenting a valid argument (especially instead of an invalid one) when someone asks.
Hiding in a cave is a viable strategy when you're under attack, as long as you don't mind living out the rest of your life in that cave, don't care about anyone on the surface, and never need any provisions from the outside world.
Like most things in life, there is a comfortable balance to be found between making yourself a visible target doing stupid things and doing absolutely nothing, thereby allowing negative forces to win and build a more robust structure of oppression over you.
Yeah, sure, this and more of that...all valid, but in our case completely irrelevant. Presenting it with this "in your face" attitude, with this invasive style up to this very day has NEVER nebenefitted us in any way. Arguments always go down the same, very repetitive way...if you have read through one of these "educational threads", you´ve basically seen ´em all.
Regarding "doing absolutely nothing": you´re not familiar with the principle of wu wei (chinese for taking action by remaining inactive), are you?
EMPEROR NORTON
Joshua Norton, or as he preferred to be called, Norton I., procaimed himself Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico in 1859.
Although a pauper, he was fed free in San Francisco´s best restaurants. Although a madman, he had all his state proclamations published in San Francisco´s newspapers. While rational reformers elsewhere failed to crack the national bank monopoly with alternate currency plans, Norton I. had his own private currency accepted throughout San Francisco. When the Vigilantes decided to have a pogrom against the Chinese, and sane men would have tried to stop them, Norton I. did nothing but stand in the street, head bowed, praying. The Vigilantes dispersed.
"When the proper man does nothing (wu wei), his thought is felt a thousand miles" - Lao Tse
Although a fool, Norton I. wrote letters which were seriously considered by Abraham Lincoln and Queen Victoria.
Although a charlatan, Norton I. was so beloved that 30,000 people turned out for his funeral in 1880.
"Everbody understands Mickey Mouse. Few understand Hermann Hesse. Hardly anybody understands Einstein. And nobody understands Emperor Norton." Malaclypse, the Younger K.S.C.
Nor did I say it did. But to my knowledge, neither has hopeful wishing while huddling in a shuttered building. What is the endgame in that scenario? That the world will eventually figure it out on their own? That people will eventually lose interest, despite the evidence seeming to point to the contrary even when not egged on by "in the face" arguments?
Isn't it more likely that by hiding the good points, you will only serve to allow the real or imagined bad points to gain more traction, unchallenged?
I don't understand the point of the quote, since apparently Norton I. attempted to CREATE his own private currency, or to WRITE letters... and was able to "do nothing" based on being surrounded by allies. Zoophiles are in no such position.
To me I'd probably be like hey I love my dog, prove to me that the dog is abused, does he show any mental or physical trauma? If he does than they win, if he doesn't they should mind their own business cause if they can't prove abuse, then they should leave them be. They should do an experiment comparing the health of dogs or something between zoo and non zoo owned animals. Another point is really just showing you love your dog and you would care for them in everything they need, people need to just get to know zoos who are their neighbors, who are in all kinds of occupations, IT, doctors, teachers, military, and come in whatever gender, ethnicity, and age. There just needs to be some empathy here.
But they don't want to see. They just want to hate.
I've been present in my fair share of these arguments and as others have said, it usually boils down to a fundamental disconnect with the extreme antis.
I see it as a waste of time. Unless its for academic purposes there is no reason to talk to these people.