Hello! I have seen a few different sites link to various articles on a blog titled Vivid Random Existence. I am interested in reading those articles, but it appears that the site was taken down. Last year, someone asked what happened to the site, and nobody had an answer at the time. User /u/Battlecrops suggested viewing the archive on the Wayback Machine, although that is now also unavailable. However, I did find what appears to be a copy of one (and only one) of the articles on another site.
Anyway, since the post from last year is archived and I can't comment on it, I'll ask my questions here:
1) Are there copies of the articles on this site available?
2) Out of curiosity, does anyone know why the site was taken down (and apparently also removed from archive.org)?
3) What other reading material would you most recommend? I am interested in any intelligent discourse on the subject. It doesn't necessarily need to be confined to ethics.
Thank you for your time!
May I ask why you feel the need to search for more of this stuff? Basically, the text you linked is condensed from many other texts that are out there. It only parrots all of the arguments some "zoo activists" wasted their time on inventing, it also simplifies things tremenduously, just look at the paragraph dividing "zoosexuals" from sadists, but the term "zoosexual" only determines that somebody is sexually interested in animals, it doesn´t determine motives and attitudes. Saying that "zoosexuals" love and care for the animals is just plain wrong...it´s like saying that all hetero-/bi-/homosexuals love their partners...well, that´s just rubbish as many of the heteros, bis and homosexuals do practice sex without love. Same goes for "zoosexuals".
I´d strongly recommend to ask questions here; it generally is more beneficial to talk to people instead of relying on something that has been scribbled down by someone who might not even have actual experience with animals. If you really want to gain more insight, get involved in here. Ask, discuss and draw your OWN conclusions from what actual zoos might have to say. Texts like the one you linked all have a big flaw: they´re just static texts! They paint a picture that very seldom includes reality. You´re welcome to share your thoughts , drop your questions and discuss anything with us here.
no. Thats like saying there are no heterosexuals that love each other, or no homosexuals that love each other etc.
stop trying to make your definition of the terms the definition of the terms.
Well, you folks did exactly what you accuse me of doing...you just redefined zoophilia without caring about those who invented that term. So, you can do it, but I can`t?
"Zoosexuality" says NOTHING about emotional involvement, it just, as homo-, bi- and heterosexuality, defines what "makes you hard/wet". "Zoosexuality" includes ANY form of having sex with an animal, even so called "zoo" sadists are by definition "zoosexuals".
Stop repeating untrue and silly shit like it is the truth. Don´t sell me shit and call it pizza,dude. Hani Miletski proposed the term of "zoosexuality" as a VALUE NEUTRAL term...in the same way hetero-,bi- and homosexuality is a VALUE NEUTRAL term. Even a rapist is considered a hetero-, bi- or homosexual, depending on the "objects" of his/her desire. It isn´t me who makes up "new" terms to fit into the self image, it´s you folks who do that.
Words are always changing. The majority has always been what defines a term, not the person who invented it. You seem to struggle with this reality. I told you earlier that no one/few people use the terms that way anymore, and you rejected that. Well, here you go.
My advice to you is not to worry so much about definitions and focus more about the actual groups themselves.
2 + 2 isn´t 5, no matter how many insist on it being true.
"DO NOT ADJUST YOUR MINDS, IT IS REALITY THAT`S MALFUNCTIONING!"...that seems to be the motto of many "zoophiles". Wearing a tutu and calling yourself a ballet dancer won´t make you the primaballerina of the Bolshoi ballet.
We have arrived at a point in history where the word zoophilia has become a widely accepted synonym for "fucking animals", folks. This is the fault of our community, not that of the outside world.Without a word that clearly separates us zoophles from any other anial fucker, it´s no surprise that we zoophiles are constantly mixed with all sorts of vile and despicable individuals. As long as you keep making up "new" terms", as long as you refuse to use words the way they were intended to be used, nothing will improve...it will worsen instead.
Word's aren't math bro. The reality is that they get redefined regularly (math is constant). Otherwise all of us would likely still be speaking Latin.
I also don't see how the words have anything to do with our current condition. you have yet to convince me that the assault on us is because of some dictionary definition gone awry.
Have you forgotten where I come from? I´m German; for us, words ARE math. ;)
Joking put aside...if you like, I´ll give you the links of some German talkshows from the 90s that were dealing with zoophilia.No one flipped out back then. Back then, the z-word hadn´t the negative connotation it now has due to the 2000 animal porn craze and the massive invasion of beasties calling themselves zoo. Our current condition is a direct consequence of the efforts to hollow out the z-word by bending and flexing the definitions until every dickhead could call himself a "zoo" all of a sudden. The z-word was intended to be a trademark filled with positive connotations, with a reason to trust us, with our zeta rules as something that makes us more calculable for the outside world.
Today, nobody can know who hides behind the term "zoophile"...it could be someone like me who has sworn an oath to respect animals, treat them in the best way possible and abstain from putting his own sexual gratification before the animals´ wellbeing. It also could be someone hiding behind the z-word who gives a flying shit about the animal and ab-/using it as a live sex toy, it also could be someone like Janis Bender, the guy sexually abusing, torturing and kiling dogs for his own amusement. Yu probably have seen pictures of one of his victims, the German Sheperd taped to a table.
Everyone calls himself a zoophile nowadays...and no one has even the slightest idea that using the term without fulfilling all of the requirements and duties of a true zoophile, without obeying the zeta rules is nothing more than backstabbing your own comrades. If WE can´t draw a clear line between zoophiles and abusers, how should society be able to do that? For them, we´re all nothing but animal fuckers....without a word that draws an absolute line, they´re basically right to mix us zoophiles with all the other pervos out there. If you lack exact words for all types of fruits, then no one will be able to tell the difference between a "fruit" (apple) and a "fruit" (orange)...confusion will be complete when you start calling even vegetables "fruit", correct?
A lot of Americans already think Tomatos are a vegetable, so I'm not sure I get the analogy.
I still don't think you will get anywhere fighting definitions. It's a propaganda war we face. People have already decided through the immensely popular (sadly they are such) social media campaigns of groups like anonymous, who have convinced people zoophile = rapist. No exceptions. They go and dig up people who probably wouldn't even care what term you used (along with images from meat markets in Asia, among other things) and claim that that = zoophile. It doesn't matter if you "push out" the people who do that, that propaganda sells and those antis will always plaster those images on the internet with the word "zoophile" attatched to it, sharing it with a wider audience than you despite your best efforts. Quite frankly, you are wasting your breath.
Our best bet IMO is a strong counter propaganda campaign... Maybe for "true zoophiia" or something. There's even a sub for this, /r/rzooprop, but I am not a member as my artistic talents are pisspoor and I don't have the time. But I agree with it in concept.
He's right tho.
Zoosexuality =/= zoophilia
technically yes, but the way we use the two at the moment makes it seem like they're pretty interchangeable. I'd like to hear what your definitions of the two words are.
To me, zoophilia is nothing but (abnormally) keen interest or deep love for animals. Zoosexuality/Zooerasty is sexual interest of any sort for animals. The two exist very independently from each other.
yeah I get what youre saying, and thats what they should mean, but heterosexuals dont go round saying theyre a heterosexual and a heterophile. Its assumed that what theyre sexually attracted to is also what theyre romantically attracted to.
Using that line of reasoning is why when someone says theyre a zoosexual i also assume they like animals romantically. the two arent mutually exclusive in my opinion.
Yup. But heterosexual people also don't have to defend their orientation to a bunch of people who claim their partner cannot consent. Two hetero people can do whatever they want as long as the two of them consent to it. Regardless of emotions or romantic attraction or whatever. They are still hetero.
Zoophiles however have to prove that they do the acts out of love and care for the animal's well-being. Otherwise, what is already a gray areas gets even more ambiguous. I don't think it's fair to assume all zoosexual people like animals romantically.
No.Just no. A bestialist is also a "zoosexual", yet he /she isn´t romantically attracted to animals at all.
A male hetero rapist isn´t romantically attracted to women, still he is heterosexual. There´s a difference between sexual and romantical attraction.
The more vagueness you guys try to introduce into the play, the more our chances diminuish to communicate the differences between someone who fucks animals solely for the "fun" part and a zoophile who is per definition the FRIEND (hó phìlos, greek = friend) of animals and is also romantically attracted to them.
And all of that for your selfish needs to be able calling yourself a "zoo"....
Hi! I do expect that there will be a lot of redundant content spread across different sources, but I also expect that different individuals who speak about zoophilia will have slightly different perspectives and backgrounds, and that they won't agree on everything. Understanding where these differences arise is valuable to the goal of forming a better understanding of zoophilia as a whole. That's why I wouldn't want to get all of my information from one source. The terminology being discussed in this comment thread is a good small-scale example: One of the things that has been unclear to me was when it was appropriate to use the term "zoophilia" vs. "zoosexual", so it's rather interesting to see that not everyone agrees on their definitions even in this community!
I appreciate the welcome and the invitation to ask more questions in here!
That's a real shame it's gone from the Wayback Machine, I kept meaning to save it but kept forgetting and now it's gone :( Really sad. I enjoyed reading his blog. If anyone does have any copies of any of the material, I'd be really interested too. Especially to keep in my ongoing collection of zoo articles/resources.
Speaking of, you might be interested in the resources tag on my blog if you're looking for reading or articles about zoosexuality/bestiality. I like professional research articles myself, and have posted some in that tag. Also some news articles, interviews with zoos, articles written by zoos themselves, etc.
Hey there! It looks like you have a pretty good collection of content. Thanks for the suggestions! I've bookmarked your blog. :)
By the way, I just noticed your survey results. This is very fascinating! Good on you for taking the initiative to collect data.
I have a collection of articles on my computer, I think I've posted most of them to my blog but I'll go through and double check. If you'd be interested in PDF files I can upload them. I got most of them from posts on the Cultureghost forums before it went down.
Thanks!! I'd never done a project that big before, it ended up being a lot more popular than I thought it would and I'm glad I got so many responses. It took a lot of time and I wish I could've found a way to organize it better, but lots of people have been really interested in the results so I'm glad it turned out! And I'm glad you liked reading through them too. Maybe someday if I get a ton of free time and energy I can do a revised version!
I will gladly take whatever you have! :)
I was very pleased to find that the survey addressed many of the questions I had. Given the popularity of your results, I think that if you ever ran another one, you could get a lot more participation as well!
One topic I was curious about that wasn't covered was legality in the participant's area of residence. How much does the law deter zoos from having human-animal sex in areas where it is illegal? How many zoos specifically choose to live in areas where such acts are legal? It might also be interesting to ask participants from the United States which state they live in.