Hi there. Just letting you know off the bat that I am not a zoophile. I come here seeking a honest discussion and will try my best to keep an open mind... A good friend of mine "came out" to me a few days ago and I am still trying to process what happened. I always prided myself on being an open minded person, so I am trying to seek understanding and make sense of this.
We were hanging out at my place, playing video games and watching netflix like we sometimes do. We always drink beer together, but that night I noticed him getting more drunk than usual. At one point he asked me if we could talk and have a serious conversation. To be honest, my mind immediately jumped to the thought that he was going to tell me he was gay. He has never been with a girl in all the time I have known him. He kept telling me not to judge him and that it was really hard for him to tell me. At one point I jokingly said something like "Christ, is it still such a big deal to be gay in 2016?" But he told me he was not gay. He told me he "liked" dogs, but in a sexual way. He explained how he’s been like that for quite some time and was afraid to tell anybody and how he needed to not let it be a secret anymore. I did not believe what I was hearing at first. I told him to stop joking and he got really quiet. I think I hurt him and it was clear what he said really came from the heart.
The rest of the night was really silent and awkward. I realize now this was not the best way to react. He came out to me for a reason. But I didn’t have the time to process the information he gave me. This was all so bizarre to me. I guess he sought support, but I just didn’t know what to say in the moment. It didn't help that I was a bit tipsy myself.
I just don’t understand how somebody can be attracted to another species. I love my friend, I love hanging out with him and all the deep conversations we have. He’s a smart and fun guy… But it just makes no sense to me. Truth be told, I am very uncomfortable with this information. We used to text each other almost everyday but now it’s been almost a week since the incident and we haven’t talked once.
I'm not really sure what I am even trying to accomplish with this post… I did not know what I expected to find when I typed in "zoophilia" in google but somehow I managed to find this place. I read a few posts here and it’s clear my friend isn’t alone in this situation. I don’t think my friend has ever had sex with a dog, but there are some people here who do… Why animals?...
Edit: It did not even occur to me that my friend could be active in here before posting this. If this is the case, I'm sorry... But I am doing this in your best interest, really.
Do you crap what he eats? If he's not hurting you, then why should you care?
I care because he's my friend. I care because he opened up to me with something I assume he has never told anyone else.
I'm just trying to understand why. I want to help him. I don't think he is well in this situation.
Is he unhappy?
He isn't the most expressive of guys, to say the least... He tends to be very private most of the time. But he does know how to laugh and have a good time every now and again. But when he told me these things, he was at the opposite of how I ever saw him.
I don't mean this as a guilt-trip, but as a potential explanation of his apparent state at the time.....have you considered that how you saw him may have been more a reflection of how he felt from your reaction than how he felt about what was said?
Maybe...
People like to pretend that we've moved past the whole 'judging people based on their sexual orientation/gender expression' thing, but realistically (as your attitude reflects) the list of 'acceptable' ways to act in progressive circles has just expanded a little bit to include most of the LGBT crowd. Many people who don't fit into those categories, zoophiles included, are constantly demonized and dehumanized by pretty much everyone and everything.
It's hard to build up a positive and healthy self-image when the only public conversation surrounding your sexuality consists of talking about how people like you are dangerously mentally ill or deserve to be imprisoned and harmed/killed. So it makes sense that this guy, who's probably been struggling to come to terms with his sexuality and how he fits into the world for a long time, is going to want to start reaching out to people he trusts to talk about this stuff.
Unfortunately, it seems like at least one of the people he trusted decided to push him away to avoid thinking about things that makes them 'uncomfortable' instead of trying to muster a little empathy to actually talk about how he feels and what he's been going through.
gasp! How shocking that someone would want to be intimate with the ones they're romantically attracted to! What a completely alien and non-relatable idea!
Do you think your friend hasn't been asking himself 'why?' for years and years of his life? There isn't a satisfying answer.
Look, you don't have to be friends with him anymore and you shouldn't be if this is how you treat him. If it makes you feel any better, most people wouldn't think less of you for cutting a friend out of your life who admitted they were sexually attracted to animals.
I think you are being a bit harsh here. When I made a comment about him being gay, it was to diffuse the tension. I said in the OP it was jokingly. I just wanted to let him know that it wasn't a big deal with me. His actual coming out left me in a bit of shock, I'll admit. I apologize if I sound "demonizing" to you, but you can't really expect me to know how to react when a friend you had for years tells you he wants to screw dogs.
And do you think I don't feel bad about what I did? I know I hurt him. But what do you want me to say? What if he regrets what he told me? I won't be the one to bring that subject back up again....
Well it is pretty fucking alien and non-relatable idea. I love my dog to bits, but I would never, EVER consider doing anything sexual with him. Different strokes for different folks, I guess... But you have to understand that yes, this is a pretty far fetched concept for most of us.
Honestly, if everyone who would "treat" him like I do with this knowledge should cut off contact with him, I think he wouldn't any friends (or even family) left. My only crime was to not know how to deal with the situation. Some people would probably report him to the authorities.
Screwing animals or even be "romantically attracted" to them can't be healthy... It certainly is not legal and not condoned anywhere in society. But I am willing to keep an open mind for his sake. I want to do my best to understand and help my friend. But I am certainly not going to encourage him. I am here to seek perspective.
I don't think I'm being too harsh-- your posts on the topic and especially your response here makes it sound like you don't value this guy as a person or your friendship with him at all.
Him being gay wouldn't be a big deal, but apparently him being a zoophile is. You're not the one demonizing zoophiles, since it doesn't sound like you've said anything to him on the topic. But you're also not the one who supported your friend when he tried to talk to you about a part of himself he has to keep secret for his own safety and wellbeing.
You say you feel bad about making him (probably) feel alienated, alone, or ashamed, but you're not even willing to consider bringing the issue again so that you can work towards resolving it? How can you even pretend you're actually friends with this person?
You've completely missed my point. Yes, the way you think about your dog is different than the way he thinks of dogs. That doesn't justify you dismissing his sexuality as unhealthy or whatever.
Many straight people would never consider doing anything sexual with someone of the same gender as them. So (assuming you're straight) why isn't homosexuality a far fetched, alien, or non-relatable idea? Why will you do the legwork to empathize with how gay people feel and are treated, but refuse to do the same when your friend admits he has a different sexuality?
Yes-- if everyone he came out to acted like you did, he probably wouldn't have much left at all. That's why most zoos never come out to anyone they know in person. How is this a justification for your actions, again? What are you trying to accomplish here? I already told you that you shouldn't feel bad about cutting off your friendship with this person, as much as it would suck for him. If the best you can come up with is 'well at least I didn't get him arrested' then you seriously need to take a step back and look at what you're actually doing here.
Yeah, just walk away from this 'friend' of yours. The fact that you can say 'I want to keep an open mind' in the same breath as putting scare quotes around 'romantically attracted to animals' is extremely telling. You want to think of yourself as being open minded, but when push comes to shove you're not even trying to understand how this guy feels or what he's going through.
I think you interpret everything I say just to show me in a bad light. I don't have to defend myself or my friendship with this guy to you.
I think the last thing I want to do is confront him again with this subject if he is beating himself over having told me, ESPECIALLY if I don't have new perspectives to build my ideas on. This is why I am here.
Because gay people are PEOPLE. No, I don't feel attraction to other men, but I definitely understand people who have that attraction. They are humans attracted to other humans. And it does not bother me on bit that two consenting adult men or women choose to have a sexual relationship. But animals can't consent to sex which makes things a bit... non-relatable. You can spin this any way you want it just isn't the same.
Maybe you haven't understood that detail, but I am still this guy's friend. You are the one who insists on me giving up my friendship with him for whatever reason. I am trying to gain new perspectives. I am trying to keep an open mind. I want to help him... But you can't just expect me to go to him and just tell him "Hey, just go screw dogs man, I don't care!" There is more than one reason why this isn't like being gay.
Why do you even think I'm even here? Stop projecting your own experiences man...
This is absolutely true-- you know more about the relationship between you two than I ever will, and are in a better position to make informed decisions about the best way to maintain your relationship with him than me. But if you're coming here to try to get a zoophile's perspective on your behavior, I'm not going to pull punches to spare your feelings-- I'm coming from a place where I care much more about your friends' wellbeing than yours, since he's in a significantly more vulnerable position.
What are the new perspectives you've gained by posting here? I'm genuinely curious-- you keep saying you're trying to keep an open mind and view things through a different perspective, but I feel like I haven't seen you actually attempting to do that in any of your comments on this post.
You're right-- it's not the same. Animals can't ever explicitly consent to sex. They can't explicitly communicate anything, actually.
All the same, though, animals and humans tend to get along pretty well (dogs especially). I'm sure you've experienced your dogs getting excited when they think they're about to go on a walk, or perking up and expressing interest when offered a treat, or begging for food when they're hungry, or acting wary of an unfamiliar stranger in their space, or doing everything in their power to avoid something they dislike (e.g. a bath) that they know is coming, and so on.
In all of those cases, we read the dogs' behavioral cues and use them to discern how the dog is feeling or thinking so that we can act in a way that keeps the dogs happy (or at least clean, in the bath case). So why is it suddenly reprehensible or unconscionable to do exactly the same thing in a sexual situation?
Let's say you're someone who's been raised in a conservative christian environment. One of your friends comes out to you as gay with some difficulty. You're shocked and don't know how to respond-- after all, common knowledge is that engaging in homosexual acts is a mortal sin, and your friend has just expressed an interest in doing just that! You push him away for a few weeks as you think about this development. Finally, you realize that you miss hanging out with your friend the way you used to-- so you get in touch with him and tell him that even though you still thing being gay is immoral and disgusting, you're willing to look past that so that you two can keep hanging out... as long as he doesn't talk about any of that gay stuff around you or anything.
Do you think it would be best for your friend, in this case, to reconnect with you? Or would he be better off finding friends around whom he can more freely express himself, rather than continue to pretend to be someone he's not? How is this situation different than the one you're in?
Well I haven't gained a whole lot from this thread alone. But from my conversation with my friend and the few post I read here and I learned that zoophiles don't do it out of desperation, they like to feel a connection to the animals, they don't feel like they have a choice and they don't feel like they are doing anything wrong.
An animal cannot leave an abusive relationship by his own free will. I'm not saying all relationships like that are abusive by default. But if they are, animals cannot emancipate themselves.
I think he is best to stay my friend... I don't he'll find a lot of people who'll allow him to express himself more freely about these things. His situation is different from mine because he has strong desires to do something illegal and arguably immoral (I said arguably).
You're right-- there's inherently a huge power imbalance in any owner/pet dynamic. And, like you said, the animal doesn't have the ability to remove itself from abusive situations.
Not all abuse is sexual in nature, though. For example, it's possible that you physically abuse your dogs-- I'm not saying all pet owners like that are abusive by default. But if they are, animals cannot emancipate themselves.
So why is it morally acceptable for you to own pets?
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough with my last question-- I was asking about your thoughts on the hypothetical gay-coming-out scenario I described so that you could compare them to your actions towards your friend in real life.
What's more important to me is that attraction occurs between a male and a female. So according to my view of love/sex/romance, heterosexual bestiality is a lot more relatable to me and makes a lot more sense than homosexuality. Nonhuman animals exist as males and females.
What the actual fuck.
Don't worry, frankly, ursusem's view on that confuses us all.
And why should that be surprising? LGBT issues are discussed very publicly. Everyone has heard about it and thought about it to some degree. Zoophilia is still very taboo. OP most likely has barely ever heard about it and most likely has never put any deeper thought towards it.
We people here share some common experiences, at least to some parts. For me zoophilia in some form or the other has been on my mind for well over ten years now. OP had to first consider it for not even a week. What can you honestly expect?
Consider the many stories of zoophiles who started out with hating even themselves and struggling until they learn acceptance. And then consider how you expect "outsiders" to immediately go to the acceptance state...
I suggest that you don't assume malice, but that it's just a very alien concept to people and that it may take some time to accept it.
Yeah, you're right. I don't think I did a very good job of expressing what I was going for there-- I was trying to express how OP's reaction could have been hurtful or demeaning to his friend, to show how his 'understanding, accepting friend' story wasn't matching up with the reality of the situation. It's not really surprising or inherently bad that that was his initial reaction.
this is what we're up against (among other things).
people who harm animals are mentally unwell, but what you need to understand is that zoophiles do not seek to harm animals with their romantic and/or sexual advances, and that such advances are not automatically harmful just by their nature. it would also help to understand that non-humans have the same desires to give and receive sexual attention/gratification (especially if left whole instead of being "fixed").
no. you absolutely have to. he needs to understand that you're struggling with the information that he gave you, but that you still care .. because clearly you do if you're here trying to learn something (and i sincerely hope you do learn things here and take them to heart). even if all you tell him is "i'm sorry for my silence, but i'm trying to find a way to respond to what you said", that would probably be a big help. keep in mind that he may have been more hurt by your response than you realize. what if he was on the edge of suicidal?
Yeah I guess. But that does not make it right.
I'll probably say something along those lines, yeah.
Thanks.
And what specifically about it makes it wrong? You don't understand it, that's OK, but that doesn't make it wrong. As has been stated by others, non-human animals have the same urges and desires we do. I'm not trying to downplay any of the potential issues, and there are many, but just because you can beat your wife doesn't mean that you do. It seems to me that you haven't yet stopped to see non-humans as anything but furry objects with no depth of character or desires.
Animals cannot consent to sex.
That is one of the biggest topics of debate in our community. Any zoo (and more biologists) would beg to differ. Animals (human's included) can and do consent to sexual contact and actively reject unwanted advances.
Sexual reproduction isn't some magical, spiritual process...it's as biological as eating a bowl of cereal (or kibble :) )
In my considered opinion, this idea in general (the idea of informed consent standards applying to non-human actors, and human interaction with them) is shaky and doesn't stand up to real scrutiny no matter how you approach it. Until modern society makes heads and tails of this notion, a point which frankly is a long way away, I think applying it to make important moral judgements about people close to you is not the best idea.
This is something that we have to think about as a necessity, while mostly everybody else can go live their lives without really caring. I challenge you to take a walk in our shoes and seriously consider what you've said here and - most importantly - what it all means. Nothing may change for you, but I would encourage you to at least try.
Why so?
I can imagine what the situation is like for you people, sure. But even if I can empathize with you, it still won't make me change my mind that sex with animals is fundamentally wrong. It's an abuse of the power imbalance of a pet/owner relationship plus an abuse of the animal's consent.
I can also walk in the shoes of pedophiles... even if I can empathize with them (and let me tell you I do) I will never condone what they do. Children cannot understand the consequences of sex, children can be victims to unfair imbalances of power that coerce or manipulate them into having sex, children don't have the authority to emancipate themselves from an abusive relationship... therefore children can't consent to sex. In my view it's exactly the same for animals really.
Primarily because the reasons we require informed consent are due to sexual consequences (STDs, pregnancy, etc), nearly none of which exist with an animal.
I don't agree that only the consequences of sexual acts are why the ability to consent is important.
Notice I used the term "informed" consent. As in, understanding of the consequences. I believe consent is very important but that's not what I was getting at as I believe animals can cover that with mere body language.
animals are not children. when they reach the age of sexual maturity, surprise! they have sexual desires. just because their cognition isn't as complex as ours doesn't mean they can't knowingly, willingly, enthusiastically and emphatically elicit sex from a human.
so when animals mate, it's rape, right? if they can't consent to sex, it must be.
This passive aggressive shit won´t get us anywhere...
And guess what...animals rape each other sometimes. Sometimes they don´t. It depends on the individuals involved, not on a bland generalisation. A stallion can have consentual sex with a mare, he also can enforce himself onto her. Both is possible and happens every fucking day. I also can´t see a point in throwing analogies at outsiders that won´t last longer than a snowball in hell. Animals fuck their offspring, so let´s allow incest. Animals rape infant animals, so let´s legalize kiddie sex. Animals kill other animals, so let´s make murder legal.
We all should really abstain from this consent BS...consent (e.g. informed consent) is a human concept that won´t ever be appliable to animals. And yet, no one ever had the idea to ask whether humans can really consent. Informed consent is a result of free will...and free will is something humans don´t have according to the newer results of many scientists. I would recommend tackling the consent argument with questioning how much of the concept of informed consent actually holds any truth and isn´t a result of genetical and environmental factors. Is the "yes" from your human counterpart really based on free will and choice? Or is it only a hallucination humans build up to make all the genetical and environmental factors more bearable, more tolerable that accepting that humans are far more influenced by things they don´t understand properly and cannot influence themselves?
Two animals mating isn't the same as a human having sex with an animal....
the point is they're able to show consent to others of their own species. all one has to do is learn how they communicate this and watch for such communication directed at humans.
What's the difference? Humans are just another species of mammal.
Humans also have reason.
Animals have reason as well to an extent. Their reason is they are horny. Why do they need more when consequences usually associated with sex are absent?
I meant "reason" as the cognitive process.
I know you did. My question is why we need that?
How do you define this reason?
Other species too are able to remember, learn, use tools, communicate and have social networks. And some things humans do are purely instinctive, and don't need reason. Humans are animals.
Remember that humans have always tried to make themselves out to be best, the most unique. This is called anthropocentrism, and is not particularly scientific.
They certainly can and do all the time; most anytime animals copulate, they're consenting to the action as it (typically) requires cooperation from both parties. If this idea of informed consent is what you're after, you have to realize that most humans aren't fully cognizant of all the ramifications of sex. Most people who have children did not plan for them, pregnancy just happend as a result of instinct.
However, since we're on the issue of consent, how do you feel about atrifical insemination? Do you think we need to get Fido's consent to neuter? How about petting? Do you feel that Fido can or cannot consent to some simple affection? What about a trip to the vet, which Fido may vehemently express a strong do not want, yet still he goes. Why does consent only seem to matter when it's pleasurable?
I disagree with some of these things (artificial insemination for instance) but the rest of them are really legitimate things to do with an animal. Having sex with an animal isn't a legitimate thing. It's an abuse of the trust and power you have over an animal. Whether or not it's pleasurable really isn't the crux of the issue here.
So you admit that consent isn't a concern as you happily accept that Fido's feelings on the matter are unimportant.
You balk at sex because it's an abuse of trust and power, yet you're fine with neutering and other actiivities Fido doesn't want because that's apparently not an abuse of trust or power. Your reasoning is inconsistent.
How about eating meat? Is it OK to kill and eat them, but not to try to give them sexual pleasure?
I'm just going to copy paste what I said to another guy:
Same goes for meat. I don't condone the meat industry. However cattle has been made by humans to be eaten. It's terrible but it's how it is. Do you seriously see cows or pigs surviving in the wild? Their "social contract" includes their safety and health and the price they have to pay at the end is becoming steak. Again eating cattle is a legitimate use for the animal. There are problems inherent to the practice but it's still legitimate. Screwing a dog is not. And like I said elsewhere too, one form of abuse does not justify all other forms.
damn right it's hypocrisy.
you think any animal would consent to that "contract"?
you say it's about consent, then you throw that out when anyone mentions they want to have sex with an animal.
no. it's the sex you can't handle and you don't give a shit about consent.
Yes. If animals did not consent to the contract, domestication would have never taken place.
It's the ABUSE I can't handle. The ABUSE of the contract. You act in your own self-interest. YOU are the one who doesn't give a shit about consent. YOU are the one who claims to love animals more than everything, yet YOU are the one who abuses that relationship for your own gratification.
I'm pretty sure if they thought their domestication would result in what they had today, wild wolves would've ran for the hills.
Please see my other comments re the "abuse" of the contract. I believe we are fulfilling the very contract you claim we abuse.
I know you mean well here. But it must seem like a swarm at this point, and be frustrating. If you want more one on one advice about your friend that spawned this, feel free to PM me.
Yeah no. Wild wolves are the one who came to early humans because it was more convenient for them to forsake some of their instinct and cooperate with humans. These animals became the dogs we have today.
I'm afraid that's probably more myth than reality.
Wild wolves were likely initially trapped and captive bred to what we have today. It was a very controlled process. If you don't believe me, I can supply some articles, but I think google should help you there.
My big issue with this is that you get to define what is "legitimate use" How is sexual gratification not a legitimate use but meat and or the pleasure of their company is? Especially if both parties enjoy it?
It seems rather arbitrary to me.
I don't think most of us view it as abuse in even the slightest sense. We're just humoring your argument that it could be.
Just breed some dogs specifically for having sex with them. Maybe call them sexdogs.
See how easy it is to make it "legitimate"?
nice. :)
I could quote my previous comment. Dogs were made for companionship or work. Cows were made for milk and meat etc... No animal was made for screwing.
I'm not saying that is is right to milk cows or kill them for their meat or force dogs to be at your side. What I am saying is that these are the terms of their contract. We assure their safety and health, they provide us with what we made them for.
If you're not happy with the contract, then fine. Release all cows into the nature and within 2 months that entire branch of the bovine race will go extinct. Why? Because they are not made to be outside of the contract. Same goes for dogs, to a different extent.
You had a relation with what I can only assume is a wild animal, so really. Props to you I guess. It wouldn't make sense to say the same thing in your case. But for people with dogs and horses and other domesticated animal, it is an abuse of their function in society.
I would argue, somewhat correctly I'm afraid from a biological standpoint, that every animal (or at least, mammal) is made for screwing.
That said, it doesn't matter what they are made for because that's arbitrary. Many people buy hunting dogs with no intention to hunt, to use them as companions. Companionship itself is arbitrary and artificial. Most everything with animals is. My point is why do you get to set the table for what is acceptable and what is not? It makes the argument rather unfair and from a philosophical standpoint, makes no sense.
No, really I am owed no props. No more than anyone that fell in love. She was not a notch on the bedpost, she was a friend. And yes, a little more. But only a little.
She was not wild in the conventional sense. She was a many generations tame doe in a "no hunting" zone that had learned to take food handouts. I never made a sexual advance on her though, it started as innocent feeding and I got to liking her company. That was the core of it, and when a doe gets horny, well, she shows it. That's what animals do.
How sure are you about that? What about the pervasive assertions about what "lap dogs" have often been "used" for?
that's interesting...
Wow, that is very interesting and frankly disturbing.
No. "neutering and other actiivities Fido doesn't want" are done with the best interest of Fido at heart. I'm not sure you could argue the same for sex.
Suppose Fido understands the issue of overpopulation and actually agrees he should not have puppies. Do you think Fido would choose a vasectomy or a full castration if you gave him the choice?
A vasectomy, obviously...
Yeah, you got me with this one I admit. I was tempted to answer "castration" because it also helps with behavior and reduces sex drive, but these two things are obviously done in the interest of the human master, not the animal.
I came out to some people, and I want to tell you this right now.
The thing that hurt me more than anything wasn't that they had a negative reaction at first - I understand that it's shocking, and it takes a little bit to get used to the idea. No, what hurt me the most was that they then never brought the subject up and asked questions.
It took a LOT of courage to talk about it once. It would have helped me a lot if the person I came out to DID bring up the topic themselves. The worst thing you can do when someone tries to bring information out into the open is to act like it wasn't.
What I think you should do, honestly, is think about this issue. Come up with a few good, insightful questions. Things you really want to know about. Sit down with your friend, and ask him those questions.
Ask him some of the things you're asking us. Ask him what he finds attractive about dogs. Ask him about his life plans - does he intend to have a monogamous relationship at some point? Or is he fine with multiple lovers? Are there other species he's attracted to?
Again, the thing that I cannot stress enough is that if you refuse to bring up the topic yourself, you will, I think, hurt him further. This is an important aspect of himself. If you care about him, have at least that kindness, because for how difficult it might seem to you to broach this subject with him, know that it was a hundred times harder for him to do so.
Ok, I will keep this in mind...
Thank you!
this is not a helpful response to someone who came here trying to find a way to understand what his friend is going through.
Why not? I specifically tried to emphasize how OP's treatment of their friend could be harmful, as well as describing some of the difficulties associated with identifying as a zoophile.
ok. clearly i was wrong about this guy, and i apologize. i still maintain that trying to remain civil and polite would help if whoever came in here asking questions legitmately and honestly DID intend to try to understand us... but that no longer seems to be the case here...
No need to apologize! I agree that I should have been kinder in my comments, but I still think the stuff I brought up started some useful discussions.
Unfortunately, this place is getting to be as pissy and misanthropic as beastforum... it is becoming a seriously bad advertisement for zoos.
I speak as someone who has been around the scene and around this reddit for a while but am posting under a different nic for "administrative" reasons (no I am not banned or anything).
Hey, OP. I came into this subreddit to help myself, but it seems like it's now time to help others. I can't speak for your friend and his experiences, but what i do know is that this is not a choice. I realized I had these attractions a few years ago, and I was absolutely DISGUSTED with myself. I know it's wrong, and I know it is never going to be accepted, but I just couldn't change it. While you obviously and understandably may not agree with how he feels, please understand that he doesn't have a choice in this matter. Chances are, he probably feels alone and perhaps even is hating himself over it. What I suggest is reaching out to him, and letting him know that you are aware that he isn't in control of such feelings.
Thank you for your insight. I figured it was not by choice, like any other orientation. I also suspect he beats himself over it. I will try reaching out to him. I just don't want to make matters even worse.
You should only reach out to him if you're willing to listen to what he says and try to understand how he's feeling without letting your preconceived notions of what's acceptable get in the way. If you really want to be a positive force in his life, that's the first thing you need to focus on-- the way you've been talking about your friend in this thread makes me think that you're not there yet.
why blondes? why brunettes? why dark skin? fair skin? or any of countless other attributes that people find themselves attracted to?
some people's attraction steps outside of the boundary of normal. normal doesn't exist without outlying data points.
Because they are humans. No matter what physical attribute or even gender "normal" people find themselves attracted to, they are still attracted to humans. This is nowhere near being in the same ballpark.
This would have been a common view of homosexuality in the past, but now would be viewed as an extremely homophobic and exclusionary way of thinking.
Why are the moral goalposts you've set up any more valid than those of the homophobes from the past?
Sorry for the slippery slope, but where does this end? Ok yeah. This way of thinking was a problem for homosexuals in the past (in some cultures). Now it's a problem for zoophiles. The reason why the moral goalposts are more valid is that animals cannot consent to sexual activity with humans. The perception of society really is not what is at fault here.
I'll go back to what I said before, then:
Animals can't consent to sex, you're right. But they can't consent to anything else we do to them either-- so what makes sex so special that it absolutely requires their explicit consent?
Sex is a bit more... invasive than going on a walk with your dog.
There's plenty more involved in dog ownership than walking the dog-- many dogs really don't enjoy being given baths, having their nails clipped, being taken to the vet (which can involved procedures just as invasive as sex)...
So why is it okay to physically force the animals to allow those things to be done to them for their own good, but it's not okay to have sex with an animal who does enjoy it?
Because it's for their own good?
Because you just assume he enjoys it. Like I said earlier, a dog doesn't have the capacity to emancipate himself from a relationship of abuse. All he knows is to love and trust his owner and his owner abuses of that very same love and trust to have a sexual relationship with him.
Alright-- so you're saying sexual relationships with animals are immoral because in the case that an animal is forced into engaging in sexual acts it doesn't enjoy, the animal doesn't have the ability to remove itself from that situation.
But why does that line of thinking only apply to sexual relationships? If you apply the same reasoning to normal pet ownership, you could say that pet ownership is immoral because in the case than an animal is abused or neglected by their owner in any way, the animal doesn't have the ability to remove itself from that situation.
So, again, why is it acceptable for you to own a dog, but it's not acceptable for someone to be in a mutually enjoyable sexual relationship with a dog?
All abuse and neglect is immoral. I'm not sure I understand why if one form of abuse is acceptable then all other forms become acceptable as well.
Dogs were made by man to be owned. When you own a dog he enters some sort of social contract with you. Of course you will probably be quick to point out the hypocrisy since entering that contract his also is beyond the consent of the animal... The thing is that this contract of sorts is done in the best interest of the animal. The dog is housed, fed, watered, protected and kept healty at the expense of some of his freedom. The alternative is a dog that maintains his freedom but has to fend for himself in terrible conditions. When you, the owner, decide to abuse this contract, you abuse your pets. You are no longer doing things in the best interest of your dog, but for your OWN.
Neutering is not really in the dog's best interest, but for the owners convienience of not having to deal with unwanted puppies. They could watch them 24/7 but no one wants to do that, right?
We do all kinds of things to animals that may not be in their best interest, but that's not even what's going on here. Animals have sexual desires too. You could argue you are sating them and that IS in the animals best interest. That was certainly true for me.
Man, I just feel like we're talking past each other.
No forms of abuse are acceptable. Read my post again, or find a different way to state your objection to it-- it seems like you're assuming that all sexual relationships with animals are inherently abusive, which is not the case.
...so dogs can't consent to sex, but they can totally consent to this implicit social contract that just happens to perfectly match up with how you think owner/pet relationships should be conducted? Why can't that social contract also include sexual acts that both parties are interested in and enthusiastic about? Why is that inherently against the dog's best interests, other than the fact that you think it's gross and wrong?
Look, it's totally okay that you're uncomfortable with bestiality. Many people are. But basically grasping at straws to try to reason out a worldview that justifies your feelings is not a very productive way to approach difficult topics like these.
If you actually want to work on understanding and supporting your friend, you need to acknowledge both that you're uncomfortable with his sexuality, and that it's possible for him to express it in a non-harmful way. Communicate those things to him and let him know you're willing to talk and listen to him, and you two can probably move forward in a productive way.
I'll say it again, though: If you don't think you can handle something like that, it's best for him if you just leave him alone. I think having someone like you as a close friend when I was coming to terms with my sexuality would have done much more harm than good.
I'm sorry but what zoophiles are doing is PRECISELY "grasping at straws" to "justify their feelings".
And why is that inherently in the dog's best interest, other than the fact that you think it's pleasurable and right?
This is almost ridiculous. You speak as if you had the moral high ground. You don't actually want an argument, you just assume you are correct from the get go.
And why on earth should I have to acknowledge that? Because "animals like it so it makes it ok?" Of course don't bother to humor me with actual facts to back this up or anything, I just have to take your word for it I guess. After all, as a dogfucker, you have been enlightened with ultimate knowledge of animals and your word is absolute gold! Who cares if the vet reports you to the SPCA after your dog has made a dozen UTIs, you are still in the right! Screw animal health experts, screw 99% of the human population who thinks you are wrong, it is YOU and YOU alone who is right!
I think what will do more harm than good is encouraging my friend down this path. At this point there is a little voice in my head that almost urges me to tell his parents so he might get some serious help.
As someone who has had this done, don't. That's all I can tell you. Don't. It nearly killed me and it certainly destroyed what little hope I had in life. It will not help your friend. Even doctors acknowledge there is no treatment. They will most likely lock him up, for good, and his life will be hell. Do you want that on your conscience?
At least talk to him first. Do him that favor. Let him defend himself. Don't take our words for it. Take his.
As far as proof of consent, well, I almost don't want to say this but there is some I have. PM me if you want it... I'll describe it in more detail before I do anything. It's completely opt-outable, but if you want it, it does exist.
Why don't YOU enlighten us with your knowledge about these things? Who said that this happens and what data is it based on?
Your "made by man for purpose X" argument is silly to me.
Say that I found a human partner, and we agreed that we really wanted to eat some baby meat. So we copulated, formed a baby, and ate it.
Would that make it morally correct? The baby was made by us to be eaten, so by your logic, it seems like it would.
This is objectively the worst straw man I have ever seen.
I don't think you understand what a strawman is.
The strawman fallacy is where your position is deliberately misrepresented into an easier-to-defeat version, so that that false version can be defeated, making it seem as though the original argument has been defeated.
What I did just now was to take a consequence of the argument you seemed to be making, present it to you, knowing full well that it was almost certainly not something you'd agree with, with the purpose of getting you to clarify your logic.
It's a variant of reductio ad absurdum, which, I should point out, is not a fallacy.
Now, again, I'm sure you disagree that eating babies is wrong, so let me once more: even in the case where they were made for the express purpose of being eaten, WHY is it wrong, and why does that not apply to animals?
anybody who's seen dogs (for example) mating can see that they're enjoying what's going on. put a human in place of one or the other, and the animal's reaction is much the same.
arguably, it is. religion in particular has told us for centuries that we are more special than "lesser" creatures. it's ingrained, but that doesn't make it correct.
we are not as different from OTHER animals as most people like to believe. not only are animals more capable mentally and emotionally than we give them credit for, but we are more bound by our instincts than we would like to believe.
You say that with some measure of certainty, but how do you know?
Animals can tell eachother when they want to have sex, so your contention must be that they cannot convey sexual desire toward humans in a way we would understand, not that they're incapable.
However, dogs can tell us when they;re hungry, sad, angry, tired, excited, scared, need to go outside, and a whole host of other mental and physical states, but somehow we're supposed to think that conveying sexual desire or acceptance eludes both them and us? Besides, if you don't understand the signals that's fine, but don't go pretending they don't exist.
It is if they're wrong, and I contend they are
TOTALLY missing the point.
people can't explain why they're attracted to what they're attracted to. it's just a preference that they have, most likely acquired through a combination of genetics and experiences in life.
you asked a question .. i answered it the best i could. you didn't like what i said .. you don't have to. but at least think about it.
well I recently came out to one of my buddies in kinda the same circumstances and so it's interesting for me to see how my friends thought processes were, as I'm guessing they were similar to yours.
The best thing you can do is try not to let this knowledge cast a shadow over your friendship. He's still the same guy he was before, but just now you know a bit more about what makes him tick. the last thing he needs is for you to desert him after he confided in you. It sounds like you were the first person he's told so I can tell you that you should feel pretty proud he felt that way towards you. Coming out isnt easy, especially with this secret, but keeping it bottled up is soul destroying. you've done him a favour just witnessing this confession.
My friend had a similar reaction and we just decided to not talk about it. Its out there now and for good or bad it cannot be taken back. If it makes you that uncomfortable just dont bring it up again, not as though it comes up in conversation all that much in the first place.
Finally, being into animals in this way does not mean you are an animal abuser. If he's a well rounded individual I would have no reason to suspect he is/would harm animals in any way.
you've done better than most people by going out and doing some research about it as well. Sounds like your friend made a pretty decent judgement about you :)
Thanks for your insight.
Its a bit hard for me to think of him the same way. I never thought of him as someone who could abuse or harm any animal. But when I'll see him with my dog for instance, there's no doubt I will think about this and wonder about his intentions.
youre doing him a major disservice jumping to the animal abuser line of thinking. chances are, if he was an actual animal abuser (one who harms animals) this wouldn't have been weighing on his conscience so heavily.
I'll try to write a bit more tomorrow in regards to your dog. that does complicate things somewhat IMO.
Oh no, I don't see him as an abuser. I'm sorry if it sounded like I do.
Try to put it into perspective, if another friend were talking to your sister or girlfriend, would you suspect them of the same? If you would, you've got some jealousy issues to consider. He's got an interest you do not share, that doesn't mean he's got an uncontrollable lust to fuck everything with a tail.
He's almost certainly as capable of petting a dog for the simple affections as anyone else as you are of chatting with some man/woman who you have no sexual interest in for the mere enjoyment of their company.
If you're unsure where he draws the line, ask him. Ask him what he would do in X situation and if you're respectful of him, I would expect him to answer you honestly. Just because he's got a thing for dogs doesn't mean he's got a thing for every dog and it also doesn't mean he's some uncontrollable monster, just waiting to grab some dog and sodomize it.
The only thing that has changed is what you know of your friend and how you perceive him. That perception is entirely in your mind and it's quite likely your friend deserves better than you're showing him otherwise why have you been friends up till now?
A friend I had for years just admitted to me his interest in doing something very illegal that I also find a bit disgusting. I'm not sure how else I should have reacted.
No, I don't think he would sodomize everything a tail, but my perception of him will change for sure.
Most responsible zoophiles are safer around animals than those who are not. Few will engage with animals not their own. Still, your line of thinking is not uncommon. It's similar to the thought process of "my friend is gay, does that mean I turn him on? Ewww"
The fact is most responsible human beings won't try to form a relationship with what they know is off limits. I guess what you should be asking is is your friend a responsible human being?
Hm... Yeah, I didn't think of it like that. Still. Him being with my dog will never be the same again even if he is a responsible human being (and I have no doubt that he is.)
I get it. It's weird. Just try to remember him for the person you knew him to be, and not what he does in his bedroom. That's the best gift you can give him now, I think. I wish when I had come out long ago, people had offered me the same favor.
[deleted]
Thank you, this was really a good post.
When I asked "Why animals" what I really meant was what do you find "sexy" about animals? Like I could talk all day about what I like about human girls. What type of girl I like, what type I dislike, etc. based on their personality and physical attributes. But is it the same when it comes to dogs or other animals for you people? What is more compelling about a dog than a human?
I hope my friend doesn't think of anything like that obviously. I have seen the post on suicide that somebody made recently here and read the responses as well. I am sorry so much of you have to go through such dark thoughts... But on the other hand it's kind of why I said that an attraction to animals can't be healthy.
Thank you again.
[deleted]
I dunno. I don't mean to be insulting, but isn't it like a form of emotional stunting? How can someone find lasting fulfillment in a relationship with an animal?
Good luck with that question. I've never seen a zoophile answer it.
Having a clear appreciation for what non-humans can and can't provide you helps. They are very emotionally fulfilling for some, and if you temper your expectations about the relationship to begin with, you know what to expect.
Further, nobody is suggesting that by being a zoo you must cut off contact with the rest of the human world. People can find close emotional affection in folks who are not their sexual partners.
Of course. I am close to this guy but he is still just my buddy. I may not be in the best position to talk about this because pretty much all of my relationships with girls were less than fulfilling to say the least. But all of them have taught me something about myself and helped me grow. As much as I love my dog he has never taught me anything or really helped me grow as a person. It's very alien for me to thing someone could get something truly life altering after being in a relationship with a dog.
I for one have gone vegan and learned a lot about my true goals in life due to my love of dogs. I make up for the high level connection by placing a lot of care in my friendships, where I tend to make very close bonds with my real good friends. You don't have to be fucking someone for them to greatly impact your life.
True... But there is an exclusivity of emotion in fucking someone that is hard to achieve with regular friends.
It can definitely be hard sometimes but it is definitely achievable if that is what you are looking for. But the same can be said in finding the right one in a traditional romantic relationship with a person. Friends who understand your mindset or even look for the same thing are the best bet. I have had some very very close friends in my time.
it's called happiness. it is VERY life altering. i only recently (within the last two years) have been able to have a loving (yes, i said loving) relationship with a non-human, and i am SO much happier now than i was prior to that. wanna hear something shocking? we do things besides have sex! gasp! we actually do normal things that a human does with their dog. sex is just one of many activities that we engage in. what does her vet say when he sees my dog? nothing - she appears to be a perfectly happy and healthy dog. don't you think that's the important thing?
do your buddy a favor and send him here so he can talk to others who DO understand what he's going through (assuming as you realized could be the case in the edit of your OP that he isn't already here).
[deleted]
again with the whole "zoophiles must be mentally handicapped" thing...
i'm starting to agree with something /u/IAmAZoophile said.. you might want to wait until you can bite your tongue on thoughts like this before you bring the subject up with your friend again.
Emotional stunting does not neccesarily imply a mental handicap, but I see how one could take it negatively.
I think the simple answer to this is animals feel a heck of a lot more emotions than people give them credit for. We just have learned to listen.
Yeah, being emotionally stunted doesn't imply a handicap. But having underdeveloped emotions really robs someone from a pretty big facet of human experience. My friend has trouble opening up to people and I heavily suspect it's because he's stunted emotionally. I just can't believe him spending his life in "romantic" relationships with animals will help his emotions grow at all.
Is that really so or are you just projecting your own humanity on animals?
I don't think it's projecting, but even I will admit in some instances, it could be. However, there have been several studies into at leasf canine cognition as of late to support my claims. I do not have them here at hand (on a cellphone) but google is your friend, of course.
My first and only partner was a doe deer, who has now passed. Was I projecting my emotions onto her? Maybe. But she kept coming back, and she made me happy.
You're just putting words in my mouth.
You know, some of you are just extremely negative and yeah, I really have to "bite my tongue" when I think that I am basically arguing with a bunch of animal fuckers who categorically refuse to believe they MAY have a problem.
Some of us are extremely defensive because we've been told all our life we have a problem worthy of institionalization.
Try and understand that. I don't think you quite can grasp it without having experienced it, but try. It leaves many of us bitter. For that, I appologize.
Well I don't personally think the lot of you should be institutionalized. I just think you may be selling yourself short and I'd hate to see that happen to somebody I care about.
I appreciate that, and wish society would adopt a more levelheaded approach as you yourself are obviously trying to do. Sadly, they often do not.
what's the difference if we're happy?
just because you don't see how a relationship with a non-human can be fulfilling doesn't mean it can't be for others.
i don't consider that selling ourselves short.
you're not thinking carefully enough about what you're saying. i'm not putting any words in your mouth.
hard not to be when you're telling us we all need serious psychiatric help.
again - it's only a problem when it causes distress to the person (such as the whole world telling us there's something wrong with us). the following is pertinent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Research_perspectives
No, you ARE putting words in my mouth. I have never even once implied that zoophiles were mentally handicapped or needed serious psychiatric help. Now do I think you would benefit from serious psychiatric help? Probably. But do you NEED it to be happy? No.
Or the animal you potentially abuse, you know. One thing I notice about zoophiles is how they tend to be overly focused on their own person and gratification above all else.
Thank you for that...I´ve noticed the "missing perspective" too. Maybe the most embarrassing thing for a "zoophile" to miss out on...you really hit a weak spot here. But I swear u/wright-one will try to suck out with various excuses on that... Sometimes I really wonder whether our principles are no more than just empty shells. sigh
You shouldn't have to wonder if you can answer to yourself. Quit worrying about others man. I say that because quite frankly, I think you are terrible at it.
I don´t worry about others, I am worried about my orientation and how others represent it in public. But don´t let me keep you from further engagement in this typical 150 + posts shitfest you all are staging here. It surely unveils what the fuck is wrong with the entire community and its ways of "teaching" people. Go on and ruin everything you youngsters haven´t already ruined before.
This "150 post shitfest" has just as many posts from you as anyone. One of them I even considered extremely offensive to the point I am struggling to see how you could've considered it productive to anyone. But hey, don't let me stop you. You're worried about representation? Go for it. Just don't be surprised when I call you out on shit like that.
I'll agree on that. It certainly turned up ugly things on all fronts I didn't want to see.
Yeah, call me out on "shit" that could also be pure gold if you´d only manage to think outside of your little, distanced from normality, far out weltbild and would not let your negative experiences with your relatives dominate your entire way of thinking ; as far as I am concerned, I prefer trying to repair the damage done in here behind the scenes...as always, as long as I am part of this "splendit", unfit conglomerate of butthurt divas infuriated by someone who dares to have a different view. Whatever...
As someone who has been hurt by the world, I think I maintain a pretty positive view of it, which is actually the opposite of what you'd assume my bias to be. That's exactly the "shit" I am calling you out on. You act like you know where I am coming from and my attitudes. You don't have a fucking clue. I bit my tongue and mulled over your comments for a whole day after you kindly suggested I somehow "wanted" the world of pain I was dealt. Frankly, it just made me realize how detached from reality you are. I'm not mad at you for a difference of opinion. I'm quite frankly mad at myself that you had me fooled for so long.
I didn't always think this of you. I used to think maybe you had some misguided but probably overall correct ideals, and a good grasp of social culture. But you are increasingly showing yourself to have little grasp of the real world. And don't you dare tell me just because I've had a bad past medication session I can't be trusted to see that. Unlike you I've been dealt both the good and the bad of the real world, and have interacted with people over the years in all their contexts. I have a pretty good idea.
yep.. i think it's time for me to go back to missing out on all that pure gold he's dishing out. i tried to give it another chance, but it's not worth the frustration. where is that block button.... ;)
I think if you look at it with a predetermined outlook, self-fullfilling prophecy will ensure we could seem that way. I don't think we are though.
The things I did with my Doe, I did because I loved her. Because she solicited them. I was not the initiator, and to the end of her days, we could not have full on "sex" in the conventional penis in orfice sense (sorry no other way to say it).
She had an itch though, and I scratched it. Can that really be said to be selfish just because I enjoyed doing so?
Is philanthropy selfish because the person enjoys the labors? I don't think so. This is a silly philosophy.
I think you mean well and really are genuinely concerned for your friends happiness. Unlike everyone in the "mob" so to speak, I don't KNOW if zoophilia is even his road to happiness. I want to give you good advice but I feel this has gotten out of hand... I mean look, I'm not trying to attack you, but you have hit a nerve on some points here. It has become more about you than your friend. You may not get the best responses. Knotty.me may be a better place for this type of discussion honestly. It's a forum and despite it's name, it is full of zoophiles who will openly take and if possible, provide rebuttal to critism in a proper, philosophical way with no insults dealt. I am a member there. If you want, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have here or there. I just feel this is getting a bit out of hand.
I don't really think I'll feel welcome on a forum exclusively for zoophiles. Already on reddit I feel too much hostility for my taste. Don't get me wrong, some of you are levelheaded. But certainly not all.
It's more of an outreach forum than you might expect. We do have (or had) some nonzoos there. But, yeah... I get it. I honestly just think that hostility your feeling wouldn't be present there. I'm sorry it's turning out this way, for the record. I feel it's a big disservice to you and your friend.
No, to be honest it's very entertaining to see the lengths you guys are ready to go to justify your behavior.
I don't feel such comments are fair to you, us or your friend and think they probably are spawned out of bitterness for how you have been treated here. I mean, it's either that, or you really don't give two shits about your friend at this point, which I would hope is not true.
At any rate, I haven't gone to lengths beyond standard debate (myself anyways). If others have, I can't say I have read this whole thread, but it would not surprise me. Some people are better debaters than others, just like the rest of humanity.
You yourself have noted that this must be a hard life to lead. Perhaps we "self justify" so much as you call it because we have thought about this quite a bit, and have answers to those questions? I know I spent a long long time thinking about what I did, and in the end, I could only conclude it was right. I've thought about this longer than 99% of the world I daresay. I'd like to think my arguments are somewhat well-situated. If that makes me appear as if I got to "lengths" to justify my behavior, you are quite frankly, correct.
Sorry, I didn't mean that in a bad way. But...
Yes. This is exactly what it looks like.
But despite everything, I remain unconvinced. Here's how I boil down pretty much every argument in this thread so far:
"She enjoyed it therefore she consented." or even "She does not run away yelping, therefore she consents."
"Having sex with animals isn't so bad, I mean we eat them too and that's okay right?"
"Gays were also not accepted 100 years ago. And now they are. Therefore zoophiles should be accepted too."
"Humans are animals too. All animals have sex with each other therefore humans should be allowed to have sex with animals too."
Absolutely nothing in that addresses the problem at the root, which is "animals cannot consent to sex." All you guys do is try to shift the focus away from it.
I tried to explain this earlier to a fellow zoophile. Tell me if this makes any sense.
There are two types of consent. Basic consent and the legal concept, "Informed Consent"
Legally we typically require informed consent (which means, understanding of the consequences) to have sex. If there were a race of intelligent animals they would be capable of informed consent. There is not. This is the crux of your concern, yes?
Animals can of course, consent. They can communicate "yes." They've spent years making it so obvious that dumb males of their species can't miss a heat cycle for a mile away. It's pretty apparent. What they can't do is provide informed consent.
We're on the same page, right?
Now, I must ask you and this is honestly not a deflection, why is informed consent required in society?
It's because one must know what one is getting into in a sexual relationship, yes? One must provide for the potentials of pregnancy, STDs, etc.
How much of this exists with an animal?
Why then is informed consent required?
I would argue, from a sensible point of view, it shouldn't be.
If we disagree on that, I really can't argue a better argument, and I only wish you the best for you and your friend, despite our apparent disagreement.
Oh, and:
"Having sex with animals isn't so bad, I mean we eat them too and that's okay right?"
Even I admitted this is a terrible argument. I just said if you want to believe society is morally consistent, it works. Honestly, it's probably the worst argument in my arsenal and way too... I guess libertarian for my blood. I don't know why I opened with it.
PS: It may humor you that there has been talk within our own community about the ability of a zoo to make an animal comply simply because the zoo is master of that animal. This is generally frowned upon, but it is not unacknowledged that it does happen. For this reason, some zoos even view the broad anti-bestiality laws as a good thing to act as a "deterrent," and some have even spoken of an ideal world having a "zoo license" with inspections from a licensed veternarian to ensure the animals are healthy and happy.
I don't think those things are needed, I think they are too broad and all encompassing and frankly, I don't feel sex is something that should have a "license." (Can you imagine how you'd feel if someone asked you to get a license to have sex with your girlfriend?) But it does show you we are not entirely blind to our faults.
In other words "she consents because she can't get pregnant or get STDs"? Wow, date rapists are going to LOVE you! All they have to do is wear rubber and suddenly it becomes consensual!....
Why do you assume sex with animals has no consequence to them? Even if there are no potential for disease there could be physical and mental trauma caused by it. Just because YOU don't see it (or chose not to see it) doesn't mean it's not there.
Why would anyone in his right mind subscribe to such an idea. Just walk into a police station and turn yourself in at this point.
I never said that. I said informed consent is not necessary for that reason. Consent is something I insist on. The two are different. There is no obvious consent in date rape.
I'm beginning to think that with all due respect, you are intentionally avoiding addressing my arguments. This makes me question your true intentions, to be frank. If I am mistaken, please forgive me, and I will admit I very well could be. But it's a vibe I'm getting.
I'd be interested in a legitimate study into that, but as there are none, I will err on the side of caution and assume the human to have more responsibility than a fellow non-human animal.
Presumably, because they care about animals beyond their own rights. I don't subscribe to that idea of licensing. But that's what I'd assume the reason is.
This would be assuming it's legal.
So what IS obvious consent then? I don't feel like I'm avoiding your arguments, I feel like your arguments are incredibly shallow and fail to have any substance when used in any other similar context.
When zoophiles try to justify their behavior be comparing it to other behavior, it's a valid argument. But when I try to oppose zoophilia be comparing their behavior to other behavior, it's suddenly not a valid argument. I don't really see the sense in that.
You said it yourself, the only reason you don't need informed consent when screwing animals is because there is apparently no negative consequence such as pregnancies and STDs from the act. So really what's the difference between this and raping a chick passed out on the couch if you make sure to wear a condom? Both these situations don't have any negative consequences such as pregnancies and STDs, both these situations are done without informed consent. If one is okay to you why not the other? Because you have "consent" of the animal? What if a kid comes to you and asks you for sex, are you going to give him too? After, you have his "consent." Who cares about informed consent right?
Let me try to understand your position before I proceed to answer that, as I don't have a very strong grasp of what you are not getting in my logic flow.
Do you not understand the difference between consent and informed consent? The two are distinct. If that's the issue, I can elaborate.
A chick passed out on the couch has not consented, or provided informed consent. She needs to at least have consented.
A better analogy would be screwing a drunk chick who is horny and asking for it on all levels with a condom. I honestly don't see an issue with that so much. Maybe you do.
Kids can get sexual consequences for certain. It's proven to have very lasting negative consequences for that matter. They are not mature enough for sex. Animals are sexually mature (or at least, should be) by the time you have relations with them. Therefore, informed consent is required.
Plus, their guardian may not approve. I wouldn't go and fuck someone else's pets either.
Not too sure I follow. Is it required or not?
Ugh, typo (or rather, truncation. I swear I typed more). Is required for children, I meant. It seems out of context there and I'm maintaining children need informed consent they are not prepared or arguably able to provide..
Woooo! In your eyes, I´m totally disconnected to "reality" (what is true when reality means "common mindset of an outsider group entirely living within its own world), but you quote MY ideas here in order to get a foot in the door somehow? If my ideas are sooo shitty, why´d you even bother quoting them then? And FYI, a relationship with an animal is NOT just ike a relationship with a human who can speak out if he is treated badly or is able to call the police when things get really nasty. You really don´t want to give a single thing in exchange for a better overall situation. You´ve obviously never heard of compromises, but I can assure you that without them, you´ll remain stuck in the dead end you´re (and the entire scene) is in for ages now. YOu demand change....but only everyone else, the "unjust, prejudiced society" needs to change, not you....because you are a "superior zoo", the one with undisputable, infallible knowledge of animals. Why? Because you "feel" like it is true....wow, much science, many reliable, lotsa trustworthy. I´d appreciate it if you all would pull your heads out of your asres and realise that there´s a legitimate right to protect animals from unnecessary harm, even if it is inflicted by a zoo. And stop saying that "we´re not entirely blind to our faults"...´cause it took an asshole like me that still has enough connection to the real world out there, to the viewpoints of "normal" people and is not entirely buried in the "zoo world>" and its narrative/myths/superstitions. Without me bitching, the common belief of "ooh,we´re all sooo prosecuted, yet totally harmless" would still be the predominant here. Gosh, I´m so tired and sick of all this rhetoric ping-pong, of the obvious inability to see your orientation through the eyes of a sceptical outsider...all of you insist that you have real empathy and better understanding of animals than an average person. If these abilities are really so highly developed, how it comes all of you fail in seeing zoophilia through a normal person´s eyes, even for one fucking second? Where has your mastery of empathy gone all of a sudden?
I know this is going to blow your mind, but you don't own those ideas. I've heard them way before I met you.
I did not mean a "zoo-reality" either. I meant reality as in what society and outsiders think. You are as disconnected if not moreso than you claim us to be.
I never said everything you said was wrong. I said the opposite. I said frankly you have some ideas, but from what I can glean, you have no social skills whatsoever, are very judgemental, and I see you as a horrible representative. This is only my viewpoint though, feel free to prove me wrong.
Boy, I sure hope you stick around here! You get right to the meat of all the issues that I wish to discuss as a zoophile. But, alas, most zoophiles wish to not be disturbed living their zoophilic life as they see fit. They all hate and gang up on other zoophiles such as myself who talk harder things. Breathe of fresh air, that's what you are!
I'm really sorry you feel ganged up on. I think your unpopular opinions deserve proper rebuttal, not personal attacks. I hope my post attempted to do that for both you and him.
Yes, basically you´re absolutely right. Animals can´t consent to sex. They just lack understanding of this human concept that is btw not even the predominant one in humans itself when it comes to marriage and sex . The consent concept is almost exclusively a concept of the modern 1st world, directly linked to human rights. Slaves have never consented to being enslaved, forced marriages are still a thing today, even in some developed countries.
I´d like to ask you a question: a long time ago, I have proposed an idea of mine that could possibly settle the arguments here. My idea was to install a form of regulated zoophilia. The zoophile would have to apply for a "zoo license" issued from the authorities; before he/she get this license, the aspirant would have to undergo psychological testing to exclude any kind of nutjob potentially dangerous to the animal. The aspirant also has to prove his/her knowledge of anything that is required to properly provide for an animal. The animal´s wellbeing is monitored by professionals, the animal´s physical and psychical condition is routinely checked by nonschedueled visits from a neutral (!) vet in certain intervals, like every month or so. That way, any form of harm can be identified swiftly enough to intervene and exclude further harm done. I do understand the scepticism you legitimately display, my proposal/idea would make it possible to replace the philosophical debates about consent with actual, hard evidence. Animals showing negative behavioral changes, physical harm and other negative effects could be removed from an abusive "zoophile" relationship and the "zoophile" would lose his license, making it illegal to further pursue his sexual desires. This approach wouldn´t even make it necessary to legalise having sex with animals, it´s comparable to the approach the Netherlands have towards selling cannabis. Many don´t know that weed still is illegal in the NL, but it is reglemented and any coffeeshop disobeing the rules is out of business in an instant.
If your main concern are the animals and their wellbeing, my proposal would be one, if not the only, way to ensure this. Additionally, the kind of openness required to apply for a "zoo license" would create access to a vast pool of study subjects for science, as zoophilia isn´t researched at all at the moment. If we really want to replace prejudices ( from both sides!) and black-and-white thinking schemes with actual data and logical conclusions, this would be a good way to gather data. With our recent situation, everything is just assumptions made. What do you think? Would you be okay with a zoophile if his mental constitution is checked and his animal is constantly monitored? If the animal is examined every once in a while to exclude any harm coming from the interspecies relationship it is in?
In another post, you have written that an animal can´t withdraw itself from an abusive relationship. That is correct and one major issue. With my method, it would be possible to check out the nature of a relationship and it would be done by professionals who have learned to identify animal behavior. Would this soothe your scepticism?
Let´s just be clear: prohibiting "zoophilia" isn´t going to stop people from having sex with animals. It only forces them into the underground. But it wouldn´t solve the real issues. You can´t eradicate zoophilia with a law, it has been there since the beginning of mankind. When outlawing something is equally harmful to animals as not outlawing it, then regulating it may be the best chance to achieve the goal of avoiding any unnecessary suffering for the animal.
Finally I´like to second u/ursusm. You really expose the futility of the common zoo´s mindset, with all of its theoretical justifications. I do respect your convictions and don´t feel the same level of desire to "convert" you like some others in here. You also made me realise how fucked up our common excuses and arguments really are. When I see someone insisting that a relationship with an animal is practically the same as a relationship with a human, I cringe so hard it nearly makes me puke. Of course it´s not. Being with an animal demands an entirely different mindset and a personality apt to constantly question its actions. It also demands a shitload of empathy, responsibility and self control.
Well, I´d like to thank you for being in here, voicing your opinions. A troll would have been gone after some insulting posts, but you stick around and defend your opinions. That´s admirable and maybe a good wake up call for our community that has stopped constructive, critical thinking decades ago and just adapts all this bullshit "debunking lists" and "how tos..." out there. This community has become so complacent and self brainwashed, they don´t even notice how shallow and fragile their "pro zoo mind construct" really is when confronted with the real world. "Unjust, prejudiced society" and stupid words like "zoophobe" are the only answers they have when confronted with challenging views. Whenever their safe space is endangered, the rants emerge and people like me who are a little longer in this than most others are experiencing a nasty deja vu as they have been through all of this bullshit theoretical fighting stuff several times before...and it never worked out.
Also a big thank you for your reply above admitting that I dearly loved my mare. I can assure you that it was mutual, she loved me back. We both were made for each other, that´s what I heard from many other horseowners around me. Maybe we should talk more about that...in the end, zoophilia shouldn´t be so much about philosophical issues, but about love. If anything will open everyone´s eyes , then it´s going to be love. Do you think an animal can love? And can this love transgress the species barrier?
Anyway, thanks for being here and speaking out.
It's a shitty argument and it's only good to point out hypocrisy, because eating animals is obviously bad for them. Personally I don't understand how so many zoophiles can still continue to kill and eat animals. If you have any love for animals it should really be a no brainer to try to avoid as many animal products as possible, but yet it isn't. I suppose that's the other side of the coin of social conditioning.
The problem is also poorly defined. What does "consent" really mean when it comes to animals?
Here is a fun interview with Peter Singer, well known utilitarian philosopher and author of "Animal Liberation": https://youtu.be/gAhAlbsAbLM?t=78
In other areas this is pretty much uncontroversial. For example some people call this here a "consent test". Apparently the original "Canine consent test" by Chirag Patel is training method to encourage animals to make active choices. I've been meaning to read up about this for a while now and still haven't done it...
Anyway, here is a fun article about the sexual behavior of wild horses, how they may show clear preferences for some sexual partners and clearly refuse others: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-secret-lives-of-horses/
To me it's obvious that animals can and do consent to sex - in their own way. The question should rather be: Is that "enough"? As a fan of a "nonhuman person", who have the autonomy to make their own choices, concept I say yes, because I have yet to see a good argument for the actual harm that is done.
How can you not?
You're begging the question, rephrase your question with any other orientation and you'll see the error.
How can someone find lasting fulfillment in a relationship with a member of the same sex?
How can someone find lasting fulfillment in a relationship without sex?
How can someone find lasting fulfillment in a relationship with more than one partner?
How can someone find lasting fulfillment in a relationship with a member of the opposite sex?
The simple answer is that some do. You may not feel the same, but simply because you cannot understand it doesn't make it impossible.
I find it hard to believe someone can reach the same level of fulfillment from relationships with animals vs. relationships with humans. This has nothing to do with orientation. It's who you chose to spend your life with that is truly important here.
I love my dog to bits. But you know what my dog wants to do do? He wants to play, run, walk and just spend time with me most of the time, he wants to eat when he's hungry, he wants to go outside when he wants to pee... That's it. Yes, he's my best friend, but he's just a dog for god's sake. I may not find his rectum to be arousing, but even if I did it would not change anything.
I may be harsh here but I find you guys like to compare relationships with humans and relationships with animals and they are simply not the same. Yeah, maybe the orientation is just like any other. But the "goal" of that orientation is fundamentally different from the goal of a human orientation.
What are these "goals" that you speak of? Can you elaborate on that?
Well I mean sort of like the end result of an orientation. The end result of a heterosexual relationship for me is to have romance and sexual intimacy with a human girl I find attractive. I assume it would be the same for a zoophile, except you replace the human with a dog or something... What you can expect from a human and a dog is two fundamentally different things. I like to date girls that are independent because some of my previous experiences with overly dependent women have pushed me away from these type of people in the context of a relationship. But when you get a dog, you know he's going to be dependent on you for example.
My current girlfriend is very outgoing and energetic and it forces me to get out of my comfort zone because I tend to be very introverted and laid back. But, for example, she stresses about minor details while I tend to relaxed in life. She gives me excuses to get out of my comfort zone while I provide her with some stability. All is not perfect, but we complement each other a bit.
But when you get a dog... I mean all you have is a dog. Sure he might force you to take some responsibilities and take a walk with him every so often... But I don't really see how there could be much more depth to that experience.
[deleted]
I don't mean to say dogs are not awesome. Because they are. But they are just dogs... Like I said though, if you're happy all is well. I want my friend to be happy as well.
pro tip: when a zoophile's animal partner dies, don't say "but it was just a [species]" ...
If you want your friend to be happy, be there for him. You feel that having a human as a partner makes a person more happy than having a dog. This doesn't have to be true, there are 7 billion people, so there sure is some variation.
"they are just dogs" can be said of humans as well "they're just humans" I've been in human relations, and sexuality isn't something that is up my alley (believe me I tried) Tho being with a dog, and ending up with the strongest relation I've ever had. When i found out, it also was the biggest self reflecting emotional rollercoaster there is.
"But they are just dogs... Like I said though, if you're happy all is well. I want my friend to be happy as well."
I need to understand this; you say just because they are dogs they can't make him completely happy?
If you think you make your friend happy by "showing that humans are superior to dogs because dogs are just dogs, then I am sorry, that is not how things work.
It will work like a charm, like the comments "my dick will make you straight, to a lesbian" or "my boobs will cure your gay" If anything it is insulting, like the person cannot decide for themselves what their feelings are
(I've had a random person pretty much stalk me for a week at this festival I was at, telling me how his dick would cure me. Like I'm mentally retarded and somehow his magic wand of herpes sprinkles is going to make me all good, like he is Jesus)
It is hard to support a friend in a situation that doesn't make sense to you, and yes, I've been in a situation where I didn't understand someone, and gave a bit of space, to then support him anyways.
At least thank him for the trust he had in you, and be honest that you do not understand it.
I can understand fully that you're not comfortable with this, haha I myself am still not with all this. I hate having to hold my snout, and keep it to myself, every time my family asks when I will finally show them my partner, or when would I marry. "you used to have a relation all the time" "you're a cute face, you can get anyone you want" "you need someone in your life to have beside you".
And you don't have to understand him to be there for him. I don't always agree with my friends, haha one of my friends is fucking afraid of dogs and thinks I'm weird when I play around dogs (aren't you afraid they bite, you cant trust them, they injure people)
Awesome you're willing to look into zoophilia for your friend. And if you still have questions, you can always ask me, tho, to be fair, I don't hold answers
[deleted]
Of course I don't see dogs as pieces of furniture. This is putting words in my mouth a bit. But it's still just a dog.
I'm not saying it's wrong... Just that you may be selling yourself short. If you're happy in what you're doing, it's fine.
And have you ever been in a relation with a human?
[deleted]
Wut. I am happy. I'm just worried.
"But in the end it's just a huge burden really"
you wouldn't believe how much I can relate
So you do not find those things pleasing, I do. I have had numerous human relationships when I was younger, I was even married once. Most of them were good relationships for the most part, but I was completely unsatisfied with them.
What more is needed in a loving relationship than the simple pleasures of enjoying one another's company? Sure, she's not a good conversationalist, but I have friends for that. It's not all about sex, I've lived with a partner for years without sex being a part of it and all the rest of the relationship was still as fullfilling as any relationship I've had with a human.
You don't need to understand it on fundamental level, but I think you'll be farther along in dealing with your friend if you can grasp the idea that just because it may not be fullfilling to you, it can be for others.
I just have trouble seeing it honestly. Thanks.
who's saying our animal partners are the only people we spend any time with? i have plenty of friends. can an animal keep you mentally stimulated? not so much .. you'll get no argument from me. but it doesn't change the fact that romantically, sexually, it's a non-human i want.
this.
Tell that to Mr Hands...
Exception to the broad trend, I'd argue.
Why animals? I don't know, I find them beautiful in what seems the same manner as another man may see a woman. I like the gentle curves of the body, the expression of the face and eyes, seeing a beautiful dog running can draw my eye....
Have you considered asking your friend this? He may feel too awkward to elaborate now, but if you can get past the initial shock of discovery and accept him still as the same person you knew before, he may feel comfortable enough to discuss it.
I´ll just hop in on this suicidality issue. It seems to be pretty common among zoophiles to assume a high rate of suicides directly related to this particular sexual orientation, but I never have seen any reliable data ,nor have I ever met or heard from a zoophile actually killing him-/herself ONLY because of this sexual orientation. And I´m a part of the various zoophile online communities for more than two decades now. I really think this suicidality is basically a myth and more often than not, suicidal tendencies originate from a deeper, more essential cause than from being attracted to quadrupeds. Don´t misunderstand me, I do acknowledge the fact that a zoophile life is far from being easy and dealing with this type of orientation surely includes a huge shitload of issues on both personal and societal levels. I´ve gone through some darker times , but never felt the impulse to actually kill myself. For me, living a life with a mare by my side isn´t unhealthy, but the exact opposite and I can´t even imagine in what emotional condition I would be right now without the 22 years of a loving partnership with my mare. It may even be appropriate for me to say that she truly saved my life.
I really do appreciate your courage to come in here and discuss things, not many of the outsiders even find enough courage to talk with us "weird animal fuckers". So, lots of kudos for you, mate. Hopefully you can gather enough impressions of us and our way of thinking to get over the common perceptions and prejudices and replace it with actual facts.
Thanks.
I took the liberty of going through your post history and found you consider yourself an exclusive zoophile. So you have never been with humans correct? Would consider yourself a happy and fulfilled person? Did you ever "miss" being in a normal relationship or asked yourself what could have been? I am asking for my friend... I want to guide him in a direction that brings him lasting happiness throughout his life, not encourage him on a path of depression.
Yes, I´m in my mid 40s and never had a relationship with a human in my entire life. So far, I´m perfectly fine with this and would consider myself a happy person. I would even go so far and say that having a "normal" relationship with a human always seemed a bit "perverted" for me as long as I can remember. Living with a mare as my partner truly is normal for me. I haven´t asked myself the typical "what if I was normal?" question even once. I have to add that I don´t have "problems" with women, I´m a German dressage riding instructor and have to deal with women all day. I do not feel uncomfortable around women, they´re just not "partner material" for me. What has influenced my development the most was acceptance from my mother and sister, I had just a few, but very tolerant friends who also helped me in coming to terms with myself. If you want your friend to find happiness, the best thing you can do for him is being there for him to talk openly; we zoos have to hide all the time...that is in itself not the problem, but without an ally you can lower your "shield" to from time to time, it´s quite a hard and depressing life. Without a few moments of relaxation, constant tension will take its toll from us zoos. Feel free to ask me whatever you want to know, I really believe you want to do your best to guide and support your friend and I am very glad such people like you still exist. I´ll try and give the best advice I have and hope that your support can provide enough emotional stability for your friend and he learns to deal with his orientation in a healthy way.
Since you already checked out my posting history, I reommend checking out the threads I have contributed. There´s one thread named "A little Thank you and something I wanted to share" where I have posted a few ( non pornographical!) pictures of me and my mare. She died this year in January, she was my soulmate for more than 20 years. You can read what I wrote a few months ago while still suffering from the loss. I´m not an attention whore and hinting at this is only meant to ensure you that I´m not a fantasizer, but 100% for real. Reading my posts may shed further light onto the whole zoophilia thing, especially for an outsider...so ,please feel free to check it out. Maybe you like to show it to your friend, too... as a good start to talk about his orientation, it surely will break the ice.
Thank you. It's very interesting to see someone who as lived his life like this.
I will try to provide my friend with an outlet to talk about his feelings.
I'm sorry for your loss, but to be honest this is also something that alarms me about this orientation. Dogs and other animals have way shorter lifespans than us. How does it feel to get into a relationship you know will end in just a few years from the get go? It's still a bit strange for me to think some people really "love" animals in that way but I understand that it can happen. How does it feel to know you will lose your love a few years down the road?
As someone who has lost his loved one, and feels he can never replace her, it feels awful.
I'm not going to chide you and tell you that part is wonderful. It sucks. This life has it's pitfalls and that's about numero uno. I still cry some evenings and it doesn't feel like it's getting better.
But I also speak as someone who has had his parents try to "cure" his zoophilia. There is no cure, to be frank. This is what happened:
https://www.reddit.com/r/zoophilia/comments/3533e6/coming_out/
hm... yeah. I can't really imagine why anyone would chose to prefer animals if there was a cure.
Well, I wouldn't go that far.
I still would be a zoo if I had the choice. But I would've "converted" for my parents, had it been possible, admittedly.
This must seem weird to you, but it's all I know. I've loved animals my whole life. It is natural to me, right as rain. Asking me to change is like asking me to rip out a founding pillar of my personality and replace it with something else. Would I do it? Sure, but it had better be at the bequest of someone I love very much. I'd never "chose" it because I just don't like leaping into the unknown. Few humans do.
[deleted]
The shortened lifespan of animals maybe is the hardest thing zoophilia confronts you with. Knowing that you will have to bury the love of your life someday is like the Sword of Damocles swinging over your head. The only way to ease the anxiety is filling the latin proverb "carpe diem!" with life, every day. Giving the best we have to our animal. Begging that the end won´t come soon and won´t come in a ugly, unbearable manner. Did you know that when horses die in their stalls, it often is necessary to saw off their legs with a chainsaw to get them out of the usually narrow box? I had to witness it myself a few times and prayed to every deity my mare is spared from this. Luckily she took her last breath lying down outside, on her paddock. Even in death, she made everything as easy as possible for me. She didn´t die alone, I was lying next to her, hugging her neck; it wasn´t a bloody death, she just died from heart failure and ,most important, I didn´t have to make the final decision, didn´t have to call the vet with the lethal injection.
It´s true that the shortened lifespan of an animal is one price any zoo has to pay someday and nothing can delete the pain of a loss.The only thing a zoo can do is honoring the animal through dignity. I sat by her body the first night, I paid 2500 Euros to get her cremated and not turned into dog food, her mane and tail not turned into bristles on a brush and her hooves not turned into garden fertilizer. Her ashes sit right on my desk, a bag of nearly 15-20 kilograms and when I die, I´ll be cremated as well and finally reunited with her. That´s how I deal with it...and if there is a heaven and a god, he´ll surely greet me at heaven´s gate, saying " Just proceed to the celestial meadows, she is waiting for you...".
The one thing that kept me somehow sane in this cyclone of grief was that I know I have given all I had to her. Every single day in 22 years, I was there for her. She probably had the best life a horse could have. I did everything for her and I can´t remember one single day I failed at providing her with what other horse owners called horse paradise. I guess that´s all you can do to deal with this somehow. In the end, her death made me lose my own fear of dying. I really mean it. I´m very much aware of my own mortality now, but if there´s even the slightest chance I will meet her again when I die, there´s nothing to be afraid of. That´s how it feels...bitter-sweet and logically insane. As life is. But she gave me love, pure love and I gave it back. I feel gifted. I achieved something most others won´t achieve in their life: I met my soulmate and had the privilege to live with her for more than two decades. I know what love is, she taught me; I´m grateful that I´ve been awared with this privilege.
Wow. I'm sorry I don't mean it in a bad way... but all this is so bizarre to me. I understand that you loved her deeply and she made you very happy. I guess it's the only thing that really matters in the end...
Thank you.
starting to get a better picture now, eh?
yeah .. no one would choose this - to be hated for loving, to lose the focal point of that love several times in your life...
but i think many of us (if not most of us) here wouldn't change it even if we could. it is who we are, and it definitely has it's positive sides. i for one feel incredibly lucky to see beauty damn near everywhere i look.
man, where do i begin?
shrug but there's no point. we can try to explain 'til our fingers bleed, but it won't make any sense to you because we're just different on a fundamental level.
it's just as i said before (which didn't make sense to you then, either) - things we find attractive are just like things you find attractive about women: there's no explaining why you prefer certain attributes, and ultimately, it doesn't even matter. it all boils down to a preference that we don't have control over.
that said.. shrug i'll humor you.
fur. skin is boring and coarse. fur can come in so many different patterns and is usually soft (though admittedly not always - it, too, can be coarse depending on the species and/or breed.
eyes. for one thing, i tend to find the whites of eyes .. i dunno. not unsettling, per se, but unattractive, i guess. most other mammals' iris fills what you see of their eyes. variety .. dog eyes are different from cat eyes are different from bear eyes, etc.
facial/cranial structure - snouts are where it's at for me. shrug i can't explain why. flat faces like humans have just isn't attractive to me. again, variety is also nice. cats have shorter, rounder snouts, dogs have longer, more angular snouts, etc.
noses...
lips... one of my favorite animal features.
ears... very expressive, vs. boring human ears.
i could go on and on, but if you're even still reading this, i'm sure you're bored by now. just remember that you asked. :)
No, I came here to gain new perspectives... It would be a bit counterproductive to stop reading halfway through what people post here.
Thanks.
People who like animals this way have all kinds of different reasons. I can't possibly go over all of them here, but I'll list a few common ones:
Some people have had bad experiences (or no experience at all) with humans, and animals seem like the best option available. This was the preferred explanation back in the 60s and before (animals as surrogate humans), but I don't think it explains lifelong attractions like this.
Others prefer animals for their simplicity and perceived honesty, because their demands are easier to understand than those of people and often more easily met. Still others just like the look and feel of nonhuman animals better than of humans, or have a particularly close emotional bond with an individual animal that turns into sex.
In my own case, all of the above apply to a degree, but my preference for animals (dogs in my case) can best be traced to how I feel about relationships in general. Humans are, to an extent, rational creatures capable of self-reflection, and as such idealized love, of the sort that minimizes flaws and emphasizes positives in one's partner, is a dangerous influence on one's decisions. Add to that the near certainty of change between partners over the 50+ years a relationship can continue, and it becomes difficult to justify as the best option for both parties.
With animals, though, there is less danger of this kind of idealization in any form other than an emotional one: I might think my dog is the sweetest in the world, but because he is so different from me I'm grounded enough to know that he'll never speak my language or pledge to love me forever. Also, because a dog's lifespan is so much shorter than a human's, I have relative certainty that it will end with his death, and I can be prepared in some way for the end when it comes. It's sad, but in some way, it lets me focus on making him as happy as possible, with a pretty good idea of how to do it. When I compare that with the many different ways relationships with humans evolve over time, having a series of dogs as partners strikes me as the better choice.
I really do think this is the case for my friend. It's interesting to see what would motivate someone to be in a relationship with an animal instead of a human. But I can't shake the feeling it is a "choice" made because of the inability to form relationships with humans.
Thanks.
sigh ... you know, there are many zoophiles who are attracted to both humans and animals... some of whom actually are in a relationship with both a human and (an) animal(s).
your insinuation that zoophiles are somehow mentally handicapped is EXTREMELY offensive and just plain untrue.
I´m sure I will stir up shit again, but he has some point. As an exclusive zoo, I simply cannot understand how anybody "dating" humans and animals alike can really insist on being a zoo. It´s like dating females and males alike and calling yourself gay. Many gays would object and insist on you not using "their" name.
You also can´t just wipe off the fact that in those "non exclusive" relationships, the animals often only serve as an additional "kick" for both human participants. If you stick a Mercedes star to a Chrysler, it won´t become a Mercedes, right?
One of the best questions you can ask those "non exclusive" "zoophiles" is "If you have to choose between your human and your animal partner, whom you´re going to choose if your decision is final and cannot be reversed at all."
What´s your answer, u/wright-one? Abandon your human? Or the animal? What if you have to decide for the rest of your life? How much "zoo" your supermarket attitude has to offer? And: How "zoo" is it to get off by watching your human mate with your animal? Are "zoo voyeurs" really zoo? And isn´t the animal reduced to a substitute for getting off when your human partner has migraine?
You can go batshit all over the place, but you won´t eradicate the fact that your form of "zoophilia" tremenduously differs from the life of an exclusive zoophile...almost to a point where your "zoophilia" has nothing in common with actual zoophilia.
And given the fact that vast multitudes of self proclaimed zoophiles self identify as somehow mentally handicapped ("ADS, autism, Asperger´s,etc...") , I can´t see any flaw in here... maybe an overgeneralisation, but not a flaw.
I refuse to even consider such a ridicules, preposterous, contrived question. And I'm zoo-exclusive... seriously man, where do you come up with this stuff? Being gay and attracted to women has a term. "Bisexual." There's no such thing as bizoo. So they call ourselves zoo. It's that simple.
The only thing preposterous and contrived probably is the inexplicable tendency towards an "all inclusive" attitude shown by too many members of our community.Oh, and there also is a term for people simultaneously attracted to bi- and quadrupeds....it also starts with a "b"...I wonder if you can guess it.
And don´t you forget what kind of attitude brought ALL of us to this point in history, with more and more countries issuing laws against our "little hobby". But I assume it´s infinitely easier to put the blame on everyone else than opening your eyes and finding the true cause behind the commonly accepted definition of zoophilia as "fucks animals", without any further differentiation.
Maybe I should drop out of all of this and focus on enjoying my new life with my three mares, right in the middle of nowhere, with no neighbors to interfere. Maybe I should leave you alone with the mess that our struggle has mutated into since the early nineties. At this moment, I highly doubt there ever will be a change for the better. Do what you will, defend non exclusivity as "zoophilia" and see how far you can get with that...oh, wait, this kind of attitude already failed...
My life is safe and secure. Who am I fighting for? Dunno...but definitely not for people that try to compare their relatively easy lives not constantly interrupted by questions like " When will you have your first relationship?" and "Do you really wanna die alone?" to one like mine. Sorry, pal, but I really have had enough of this shit.
Your definitions have become absurd to the point of being outright dillusional. The big bad "b" word says nothing about human attraction, just like the z word man. Like it or not, you own neither of these terms, and frankly I think you'd be best served by taking your own advice. Enjoy your three mares, and dillusional thinking that THAT would be ok with people but not a human added to the mix.
I assume you´re speaking out of experience, right? Experience gained from coming out to dozens of people and not getting the boot... Oh wait, it´s not me dwelling in a pile of desperation and medication....correct?
The only ones delusional are people like you who insist on their Nostradamus-like abilities to foresee the results of an experiment without even intending to conduct this experiment. But, as I said, fight for yourself. Remain in your comfy zone, just continue demanding without the willingness to give something yourself.
You zoo geniuses who have all sorted out how to improve society´s perception. Because of your untouchable weltbild, zoophilia already is way more acceptable than some 20 years before...onward, warriors! Or could it just be that you´re all secretly content with the current state we all have to live in? Could it be that being the outcast is exactly what you want? Anyways, I honestly believe you can make it come true, make it happen...DON
T ADJUST YOUR MINDS, IT´S REALITY THATS MALFUNCTIONING!!!You just described my view of you.
No, what we are doing hasn't been working. I've admitted this to you several times but you seem content to throw that low punch into the ring anyways, even going so far as to bring my own forced medical regimine into it. It was especially low of you to suggest I somehow "wanted" this, all kinds of fucked up to be frank. For that reason alone, it's very hard for me to argue with you right now without throwing some kind of insult in I know I'd regret. As such, I have nothing more to say to you other than this:
I don't agree with how we've been doing things, but I find you frankly, more detached from society than any zoo I've ever met, and fear you more than anything legislation could do to us if you truly think this narrowmindedly.
human sexuality is fluid and complicated, don't make it one or the other, ever heard of polyamory? Some people do well with multiple partners, I know a couple of them that last for years knowing both humans and animals without much trouble, you're attracted to what you're attracted to, and that's ok, bisexual guys are not secretly gay, bisexual girls are not secretly straight, zoos can range between having a buddy with benefits(with an animal) to a full on partnership and if they want to share that with another human who are often similar, why not? I think none of us are in position to judge unless there's abuse involved.
MY form of zoophilia? how do you know me well enough to know what i am?
Well my friend has NEVER been in a relationship with a girl. Yeah, at 25 this is something that may have something to do with being "mentally handicapped"... I think I would prefer the term "emotionally stunted" but whatever.
same thing, you're just trying to soften the blow with words that seem gentler on the surface.. but they're not.
Stunted emotions don't have to be an handicap. But like I said elsewhere, having stunted emotions robs someone from a big facet of experience.
Well, let me just condense your post to a few simple questions I´d like to answer:
First: Why animals? That´s basically the mother of all questions and there´s no simple way or a single answer to that. Some folks are into it because of the non judgemental kind of relationship an animal can provide. An animal will never belittle you because of your tiny wiener or complain about a weak sexual performance. As sad as it is, but a certain percentage of "zoophiles" seem to run this way; insecurity and low self esteem may be the predominant factors here.
Some other zoophiles "choose" animals because they had negative experiences and hooking up with a human may be way more difficult for them than hooking up with an animal. Many individuals of this type feel uncomfortable around humans and all that is involved in flirting/ mating rituals of homo sapiens sapiens.
Others are more interested in the taboo nature of zoophilia, you see them often brag about their "dirtiness" in online bestiality forums, caling themselves "dogwhores", "animal fuckers" and such. This type of individuals may suffer from an oversexualised world that desentitized them to a point where only stepping over a line/ breaking a taboo will "get the trick done" for them, if you know what I mean.
Furthermore, there are people sexually active with animals I often call "FATW"..."fucks anything that walks". They literally would screw a tree if you drill a hole into it (Hashtag #dendrophiliaisathing). They see animals as a quick way achieving sexual relief , without all of that "talking" you have to do if you want to get off with another human. Basically choosing the path of least resistance...
And there are but a few who seem to have a special kind of imprint, maybe achieved in puberty, maybe this imprint ws there right from birth; up to this point, nobody really knows. They´re legitimately called zoophiles and most often, they are exclusively imprinted on a certain species. Most of these genuine zoophiles simply have no choice, never had one and they orientation is NOT a result of self imprinting by watching too much animal porn, NOT a result of desentitization by an oversexualized world,NOT a result of "having the wrong type of friends".
Contrary to the common belief, zoophiles are not "ugly, mentally challenged hillbillies no woman ever wants to touch"; we´re not "shy guys who are into animals" because of an inferiority complex; we´re not sexual predators with an "all-rapey mindset".
Your second question probably is "How should I deal with him right now?".
I would strongly recommend that you keep your calm. Your feelings of disgust and alienation are natural and very common for any outsider. These feelings should not distort your logical thinking; in the end, he´s the same guy you enjoyed hanging out with before his coming out. I even dare to say that him coming out to you is a HUGE indicator of his trust towards you. Don´t abuse it and be assured that coming out to others is not the easiest thing for any of us to do. As you know, having sex with animals is illegal in almost any part of the world; he metaphorically has put his balls into your hand, giving you the power to screw his life in an instant, with a simple phonecall to your local police department.
As you don´t seem to be the self righteous fella that won´t hesitate to turn in an "animal molester" to the authorities, the best thing you can do now is staying openminded and trying to be supportive as far as your own morals allow it. You could even become some kind of "corrective" for him by teling him that you are tolerant and supportive as long as his actions don´t become harmful for any animal, in any way. We zoos are usually doomed to remain silent about our sexuality, talking about it in a non judgemental environment has proven to be way more beneficial than anything else. You also should know that for many zoos, zoophilia is a temporary phase of their lives and by being kinda supportive, you may even abbreviate your friend´s. Many juvenile "zoophiles" are involved into this mainly because of their insecurities and instrumentalise a "shocking" sexual deviancy as a simple "cry for help".
You really should try to talk with your friend in depth, in a non judgemental way. This does NOT mean you should be too accepting, it actually is very essential to voice all of your doubts and concerns about this orientation. I frankly admit that it can be quite a burden for an outsider to be confronted with zoophilia, I remember one of my friends saying "Thanks to you, I´ll never see horses in the same way I saw ´em before.". It can be a burden. But don´t let that keep you from talking to him. If you cherish the friendship you both obviously have, don´t turn away, don´t avoid him from now on. Try to help him instead...and talking with him about it will most definitely do that. Ask general questions, then become more precise. Try to find out what his zoophilia is all about...insecurity, shyness...or if it truly is love he feels for dogs. Even if you are repulsed by the unusual topic, I´ll promise that, if you manage to remain somehow neutral and supportive, by the end of your conversations you probably made yourself a really close friend, one you´ll be able to rely on your entire life.
Thanks you. These are really good posts. I will keep in mind what you said for sure.
This hits close to home, because I almost did the same with a friend a while back. I thank myself I did not, due to the risks it would have brought unnecessarily to my door, but... this very easily could've been me.
If I was him, I'd want you to try to understand. Not to try to change me, but to see it as part of me.
To me, my zoophilia is something beautiful. Something I am proud of. It's not a flaw, or a disorder.
I think that's kinda what you need to get out of your head, to be frank.
I hate this argument, but it does work. We do all kinds of terrible things to animals in this world, all in the name of serving human interests. And it upsets you so bad your friend might like a dog? Really? How bad is that? Especially when you must surely realize, dogs aren't defenseless and can at least make the most direct "no" clear.
There may be some minor room for misinterpretation and coercion, but zoophiles tend to be people who understand animals on a level most people can't even begin to comprehend. I know that's the case with me. I doubt they'd make that mistake, but even if they did, is it really that much worse than what happens to bring you that hamburger? If not, why do you view your friend so negatively for it? Where is the logic to your emotion?
Something to think about.
Thank you. Yeah, I'd advise against coming out to people. I think my friend is lucky to have opened up to someone like me, but I think many other people would have been way less sympathetic to his plight to say the least.
And how do you know that?
With myself? I don't know how I could prove it to you. It's just something that's always been with me. The fact that my "mate" (the term is in quotes because we never actually well, mated, at least not conventionally) was a wild doe should be some evidence though.
For others, I may be projecting. I don't know, but I'd like to assume most of us are similar.
Having come out to some people myself, it's interesting to see the perspective from the other side.
I "like" dogs in a sexual way too and have never been with a girl in a serious relationship. I too have told people too much about my proclivities while being under the influence (and regretted it later) so I definitely understand what your friend is going through. I'll just add my voice to the chorus and say that no, zoophilia is not a choice, no, it cannot be fixed and yes, we deeply love and respect the object of our affections. "Why animals?" I could go on for days... From an emotional standpoint, the thing I love most about dogs is how they always find it within themselves to enjoy life no matter their situation or what they've been through in the past. I tend to prefer dogs that are playful and there are honestly few things I enjoy more in life more than just playing with a dog. I know it may seem so mundane to most people, but when I am playing with a dog, all my worries fade and I am truly happy. From a physical standpoint, I enjoy canine anatomy more than I do that of humans. I couldn't really explain why. I love how dogs are strong yet graceful (sometimes, anyways...), I love the gracefulness of their curves, I love the comfort and softness of fur, I love their smell, I love their piercing eyes, I love just feeling them close to me... no human can give me a comparable sentiment.
At the risk of contradicting what others have said, I prefer talking about zoophilia with the people I came out to on my own terms. I'm glad just to know they accept or at least tolerate it, but if we are to talk about this subject, it has to come from me primarily. Just let your friend know that you're ok with what he's told and that you're there for him if he ever needs to talk, but don't confront him about it. I suspect he may have tried to relieve some of his pent up emotions while being intoxicated as I have done myself... so really, leave it up to him to make his own decisions about how he deals with this and how he takes it from there. That's my best advice.
Friends like you are really awesome people. Thanks for doing this.
Thank you. I somehow missed this post yesterday.
This is what I thought in the beginning too. But others here have convinced me to give it a shot nonetheless.
I would continue talking to your friend on the subject of zoophilia. Let him know you are still friends.
Shouts out to you for having rational conversation, that's really admirable coming from so many zoos who are used to harsh criticism and persecution. It's really cool that you posted this to understand your friend more. I hope he continues to be a good friend and you guys move past this too.
My 2 cents, I'll probably just end up echoing most other posters here. Why animals? I have no clue. I think possibly different from others, the first porn I ever watched was bestiality porn, it just happened that way by twisted fate and that probably set my sexuality toward that. But I could have just as easily been disgusted by it and been interested in humans, couldn't I?
Also, I know it's hard to kindof view zoophilia in any sort of positive and understanding light. It's weird and wrong to many people; even I struggle myself. I don't think I'll ever be sexual with an animal just cause I feel like it's a moral grey area; however, I'll never be able to ignore that there is a deep emotional and romantic attraction to animals for me (dogs specifically). I feel like a normal person in all other aspects of life. I'm pretty outgoing, I have hobbies, I love learning and school - there's just this one thing where I love dogs more than most.
Anyway, bravo for doing this. I hope for more people like you to have rational conversation with about zoophilia and those who are zoosexual.
Don't leave your friend hanging.
I won't.
Part of my concern here is this has become less about helping your friend and more about defending ourselves and our behavior from your perceptions.
Forget about us. Have this talk with him. Maybe it'll be more understandable coming from someone whom you know isn't BSing half this stuff.
That's my honest advice.
Aye. I'm partly to blame about this, I admit. But really, the more I think about it the less I can stomach animal abuse. I read very little here that may convince me that zoophilia is not abuse.