Every single one of us probably knows how hard it is to gain grounds when argueing with people not approving zoophilia.
Here is some important advice.
1) "We have the same goals" Find something you can both agree on, like fighting animal abuse.It´s easier to convince when there is some connection.
2) "Zoophilia isn´t harmless" We should never try to paint the picture of total harmlessness. Nobody will buy it, especially when he is biased against zoophilia. Try to maintain a relatively neutral position and poiint out that zoophilia CAN be RELATIVELY harmless when real knowledge about the animal, responsibility and self reflection are involved.
3) "Trustworthyness" We should refrain from ALL generalisations and avoid the typical black-white mindset. Reality is more complicated than that. Not all antis are per se bad ; neither are all zoophiles generally "good people".
4) "Prohibition does not work" Point out that outlawing something won´t make it disappear and won´t solve the general problem of animal abuse. Outlawing something won´t keep it from happening. There´s not just total legalisation or total prohibition.Offer regulation instead as an alternative.
5) "Focus on core issues" Outsiders don´t care if you become "suicidal" because you´re not allowed to fuck animals. Focus on animal welfare and avoiding animal abuse through regulation and control of zoophile relationships instead of going full blown whiney.
6) "Backup material" Having some studies handy will help our cause. Order or print out studies from Miletski, Beetz et al." Don´t go into a gunfight unarmed"
7) "expose contradictions" Listen carefully to your opponent and try to find contradictions in his arguments. Once again, don´t fall into a black-and-white scenario, just point out the contradictions to your opponent.
8) "Demand little first" Refrain from "I want legal animal porn, I want legal promiscuity with animals, I want XYZ etc..." Search for the smallest form of agreement first. Keep your demands humble.
9) " Avoid trench battles" Proper communication is essential here. Avoid the usual "us versus them" mentality at any time. Without a basic willingness to compromise, we won´t get anywhere. In the end, tolerance for us depends on the "unjust, prejudiced, backwards, puritan, prudish" society. Show respect for the views of your opponent, even if they are unbearably prudish to you.
10) " Minimizing the damage" Always stick to this. Tolerated zoophilia should never turn into a total hell for animals. Fill our credo "The animal´s wellbeing always comes first" with live. Never ever give the impression that zoophilia is primarily about people who desperately want to fuck animals, regardless of the damage the animals have to endure. Zoophilia is NOT about HUMAN rights.
11) "No extremism!" Avoid "anti human" statements and other indicators that we zoos are somehow separatists. We need society, they don´t need us and will stomp on us whenever we give the impression of a minority totally disconnected from their "normal" reality.
12) "Don´t demand everything!" Demanding legal animal brothels, animals individually bred for "zoophiles", easy access to animals in general, legal fencehopping etc. is rubbish. Of course, most zoophiles understand that, but some of our worldwide community of beasties/zoos actually have demanded exactly that. Stay off of that, it´s toxic.
13) "Avoid complicated arguments" Always keep in mind that the majority of people will have huge problems following your "zoo narrative". Keep your argumentation simple. Don´t overdo it with spitting out your insider knowledge, don´t use terms nobody but our community knows. There´s an outside world in which zoophilia plays NO role whatsoever. Remember that.
14) "Your point of view isn´t the only one" Keep in mind that you are as "irrational and biased" for your opponent as your opponent is for you. Nobody can claim to possess the absolute truth here. Keep openminded, even for arguments you don´t like to hear or painful prejudices. Becoming aggressive, whiney, stubborn, bitchy etc. will end communication immediately and you´ll find yourself in a metaphorical trench fight.
Of course these advices won´t guarantee success. But when you stick to them, chances for a real communication with an outsider will rise significantly. Only with this, compromises become possible.
[deleted]
me: can we agree we are both against animal abuse?
them: animals cant consent therefore it's abuse :\^)
me: ...I'm out.
Me: Define consent, and then explain why they can't do it.
The next step depends on their response. Here are two examples, and how I would proceed:
Them: Consent is when both parties have a rational understanding of what they're doing and verbally agree to do it.
Me: How much information do couples need about each other to make sex OK? I'm not sure this is workable in real life without total control of human sexuality by the state or someone else.
Or, in case I get a more reasonable definition that fits most sex that ordinary people would deem consensual:
Them: Consent is when both parties agree to do something without coercion from either one.
Me: Oh, well, here are some examples I think fit that standard...
I'll then give some activities that work with that, with videos or pictures if I can find them. During the whole, I'd emphasize how the human makes sure the animal is enjoying themselves, and how to tell that they are enjoying themselves.
the trouble is, you are presuming that they are a rational person who can take their feelings out of the equation and just focus on the facts. The vast majority of people just aren't capable of that, which is why using a logical argument never works. If logic did work we probably wouldn't frowned upon as anyone who works with animals know how randy they can get with humans.
Anyway, I'm not one to argue about zoo stuff with non zoos. Life's too short and talking to one person isn't going to do anything.
I'm not assuming that at all. Emotional appeals can be thrown into the mix. For example, by priming the target with stories of positive, healthy zoo relationships.
What about the ZETA Principles?
They´re part of the "zoophilia CAN be RELATIVELY harmless if.."- argumentation.
This all very good advice. Does anyone have any good examples of people talking back and forth about Zoophilia. Or someone with the common anti zoo mindset who can agree with a zoophile about things. I'd like to better myself in understanding the different thoughts they have. It's hard for me to see anything wrong with it in general. So when I try on the internet I think I make a fool of myself and the community. I've only ever argued once with a group about these topics. Again, thank you for being this subject up and I'll take all the advice to heart. Although.. I'll never try to start a fire online again over this topic.
While your guidelines aren't all bad, I think you are including some very poor concepts. In general, I think a good introduction to debating would be far more useful.
I think a good aproach to this is to point out that while one can beat their spouse, it doesn't follow that this is always the case. For someone who's mind is made up, there is no convincing them, no ammount of reason or rhetoric will change their mind.
No, not only no, but absolutely no. No group should ever consent to a registry as an attempt to gain acceptance. A registry is accepting that you need to be monitored, which I do not believe is true. Abuse needs to be dealt with in all it's forms, but thrusting the government into private lives is not the solution. If you wanted to suggest that every animal be subjected to a veterinary checkup yearly, that would be more reasonable, but as typically happens exceptions would be made for industry, mitigating its utility. I think Thoreau summed this up well in Civil Disobedience "A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then..."
A registry is absolutely absurd and conceeding that this is an option is equivalent to accepting that your actions are inherently abusive and that you need to be monitored. I, and many I know, take far better care of their partners than the average pet owner. Any abuse found through such a registry would be used as evidence against those on it, even if that abuse was far more widespread among the non-zoophiles who were not being monitored. Name me any despised minority who have gained acceptance through registration; it certainly didn't help Jews, Blacks, religious minorities, or homosexuals, to name but a few.
I presume your wording here needs to be clarified as to me it implies that "some damage" to the non-human is acceptable and should be downplayed. If that is what you meant, I can only respond that there is no "minimizing the damage", if there is damage to your partner, you need to stop immediately, that is a case of abuse. I presume this reading is incorrect, but better wording would help.
"For someone whose mind already is made up..." Well, as nearly everyone has an opinion about zoophilia, we can quit fighting for tolerance then...as least that´s what your argument implies.
"No group should ever consent..." Well, wise guy, then come up with another cunning solution. Oh, the usual "mah freedum!" won´t work, hope you noticed...The authorities have a legit interest in keeping unnecessary harm away from animals, so what is your solution for this dilemma? Without allowing examination, it´s like "Hey, I have a million dollars in my hand behind my back!" - "Well, then show me" - "No!" - " You don´t have a million bucks" - "Yes,yes, I have ´em" - "Then show me!" - " No, it´s against mah freedum!". No proof of harmlessness, no trust from society. And your quote is rubbish also...gays today are very well conforming to normal society, are they powerless? Anyway, you only exercise the usual "heads through the wall" approach, trying to force society into tolerance. Taking without giving. And that´s exactly why this shit hasn´t worked, is not working and will not work in a thousand years.
"A registry..." In the Netherlands, you need a "wiet pass" to buy cannabis in some areas. No one feels patronized by this as it serves a purpose: to end drug tourism and also gathering data on consumption habits.So, where´s the problem? If you have a car, you also have to register to get a license plate. Is this something you can tolerate? Or do you argue that this is limiting freedom? You know what my guess is? I believe that being held accountable is something that makes you shy away from my concept. And for your bogus argument at the end of that paragraph: jews, blacks, hispanics and homosexuals never had to deal with the issue of consent. It´s a typical reflex to fantasize yourself into the position of a minority suffering from prejudice without noticing how few similarities there are between them and us. Without solving the core issue of "sex with animals equals rape", there´s no progress whatsoever. Now, more than 11 years A.M.H. (after Mr Hands), your point of view hasn´t achieved anything. How long does it take until you realize your argumentation is flawed?
"I presume your wording..." If you like it or not, our community very often falls for a anthropocentric viewpoint. Our arguments seem to orbit sex, not actual emotional love. Just browse through some of them and you´ll have to realise that the word "love" isn´t used often, except "I love animal dick/cunt"etc..." My statement is addressed towards the underlying anthropocentrism; I think that I´ve made my stance very clear. If an animal suffers from a zoophile in any way, the zoophile needs to stop NOW.
As I stated, if your goal is to protect non-human animals, then a zoophile registry is the wrong place to start. The number of zoophiles is quite small in relation to the rest of society. If you want a registration for all non-human animals to provide oversight I'd not see as much problem with that. I suspect such a proposition would fail, but that's a whole other issue alltogether. As for the examples you give of other registration, such as driving, are only certain people singled out and required to register or is everyone required to register?
Not at all, I am 100% accountable for the care given to my wards and I think my vet, who sees my charges regularly, is better equiped to spot any abuse than and registry ever could.
Virtually the whole of human societies have to deal with the issue of consent in regard to non-human animals as the use and sometimes gross exploitation of non-humans is ingrained in our societies. There are countless abuses which can occur which aren't sexual in nature, and yet you seem not to care about those and focus only on sex.
Explain to me how discriminating against someone for their sexuality, religion, political affiliation, etc isn't the same? Given, we cannot be singled out by our skin color, but in all other regards it is entirely the same.
As for your aside about love not being used very often, I can only assume you frequent other groups than I do as it is a common thread in most of what I encounter, including here. Perhaps you should find better commuities to participate in?
Look, after the little stunt performed by u/zetacola, I don´t take shit from you anymore. I´m sick and tired of all this shit, "oooh, we´re so persecuted", "nobody understands us poor, good people"...that´s just soo pathetic. Let´s be honest: you don´t want to do anything that makes it easier for society, right? You offer nothing and want everything in exchange. Maybe u/ursusm was right when she said that zoophiles don´t deserve tolerance at this point. You don´t want compromises, you don´t want to contribute anything for tolerance except the usual "bla,bla,bla, believe me, we´re harmless!". Instead of trying to figure out solutions, you just keep complaining and complaining and complaining. Yes, I focus on sexual abuse in my posts. Why? Because that is exactly the key issue of zoophilia! That´s exactly what bothers outsiders! Just stop your decoy tactics, zoophilia is not about non sexual animal abuse! Oh, and stop that comparison to jews and black people. ZETA already fucked up big time when they put a David´s star onto their homepage, with a zeta edited into it. Are you really saying that the shoah, the genocide of 6 million jews, the racial segregation, slavery and the recent, latent racism are comparable to the situation the zoophiles are in? How delusional can someone be? Should we ask the jewish and black community if they see similarities? Just shut up with that stupid rhetoric! I´m so sick of it, of that exaggerated self victimisation, of the delusional habits you have acquired from living your life in echo chambers. Just read what zetacola has posted...and if there´s a little bit of sense left in you, try to understand his post.
You´re fucked up in the head. There, I said it. And I will stand by it. You´re fucked up. You have lost reality completely. You think the world owes you one, you lost any connection to those you demand tolerance from. I wouldn´t be so angry if your delusional mindset would only affect you and and those likeminded, whiney, bitchy reality deniers, but your shitty way of thinking affects me, too...in a really unpleasant, intolerable way.
You have nothing to offer, only demands so irrational and self delusional it´s no surprise society tries to keep the biggest possible distance from you. You don´t deserve tolerance from them. So, just stay in your echo chambers forever, whining, bitching, throwing a tantrum about the "unjust, prejudiced society"...that will surely change things for the better,correct? Is that your cunning plan? Well, then so be it...stay in your comfy zone, trying to persuade outsiders in vain. I have better things to do with my time than that. Stupid, stubborn, inflexible, megalomaniac, delusional, unable to compromise, self righteous....you don´t deserve tolerance from society, not even the tiniest bit.
wow. talk about unhinged.
First off, if you have to resort to an ad hominem attack it's pretty clear you don't have a logical response to my points. Please, if you want a discussion let's try to keep the projection and personal attacks out of it. I value logic and reason, if you wish to reach me you will need to use those tools.
You don't know anything about me. I have serious interest in the welfare of non-human animals, but I can see that the idea of a zoophile registry is absolutely backwards. In this regard, I have no special wants for society, my wants in this regard are indeed selfish. I want to be treated the same as any other human being. My desires in no way trump those of anyone else.
At this point. of course not, but if there were a registry of zoophiles we could be targeted in exactly the same manner as have those peoples and so many political dissidents, religious minorities, and others throughout history. We can largely go unnoticed by society provided we do not draw attention to ourselves, but that's a double-edged sword since silence means the commonly believed stereotypes and criminalization goes unchecked.
Ad hominem noted. Since you've never met me and we've not exchanged much beyond a few comments here on reddit, how is it that you think you know anything about what I believe, want, or intend? I think I've made it pretty clear in my replies in this thread that I take the problem seriously, but it's hard to take you seriously when you go off on a tangent and start projecting your own fears onto me.
I have no idea what you're on about here. I largely do not feel oppressed as I can easily hide from society, I do not demand any level of acceptance from society, and I have not once suggested otherwise. I do feel that zoophilia is unjustly illegal, as I believe it is possible to have a respectful, non-abusive relationship with a non-human. Do you believe that all sexual contact with a non-human is inherently abusive? I can only presume that is what you are getting at, if so, I disagree. While such a relationship can be abusive, it is not inherently so. I think a question every zoophile should ask themselves often is "am I harming the one I love" and seriously examine their own actions.
I typically do not try to persuade anyone, what I do in my personal life is none of anyone else's business and I try very hard to keep my personal details, personal.
Is this another ad hominem or more of your projection?
Also, I note you aren't even using your own debating points and doing exactly what you say not to do, please review numbers 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 14 from your list; hilarious.
Read the title of the thread again...do you consider yourself an outsider? Fine, then we got this settled...
so, civil debate only applies if you're debating an outsider?
well, outsiders aren't animal abusers like all of us in here :\^)
That's it, I'm done with the zoo community, at least at reddit. Shit like this is shameful and patently offensive to those amongst us using logic. It's painful to me, and no longer worth dealing with. gg guys.
sorry to see you go. :/
Pretty sure Thoreau didn't have dog-fucking in mind when he wrote that, degenerate.
Are you sure, he also said this in Walden: "I have heard of a dog that barked at every stranger who approached his master's premises with clothes on, but was easily quieted by a naked thief."
:P
He also said, "It is never too late to give up our prejudices. No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof."
Generally I agree with this advice. My biggest disagreement would be on the term "regulation". Sexual encounters are not something which can be regulated. It doesn't work like that.
I agree with that point up until that word. I think there are middle ground options - for instance, increasing the penalties for true animal abuse, including rape. I would absolutely love to see animal abuse treated more similarly to the same crimes against humans.
But I don't see how any sort of regulation would be effective.
Again though, I agree with the vast majority of this. I might have some of my own points to add, based on my own conversations and tactics, if you're at all interested.
What are increased penalties worth when the chances of getting caught are slim to none? You all seem to forget one important detail: animals can´t report their abusive "zoophile" to the police by themselves. They depend on humans to do that for them. And unless you believe in some sort of "spontaneous self illumination" by the abuser , all abusers don´t label their crime as abuse and don´t turn themselves in. We need a third, independent and neutral party to evaluate the animal´s wellbeing, physically and psychically. Without such a third party, all our chants "zoophilia is harmless" are only assumptions. What really puzzles me is why it seems so hard for you to connect these dots. Without a third party that can interfere immediately after a "zoo pelationship" becomes abusive (yes, things can start quite "vanilla", but become very abusive when boredom and adventurousness kick in), the common accusation of rape won´t disappear ....ever. How is this still so hard to swallow? The same type of procedure is used by handing out driver licenses...do you complain about that,too? Are you frightened? Why? It´s quite remarkable that outsiders/non zoo normals are way more open about my concept as it addresses their doubts about zoophilia. Regulation would ensure that no abuse occurs. The wellbeing of the animal comes first in my concept; any discomfort the zoophile has is the price you have to pay for that kind of regulated freedom..if you really live zoophilia as it is meant, then allowing a vet´s visit once in a while shouldn´t be too much to ask for that, right?
Yes, government should not be invited into our privacy. But zoophilia is different from other sexual orientations and animals can neither withdraw themselves from an abusive "zoo" relationship, nor can they report their torturers to the police themselves. I´d apprectiate it if you all could notice the fact that zoophilia has different frame conditions and the usual way of authorities dealing with sexuality (keeping out unless nonconsentual harm/violence comes into play) cannot be applied here. I guess you mistake my regulation concept and fear it could just be like those publicly accessible sex offenders lists you crazy Americans have. Well, that´s not what I´m aiming at...a zoo registry would only be accessible by officials (namely vets), just to ensure the animal is checked in reasonable intervals. Your privacy is respected and your data unveiled only to people who need to know because they are part of the control mechanism. Regulation would make it impossible to hide away a mistreated animal, it would keep you from any kind of persecution if you meet all the criteria.
So, guys, I´m just proposing an idea here. If you can think of anything better, then feel free to write it down on here. But please don´t parrot the old, worn out "mah freedom" stuff. Without taking some sort of control mechanism into the equation, nothing will change, the allegations and accusations won´t perish anytime soon. What are you afraid of? Why the harsh reactions? When there are clear rules for "licensed zoophilia", all those who obey them and don´t do harm are safe. So, what´s the fuss all about?
Explain to me then why you'd expect an abuser to submit for registration.
Your solution has the exact same problem. Abusers simply wouldn't be licensed. The only thing your solution would do, then, would be a horrific violation of rights.
Yes, I will say "my freedom". I would object just as strongly to an arab registry, or a muslim registry, or a gay registry. This regulation idea of yours would not affect abusers, since they wouldn't get registered, but those who do try to follow the law in their naivete are open to any number of hideous acts.
I'm curious... Are you familiar with the hundred flowers campaign in China? Because that's how this would go.
They can't report any abuse, sexual or otherwise. Do you have any statistics or studies which indicate that zoophiles are somehow more likely to abuse a non-human than non-zoophiles?
As I said, a registry for every pet owner and mandatory vet examinations for checking on physical and mental health and signs of abuse. I don't want animals to be abused, but I also don't want a minority like zoophiles being targeted by it. Many pets are abused in nonsexual ways and it would be great if that could be reduced. Shall I make an argument for it?
I'd vote for it.
[deleted]
I´m glad my message is understood. Maybe there IS hope for us...;)
I just had to feed my horses, thus my short answer; now I´m ready to write a little bit more.
First, I have to applaud you for your grandiose idea. Splendid move, mate. I thought of doing something similar, but shied away from the backlash.
You are absolutely right, we as a community suffer from deep entrenchment. We´ve built up an entire alternate reality and we´re feeling fine sitting in our echo chambers and sand castles. Although I can understand the need for a safespace, I see how much mistaking this safespace for the real world is harming us. The level of alienation from the real world is high in our community. That´s why I fiercely insist on "seeing your world through the outsider´s eyes". This apparent disconnection is one of the biggest obstacles on our way to more tolerance. Something has to be done, something has to change.
I´ve also addressed what you call "the illusion of enlightenment"; I see it as a defensive reaction based on the massive hostility from society and also a "feelgood" mechanism for an average zoophile. "Knowing" that you have "superior" knowledge of animals seems to be a relief for all this self doubt and it serves well as a confidence generator. It also fits the common narrative of zoos as the "real" animal rights activists. But for anyone outside watching this from the outside, it really isn´t more as an expectable attempt of justification. Most often, this "superior" knowledge even isn´t backed up by actions when those "animal experts" are asked to show their supreme understanding. Delusions... for a simple reason.
I´m sad to hear about idiots sending porn as an example for "harmlessness". Though not totally unexpected as it seems to be common in our community, one could not sabotage our community´s cause more than with a move like that. Sometimes, I wonder if some prejudices are right and we zoos are really nothing more than a bunch of mentally challenged perverts. It´s as promising as trying to convince the pope by sending him gay porn en masse. Just another sign of the vile mindset and disconnection with reality that some "zoos" show.
About regulation: unfortunately I see no alternative to that. I can´t imagine a different way to prove our claims of being harmless for the animal. Without any proof, people naturally will assume that we´re lying to protect our animal fucking activities.
I added the "avoid trench battles" to my list for a reason. I too noticed the incredible bigotry in our community. We expect, but we aren´t willing to give. Like little spoiled brats, many think the world owes them. No, it does not.Maybe some of that originates in the LGBT movement and their success story; now, everybody thinks we just have to copy their tactics. That´s why I emphasize the fact that zoo =/= gay everytime it´s appropriate. Only respect generates respect, a lesson I learned as a kid...well, some seem to have skipped that lesson, obviously. I´m glad that you get what I´m trying to put across. At least one guy...:( sigh
The way I act in this sub, everythig I write, all of that is aimed at breaking the downward spiral, the circlejerking. We´re chasing our tails here and no one seems to realise that. I have to admit that it´s quite comfy once you have made yourself familiar with the zoo narrative. Sometimes I even think that our argumentation has become automated and no one even wastes a single though anymore as it´s inconvenient to think about yourself. It´s easy to point fingers at others, but incredibly hard to check yourself...but this self checking is absolutely vital for a group that chooses an animal as a partner. The incoherence sometimes gives me a real bad headache. I really try to break that concrete wall the zoos have built up...but , boy, from my experience, I have to say it´s easier to turn around an anti than to get the common zoo out of his self built bunker. The walls seem to be massive and the keys to the door are usually thrown away as soon as the zoo has entered his comfy safespace.
At least I have found someone with an equal mindset. Maybe you see that I´m not that asshole people assume behind my posts. I do this for a reason, not for trolling. If only more people had kept an open mind like you.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Just forget these people...they are blind and feel comfortable with their blindness. You can lead a horse to the water, but you can´t force it to drink. Any debate is just a waste of time here. Focus on yourself, create an environment that allows you to live a happy and pleasant life with the animal of your choice and don´t look back onto the mess that calls itself zoophile community. They´re not worth it.
[deleted]
So you're surprised that people treated you like a troll when you were being a troll?
I got a chuckle out of your admission, I had stated to friends quite early on in that thread that I felt you were a troll, thank you for confirming the calibration of my bullshit detector.
[deleted]
When you deliberately ignore the logical responses and keep repeating the same tired old responses, you are in effect selecting for poor responses by rejecting the logical ones. I note you don't mention any of the constructive responses and show only those which met your pre-defined criteria of being poor responses; including what appears to me to be misinterpreting at least one response so it fits what you want. In effect, it shows nothing but bias, which we already know exists.
[deleted]
I am often quite critical of what goes on in this and other communities. I pick and choose who I interact with, how I do, and why. There are a vast number of sub-communities, many of which do not agree with one another on fundamental issues, you cannot treat this entire grouping as a single, cohesive whole. This isn't unique to this group, it is largely a function of human social dynamics. As an example, there are the occasional individuals who come here seeking porn, they are certainly not representative of the community as they come here with the misunderstanding that porn is relevant to the community here, but yet they exist. I have little doubt there are people here who have little interest in a non-human beyond their own gratification; it's the internet, you can't really keep them out, but they are certainly not representative. I've been in and around the internet zoo "community" for decades and the same types of people exist in and around every community, zoo or otherwise. Take your experiment to a gay community (or any other) and use the exact same tactics and you will get the exact same result, some reasoned responses, some unreasonable, and some rage.
My point is that you appear to be looking for the worst opinions, which are typically not representative of the average in the community, and trying to present those as representative.
So you think there's a problem with the philosophy, what exactly do you have a problem with? I suggest you figure that out and try to express it as I have absolutely no idea what your problem is. I don't even know if I agree with your objections as I have yet to see them coherently stated.
Why am I not in an uproar? Partly because I do spend my time more concerned with my own actions; or as Marcus Aurelius said, "Suppose any man shall despise me. Let him look to that himself. But I will look to this, that I be not discovered doing or saying anything deserving of contempt."
There are many new people who have no practical experience in a zoo-relationship who voice their opinions on various matters; I do not mean sexual experience, but rather the experience of maintaining a relationship with a non-human. That does not mean that the vioces of the inexperienced are invalid, but that they have not been tempered with the practical experience of living. In short, what is commonly referred to as the difference between theory and reality. Reform comes from the inside, by challenging the opinions of others and presenting compelling and logical reasons which cause them to reconsider the opinion they previously had.
Good luck with that (seriously). I have heard this said many times and typically not by anyone who's ideas of reform have been well thought out; take this thread for instance. I will continue to do as I typically do; I will read what is posted and offer my honest criticism, I will try to speak out against foolishness and abuse, and I will try to not take any of it too seriously.
[deleted]
Have you bothered to read the actual paper? It makes no ethical or moral assessments, it merely classifies a selection of posts from beatforum into various types. A scrape of any stigmatized community would yield essentially the same, as is indicated in the paper. Pay particular attention to the "Limitations" section. That you are using this as a justification for presuming such accounts are invalid is unfortunate, as the paper does not support that assertion. I would suggest you read the paper and if you are unsure about what a particular part actually means, I suggest contacting the author. I have found many researchers very accessible via email and typically responsive, though I have not dealt with Maratea.
I am sorry you are uncomfortable with your thoughts, have you considered seeking professional help? Typically zoophilia is not considered a problem except for those who struggle with it. Furthermore, I don't know if it helps or not, but you should not feel like a monster for thoughts, only actions, as a thought exists purely within your mind and cannot cause harm.
[deleted]
But the paper does not support your supposition.
You have failed to demonstrate that even remotely. Perhaps you could start a new thread and we can discuss this one point at a time. I always allow that I can be in error, but in order for me to have any chance of correcting an error, it must be shown to me.
I have indeed, when I was younger I struggled with coming to terms with my desires. I fought with the idea that I was different and that no matter what I did, I preferred the company of non-human animals. Seeking help largely helped me get a better grasp on the issue. In synopsis, I was asked if I was harmed by the animals, then asked if I was harming the animals, neither of which applied, then they simply asked, "So then what's the problem?" I've discussed it with a few others over the years with essentially the same synopsis, no real problem.
It's been the stance of psychologists for some time that zoophilia isn't typically an issue. The issue has been discussed from ethical standpoints (Peter Singer, as well as others) and it is typically found to be a non-issue in that regard as well. You can beat yourself up, but you aren't doing anyone any good, least of all yourself. You can believe what you like, but the preponderance of the evidence doesn't support your position, even the little bit you've attempted to provide here. If that is how you truly feel, I am at a loss as to why you are even here?
We are here for support and closure. Helping to ease our minds of thoughts within thoughts. We need social interaction with others with different opinions to better understand others and ourselves. Its a bit of a bummer when we cannot get along and help each other out. Pointing out flaws or our opinions in a nice respectful way to each other. I am here because I too am struggling with these thoughts. And I would love to better myself by reading what you all have to say. I wish I could fine a psychiatrist or therapist/counselor for my thoughts, without any fear of being thought of as an active animal raper in their eyes. Thank you for reading. I hope you and Zeta the best.
[deleted]
Well, I am citing the current, accepted views as set by psychologists and other professionals within the respective fields. That there is a general, social taboo is unrelated; one can eat pork at a restaurant and not be seen as unusual in America, yet be condemned for such in the Middle East. You are conflating social acceptance, which is quite often not rational, with activities which cause harm. For a second example, in the community I live in, belief in an invisible friend who lives in the sky is common, yet that does not make this being real.
The bulk of psychology, animal behavior, ethics, and many others. The paper you tried to use to support your claim references quite a few itself. What is your evidence aside from social taboo?
[deleted]
So you just handwave off psychology and ethics? May I suggest you start with the DSM, Beetz(2004), Levy(2003), Miletski(2001), Singer(2001), Davies(1984), Peretti(1982), Kinsey(1953) and that's selecting from only the citations in the paper that you promoted.
Sorry, but you are arguing against the established science of today, the burden of proof is on you to show why all of these researchers who are more qualified than you are wrong.
[deleted]
Got any citations to back that up? Singer's paper, while wildly unpopular among the masses, is well accepted in the field as the logic is sound, ergo it's inclusion as a reference in the paper you promoted(as well as many others). I would aslo quibble that Singer is not in favor of bestiality, he states that it can be acceptable and that the circumstances matter significantly. It would appear you have not read it, I would recommend doing so.
Some of us also have research and logic.
[deleted]
First off, it is not my burden of proof to demonstate no-harm, as it is impossible to prove a negative.
That they enjoy sex certainly; that they enjoy it with humans, I am not aware of any research done in that regard, likely due in part to the illegal nature of the research or the
I am a proponent of naturalistic presumtion, I believe that all things are part of a continuous sequence of natural causes and effects. I do not believe in free-will and this belief is largely upheld by scientific evidence.
I believe at least one example was by Fox(197?) in a study of social interaction and age of puppy weaning. It has also been noted in numerous other papers, but I do not have a list of them. I believe there were also mentions of this in some of Pryor's publications. A quick review of the literature (I do not have access here) should shake out several. Perhaps one of our community members will have a reference.
I am unaware of any research in this regard, though I question the supposition. I do not think a zoo is any more likely to pickup communication cues than anyone else who has spent considerable time studying a particular species. I note the itallicised part as significant.
I am not a researcher in any of these fields, that I am unaware of research is neither evidence of it's lack of existence nor oof it's impossiblity. I will gladly provide references when and where I can.
[deleted]
That is certainly a focus, the circumstances matter, which you appear to not grasp. I have stated in this thread already that abuse can happen, it is certainly a concern, but the potential for abuse is not equivalent to abuse, which is what you have been promoting.
To drag an example from earlier in this thread, that a person can beat their spouse and children does not mean that they necessarily are doing so. In a relationship where abuse is occuring it absolutly should stop as it is unacceptable. Is this such a hard concept to understand?
If you posit that abuse is absolutely occuring, I ask what is your evidence for this?
[deleted]
Well why not try providing some evidence?
I posit that you are abusing yourself. I offer no evidence, are you convinced? This is a logical fallacy, it is an argument from ignorance. It is, by definition, invalid.
[deleted]
Keep in mind, many of the general population also believe in Bigfoot, that a man died and rose again into the sky several days later, that another man rode a horse into the heavens, that the universe is only 6000 years old, etc. This is argumentum ad populum, an argument from the masses, it is illogical.
[deleted]
Certainly, but that has no bearing on my position. I do not choose my positions to be at odds with the populace, I choose them based on logic and reason. Given, sometimes my logic can be faulty, but without being shown my error (assuming I am in error) how am I to be expected to know it is error?
No, this is fallacious reasoning. We have no evidence that typing in reddit doesn't cause eathquakes. We have no evidence that reading English causes brain tumors. We have no evidence that oral sex causes asteroid impacts. Are we to presume that everything we do not have evidence for is proven, possible, or even reasonable? It is illogical.
[deleted]
"Do we have anything, any research, any science... that indicate that zoophilic relationships are not inherently abusive?"
No we don't because it's an invalid question. It's much like the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" in that it begs the question, it presumes an answer (abuse!) based on absolutely no evidence. Logic (and science) cannot prove negatives, we cannot prove there are no unicorns unless we examine the entire universe, which is impossible. Think of all of the things for which we have no evidence, shall we presume all of these things are true? How do we deal with the contradictions?
These are common fallacies and some of them are very subtle. I suggest you do some reading on logical fallacies, understanding them allows you to spot them and thus use better logic. If there were evidence that all zoophilic relationships were abusive, don't you think the anti's would be falling all over themselves draging it out?*
*) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Because anti's don't have it doesn't mean it's untrue, just there's no reason to believe it without evidence. The statement, "Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" applies here.
[deleted]
Absolutely unacceptable. The animal(human or otherwise) isn't developed sexually yet. There's a lot of variance here on when that development is done and it's a topic I have not studied extensively, but my default stance is that immature == platonic
[deleted]
It's not someting I've thought much on as it doesn't have relevance to me, but my thoughts are because their brains and bodies have not developed fully.
[deleted]
See? You´re doing it again. The study from Kinsey is only describing sexual behavior in humans, it also has been proven wrong regarding zoophilia in various details and it is totally outdated as the 50s have nothing to do with toady´s more urbanised lives. Singer has only expressed an OPINION based on his ethics, not a fact, in his publication. To use Singer´s quote as a justification for zoophilia simply is stupid and delusional. The studies done by Miletski,Beetz and Levy are FLAWED and shouldn´t even be called "studies", they´re not validated in any way and all three "scientists" have never met one single "zoophile" they interviewed in person. Not one case Beetz,Miletski and Levy base their conclusions on has been fact checked. And don´t you dare tell me otherwise, I was a part of Andrea Beetz´ research and emailed with her for a while. I could have told her anything, I could have made up the most fantastic and romantic story I could have thought of and she would have added it to her data base without even trying to see whether any of what I told her is true in any way. These more modern studies are nothing more than an archive of zoo narrative to me; you could prove the existence of god by asking religious people and draw the conclusion "If there are so many telling me that there is a god and they talk to him daily, then his existence is proven beyond any doubt from now on." Anyone with his neurons intact can see how flawed these studies are, anyone in possession of the least little bit of healthy scepticism would never embarrass himself by using these "studies" as any form of justification. That´s exactly what I criticise so much. You know, positive prejudice is prejudice, too. You´re cherrypicking, searching for stuff that backs your own beliefs while going totally blind for any data that challenges your own prejudices and beliefs. To state that zetacola is arguing "against established science of today" is plain rubbish, aside from these few "scientists" obviously inept of gathering data in a SCIENTIFIC way (validation), the majority of psychologists, sexologists, behaviorists etc. are not at all joining the conclusions of Miletski,Beetz and Levy. Even Singer clarified his remarks on zoophilia and is now emphasizing that he never meant to justify having sex with animals as most of this community is happy to believe in. Even Kinsey never gave an evaluation of bestiality, he only meant to describe the entire human sexual spectrum,nothing more, nothing less. A stupid teenage farm boy fucking animals because no human mate was available and premarital sex was heavily frowned upon has NOTHING to do with zoophilia at all. The Vice report on Colombian donkey sex traditions falls into the same category, NO zoophilia, but a tolerated practice as a twisted natural contraceptive that won´t add another unwanted mouth to feed. You can flex like a gymnast, but there´s NO hard evidence, NO real zoophilia studies that are reliable out there. Stop cherrypicking..or do it with something that´s more reliable at least.
Well, folks, I give up. This may be my last post in here ever, I´m just sick and tired of all this bullshit. Who am I fighting for? What am I fighting for? Am I fighting for a bunch of pervos unable to see all the contradictions, the cherrypicking, the bullshit arguments? No, I won´t ...anymore. I have better things to do with my time. I have three horses to take care of. I have some land I have to look after, some machines to keep intact and running. I live on my farm now, the next house is a few kilometers away and no one will interfere with my relationship. Why should I waste my time anymore, why should I fight battles that won´t benefit me in any way? It seems as if all the hassle is entirely YOUR problem, not mine anymore. You rejected even the tiniest bit of change and only want to change society, not yourselves. But that´s not how it work. So, just stay in your dead end, staring at the wall blocking your path. Rejoice in blaming society for your shit, complain about "them" not totally trusting you "harmless animal fuckers", go blind for all the legit criticism, stare at your own reflections in your mirror chambers and listen to the echoes in your echo chamber. Continue pointing fingers at others, going deaf on legit criticism, continue mistaking beliefs as facts. If that is what you want, so shall it be. I´ll be living my life without all of this community bullshit, I´ll enjoy my rides in nature, the occasional tournaments, I´ll definitely enjoy growing weed ( Frisian Dew/ Euforia/ Hollands Hope) and smoking my self grown products, I´ll enjoy the solitude and will keep all of this out of my world from now on. Go on, fuck up even more. I´ll be sitting in my home, laughing at you.
Time to leave now. Bye Bye. A last friendly wave goes out to the few who dare to question, who really place the wellbeing of the animal before their own gratification. You know who you are. And a special "big up!" goes out to those who don´t shy away from controversy. You´re the ones this self delusional, complacent, whiney, bitchy community needs the most. It´s you I feel with, I sympathize with. All the others can go to hell...oh, they already are in the one they built themselves...well, nevermind then.
Cheerio,suckers!
FINALLY.
While I typically hate to see anyone decide to leave, in this case I wonder if it isn't for the best.
As for your claim that I am cherrypicking the data....as I stated in my post, these were all from the references in the paper that zetacola was supporing. Now if you posit that these are all invalid, then so is the paper presented. However, I have to note that all of these papers have a a fair number of citations in other papers, which is an indication of acceptance within the field.
I would also like to note that in your first post about your guidelines for debating you cite several of these papers yourself when suggesting one come prepared with research. So were you deliberately giving people bad information in your introductory post or is it that you choose to say these are all unacceptable now because it is convenient to you?
[deleted]
Not at all. As I have stated before, there are a vast number of sub-communities here and IMO, that is a value as we get many differing opinions. I almost prefer people I don't entirely agree with, if for no other reason than to have something to discuss. I do not even mind discussing with those who are directly opposed to me, provided they can be civil and open to logical discourse.
The reason I think it may be for the best is because he is being entirely irrational, making personal attacks, and in general not adding any benefit whatsoever; a stream of irrational responses is nothing but noise. I accept that sometimes a person can lose their temper and lash out foolishly; to do so is an error, but to continue in such a pattern when the other person or people are being entirely civil, is not a simple error, it is a pattern which indicates that they have left all logic and reason behind. When you cannot add anything to a debate beyond insults, you aren't participating in the debate. If he were a personal friend of mine, I would be concerned for his mental state. I hold no ill-will toward him, but if he cannot act civilly I would rather he be somewhere else.
No, not at all...
You can use these flawed studies as a basis to start from, to add more viewpoints into the discussion with an outsider. Sure. With the quality of replies the average "zoo" produces, this surely can improve something... But if you, like the majority of this community, tend to think that Miletski,Beetz et al. have PROVEN anything with their "studies", if you mistake them as "scientific, rational, validated PROOF" beyond any reasonable doubt, well, you´re screwed. Since there is NO final Proof of harmlessness of zoophilia, these studies are what comes closest to being a kind of support of your position and thus I recommended them. I never said they´re some sort of "anti kryptonite"; hell, pointing out the flaws in these studies can even help in gaining trust from your opponent. Only when the outsiders feel that "we" zoophiles try to sort things out for real, avoiding any cheap excuses and even point out the flaws in our own "ammunition ourselves", there can be a basis for a real debate. It´s so sad I have to make it clear....normally, all you guys don´t lack fantasy. Thinking for yourselves and drawing own conclusions beyond the obvious isn´t a strenght of "zoos", I assume?
First off, in science there is no such thing as "PROOF", there is supporting evidence which can always be overturned by new research. You state that these are fatally flawed or that the researchers are unprofessional, but yet they seem to get cited quite a bit within the field, which suggests otherwise.
All studies have their flaws and none can ever show harmlessness. To expect that is to misunderstand how science works. Once cannot prove harmlessness as that is not logical. In any relationship, zoo or otherwise, there is always the possiblity of harm. Using your logic then, all relationships are inherently abusive because there's a possibility of harm.
My father was an abusive husband, therefore all heterosexual relationships are inherently abusive. This is not a logical conclusion, not for heterosexuals or anyone else, it is very poor logic.
Let´s talk about intentionally misunderstanding things, shall we? You seem to be more concerned about being right than anything else...not about animals, not about zoophilia, not about anything but your own points of view. In science, there is no proof? What? Like in "we can´t be sure whether the holocaust took place",huh? Of course, there´s proof in science...2 + 2= 4, sodium will react with chlorine when the right chemical circumstances exist, continental drift is also proven...gosh, you should hear yourself for a moment...to use a unscientific generalisation in your last paragraph just shows how much you misunderstand logic or are uncapable to apply it correctly. Do you knwo the difference between a theory and an actual proof? Obviously not. This clinging to "logic" (very selectively used, btw) and "reason" is basically as false as clinging to the opposite. With all your "logic", how much progress have you generated? You´re welcome to name a few better studies, studies that aren´t flawed. Of course, you can´t because they don´t exist (yet)..so we have to use what is there, flawed or not. If all of you would realize that arguing in favor of zoophilia is not some sort of intellectual judo and "winning" an argument with your "supreme logic" won´t turn anybody into a supporter , we would be one step ahead with our cause. It´s not pure "logic" and not pure "emotion", it´s something in between that can crack open crusted minds and beliefs. If you like to debate 100% logically, then go debate with mathematicians. But holding up your ideal has basically no effect on those we demand tolerance from, the average joe. You can try to pry open a door with a toothpick and you can try to clean your teeth with a crowbar...but not using the right tool for the right situation can be as "logical" as you want it to be, it still is dumb.
There's that projection again.
I was referring to PROOF as in absolute certainty, it was pretty clear in the context.
FFS man, either you're for speaking out or against it? You agrue for both. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I'd try to address the rest of your diatribe, but honetly you're not worth the effort as you will ignore what is said and just spew insults or twist what was said to fit your preconceived ideas of what you believe everyone else thinks and does.
I thought you were leaving?
Not exactly true. From Miletski's book:
Of course she still doesn't know who submitted which replies and whether they told the truth. But she did meet several of them.
How awfully true. There does indeed need to be more research than there is. But how long will one wait for that before feeling like we are monsters. :( I don't understand how other people think in their respect to animals being like children.. I do understand how they feel when they think I am just a perverted animal screwer. -_-...
[deleted]
I thought there was some disingenuous behavior early on too (I even commented on it, twice) but gave him the benefit of the doubt. I was stupid to do so.
Honestly, my impression of that debate is that we did not learn anything from it whatsoever because you were being intentionally disagreeable.
I sent the porn in question. I did it because a friend of mine told me it had convinced a friend of his. I was an idiot to take the word of another for granted, especially given I am unfamiliar with dogs. I won't be so stupid again.
That does not change some basic facts here:
The worst is the fact that you were disingenuous in your intentions in that debate, and were being what I view as intentionally disagreeable for the sole role of devils advocate. You intentionally riled up our worst traits and honestly, anything that could've been learned there was lost for that reason alone. I'm frankly, disturbed by the whole occurrence.
I told you several times before resorting to PMs I was beginning to question your intentions due to your refusal to use logic. I should have stuck to my gut rather than going to desperation. I'm pretty sure of all your claims, this one is the farthest off the mark. Anyone else who actually kept an open mind would've seen it far differently.
[deleted]
In that thread you were shown where one of your agruments was entirely fallacious and you even admitted it, but then kept on repeating it. That's around the time I was certain you were just trolling. It certainly wasn't the first time your positions had been logically refuted, but you not only would ignore the rebuttal, but keep using the same reasoning.
That would be a fair assessment if nobody offered any credible claim or reasonable replies, one of which you even accepted as valid. Considering that you haven't offered anything beyond your disgust, kindly respond to your own question "Do you not see that you are still cocksure that you are correct in your claims and fail to even entertain that you MAY be wrong? "
[deleted]
https://www.reddit.com/r/zoophilia/comments/4si1qi/seeking_understanding/d5c0i61?st=ir5g25ej&sh=a79f1ad9
You appear to have absolutely zero intellectual integrity.
[deleted]
The thing is, I've talked to many outsiders and honestly what you consider common rhetoric I consider more, as I phrased it, "intentionally disagreeable." See? I can quote myself too.
[deleted]
Refusing to agree with us at all, even when logic pretty much dictated the conclusion of the argument.
I'm not. As I've said earlier, I've talked to several non-zoos and the vast majority have become zoo allies (my parents being the obvious, early exception).
I found you frankly intentionally avoiding common logical methods and it made me wonder enough to comment on it.
Do you think I was not disturbed? Did you ever stop to think you might have been deeply messing with me, given I was outed under similar circumstances? And that I may have been desperate to help a fellow soul in the same boat?
Regardless, I had used that same video in the past one time and it convinced someone on the fence. But he may have been as ignorant to dog communication as me. I won't use it in the future (or honestly, any canine video) knowing what a fellow canine zoo (you in this case) has told me, but I can't help if you were disturbed by my behavior. All I know is you are the only party to ever claim that, but all the same, you have my apologies.
[deleted]
Agreed!
Do you honestly think, me being a deer zoo, I knew the tagline petlust ascribes to that?
I'm as disgusted with it as you, which is why I won't be using canine porn anymore, I aparently can't tell shit with them. But that video had convinced a non-zoo party in the past, believe it or not. He obviously was less familiar with the tagline however...
I do agree with almost everything, tho I rather stay anonymous as of my sexuality anyways. So registering doesn't really make me feel comfortable, I don't like extra eyes on me. This is even tho it might help people to accept zoo's (as they're checked on for the animals sake) I wont register. I don't want to be known as, or registered as, because it might backfire later (who knows what happens with data stored by government, we all know they don't have the best security)
Tho, for the animals' well being I would have them checked as much as possible, because I want them to feel like they're in heaven, and be sure that I'd take care correctly If I have the idea that I'm harming them, that's enough for me to quit and stop.
The frustrating about the whole ordeal is that because it's a touchy subject to discuss, there is not much research out there that shows if it does harm or not.
I would love to have that researched, so we can say, hey, this doesn't harm an animal, because: "x y z reasons" We will never gain full acceptance, sure, and yes, I do agree with what you say, as it will make our position somewhat more acceptable.
Honestly, the haters are uptight enough that you can just joke-and-meme your way through and come out on top.
Everyone else really doesn't care, but the drama might be good for entertainment.
Great points 30-30, thanks for posting this. I especially like the first one as i think it gets overlooked a lot and is very important