One thing that crops up reasonably frequently (unfortunately), that always puts a bad taste in my mouth for a while, is when I hear something anti-zoo from some source I otherwise tend to like.
When I hear that, say, Fox News had made some anti-zoo comment, I don't bat an eye - I could not care less about their opinion. But, for instance, back when I watched The Daily Show, if they made a clearly anti-zoo comment, that can be disappointing. Likewise, I follow some people on Youtube, and occasionally you hear some pretty bigoted things.
I'm curious how you react when you hear things like that from a source you otherwise like. Do you just grin and bear it, for instance? Do you stop supporting or following the source? Do you speak up about it? What?
It depends on the intent. If it's a cheap joke, I don't particularly care and neither, most likely, does the creator, so there's no point mentioning it. If, on the other hand, they legitimately make a stupid point about it, or perhaps a good point, I try to tell them in a comment or PM. Let me give some examples of mentions, negative or positive but somewhat substantial at least, I've found on YouTube.
MrRepzion, in some vlog of his, complained that his audience recognize obvious jokes, for example when he posted on his tumblr that he's OK with bestiality if the animal consents. To him, animals can't possibly consent, end of story. He has been sexually abused, depressed, and has self-harmed, so I understand his emotional investment in the consent issue. But I left a comment explaining why I disagreed, and haven't watched him since, in particularly because he became a little whiny and never edited out his misspeaking (I understand he's dyslexic, but I find it distracting).
Not exactly a YouTube thing, but Opie & Anthony, well known radio provocateurs, covered the subject several times, including reviews of BeastForum finding it to be garbage and of the documentary Animal Passions, which they find cringeworthy and laughable but ultimately harmless, being mostly disturbed that these people fall in love with animals. Their in-studio comic, Jim Norton, has also mentioned bestiality in his stand-up material (he works very blue), and has said that he thinks it's OK if the animal isn't hurt, though he may have been kidding.
Armoured Skeptic, in a livestream with his girlfriend ShoeOnHead, has stated that the two of them have watched Animal Passions, and also found it gross and cringey. Again, mostly harmless, and they appear to have a live and let live attitude to such things in general.
The Amazing Atheist, in a vlog, laid out his opinion in a vlog, which was that it's fine if the animal is penetrating, but he doesn't know if they can consent to being penetrated. I left a comment expressing doubt of this position but congratulating him for being rational about it.
YourMovieSucksDOTOrg (a gay furry, incidentally, therefore likely to be exposed to the subject in some way) expressed skepticism of the usual arguments against bestiality because it is hypocritical to be against that without also being vegan and rejecting all animal products, which for the most part cause more animal suffering than sex with humans does.
Finally, a possible future mention, followed by my reaction if it happens. Noted troll Mister Metokur, best known for his videos on GamerGate and internet outrage culture, has begun a series on DeviantArt. In the titles to that series, he hints at bestiality as a possible future topic for that series. If he makes a video on that, I will offer to attend his livestream so we can rhetorically rochambeau each other and maybe learn something. He's done this productively with trans people after making a video criticizing the insanity of trans people on tumblr, and has also offered to debate ABDL personalities after an episode of this latest series offended them.
On request, I'll provide sources for this post, but it's rather late as I write this and I can't be bothered at the moment.
I knew a couple of those, actually. TAA, in particular - I talked with him about the subject over some instant messenger way back in the day. I've avoided him for years now though, for... reasons, basically relating to me realizing he doesn't actually care about much of what he pretends to care about. I prefer when people are sincere, and while I think he was at one point, I don't think he is anymore.
I remember the YMS thing. The others... I know of each of them but I've never particularly been a fan.
Anyhoo, thanks for the response. I've done some private-messaging sort of things in the past myself, but I never got a Google+ account because I find that forced integration dumb, so I completely dropped off of the Youtube... social... thing (for the better, really).
I had a sorta similar experience once. When I was still attending college, a professor I really liked and looked up to made a blatantly zoophobic comment in a very poor attempt to draw an analogy to the concept of "you need laws to cover just about everything." He brought up the Enumclaw horse sex case and said something along the lines of "you shouldn't think you'd need a law to prohibit these kinds of behaviors, but apparently you do, because some people just can't help themselves"
It really stung, because I respected the man greatly.
For a long time, I thoguht about writing him an anonymous letter. I didn't, and that was probably for the better. But how did I deal with it? Honestly? I moped. I eventually quit the class (for different reasons, but still). I lost a lot of respect for the man.
I can't advise that. Nowadays I've come to expect it, and am more indifferent.
I don't have a good method to deal with it either. Usually I mope.
But I want to tell you about this thing that happened once.
I worked for an environmental NGO once. During meetings, we would bring up news that had to do with wildlife and the environment, because it's good to stay relevant and on top of things. You'd think that bestiality is irrelevant, since it's mostly a question about domestic animals, and my organisation doesn't work with those. But one of my bosses still brought up this article about the youth wing of a political party had made a statement against the ban on bestiality. And the whole workplace talked about how horrible it was, how it's good that the organisation is against bestiality, how that political group must be out of their minds and so on.
I was upset.
I told some half-lie to my boss, about how I care about the rights of sexual minorities (LGBTQ rights is a well-liked mainstream movement here), and that I was afraid that if people would talk badly bout those who fall in love with animals, who would be next to be ridiculed? Fetishists? Gays?
My boss looked at me. "...fall in love with animals?"
"Yes, as I've understood it, people who actually fall in love with animals exist. I know it's weird, but, I've talked to such people. I've heard people at university say that those deserve to be killed. So, this subject upsets me, because I think of how my friends don't deserve to die, and I'm worried someone might say something like that."
I noticed that it made her think, and then she said "well, I don't think people here will talk so much about these kind of topics anyway, so you don't have to worry about coworkers being mean like that."
So, risky move. But I didn't get into trouble. My image of "lgbtq activist" helped me in this case, I think.
But with media, and comments on social media etc, I can't really do anything. Things like that have even made me suicidal, when I read about how many people want zoos to be locked up in mental institutions for the rest of their lives, or "put down like the animals they are". Even if I don't have an animal partner, for some people it's enough that think such "disturbing thoughts".
It's particularly frustrating how difficult it even is to call out these sorts of behaviors without being suspected.
I have certainly used the "I know people who", the "I've talked with people", and the "I have friends who" lines before. They aren't lies - half or more of my friends are zoophiles - even a couple of them I met in completely non-zoo contexts... It's weird. But it is misleading all the same.
Good on you though for doing what you can to call him out on it though.
It hasn't really happened to me, but I'd definitely stop supporting them.
It makes me feel uncomfortable that they'd be against something I support and am part of.
I'd also question their intelligence.
But then again, I'm quite sensitive when it comes to Zoophilia.
Aw, you edited out the glass bones and paper skin reference. But, it made me laugh...
I thought it was a little weird, so I edited it out.
Well, atleast you got to experience some cheesy reference, am I right?
Since I don't consume much media at all, it has never actually happened to me.
I have had some publications that I like include political elements I disagree with. I think it is ok up to a certain point. If, for example, one of the stories of a superhero comic is about a hacker using cryptocurrencies and darknet tools for doing evil, there is no problem. If the whole publication is about cryptocurrencies and darknet tools being used for evil, or if that idea is implied repeatedly, then I have a problem, because the publication is giving bad advertisement to tools that are legit in real life.
The drama comes when you used to like the publication, but something happened to it and it turned too political. Maybe the owner changed, whatever. One day, Cowman is bent into saving the world from evil aliens, the day after he is bent into fighting gays/capitalists or whoever the publisher hates. This happened to my father, who had been a follower of Marvel comics since the early days, and has recently given up because the superheroes he used to follow are all left-wingers right now. I have withdrawn my support from fiction novels authors, roleplaying games manufacturers and other publishers due to similar reasons.
It is just a similar case to having zoophobia in some media. If it is just an sporadic thing that slips through, you can safely ignore it because that source of information is not about that subject and they are unlikely to care that much. If they are systematic in promoting ideas you find repugnant, vote with your dollar and refuse their content. Just like my father with his comics.
I remember a long while ago in 8th grade health class, our teacher, who's class I absolutely loved, was telling us about diversity in sexuality, and she said: "Anyone should be free to love whoever they want." To which I replied, happily, I might add, "or whatever." She gave me a confused look and said "if you're referring to zoophiles, please don't mention that in my class. It's wrong, disgusting, and most importantly; it's animal cruelty and rape. We are discussing human sexuality, not the twisted fantasy of sick, vile people."
This hit me really hard. I wanted to say something, but I just slumped down in my chair and tried not to say anything.
That is the paradox you get from many so called open minded people. They are open minded, but they heavily disdain anything that is not their own lifestyle...
That is an... absolutely terrible thing that she said. Wow. I feel for you right now, seriously.
Thank you. Its been a long time since then, and its behind me at this point, but i still wonder if thats how the world sees us. Society still has the idea in its head that its some kind of vile sin/abuse to have feelings for another species. Some people are different, they need to see that.
If it makes you feel any better, I recently mentioned zoophilia to one of my professors (Literature), and they were reasonably supportive of it. There are reasonable people out there, at least.
Yeah, but the majority is not. And the worst part is, the only Zoos who get public attention are the crazy, disgusting people.
I don't have any numbers to back up my thoughts, but I am not certain I'd say the majority are not. I think the majority just don't care and will go with whatever everyone else wants. I think it's a vocal few who speak up, and when nobody speaks out it passes as being supported by the group.
Unfortunately, speaking up can have consequences, so few bother to; especially when they don't have an interest one way or the other.
I'm going to go with America, because that's where I'm from and it's difficult to look at all all countries. I'm sure some are in a better state, and some are in a worse state.
Anyway, my point is this. It is difficult to imagine someone in America who simultaneously is tolerant of zoophilia while at the same time disapproves of homosexuality to a significant extent. Some such people are bound to exist, I'm sure, but I think they would be more or less negligible.
With that in mind, if we look at approval for same sex marriages, we find that the rate is something around 55% support, 37% oppose.
To me, that indicates a cap on the amount of support zoophilia has. I would not expect it to exceed 55%.
Now, with that in mind, do you think if you were to ask people who are okay with gay marriage, if they think zoophilia ought to be considered morally permissible, do you think 90% or so of them will answer that yeah, it's acceptable? That seems a bit unlikely to me. But if more than 10% of that population is anti-zoo, we've lost the majority.
Now, I do agree with you that of that subset of the population, we could have a majority - that is, it's possible that of the people who support homosexuality, 50% of those might be silently fine with zoophilia. Which would put us at around 1/4th of the population potentially supporting us - or at least potentially supporting.
Good news is that of the younger population, people tend to be much more accepting... So of the population that's going to survive along with us into the future, things are more hopeful... But yeah, looking at where homosexuality is now I have trouble imagining that we are near the majority level yet.
I don't think we have a majority and I don't think we're anywhere close, just that the majority don't care and will do what seems popular or accepted. If all they hear is "All gays are pedos and doomed to hell" they'll go with it.
According to Gallup polls, in 1996 27% thought same-sex marriages were valid, contrasted with 2016 where 61% thought so shows that 34% changed in 20 years.
Given, it's not apples to apples, but I think it does show that a good portion of the population can change their views in relatively short time.
I certainly agree that the future is in the hands of the next generation. I chuckle every time I hear someone state that people are getting dumber. That's been a common meme since at least the days of Homer; but I note all that mankind has achieved between then and now.
Statistics: reason´s fairytales
Do you have more info about these statistics? How many people were asked, what area were they from (urban/rural), how much influence the LGBT friendly media coverage have had, how many of those who approve/support homosexuality only do it because of political correctness? And: what about the fact that opposition to LGBT became louder, more forceful?
It surely is true that being gay/lesbian isn´t a big thing anymore for the majority of people, but while one side of the frontline gets more and more populated, the other side digs its trench deeper and deeper.
Has the view of the population really changed if you subtract the pc dogma for a minute? And why is it so goddamn important what others think of your, mine, our, their sexuality? What kind of change have we seen? Is it a real change when one dogma is replaced with another? I only need to remember u/ursusm and the replies to her when she dared to express her personal opinion about homosexuality. Do you like ice cream? I do, but I absolutely hate strawberry ice cream. For me, it is disgusting. Would you call me an intolerant "strawberrophobe" for that? Although I´d never try to take away strawberry ice cream from others? Some forms of intolerance come disguised as tolerance, guys....
Finally: will you just please stop comparing zoophilia with homosexuality in any shape and/or form? The LGBT´s path to acceptance is NOT, I repeat, NOT a role model for our special interest group in any way. Nothing can be transferred to zoophilia, not even a single iota. Without the main issue of consent, the LGBT´s fight for acceptance was entirely different from what our group has to struggle with. Do yourselves a favor and stop believing in the "Pervos United" myth...within the LGBT people, zoophilia is seen as rape and a disgusting perversion in nearly equal amounts as among heterosexuals.
[deleted]
You'll get no argument from me on that; one can easily change a result by carefully wording the questions asked.
You can look at the Gallup poll for the data if so inclined.
It isn't important, well at least not any moreso than the idea that all people are equal and should be allowed to live lives of self determination provided they aren't harming others. I've as much invested in the Gay community as I have in the African-American, Jew, Native-American, or Atheist; that all people be treated fairly and as human beings.
Well, let's see...the number of assaults is way, way down for starters. Are you suggesting that there's been no real improvement to people's lives due to changes in the view of homosexuality?
So a sucessful campaign of countering lies and hatred with logic and reason is the wrong way? Mind you, I wasn't making any zoo <--> gay comparision...
Actually, reason works very badly when doing politics. Passions and feelings do. That is why accusing somebody of being a humpback or ugly or having unpaid fines works better than debating his ideas and proving them wrong.
For a political cause to succeed, you need a mass of people with resources enough to sell the idea, everything else is secondary. The way for having resources is having a mass of people that benefits from the implementation of the idea. If I had money and support enough I could flood TV with brainwashing material and get people to hate jewelry on religious grounds.
The reason LGBT would not support us politically is because we are not the same collective and we are not powerful enough to support them, it is as simple as that.
I hate the way people act like statistics are the problem.
Most people don't know how to interpret statistics properly. That doesn't mean that the statistics are at fault.
It's like getting into an aeroplane with zero experience, crashing, and then complaining it was the horizontal situation indicator's fault because you couldn't tell what the numbers on it meant.
Sometimes the statistics are at fault, or rather, the methodology used to collect them. The wording on questions can dramatically alter the response and skew the result. Being aware of front loading and other issues is important if you want to ensure your data is valid, or, if you want a particular result.
Edit: I do not mean to suggest statistics is unreliable, it's a method and if used properly will give predictable, repeatable results...and if misused, can often be difficult spot for non-specialists.
Sure, sometimes the methodology is flawed. I'm not disagreeing with that. Just, most people who seem to make comments like you made above do seem to be arguing that statistics are unreliable, or that they can be used to prove anything, regardless of methodology.
People as a whole seem to have very low statistical literacy, and I think that tends to be the bigger issue. "Correlation does not indicate causation", I think, ought to be something taught in elementary school, but here we are.
You seem to actually understand more about this than the sorts of people I'm complaining about, so I'll re-evaluate your previous comment in that light. So no harm done.
Sure, I think the level of understanding of scientific processes and logic in general are at a pretty low level in the population at large.
I totally agree that we should be teaching logic and critical thinking skills at schools!
Well, I agree logic and critical thinking should be taught in school, but I also think that basic statistics ought to be taught in school. To my mind, it's an important enough subject that it reasonably deserves it's own spot.
Then again, being a stats major, looking at going into teaching statistics, CLEARLY I have a major bias here.
Thats so awful. =,= And after her first comment to the class. I'm so sorry that happened to you. I find it sad indeed when a person you respect are like that. Thats why I never even peep when if I ever hear someone discussing things like you should be able to love who you want.
I felt that blow from just reading it. Luckily, your long out of that class, and shes out of your life.
Indeed. It hurts a lot though because I liked her class so much.
To be honest I don't think its a good idea to have such an attachment to any media outlet to the extent to where u feel emotional about there opinion's.
It is not the best of the ideas, but people get attached to the things they like. It happens, and when it happens to you, then you must learn to deal with it.
In general I try to not let it bother me, but when a source who touts being reliable and informed do it, I can't help but lose some respect for them.
If I can do so safely, I tend to speak up, but that's often not easy.
I watched leafy for a time, as he is very entertaining. And when I saw the video of the girl and the dog I felt very ashamed after his video about the topic. I respect what he had to say.. And after had to grab some sense and logic and force it down my throat to stop tearing at his words. So there just that one time I felt like a freak that day from watching/reading toxic comments by so many people. I guess I shouldn't have even indulged in that but I was curious to see if there was anyone supporting the girl instead of him. And I found none. There has been more exacerbated moments in my past then now, since I usually don't pay any mind to comments on media of other youtubers words about the issue. But yeah, that one video gave me taste of my past insecure self for a bit, because I chose to care about the words when I shouldn't have.
If the comment is made like a joke, I tend to laugh along.
If the comment is made like an insult, I shrug it off.
I know who I am. I'm not cruel, I'm not depraved, and sex is certainly not the only thing on my mind when I see another animal. Why should I let the opinions of others affect who I am and how I should see myself if I know I am doing nothing wrong?
One of the youngest members shows off one of the most adult attitudes...amazing.
It's still hard hearing anti-zoo sentiment anywhere for me and the anger it incites in people. Hearing people say daily that people like us should be killed, drugged, raped, tortured, constantly being told about animals who are raped and killed. Being said that you don't deserve happiness in life, that you're too evil, that it would be better if we killed ourselves. Recently Undoomed, Bearing, Sugar Tits, Suit Yourself and a bunch of other YouTube people did a video mocking a woman and calling her names for saying dogs licked her pussy better than men did. No one is sure she was joking around about this since she also said she hated all men and something like that. I actually kinda liked a few of these people until this collaboration thing. They also brought up Whitney Wisconsin(again) and one guy said she needs to be jailed because in her YouTube video she had a dog with her.
I've heard of a couple of those Youtubers, but I never got a good feeling from them personally.
It's unfortunate that they are apparently such jerks on this issue.
In these sorts of cases, all I can think is that I so wish that people could just understand and empathize. Ugh. Well, hopefully with time, that will happen with more people.
It's society and the media that is the cause of the hatred levied against us. Every story about Zoophilia that were hear about is of the worst of the worse. The pit bull mix that was raped and hung from a tree, the unknown person who allegedly raped three pit bulls in New York(one was mentioned by name here before, a dog named Venus), the fence jumper who said he had Ebola, the man who violently raped several Miniature Horses at a stable and killed the guard dog that was also housed there, a man in Mexico who was caught on film raping a chicken that had already died due to its injuries, the "Zoosadist" who took pictures of his German Shepherd victim bound up in a bunch of unnatural positions while he sodomized the dog, AlphaOmegaSith recently posted a link about a man who kept a dog as a sex slave and that the abuse the dog suffered nearly killed him, the man who shot and killed a horse so he could have sex with him and the list of horrific "zoos" goes on and on and on. Society isn't reading about the average Zoophile who comforts and cuddles and genuinely cares about their partner/partners/lover/spouse/ect and ensures that they have a comfortable life. They don't read about the Zoophile who saves animals and finds them happy stable homes. Add sex into the mix with most things and most people will immediately become judgemental, society they don't view sex between interspecies couples as anything but rape, low standards because we "can't get/keep a man/woman because we're too ugly" or debauchery loving filth not fit for society because we are taboo. Negative and shocking news sales and it'll be a long time before us Zoophiles are every treated as legitimate people. Ever truly respected and not seen as evil monsters or vulgar sex freaks.
The one thing that I will say that is encouraging is that, relatively speaking, social mores seem to be able to change relatively quickly when an issue is brought to the forefront.
It wasn't long ago that the way homosexuality was treated in the media was that they were all predators, looking to indoctrinate children into the gay lifestyle by molesting them. But in about 50 years, homosexuality in America has gone from being a criminal act everywhere to it's current state - which, while not perfect, is a pretty impressive jump in perception and acceptance.
Other civil rights movements have had a much longer path, and some have had a shorter path. I'm not saying things are predictable in how they'll go, but certainly it is at least not unprecedented that such a massive shift could happen in our lifespans.
At the very least, I see that there is hope.
I try to be optimistic but even I have my dark and sad moments. Hell a few days after finding this place I tried to kill myself but I recovered. I want to be accepted and loved, I want us Zoos in general to be accepted as reap people. One day maybe.
I'm glad you're doing better. I've been rather depressed in the past, so I can empathize. If you ever need someone to talk to, feel free to send me a message.
At the very least, there are people who will be accepting and loving. Even if it's not the majority, and even ignoring what might happen in the future, there are people who are reasonable.
It took some time but I've finally gotten back on my feet and I haven't been depressed per say, I've had days where I'm sad but nothing too bad or stressful. It's sad how many of us can say we've been depressed or suicidal. In my offline life I don't have anyone I can turn to save for my therapist who has been understanding of who I am. It's always nice to chat with other Zoos though I keep that limited to Reddit only. I hope you can fun happiness in your life.
I noticed a rise in the right-wing youtubers. I'm anti-SJW myself but the right-wing youtubers are no better. They just make baseless statements and gang up on people they don't like when those people haven't threatened them in any way.
Quite honestly, I'm sick of how "SJW"s have become the hot topic recently. I find that almost anyone who makes any comment on either "side" of the issue is going to say something incredibly stupid. The term itself seems to me to be one of those things designed to shut down conversations, which is bad, though at the very least it's tempered by the fact that most people seem to have a few talking points they are incapable of breaking away from or examining more critically.
Sorry for the rant. I'm just frustrated by people on this topic, if you can't tell.
It's ok. I use it to refer to people who uphold a particular ideology. I don't like the generalizations of relations in society whether that's racial, gender, etc relations. I also don't like the hypocrisy of wanting to give particular groups of people a special privilege when the SJWs are apparently anti-privilege. I also don't like their race and sex identity politics. That's what I mean by SJW.
I think that left-wing SJW's are the new conservatives. In the 50s the conservatives would try to get your song censored because it talked about sex, arguing moral reasons. Now, SJW's will try to get the song censored because it talks about a Mexican criminal.
The SJW's are such a hot topic because their ability to pop up anywhere and take over a public communication channel is amazing. I also read about some stats that suggested that left-wingers are more likely to block or suppress people they disagree with at social media, while right-wingers usually don't do that. It is logical to assume that right-wingers get tired of SJW's because they still read their posts, while SJW's don't get burnt out because they have blocked right-wingers.
I have seen SJW's pop up in forums that were politically neutral in nature, kick out anybody who didn't share their views via sheer numbers, and turn the place into a political entity. They are invasive and destructive and very very active. Many left-wing political groups employ paid Internet squads for promoting the group's ideology in otherwise neutral social media disguising themselves as non political users.
Traditionalist right-wingers can be a very bad pain in the ass, but their ability to disrupt or destroy an online community is orders of magnitude lower. I have had my share of nazies -actual nazies who believed in nationalist socialism- and they can make your head hurt, but they are less likely to show at your chatroom or whatever and utterly destroy it. They still do it sometimes, but they play in a low category league.
I like how your response to me saying that I'm sick of the topic of SJWs is to try to spark a conversation about them.