I've been a member of the community here for a while (with a different user name) and I've had a question stirring in the back of my mind. Can we put a sticky thread on our sub-reddit? Specifically, I'd like to see a thread outlining the differences between bestiality and zoophilia as there are new members that come here thinking that they are the same thing.
Also, it would be nice to have a sticky thread outlining philosophies that we (most of us) hold ourselves to.
And lastly, I would like to see a sticky containing knowledge. I'm sure there are zoophiles out there who have never actually participated in intercourse with a animal partner. How to stay safe, how to properly go about it, that sort of thing.
I just know when I was growing up and started to accept I was a zoo, resources were few and far between. I would even be willing to write part of it if necessary as I've had plenty of experience and lovers over the years. Tell me what you guys think.
Pretty much what's in the sidebar then, but as a sticky?
Sorta but not really. Not like a rule book or something like that but more like helpful info that people may or may not know. Differences between zoo and beast, getting to know your lover, beginners guides, stuff like that. This was all inspired after I helped a guy in Australia have his first time getting mounted. He was so nervous and scared but I walked him through everything and he's thanked me so much for all the info I gave him.
A forum or a board system is a very bad place for permanent guides, howtos and references. They hog up the available room for actual threads and discussions at the top of the board. Some forums can get away with it because they place the howtos and news and whatever in sections other than the ones assigned for discussions. Reddit has not such an option, to my knowledge. The closest you can come to it is to host the guides in a third party server and link to that content from the sidebar.
A Usenet-like approach that works well for technical documentation is to submit the howtos once a month. This works great because you ensure that the subject hits the top of the board every once in a while, and you can easily submit updated howtos instead of the old ones if the latter have become obsolete (which happens often with engineering or computer science papers). But then, I don't see that working great for a place such as this one.
If it could be determined that a majority of the community believed that there was a pressing reason to exclude people that are interested in bestiality, maybe. That seems really really subjective though. It's hard to find thoughtful conversation about animal/human sexualities, and I'd hate to see a decent conversation area messed up by a difference that's kind of hazy.
Oh I'm not saying to exclude anyone but I find that there is a misconception among people who are beginning to come to terms with their desires who may get led in the wrong direction with misinformation. I certainly know I did about 20 years ago when I was struggling with how to accept this part of me. I just think it would be a nice way of not only introducing people to our values but also to help people navigate them. It could also quell some of the hate that our community endures occasionally.
I know for myself, I had never even heard of zoophilia until maybe 10 years ago. Up until that point, I just knew I enjoy watching beast vids but I felt terrible when I'd see vids of obvious abuse or even not so obvious abuse. I knew there was a difference but I didn't have a name for it. Since discovering zoophilia, I know I'm where I belong now.
I'm also not saying we have to answer every question that may arise at once. Just the general stuff.
A problem I have with the idea is that "zoophilia" is a word created by the zoo community to describe what they aren't, but it's a connotative definition, not a denotative one. The Venn diagram of bestiality completely surrounds zoophilia, the word is created to suggest more romantic interest, a degree of relationship equality, and to address issues of abuse and consent. All good things, but meaningful separation of the ideas seems impossible and unhelpful... Unless (like some loud voices here have said) interest in bestiality condones abuse.
To my mind, the main difference--since I don't believe ambulance abuse is a good thing--is the romantic/respect side, which is hard for me, and why I can't get invested in the term "zoophilia" except as a nicer synonym that's an easier way to describe someone. "Bestialist" is a strange nonword.
I think I want to roll that back a bit, I can see ways in which I'm wrong. I do think that zoophilia and bestiality are synonyms, with connotative differences (like the very different flavors in the words "black," "African American," and the "n" word).
Fundamentally, bestiality describes an action (human/animal sex). Zoophilia is a recently coined word from "love for animals", or in psychology "abnormal attraction to." In my experience "zoophilia" also describes the idea of human/animal sex but not specific acts...a zoophilia story is likely going to have sex in it, but I don't think you can commit zoophilia...)
The difference is fine, but there isn't total overlap in that Venn diagram. Bestiality is a sex act that doesn't exclude love, but could. ("Prison gay" isn't necessarily the result of a homosexual orientation). You could argue that gay sex that's based on convenience or power doesn't technically show sexual or romantic interest. And a zoophile snuggling really close to hir husky in bed isn't committing bestiality, but is expressing zoophilia.
But the difference is still pretty fine, and the situations where bestiality and zoophilia don't overlap are strong enough to justify the word. But to the same degree that "sexual interest in the same gender" overlaps with "sex with the same gender," it doesn't seem helpful to put tape across the room and say "you stay on your side."
Great reply u/Xoltine. I really don't want to exclude anyone so maybe you're right about it. I know good intentions can often get taken the wrong way but my only intention is to guide those who struggle with their feelings. You're reply has made me realize that there are other ways to go about it without excluding anyone.
So... What about a few sticky topics that aren't about community definitions: maybe Megatopic: what does zoophilia mean to you?" And Megatopic: Struggling with your Orientation" ? Having these standard conversations in one place might be helpful.
You can even frame them with preambles like "The term 'zoophilia' emphasizes affection and sexual orientation toward animals, a word that suggests love and affection and tends to describe an orientation more than an act. But how the community members define their own attraction and interest is very personal: what does zoophilia mean to you?
Or
As a stigmatized sexual orientation zoophilia comes with millennia of cultural judgment and personal challenge. Some people struggle with this orientation...and even zoos who can "own" their attraction are concerned with persecution. If you're f fighting your own zoophilia or feelings of pain and guilt about this rare and not-well-understood paraphilia, you are welcome to add to this discussion
Another one that might be worth preserving as a sticky discussion might be "zoophilia resources," with a non-condemning note along the lines of "please don't share links to pornographic video/photo resources here, check the zoo/beast metareddit for groups that feature porn."
Honestly, thinking about it a bit more, I wouldn't have a problem with a sticky for definitions and terms, but anything more than that - common beliefs or philosophies... I don't think that ought to be up there.
Stickies don't work very well for preventing lamers from popping up with content that is outside of the scope of the forum. My experience with other forums indicates that if they have not read the rules or the related sidebars, they are not going to read the stickies either. They just come and post their off-topic and feel great about it.
You only need a set of rules, and it is already on the sidebar. You can't miss it.
As for a sticky with definitions and such, I have a problem with it because it is very easy to turn such a thing into an ideological declaration. Zoophilia is different things for different people and trying to shoehorn everybody in the same locker is very easy to do.
I agree with you u/tencendur_ in that we shouldn't limit ourselves to strictly defined ideology. I was suggesting something very loosely defined but I can see your point.
Hm, I have few points after looking into "Understanding bestiality and zoophilia" by Hani Miletski. It talks about 1995-6 times, and as any good book tells both stories and author's own story. I really liked her remark on 'I can't say too much on validity of many early historical sources from various literature, ..apart from Bible i can read in Hebrew and understand context'. Wow, finally someone who can read this book in original language :} Next there was definition of zoophila, and I liked this definition because it not absolutely required performing sexual act with someone, but was about 'extreme love'. It really interesting to think should zoophilia be encouraged in this non-sexual-acting sense? I'm biased (because I want MUCH more humans to rise against current norms of 'animal use' and go beyond all this!), so I tend to say yes! It was interesting to note even back then Internet users already realized their initial euphoria about finally being able to connect to each other was meet with reality of 'just people who want to have sex with animals', in sense zoophiles turned out not as significally better on some other important aspects as they hoped basing themselves on very early Internet era, when Internet was only in few places with somewhat selected kind of humans (students, scientists..intellectuals mostly). Since those times Internet expanded, and nowadays there are different forms of forums (early newsgroups and forums for example had no this specific up/downvoting system). Distinction between zoophilia and bestiality was considered important back then, and I think it even more important today, as mean of attempting at making humans better. Main assumption of author, about society she lived in, is not true for me, this society not really healthy, and this is reason why humans so much want this...'happiness' thing. they don't truely get enough of it in real life, so they (we) are starved.So, in sense I see work aimed at eliminating sources of up-change in current society more than just counterproductive. Because if we are 'happy' we not look for changes (?). We must be unhappy with themselves enough to make some search and progress, and look for most inclusive thinking..
I really like description of one early gathering, it was thnakfully not about sex but about (human/human) support and intellectual discussions and all this. With many non-humans around. I'm also biased (like scientists..?) in my valuation of intellect. It seems to be mainstream value, but again...by now it feels really bad to realize even best thinking often reused as weapon in human/human hierarchial battles, and in general reason was not as big and universally-working cure/helper for humans as it was believed.
I skipped most of data (sorry Hani! I value hard work you did, but by now I'm more interested in stories and meta-stories, including real relations between society and science, or how our assumptions lead to subtle change of trajectory, in ethical coordinates), noticing mostly it was USA-centered study at that time. Of course I liked 'My bias' section, because yes, it seems people who meet author especially liked to be liked by her in the eyes of others ('society'). And she was welcomed and whole thing moved on positive side for most humans involved. I found interesting Hani, in her reply to another more animal-right orintied lady, said 'i'm not veterinarian' - IMO it says a lot about how humans tend to talk about mostly bodies of animals, and not their psychology. So, spontaneous association with veterinarian, who usually deal with body problems, not mental ones (may be things were improved in this area since last 15 years. But in my Animal Rights road I definitely saw for example this - "A Vet Gone to the Dogs Speech presented to the Montreal Rotary Club on January 6, 2000 by Charles Danten " - today I relooked Danten, he has interesting blog, while again I think there is important alternative to 'never have dog' type of answer. But his critique of human/animal relations quite true.) Well, animals have minds/psychology and they matters for them and us, so I hope at least this deficiency is thing of the past.
Further in bias section Hani agreed it was self-portratint of human community. I come to all this zoophilia problemfield from different background (issues surrounded dolphin captivity definitely not something 'from book' for me - so, I looked for some solutions, was really proud to be among Animal Rights people, until my belief in finding real like-minded/acting humans really was drowned by reality. By now I don't think zoophilia or any specific separate group is definitely better, but may be for some here this quest about making society and friends/peers/comrades around them true animal-loving is not foreign). So, I can't see how 'making humans happy'without understanding whole bunch of issues around society, us as individual, and even various form s of activism can be complete.
Oh, I derailed. I wanted to point out this book had reference to alt.sex.bestiality, and I as someone who like to dig into history (hopefully in order to learn history's lessons...while I tend to like to read in general.) I digged into group archive on Google, found interesting but sad dolphin story there, and interesting remark by Roedy Green - "In a few examples I have heard about, it looks as if man is no kinder in general to animals sexually than he is in his other relations with them. Odd as it may seem to the religious right, discussion groups such as this one are a force for a greater morality." (post from '94!).
Speaking about FAQ thing - it was really interesting to read this remark - " We now have a Dolphin How-To FAQ! I was against the idea of a Dolphin How-To, because I believed these animals were mostly just material for fantasies...but Dragon-wolfe Dolphinn, and his <ahem> extensive knowledge of the subject, convinced me. The Dolphin PIP will be posted on the 26th...it's worth the wait. :) " - from 1996. Now (in late 2016) I found at least one article at Beastforum (I know , not popular place here) interesting and resembling way I used to think about dolphins, but it was about dogs. I might disagree with some commodification of dogs there, because eh, for example who will care about smaller dogs, but in general I think this is important to encourage thinking, searching and creating and following IRL better behaviors from our, human side! Even 'mostly bad' forum can be source of interesting thinking, if you are patient enough.
But then, 'good forum' also should generate some good thinking, even if just for keeping itself 'at level' ! Back to "Understanding .." book, I think in sense it propagating zoophilia, because if some group of people consider activity X as very important and from just OK to very positive - this accurate view attract other humans! yet, it was noted community back then, and today in some sense (as expressed by some members) don't want to grow...in numbers of humans who actively seek human/non-human sex actions. May be growing in different dimension (love) is answer. Sex can be good, sex can be bad, and there definitely very big world around. I hope this wider kind of look will be included..if not into 'sticky' thread, but into human's viewpoints....
Ah, as self-reflection note: I found it important to be so relived by fact 'hey, my love is not excluded BY DEFINITION', even if I tend to dislike 'scientists' by now, due to their specific examples, completely filling niche around dolphins/cetaceans.. But it really hard to see how 'humans liking humans' thrown dolphins and others 'out of window' indirectly speaking. Science might be important, but don't forgot philosophy, especially (self)critical look at everything, and everyone. Some kinds of errors can be only detected with help of someone else, yet making errors or allowing others to make errors in the name of saving friendship also wrong. Uneasy waters to navigate ...
Some interesting viewpoints you introduced here.
One thing I have to warn you about: don´t take Miletski´s work too serious. The entire thing has one basic flaw, the absolute lack of any validation of the stories she was told. So, what Miletski predominantly describes in her book is NOT the real "face of zoophilia", it´s more of a blurred manifestation of an idealistic picture zoophiles tend to draw of themselves. Tell me, who would speak openly about the fact he is forcing/hitting/torturing his animal(s) to derive sexual pleasure from it? Who would openly admit to tie up his horse before sex? Who frankly admits that he is a bad person?
As a matter of fact I know that Miletski´s work also included the story of some self proclaimed zoophile that totally was made up , but still was used as a source to base cconclusions on from Mrs Miletski. The guy that sold her his story was in fact a then 25 y.o. notorious fantasizer who never had contact to an animal in his entire life.
You cannot build a steady house on quicksand. You also can´t make any meaningful and true conclusions if the data is flawed right from the start. So, don´t overestimate Miletski´s book. For me, it´s more of a sociological study on a demonized sexual subgroup, its myths and ideals than an actual study on zoophilia.
"Science might be important(...)also wrong." Bravo! And so it shall begin...