Let´s see whether this will actually mean or do anything without V.I.T.R.I.O.L.

It was clear, well written, and while there were some... places, the mostly agreeable and conversational tone made it an absolute joy to read through. Though, it's still a bit lengthy for the points you wanted to make(it could just be my TL;DR addiction kicking in). The way it's written makes me want to agree with you alot more, either way.

You make an interesting point about speaking out against nonhuman animal abuse. It is certainly true that while abusers shouldn't represent what zoophiles are, they can still be used as examples against it when dealing with laymen, which can be damaging. On the flip-side, acknowledging it extensively like that could be turned against zoos in a sort of "they're just covering their tracks" rhetoric if zoos aren't consistent about it -- even then, though, it would dismantle any pretention of zoos being selfish and only in it for the sex. How well the rhetoric would counter it is anyone's guess, but the possiblity is there. Building rapport and forming solidarity with conventional values is definitely a good approach to improving the standing of zoos, I agree.

As for the sexual part, it's not my place to really say, but it's kind of an inextricable force for zoosexuals... and the pr0n isn't necessarily being produced for zoophiles so much as fetishists and the like, cause it sure as fuck ain't made by zoos given how the nonhuman animals are treated. It may be that the AP is out of the hands of zoophiles and that the best approach is to refine an approach to discrediting it as evidence.

I appreciate that you've written this in a conversationalist, non-agressive way. Bravo.

I skimmed it. That's not fair I know, but I am off to do my morning walk (I'm getting better at those, by the way) and will return to it soon for a proper read through. I have a few points I disagree with, but some I agree with as well. I'll post my thoughts probably later this evening west coast USA timezone.

Living the values you chose to represent...maybe the most important thing to do, as an individual, as a local or a worldwide community. Can you remember this LadySaberCat and how she accused the zoophiles of not giving a shit about animals, backing her accusation with some incidents of actual animal abuse? And indeed, you won´t hear a loud and clear damnation from "us zoophiles" often, when another animal is harmed by another self proclaimed "zoophile". There´s a Latin proverb about silence. It says "He who remains silent, agrees." We as a community are very quick when it comes to complain about "unjust" treatment of zoophiles, but why are we so silent when it´s animals, not zoophiles, that are treated harmful, unjust and with egoistic or evil intent. Why this "corps mentality", why this unspoken order of silence?

While I do somewhat agree with this, in that if I hear about some abuse I have no problem rejecting it, but it is nearly impossible to refute all cases of abuse. Partly, because one may not have heard about it, may not wish to engage with the people discussing it, or any of a number of other reasons. To make it a little clearer, it might help to reexamine it under a slightly different circumstance...would it be condemning for a heterosexual to not remark about every case of rape or domestic abuse? Given, those who see us as abusive will not examine it in such a manner, but the situations are effectively the same.

We cannot defend against every case that hits the news, as most of these people are likely not a part of this community. We cannot control the actions of others, this is no different for us as for any other group. The only thing we can control are the actions we actively support. Just because a person has sex with an animal doesn't make them a zoophile, the same as a pedophile or rapist isn't a heterosexual simply because their victim is of the opposite sex.

Had some time to think on this. Thanks.

My feelings on this is that in short, no one cares about the "ugly and dark parts." They've linked us to them before they even met us, and cutting them off does us no benefits as the "ugly and dark parts" will do what they always have done and we'll still get linked to them out of ignorance. Few, if even a statistically relevant, number of people care what we think and ask on forums such as this. Those that do, generally are open minded to the point that they'll get the separation without having to push that group away (which only leaves it with less guidance).

The way you convince someone you're alright, starts before you tell them you are a zoo.

They get to know you for a while, they know you love animals. They see you with animals. They know you won't hurt them.

This, and only this, gets your foot in the door long enough they might listen to your argument. All the rest of this "push them away" hoopla will accomplish nothing from a media perspective, because no one cares what we think we are. If you walk up to Joe Schmoe on the street and say "Hey, I'm 30-30, I fuck horses," you've already lost that debate before it began. You can try to justify it with "no, I really love them and I'd never hurt them!" but actions speak louder than words and you have none. They've already made their mind up about you and you've lost, there simply is no coming back from that as your opinion is now worthless as a horsefucker. This is how the majority of the public views you, and there is no changing that.

Activism is best practiced as I have always said: With friends. And even then, I doubt it will seriously swing the pendulum either way. This is by and large, way out of our hands.

That's certainly somewhat true in politics, if not a bit oversimplified. Though, I fear that zoos as a collective aren't large/rich enough to perform lobbying in earnest, and are controversial enough right now that most parties would avoid associating with zoos at all costs. That is not to say that politics will never be a fruitful concern for zoos, but they're not really close enough to be able to do it effectively at this point. Looking forward, though, there are definitely some points to be considered here, as it relates to the future of zoophile activism.

Well said man.

Frankly, logic IS used in politics and for sure legal matters, and to the extent it's not, coherent arguments based on fact often are.

Buying your way in is one option, but I would be surprised if it were the most common approach for social laws. From what I've seen, that seems more driven by human rights perspectives and realization that no, black people are not biologically inferior... no, gay people will not molest your children, etc.

In other words, one aspect missing here is KNOWLEDGE, which comes through research and/or exposure.

So while I do not advocate in-your-face activism, I also don't advocate sitting back and doing nothing from the comfort of one's own echo chamber, either.

I see. Wanting to keep out of danger is, of course, a natural response.

Do you believe that there can be good activism? 30-30 asserted that the problem with activism is that it isn't approached in the correct way, and that zoo activists need to present the more conservative zoo views in order to gain traction. Is there any merit in that assertion, in your opinion? Outside of strict activism, what would you think if more outspoken zoos took to speaking out against animal abuse and the like? What examples of zoo activism backfiring have you observed, or is your outlook more intuitive?

On the other hand, clearly the current level of "activism" (which is to say, almost none) has resulted in a huge uptick in the number of fallacious laws being created to prohibit certain physical activities. Should new, specific legal prohibition somehow not cause one to "worry about risks to oneself and their animals"?

Not to drag up this tiresome comparison, but homosexuality was "not going to be accepted anytime soon" in the 1950s. That doesn't mean such a position is logically or philosophically correct, nor does it mean one shouldn't try, because... gee, it's hard.

But of course "activism" has almost as many meanings as "zoophile."

Exactly.

Generally, I agree on a lot of what you have to say, but one pov I really have to contradict. Activism can work, but it very much depends on the zeitgeist. I´ve told this quite a lot in the past, but there were times without the public hysteria about us "animal rapists". In the mid of the nineties, without vast archives of animal porn easily accessible for everyone, there was a small window of neutrality, at least that´s what my impression was. In German tv, stuff like "Liebe Sünde" (Dear Sin) and "Wa(h)re Liebe" ( True love) aired, featuring all kinds of uncommon sexual things. When Josef Maassen published his book on zoophilia, he was invited to "Wa(h)re Liebe ", interviewed by the host of the show, and NOBODY ever complained about "making propaganda for animal rapists". In "Liebe Sünde", Midas Dekkers, the Dutch biologist who also has written a book about zoophilia, titled "Dearest Pet", was able to voice his opinions on having sex with animals and nobody batted an eye.

We Germans even did what Jerry Springer was afraid of when Arabella Kiesbauer, a German talkshow host, interviewed a self proclaimed zoophile sitting behind a shadow wall. This actually aired, folks. Quite unimaginable under the influence of the current zeitgeist, isn´t it?

There was a time when activism could have improved things for us, the pre-Enumclaw, pre- internet animal porn craze. People didn´t react hysterically, no, there was more of an interest in a very off turf sexual orientation instead of immediate accusations zinging around our heads. Some might say I totally exaggerate on the negative effects cases like Enumclaw and easy availability of animal porn had, but in retrospective, that was what broke the neck of zoo activism. Remember the time when every Afroamerican was a "thief"? Remember how hard the Black community fought to overcome this prejudice? Now imagine the Black peoples` fight for equality combined with the internet culture presenting you with a legion of flics showing a black guy stealing and robbing, often uploaded by the thief/robber himself. Do you think the AfAm-Movement would be in the same place as it is today?

Just think about it for a while...

Another view of yours that I like to challenge: there actually IS a "public image" zoophiles have. Just ask any random person about people having sex with animals and you quickly will be able to condense the common normal guy´s perception of us zoophiles: sexually insatiable, strictly focused on his/her own sexual gratification, using animal welfare sermon and moral rules as a shield to hide behind when attacked, but throw this shield away immediately when pants are unzipped, supportive to exploitative conduct (animal porn, animal sharing, sex parties with "fellow zoophiles", animal prostitution, etc...), slaves to their sex drive, unable to control themselves (fencehoppers) and a general danger for any animal kept outside. I do believe that zoophilia itself isn´t the major problem, I really believe it´s what many so called "zoophiles" are making out of it, mistaking zoophilia as a sexual playground, an easy detour for their sexual fantasies they cannot live out with human partners uncontradicted. When we want to install the idea that zoophilia is more than just the fucking, we need to emphasize on love. I still think that exactly this was what spared me from any problems I easily could have run into when I was forced to lead my relationship with my mare in several different public stables. People knew that I was "weird", people always suspected that I loved horses just a little bit "too much"...but what kept them from turning me in to the police or giving me massive problems otherwise was the fact that I really lived the ten zeta rules. Although I was a sexual deviant, people never felt that their animals are in danger, people even told me that my mare and me are made for each other...and I assume they meant it, also including intimate contact. For all those outsiders, I definitely was a freak, but not an unpredictable one. Predictability, that´s the point. People need some form of trust to tolerate you.

But I digress, back to the public image topic. There IS a "zoo public image" and it can be influenced, although all the damage done in the last fifteen to twenty years is hard to undo. It´s not society who is to blame for the recent situation we´re in, it´s the fact that, after the 2000 internet animal porn craze, thing got out of hand, the sex lib agenda became dominant (" Everything sex should be legal!") and our own community was taken hostage by folks who just don´t give a fuck about animals and are only interested in being allowed to fuck ´em everywhere, everytime and in every way they want.

Another little detail: until today, I never ran across another sexual orientation that makes it necessary to add a word like "exclusive" to clarify things. Have you ever heard about an "exclusive gay"? The tendency to mix things ad libenter has gotten out of hand, also...inventing new words and stuff like that, you know. Many also suffer from the illusion we just have to do what the gays have done to become acceptable...but what they always forget is how much of the gay lib success is owed to the mid-eighties HIV epidemy. If you LGBT folks like it or not, but it wasn´t the "teaching of the public" that made you more tolerable, it was the extreme suffering of HIV victims that opened up the average normie´s heart. We should quit this bullshit comparisons to the LGBT once and for all, folks....we´re talking about having sex with animals that are unable to say "Yes, I want you to fuck me hard up my ass!".

Attention to our cause isn´t bad per se. But it has to be well timed to raise attention, we have to strenghten our defense before we ever can think about making that step. Once again, Mr A....y perfectly serves as an example how this shouldn´t be approached.We also finally have to draw a thick and steady line between bestiality and zoophilia, otherwise we´ll always be thrown into the same box as fencehoppers, animal pimps and all the others completely antagonizing the core ideas of true zoophilia, love and respect for the animals. What we really need to stop is drawing NEGATIVE attention towards us. Any fencehopping case throws us back another few months, for example. The more evidence of "zoophile" wrongdoings are out there, the harder it will become to convince Average Joe that we´re not all like this. We really need some discipline, the "everything goes!", the "whatever floats your boat" attitude has to be dismissed once and for all. As long as the vast majority of damage our community suffers from is done by our own community members and as long as almost anybody feels entitled to claim the z-word for himself, regardless of his actual conduct, his actual "agape" (Greek for nonsexual, romantic love or the lack thereof. We have to refill our words with actual meaning to form a consistent picture of zoophiles as real animal lovers. If you want change, then you have to be ready to change yourselves, folks. That´s how things can and will change for the better. Change starts with every single one of us...it´s not society that has to make the first move...it´s OUR turn!

P.S.: I still wait for a "zoophiles against animal pornography" initiative or an "anti fencehopper" squad consisting of true zoophiles. Just imagine how dazzled all the antis are when we ourselves take things into our own hands instead of handing out the usual , semi-honest "No, I don´t support fencehopping, but don´t be too hard with that fencehopping asshole..." kind of corps mentality bullshit. Everytime you defend or play down incidents that involve the outside and outsiders, it will fall back onto our feet.

" Protest is when I say that I don´t like this and that. Resistance is when I prevent stuff I don´t like from happening. Protest is when I say that I quit participating. Resistance is when I also prevent anybody else from participating."

Join the Zoo resistance.

This most matches how I feel, as well.

I agree with this in general, except this:

zoophiles see their situation in life going from bad to worst.

I don't agree with that. I think if anything, it's gotten better, though almost so little as to be insignificant, if only due to my experiences going through the psychiatric system at various points in time.

The laws don't really change our day to day existence much, and as such, can't be argued to make our day to day life "worse" unless you get caught somehow. Even before the laws, they'd throw some other statute at you. Not much has changed there.

There are cultures which are accepting of human-animal sexual contacts in some contexts, both in the present day and in the past. You are factually wrong when you say "this is how it always has been", and so when you say "this is how it will always remain", I can't say I agree, precisely because it has not always been this way.

My experience is that people are bad at understanding the social and moral norms of other societies - present or past - and this makes them likewise particularly bad at predicting how future societies will view issues.

People lack real intelligence about zoophilia and won't believe us because apparently we're trying to cover our tracks.

Hm. This is true. Falsification by association. De se loquitur, propter commodum. My latin is rusty, but it should read something like "he speaks of himself, for benefit/advantage". It's a fair assumption most of the time, everyone is inclined to avoid revealing their less flattering traits when speaking about themselves, but it definitely makes things difficult for zoos since it can be used against them. Perhaps the solution is obtaining more outsiders for the cause; it can't be misconstrued as speaking in self interest, because non-zoos wouldn't benefit from it at all outside of doing a good deed.

I've tried arguing, I've tried having a normal talk, I've tried so much. Fucking nothing. It always turns into a debate where we get sick of each other no matter what. Sorry, but it's hard to have a normal conversation if I'm being called an animal abuser every 10 seconds. Either I suck at convincing people or people really are bigoted and sheep. I have figured out that it doesn't really help to convince people. All the people I've tried talking with still try to prove me wrong, ignore me or just forget about it.

Hm. If you haven't already, I'd take a look at 30-30's post on this thread. He made some excellent points about convincing people, I feel. He's been quite amicable on this thread too, in honor of my request. You do bring to mind an issue that's always hurt zoos, though... there's a lack of evidence. There's evidence for your cause, anecdotal evidence, but nothing that carries the authority that is needed to convince people that having an intimate relationship with a nonhuman animal isn't harmful. There are no scientific studies on the health effects or psychology of a non-abusive relationship like that, so people can stick to their assumptions in good conscience until there's proof... but a study like that is a landmine for a fair number of researchers, I suspect.

This message was kind of useless since I don't have a single idea on how to convince a big group of people who are 100% sure that we're extremely bad and disgusting people, but I still wanted to say something.

This isn't true at all. You're getting your views across, and the way you wrote your post makes it seem like you were getting something big off your chest, too. That's the farthest from useless that I can imagine. There are lots of people in agreement with you, and part of facing a problem is acknowledging just how severe it is, and not just the first time around, either. Even if you don't have any insight into how to approach it, it's important for everyone to remember just how sensitive the situation is. And, sometimes simply reiterating the struggles of a circumstance can inspire solutions as I'd like to think they did this time.