I think about this so much.
It's something I'd like to happen so I can get rid of that never ending fear.
Zoophilia is so uncommon, but when I hear something about it, it's nothing but insults and people complaining.
What if we were seen as non-harmful, peaceful animal lovers by the world?
What if we were liked by about the same number of people who accept gays?
Do you think bestiality laws would meet their end? And if most of them did, do you see that as a good or bad thing? Like, would there be more chances of animals getting raped?
What do you think the pros and cons would be?
But a better question yet: Do you think we can ever progress forward? Or do you think Zoophilia is only going backwards, and has no chance to see the light of day?
As much as I share your ideals, I'm afraid it will be long after we're all dead and gone before we will be accepted if ever. Honestly, the only thing that most people hold offense to is the sexual aspect but there are plenty of zoos who do not do such things with their partners. The general public seems to get bestiality and zoophilia confused and are too stubborn to learn the difference.
...as well as many "zoos"...
It is the sad truth indeed.
Even though deep somewhere in me I believe my own lies that it'll be all okay.
If anything, this is probably one of the things that bother me the most.
I guess It's just my misanthropy.
Uhm...while I appreciate this kind of positive approach, there are some things to point out here.
I started similar threads in here, BF and some other "zoo forums"...result: the so called zoophile community astonishingly lacks a big vision for "the day after (legalisation)". There´s no plan for a peaceful coexistence, only the demand for complete absolution...some "zoos" even demand animal porn to be legally sold in their local grocery stores...
...what leads us to the second point: What exactly would this "normality" include? What kind of "zoophilia" would be accepted...fencehoppers, animal porn producers, people offering animal sex "parties" for "friends"? "Specialized" pet shops offering the "most fuckable dog breeds" and " first try, then buy" 3 day free testfucking deals?
Let´s talk about risks. How much risk is involved in zoophilia? How much when you obey a few rules protecting your privacy? Is being a zoophile really that risky when you shut up at the right moments, don´t publish any evidence and don´t feel the urge to rub your sexuality into random strangers´ faces, expecting cheers and "Oh my god! He´s SOOOO brave with his unorthodox orientation!" Especially as a dog zoo, life is way easier; you lock your bedroom door, draw the curtains and there you go. Sometimes I really wish I were a dog zoo....guess I never would have felt the need to connect to other zoos, then. Where´s the problem, mate? LD,DC, STFUIIS...lock doors, draw curtains, shut the f*** up in inappropriate situations. Do you really feel the need of being able to freely spread out your sex life in public? Well, I wouldn´t even talk about my sex life to others than really close friends when I were normal. Since I bought my farm and can lead a relatively easy, relaxed and safe life with my new mare, my impulses to speak about my orientation dwindle. What leaves me wondering whether the entire "legalise zoophilia" attitude isn´t more than delusional , exhibitionistic crap for lazy and impatient people with a "gimme now!" attitude. To me, it seems as if neither legality nor normality of zoophilia is needed to achieve a good zoo life.
regarding your last question: No one can know for sure what will be in 100,200, maybe 500 years. The legal status of animals just recently has started to change, the last 20 years brought tremenduous improvements for animals compared to the centuries before where they were treated like deplorable crap. If this trend continues, it´s very plausible that society will reach point C, the culminating point. When you give animals individual rights similar to those humans have, you cannot avoid touching "delicate" issues like their sexuality for long. It all will culminate in this question: When we grant animals individual rights, has the animal the right to freely choose his/her sexual partners, even if we consider having sex with an animal a crime? Whether or not this question will be answered in our community´s favor, no one can predict.
Not any kind of thing you mentioned there, at least.
But people like us should be accepted.
We wouldn't fuck other's animals, abuse any animal or oversexualize them, now do we?
How is that easier? We're still treated as the same.
It's not like people will see you fucking a horse either, close the big gates and you're done, I don't see a prob.
But you only connect with other zoophiles just because of this...?
Sorry, but what?
Others do, yet I can't?
People like talking about stuff and so do I.
I get jealous when I see people talking about their love, yet when I would talk about my love I wouldn't be even taken seriously.
And when I would, I'd only be a selfish degenerate.
You can't really blame me for getting jealous there, no?
And the words of others don't help much either.
Sure, you can tell me to grow thick skin but that won't do anything.
I'd rather just not be called a sick twisted rapist every second, no thanks.
There's the idea of me having freedom, too.
All these repeated words... I'm almost starting to believe them as they just keep flying by.
That is fine as long as you own the place where your horses live. However, many people have their horses in rented boxes, living alongside dozens of fellow horses, where it is hard to have any sort of intimacy with them.
I'd like to see a single zoo who actually thinks porn should be peddled in a grocery store...
I sometimes get really confused and don't know what to say anymore when he brings stuff up like this.
Actually, what even the fuck.
He has some points that are valid, he just has a penchant for exaggeration, unfortunately.
I really have tried to work with 30-30. I think he could use someone to "taper his enthusiasm" so to speak if he ever wants his movement to get anywhere at all. He's absolutely refused to do so however, he doesn't even reply to my attempts to reach out.
Is there even human porn in grocery stores?
Because if there is I've never noticed it.
Either way though... I don't know anyone who would think that zoo pornography should be in grocery stores, because how is that even a rights issue? Like seriously, what a store decides to stock is in most cases just whatever they expect to sell and what they expect to not give them awful publicity. I really don't know anyone who sees that as an issue.
I would expect... That 30-30 is exaggerating something that someone said. Maybe something along the lines of:
Which then got turned in his head into:
I've yet to see any, though maybe/probably there is some "behind the counter." Don't know, never asked.
I dito to that.
I imagine that if public opinion shifted in this way, the law would soon follow. I don't know much about how Europe would handle it, but in the U.S. it would probably be legalized in some states before winding its way through the Supreme Court and being ruled as part of the same right to privacy that allows for same sex couples under Lawrence v. Texas.
In this case, we'd have a little positive media representation. The same insults and cringe comedy would float around, of course, but also goofy, well-meaning comedy and relationship dramas.
Eventually. There are legal issues related to animal rights as well, and the animal cruelty laws would have to be amended to allow for investigation of sex crimes without assuming sex is itself abusive.
Mixed bag, mostly good. I think it'd be better if more abusers were put in jail, but not at the expense of the many who do no harm.
Practically speaking, I think the same amount of animal rape would happen, if only because it so rarely happens in the first place. More precisely, more animal rapists who are caught would go unpunished. But that's to be expected when one has to prove the animal was harmed or not consenting, rather than that a human had sex with them.
In short, if laws against bestiality were overturned and replaced with stronger, more rational animal cruelty laws, it would likely lead to more openness and acceptance of zoosexuality. This would make most zoos happier, and make it easier to get along in the world. Unfortunately, the increased exposure would also lead to an increase in hate crimes against zoos, as well as some further attempts to infantilize and desexualize animals as a means of preventing them from being "molested", whether that's likely or not.
I'd say that although we're losing ground politically and socially, this is an expected short-term effect of the internet introducing people y o the subject by and large. If we're open, honest, and patient in explaining how we feel and how the animals feel about us, I think that exposure will turn into positive or at least neutral opinions. We just need to represent ourselves instead of allowing public opinion to be shaped by cruel perverts and socially inept "activists." Also, as our understanding of human and animal minds gets better, I think we'll develop the capacity to prove how animals feel about us, showing in many cases that our relationships are mutually loving.
Would you really want to live in a world where everything is normal and acceptable ? Where would you draw the line? I think the taboo nature of "unacceptable" activities are the main reason they are so darn exciting.
What kind of weird, strange attitude is that?
Of course I don't want everything to be normal and acceptable, only good, harmless things.
This is my sexuality, I don't do this for 'the kick.'
I just want a normal relationship where I can not be bothered but still be accepted.
I have genuine love, I'm not a horny male seeking to fuck something.
Even if I did this for 'the kick' it would mean that my girl's life and my life would depend on it, which would be way too risky.
I'm just saying that what we do is NOT normal. Most don't consider it "good and harmless" Some people think its "good and harmless" to fuck little kids, do you want that to be accepted too??
And I'm saying that it should be.
Not normal does not mean not right.
Ehm, no?
There's obvious proof of why children cannot consent to sex.
They are not sexually mature.
Adult animals are.
You really shouldn't link bestiality with child sex, and neither should you link zoophilia and pedophilia together.
They're very different.
I really don't get the comparison.
Are you telling me an animal can consent to sex?? I'm not saying they are the same, I'm saying that they are both AB-normal and un-natural. Why does everyone want there particular sexuality considered normal and ok?? Whats wrong with accepting that you are NOT normal and getting on with your life?
Don't act so surprised, of course.
Do I really have to tell you why and how?
Sorry, but mammals have sexual urges and it doesn't really matter who or what helps it with these urges.
My post history also explains stuff like this.
Abnormal? Yes, because it's not common and not accepted by the public.
Unnatural? Nope, this even happens in the wild.
Are you THAT delusional?
I don't like being called a rapist, sick being, etc.
Because that's what I am not, I don't like being misjudged.
You can't say you like being disliked, that's NOT normal.
It's normal to be wanted to be accepted, especially if you're fearful like me.
From your post history you clearly aren't a zoophile and lack knowledge about this subject.
Damn, you're not in the good place, I tell you: You're way more lost than me.
And even worse, you act like animals can't consent to sex, yet you had sex with one.
In that case, you're a fucking disgusting person.
Please meet /u/Aluzky and /u/Hedonist-glen
You guys have some similarities.
I think you are delusional if you have convinced yourself that animals and humans are on the same sexual, emotional and intellectual level. What is the true purpose of sex and sexuality? It is to reproduce. So anything beyond that is for your own selfish and self-gratifying reasoning. Wishing that the world would accept your perversion wont change the fact that you are in fact perverted. Also, attacking me doesn't make your argument any stronger......I know I'm lost and screwed up, but at least I admit it.
I never said that, but okay.
We may not be on the same level of intelligence and such, but animals can choose and think for themselves.
They can indeed consent to sex as they are aware of what it does.
Please tell me what my bitch was trying to do when she was humping me.
Not only to reproduce.
Animals know it gives pleasure and they will continue to have sex for that reason.
False, I only finger her and sometimes lick her because she's presenting herself.
I don't have penetrative sex with her so it doesn't help me in any way.
I want her to be able to get rid of her urges.
Notice the words in the dictionary, ''unacceptable'' Thanks for pointing out the obvious, it is unacceptable indeed by the public.
Does that change the fact that zoophilia is right or wrong?No.
I never said that. So, okay?
My point still stands.
Good, I also admit it when I'm wrong.
But in that case you have no right to call this all wrong as you're not even trying to improve yourself.
Keep fucking with a creature who can't give consent (according to you), and maybe have a bottle of whiskey or two, no?
Whoops, sorry, that reminds you of your first experience with a poor doggie.
That only applies to humans. And only to educated humans who know how reproduction works. The rest of the animal kingdom doesn't have sex to reproduce, they have sex for pleasure or instinct.
First you say animals don't have sex to reproduce and THEN you say they have sex out of instinct. What exactly are they "instinctively" doing?? ...... TRYING TO REPRODUCE ! There is no stronger instinct in the whole animal kingdom other than procreation. You couldn't have made a worse contradiction in your statement.
Maybe I was not clear enough, when animals have sex, they are not actively thinking "If I do this I'm going to have babies"
To them, babies come out of nowhere, they don't know that sex was the thing that caused them.
The goal of mammals, reptiles and birds (possible other animals too) when having sex is, to satiate sex urges and feel sexual pleasure, not to reproduce. Reproduction is just a side effect of seeking sexual pleasure and seeking to satisfy sex urges.
Other animals (like bugs and others) they do it by instinct. Again, they don't know how reproduction works, they don't even know that they are reproducing with their actions.
Since none of them know that their actions is the cause of reproduction, they are not trying to reproduce. A dog doing it with a bitch is not trying to reproduce, a bug doing it with there is not trying to reproduce.
To try to reproduce, you need to understand how reproduction works or at minimum understand that sex = babies. So far, only humans are capable of understanding that, so far, only humans can have sex with the only goal of reproducing.
Except that no such instinct exist. Again, an instinct on a female bug is to lay the eggs on the sand, the instinct of the male bug is to shot sperm over the eggs. That is about it. Their instinct is not procreation, they don't know why they are doing that.
There is no contradiction. The problem is that you don't understand that animals don't have sex with the goal of reproducing.
Another example: Do you think animals eat food with the goal of getting nutrients? Or with the goal of making excrement? Nope. Their goal is to satisfy hunger urges, also to experience oral pleasure from food that they are programed to experience as tasty. Excrement and nutrients are a side effect of eating food that they are not even aware that exist.
there is no such thing as normal.
thats not an arguement. using computers isn't natural, do you want to go back to our mud huts?
Right word is INFORMED consent to sex.
Consent and informed consent to sex are not the same, children can give consent, they can't give informed consent.
What's this "normal" you speak of? I ask this, because there is no such thing as normal.
I'm personal not interested, probably would still not share about my love life.
I have been in multiple such communities, mostly populated by non-zoos.
You're extremely hilarious, yet very sad. Did you know that?
You keep saying bullshit, and it's so unbelievable.
If the furry porn community can barely accept zoophilia then there is zero chance of other communities accepting zoophilia.
Your previous comments also show signs of you not knowing what the world thinks of zoophiles.
Wake the fuck up from your imagination, please.
Kind of ironic, since the only thing I do is daydream all day, just to escape reality. Yet I know more about the public's opinion on zoophilia than you.
EDIT: I just realized, you probably mean the pedos who just seek sympathy and think they can move forward by allying with us.
Hell no, aint happening. These disgusting fuckers can gtfo.
No, not only were most of them not pedo, but I actually know of absolutely zero all-pedo offline communities.
Your imagination is.... interesting.
Your imagination is even more interesting considering you don't know how many people are against zoophilia.
Wake up from your bubble, cell dweller.
And some of the lgbt think the same about zoosexuals. You are being a pedophobe just like are being zoophobes.
You can't cry acceptance of our sexual minority if you also discriminate other sexual minorities.
[removed]
Would be the same as with the gays in countries where 905 of the population re fine with them.
They will not exist in a future, humans are evolving and becoming more educated/rational, as such such laws are boung to not exist.
Animal abuse is already a crime, raping an animal is already animal abuse os is already illegal. Not making zoosex illegal does not increase the odds of animal rape being more common.
A tolerant society but without proper sex education can increase rape and animal abuse done by uneducated horny zoosexual teenagers. So, zoosexual education should be a must in the future.
Yes we can, specially if people stop sitting idle doing nothing. At bare minimum zoos should make trow away accounts and try to educate people over the internet.
You think so?
It's only been getting worse for us zoos day by day.
To me, this dumb species looks like it's only slowly killing itself.
Hey Aluzky.
Look, religion still exists in 2017.
20 fucking 17.
Humans believe in a magical invisible man in the sky, which makes no sense as there's no proof of such thing.
You expect people... to become smarter?
Aluzky, out of all people, I'm surprised that you aren't a misanthrope looking at how you're treated like shit everywhere.
Internet has open the doors to people about zoosexuals, as such, bigots are reacting in a negative way, but with education and time, they will get corrected and pushed back (like it happened with the gays)
But, I guess if zoos just take the beating and don't fight back, then yes, it will be only worse for us. Assuming that zoos don't fight back. But I don't see all zoos being submissive and not fighting back.
Number of atheist and agnostic has been increasing year by year.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion/
You are seeing things in the short term. I see things in the long term (200 or 1000 years from now)
Similar to how you believe that I see dogs as sex toys and other stuff that you have no OBJECTIVE proof for. So, your point is very hypocritical.
This doesn't have to do anything with this thread.
It's very clear that you're mad about this because I know the truth.
Keep cryin' boy, OPBeast is close and I'm going to enjoy the fuck out of it.
Btw, reported for trolling. Otherwise you wouldn't say that. Evidence is right in front of our eyes.
It does, you brought up how people believe in stuff without proof to support their believes. I'm pointing out how you do the exact same thing.
II don't know what you are talking about.
What?
Trolling? Where? Say what? Evidence of what? What are you talking about?
Oh yes, of course that's so true.
You totally don't do that either.
Oh excuuuse me, do I have to use /s so your brain can finally register this as sarcasm?
Ah yes, who's trolling?
Stop acting innocent.
Aluzky is a reminder that humanity can do better. And thankfully I don't have to worry about the pathetic simp breeding with the rest of the population. How your community is still stuck with him for now and as usual I express my pity.
To a lesser extent I guess I pity you guys for /u/Swibblestein kinda going the Aluzky route with fence jumping/screwing anything that barks defense. Just not as extreme.
[deleted]
And where did you get that information from?
I'd like some evidence for that.
I'm quite curious.
A couple of people have been misrepresenting my position on the issue (out of stupidity or out of malice I don't know) but if you like I can sum up the position I hold which is the basis of that accusation.
I'm definitely interested...
I'll try to explain as best as I can then.
In short, there are some cases where, if a person has a long-lasting relationship with an animal that does not belong to them, then sexual relations with that animal might not necessarily be wrong.
There are various conditions on that. The first, as mentioned, is that there must be a significant pre-existing relationship between human and animal - "fence-hopping" (which I generally take to mean anonymous / one-night-stand sex) does not qualify. The relationship should be significant enough that you've acted as the primary caretaker for the animal at some point - so that you know of any potential medical issues, emergency information, and the like.
All standard restrictions also apply - consent, no harm, and so on, obviously.
My reason for thinking this is that I think that while animals are treated as property legally, from a moral perspective, they are beings with their own minds and desires. To me, then, the situation is rather analogous to having relations with someone's (of age) family member without their knowledge. It's not an ideal situation, and many fathers might grab their shotgun if they found their daughter was sleeping around, but that doesn't make it immoral.
From a legal perspective, I do think that sort of sexual contact between a person and an animal which is not in their ownership ought to be illegal - there are a whole bunch of issues that crop up in such relationships. I also think it is a generally dumb thing to do, and far from an ideal circumstance, but at the same time illegal and dumb is not synonymous with immoral.
How people have managed to twist "only have relations with animals you know well and have a long, pre-existing relationship with" into "screw anything that barks" is totally beyond me.
If you'd like to change my mind on the issue, I welcome it. It's an annoying position to have to defend, and it would be far easier for me if I could simply say "no, illegal, dumb, AND immoral".
Either I'm really too tired or I misunderstood you.
So what I'm getting is:
You have been accused of fencehopping, even though you didn't.
You somewhat support it, only if it's done right.
Here's my view on it.
In my opinion if the owner does not know, I see it as (partly) wrong.
Nobody likes stuff done to their animals without your knowledge.
Even if it's harmful or not.
I'd be traumatized and horrified if I knew that somebody was doing stuff to my bitch.
I would not look at her ever the same again.
If the owner happens to find out (or when you straight up admit it) it will give zoophilia even a worse name and the owner ends up feeling disgusted.
Also, this show signs of uncontrollability ONLY IF you do zoo stuff to many different animals.
It both harms zoophilia's image and not being able to control yourself may result in harming others or yourself.
This may also result in spreading zoo diseases.
I'm not saying the same thing as: You shouldn't have sex at all because there's a chance for a zoo disease.
But having contact with many different animals can increase the risk.
I see it as less of an issue if you have a relationship with that animal.
Especially if you were a caretaker at some point.
This reminds me that I have a few problems with zoophilia, or alternatively but less worse: keeping pets.
Are these animals forced into a relationship?
They don't give consent to being bought.
But to be honest, I don't see it as a perfect comparison.
Well, at least for a zoo like me, because I actually have a relationship with my bitch and I don't want anyone to interfere.
But that's different for non-zoo people as they don't have a romantic relationship.
I don't see myself as a dad, but more like a leader of the relationship because I have no choice but to.
We lead a monogamous relationship.
But I guess I can be happy with the fact that she doesn't invite other people to sexual contact or kissing.
Though I wouldn't allow it if it were to happen.
But is it really that bad?
A lot of people don't let their animals do certain stuff they want to do.
I guess that depends on what they really want.
Don't worry, (semi?)anti logic.
But I honestly want to know where he got that information from.
So, where'd he get it from?
You've changed my mind on the subject a little, you know.
This isn't directed at you:
I guess if you actually didn't act like a child and that you're Mr. I-have-an-IQ-of-130 you could have changed my thoughts too, u/[ProbablyCan'tMentionHimBecauseOfNewPersonalAttackingRules]
Well I've never had sex, so I'd tend to say that you're right.
Honestly I don't know how to respond to this because some people have different definitions of what constitutes fence-hopping. Is a teenager having sex with the family dog who's owned by their parents but that they live with fencehopping? It is an animal that does not belong to them, after all. Just an example.
I try to avoid the word fencehopping altogether because I've found that it creates more confusion than it solves.
One thing that I didn't mention, and perhaps I ought to have, is that generally someone should try to know if the animal is in a sexual relationship with the owner. That's complicated, and requires some guesswork, but if there's any possibility of that it moves from being like having sexual relations with their sibling / parent / whatever else, to being like having a sexual relationship with their spouse (which is a very different scenario - I don't think a son has the right to tell his mother "you can't sleep with that man!", but the relationship between spouses is different).
This is part of why I said it's a stupid thing to do, but that's a bit separate from morality. Feelings of disgust are unfortunate, but don't make an action immoral - I wouldn't say that because some religious fundamentalists get disgusted by gay sex, that homosexuality is immoral, after all, and the same basic principle applies here.
Personally, I see this as an important part of any sexual relationship with an animal, regardless of circumstances. You have to know how they react to things. Different animals, even of the same species, have their own body language and way of signaling things. I knew a dog that would bark loudly when happy, and another that would only ever bark when unhappy - you can't know that without a pre-existing relationship.
Like I said, I've never had sex, so honestly I'm not sure. I think it was either that I miscommunicated my above point (it was not so well organized when first presented), or he misunderstood or misrepresented it (again, for what reasons I can't say).
This is why we need some sort of wiki for this...
In my opinion, fencehopping is doing zoo stuff to an animal without the owner knowing.
Zoo stuff is any sexual contact and things like kissing and sucking nips, I guess.
Depends on the owner, really.
Other family members are almost always seen as their owners too.
If that's true, I don't really see it as fencehopping.
It's a bit foggy, tbh.
Well, just like in human and human relationships, you might not always know either.
I don't sympathize with anyone who makes this mistake, though.
Anyone who tries anything with my bitch ends up with 0 balls anyways.
I know this sounds a bit weird, but I can't really decide if it's wrong or not at this point.
Depends on what you really see as wrong.
It's against the owners will so it's still partly wrong in my book.
Not being able to look at your friend ever the same again can be traumatizing.
What I really fear is that it's a bad example for us.
People should not be afraid that they'll have to protect their animals for people such as us.
I'm extremely sick of the comments about zoophilia that we can't be trusted with their animals.
I don't really take false accusations very kindly, but it has come so far that I believe it myself.
I wouldn't trust a single zoo with my bitch.
Not even non-zoos, because I still fear that that person secretly is a zoo.
Well in the vegan debate thread he said he wouldn't say anything if someone was fucking a dog that wasn't theirs even if he knew the person who's dog was being fucked.
I think I can find my old replies to him.
I've found it to be more common then i use to believe. There was no internet when i was young. I literally thought i was part of some super rare problem. But coming out to some via the internet and in person, I've found I have had less bad out comes. Some admitting they have experimented, or were zoo as well. There was even one who acted against it, but then later admited she had dabbled around some, but do to shame and societies view of being zoo she had hid it away. I am in no way saying to just to out and shouting it in the sky for all to hear. Would be nice though. I'm very selective on who i talk to about it. But with my experience, i believe that 1/3 of the population is zoo to the extent of a romantically entwined cross species relationship, sadly some who are also using other species as a sexual tool. And the amount of those who are zoo in a nonsexual form is higher. I cant say for sure, but that what i say vs my exp.
It would be great to be excepted. But i look at it this way, we have all kinds of people who are for and against a wide varity of beliefs and life styles. Im not super worried about it. The world is changing at an ever growing rate of understanding more and more about life. Casting away the old irrational programming, and installing the new understanding and informed programs.
Okay enough rambling here lol.
And i say again, becareful who you come out to. I'll even offer advice from my exp, just shoot me a message. Better safe then sorry.