A frequent concern as I read and occasional comment here: the definition of zoophilia and "othering" people who engage in bestiality (by definition, sex with animals)
As I understand it, zoophilia is a sexual or romantic interest in animals. The zoo community has reclaimed the word somewhat, but as a means of distancing themselves from the bestiality "community".
At times, "zoophile" seems to be a way of saying "...But I'm not interested in bestiality." And then, occasionally, as a way of making zoophiles confused over their own desires.
And defining a community based on opposition to a concept is a rocky beginning to a conversation. Long term it would tend to privilege a platonic affection over a sexual relationship, on a base, process level. A community evolving from a position of "not bestiality", combined with a tendency to view things in black/white us/them "you're either binary or against us", common among H. Sapiens generally and H. Sapiens Interneti specifically, can hurt dialog.
And it's worse for newbies who have come here because they're concerned about or interested in a paraphilia.I think the larger world sees the two words as synonymous. Zoophiles themselves, making up maybe .5% of the world (Bering, "Perv," friendly book on paraphilias), have a lot to work for to seriously change that definition?
These words are near-synonyms, and I worry a bit when the community tries to distance itself linguistically, there's a very fine difference. Thank you for listening :)
I don't think the line is too fuzzy overall, perhaps with some it may be. The way I see it, and as I understand others see it, zoophilia is the romantic and (usually) sexual interest in animals, and while zoophiles can certainly have carnal acts with their pets, it is different from a bestialist who doesn't share that emotional or romantic connection, which in turn results in less care for the animal, or in many cases complete lack thereof. I'm a zoophile, and I care a lot about my pets, much beyond simply having sex with them to the point where I don't even see that as a necessarily primary part of our relationship. Yeah it certainly happens, but it's just part of the big picture. One of my dogs is even neutered and I never initially considered a sexual relationship with him until he started expressing sexual desire.
Some people who very clearly aren't zoophiles sometimes identify themselves as such which can cause confusion though.
And that may feed into why I feel like this is more of a thing, I don't see myself as a zoophile, because I have a hard time breaking down the species line when it comes to romantic interest. I can care about my pets and love them, but they stay in the "pet" box in my head. There's more gray space for me. It seems like the connotations in the zoo community is "care, love, respect," which makes a bestialist... Awkward word... Receive the qualities of "not love, not care, not respect."
I don't think this is a strong thing, just a hazy connotation. And perhaps just my opinion.
[deleted]
Personally, I don't like the word bestialist as it implies a lack of care or respect whch may or may not be the case.
It is entirely possible for someone to provide exemplary care and even a high level of respect, but not see the non-human as a romantic interest, but still desire them as a sexual partner. Part of the reason this seems like a distinction to me is that I have an incredibly hard time identifying "love" as it's really hard to measure someone's internal state. I may know what I feel, but it's very hard for someone who isn't me to know what I am feeling on such a deep level.
What's the measurable difference between one person who provides good care and does not feel a romantic bond and someone who provides the exact same care but feels a romantic attachment, especially if neither vocalizes it? It may matter to the individual, but "love" is a hard thing to nail down and observe from the outside.
On the flipside, if someone voices that they "love" the non-human, but provide lesser quality care than another who has sex but doesn't "love", is the former still superior to the latter?
This I can agree with.
The difference between bestiality and zoophilia? The same as the difference between a man and a faithful husband. All faithful husbands are men, but not all men are faithful husbands....
Basically, anybody engaging in any sex act with an animal is a beasty. I am, too. The term "zoophilia" was never meant to define "platonic animal loving", its origin was the need to clarify one´s motives, attitude and level of determination towards animals. Just like the "faithful husband".....the z-word was meant to be an aequivalent for this.
We should get rid of this self foolery that is displayed with the "platonic zoophiles" approach. Zoophilia undoubtedly is a term for sexuality....without any sexuality with animals, a so called "platonic zoo" basically is nothing else than any ordinary pet owner who loves his animal and sees it as part of his family. Without sex, there´s no zoophilia. I don´t even know why these "platonic zoos" are so vocal...they have nothing to fear at all, ´cause it´s the sex that makes zoophilia into what it is, perilous and uncomfy.
I also have to mention that zoophilia and bestiality, now used as almost-synonyms, were two separated things when the entire online zoo movement started. These two were merged into what the z-word is now mainly because we, our worldwide animal fucker community, never ceased to produce scandals and headlines, with the prepetrators caught shouting the z-word in the courtroom as a weak and delusional hope for clemency. We, the entire animal fucker community, have our share in the confusion. Bestialist, zoophile, fencehopper, non exclusive, exclusive...we can´t even agree on a final definition in here, with roughly twenty to thirty people contributing and participating in this subreddit. Without a guy smashing his fist onto the table, dispersing the confusion and the definitions-a-la-carte once and for all, things remain the way they are. To change things, it´s on us to start disconnecting from all the overused, falsified and ancient viewpoints. The zoo community formed in the beginning of the nineties and much of what contemporary zoos say and write today is based on this old approach. But times have changed, none of us could foresee how much impact the commercialisation of the internet would have on our community back then. Today, we have 24/7 easily available animal porn, communities like BF and many negative examples more...isn´t it about time to push the reset button and renew our old beliefs and viewpoints? This isn´t the nineties anymore, but our arguments, our attitudes are still stuck back there....
I believe people are developing the term zooromantic and zoosexual to further clarify the spectrum of where they fall, especially in regard to people who don't actually have sex with their pets. Some people are not fond of change and "tumblr-esque" meta labels though
Hee hee... Labels that only help to separate members of the same broad orientation :) Useful in lovingly self-analytical monolog, but not powerful enough to gain traction as words. Kind of a pity. The distinctions are real, but there could never be enough words to capture all possibilities.
Your right, it's not. Guess when most of the porn was made though?
Most of the animal porn was and is made within the last ten years. Almost every dirty (amateur) flic that is sold via paysites has its origins in BF, just watch the porn section there to realize that. The times of grainy "Mrs Beast" and other old crap are looong gone...
I'm honestly surprised you're a member at BF, that you watch the porn feed there even moreso. No judgements, all I know of the place are rumors, but by the reports I've heard it doesn't sound like the place you'd hang out. Then again, that mght explain your opinion of "zoophiles" if that's what you typically see (and that the rumors about BF are true)
1) The rumors about BF are true.
2) I have a habit that is a leftover from the eighties. When I was young, there was very little info available about zoophilia and anything related to it; so I sucked up anything I could get a hold of. This habit hasn´t changed a bit; I still try to suck up as much info from different sources as I can. Being aware of the nature of filter bubbles, I even read all the anti sites to avoid one-sidedness in my own viewpoints. I read it all, even the most exaggerated threat scenarios like that offered by our German "Anti Zoo" number one, C. Thierfelder who implies that there´s a big "zoophile" conspiracy going on behind the scenes and that our authorities secretly protect the zoophiles because we "zoos" don´t get the death sentence right away.
So I also visit BF every now and then. Since BF is the largest site out there and has more than 1,5 mil registered users , it´s the ideal place for doin´ some research. BF is THE place to be when you´re trying to see the bigger picture. Wanna know the percentage of "I wanna see a girl get fucked by doggie" guys out there? Just observe some sub sections for a bit. Wanna know where all the "new" material on animal porn paysites is from? Go to BF´s porn section. Stuff like that....
Why don´t you take a look for yourself, egoldstein? Visiting BF isn´t illegal (yet), you don´t even need to make an account. Get used to the abusive overtone BF has to offer, learn about the mechanisms of the illegal porn industry * en passant * and you´ll quickly start drawing connections between the common accusations from the antis and actual BF users. Meet fakers and pretenders, also...lots of ´em.
It really is much of a surprise when someone tells me he/she never has visited BF. Maybe you should, just once...
I attemptd to visit it once a few years ago when someone I knew suggested I go there to see it for myself; however, BF seemed to block all access from tor, so I never managed to see what was there.
I too often read what detractors have to say, though sadly I typically see the same tired old excuses instead of reasoned discourse.
I really think you, who admittedly doesn't look at porn, are not the best reference for this.
I was involved recently in a project that intended to make all the gay-beast.com and other paysites run by the same group as beastforum openly downloadable via a free-app. Why you ask? In short, to hurt their commercial profits. (I'm not friends of theirs). It works, but isn't done yet. I can show you a beta of it if you want.
That said, I think it's safe to say I have a better idea of the age of the content than you. It peaked circa 95-05.
Thanks, this is helpful! The word was created in opposition, which in some ways makes it hard to build a totally functional and well-developed Theory of Everything on.
If someone says "am I a real zoophile," it's hard to know what that means or how they're defining the term. Since the word is nailed up over the wall of the subreddit, and finding difference and distinctions is fun, I think the word gains maybe more reality as a definition and more importantly as a qualifier than it really can hold.
Repeating myself, I want to take a whiffle-bat to every furry that has said "you're not a real furry unless..." (Insert hobby here). False dichotomy serves no-one.
I found (thanks to my interest in zoophilia) some modern text defining this 'platonic love' in new light, as love of both beings, and deep thinking (philosophy), including thinking about love/sex kind of relations! Critical thinking makes me most uncomfortable, even beyond optimal (?) point, where it become just dark depression.. But I don't want to be sucked by same illusions as everybody before me..nor I know how to avoid those illusions about progress, in case when real progress nearly non-existent.
Link I was talking about: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-friendship/
Everyone has their agendas when it comes to words. Yes, the definitions are a little bit muddled up. If you want to see something worse, then review how the word "sodomy" changed its meanings over the history of mankind. And yes, bestiality and "zoos" will be the same to sundry outsiders.
But I - personally - feel the difference you want to see neglected is noteworthy.
In my world the overarching term for what you want to call a community is "zoosexuality", which encompasses everything that has to do with sex with animals and attached things.
Zoosexuality then splinters into several things. Some worse which I do not want to mention. Then bestiality, which basically means just the fucking. For someone looking for bestiality, any dog will do. The next section one over is zoophilia, where a connection to an animal is formed as a partner. The sex is then a part of that, but not the sole part. For someone with zoophilia, ONLY HIS dog is his first desire. You cannot just switch dogs on him and expect him to be immediately happy with the new dog.
As some once put it nicely, almost all the commercial animal porn is made for normal people who seek a kick by quickly dipping their toe into "bestiality". While zoos can also watch that and find it nice, their world is a completely different one to the mondane consumers of that porn.
Why you ask the insiders to erase this difference, bringing some outsiders quick-glance dictionary definition (why not sodomy?), I do not know, but I wouldn't follow you. I want to have a difference between a guy who looks after his horse all day, and another guy who has 'blast a stallions asshole' on his bucket list just next to 'fuck two hookers in Vegas at once' and 'buy 100 cheeseburgers at McD at once!'
In fairness, I don't want anything abolished or erased, just discussed :)
The word "zoosexuality" would be great, the lack of a blanket word with fewer value-based connotations. "Unfortunately" there aren't thoughtful conversation spaces about zoosexuality, and bestiality chats tend to go like you said in a purely sexual direction.
I like that the definitions are muddled, it leaves room for caring bestialists. But shades of gray are hard to inhabit.
A weird analogy that may not work, there's a sense among newbies to the furry fandom that you're not a "real" furry unless you have a costume... Which most people don't. Labels don't come in delicate shaded of gray, and I'm more interested in the gray spaces than getting rid of a word or idea.
When you use zoo-sexuality as a root, you can see that basically absolutely everything 'normal' humans do in sexuality is replicated, you just attach 'with animal(s)'. A shoe fetish might be hard, but there might be someone somewhere collecting horseshoes to sniff on them. I have definitely seen a post by a guy one day who wanted to lick animal feet...
Unless you are merely attached to the word [bestiality] itself for some reason, you want to say (translated to sexuality) that you like one night stands and friends with benefits sex but not the full commitment. But you are not one who would just stick it into any hole at the farm as you pass by. You are one of the good ONSers.
You are free to uphold that, but people who are 'husbands' are going to keep telling you 'nice try'. Even in the people-on-people sex realm.
As for the realness aspect: Just don't worry what you think other people might think. There are no membership cards mailed out once you completed a minimum requirement or something like that.
Also, again using the first notion of the root and comparison to a huge field: I am not sure people want that huge field to be 'one' community. I wouldn't want it. With humans those that rape other humans are kept apart, too. Nobody would say "well, we are all in the same sex-having group, so why not all be cool and inclusive?" And I personally have never and will never talk to someone who likes to eat horseshit, as an example, because for me that's vomit-inducing, so where is the point in making sure we are in a group?
The word "zoosexual" isn´t that great if you realise that this term includes basically anybody who has sex with animals. Even the so called "zoosadists" (which in my view are just plain sadists) are by definition "zoosexuals".
When you trace back the history of the word "zoosexuality", it´s quite easy to see that this word was introduced mainly by bestialists who felt set back or left out. " What? I´m no legit zoophile? I´m gonna make up my OWN "zoo"-words, with blackjack and hookers!"
I still fail to understand why the z-word is so desirable. Why isn´t being a beasty not "enough" for beasties? Why is there a "zoo pride", but no "beasty pride"?
We zoos often are accused of elitism and such when we try to protect our name. People often say that we have some kind of superiority complex and like to look down on others. But is that really so?
I don´t feel superior to a beasty per se...it´s more like the beasties have some sort of inferiority complex. They desperately want to be "part of it" although they´re not "part of it". Kinda reminds me of a similar situation in the nineties, when death metal and grindcore was the new shit. Suddenly, lots of people were running around with t-shirts from death metal bands, but when you approached them to talk about the music, they had no fucking clue and the heaviest tune they listened to was "Enter sandman". Not even Slayer, no, fucking Metallica...but running around, showing off a Napalm Death tee.
It´s practically the same with "zoosexuality". Whenever I hear someone use that word, I cannot help but think "Oh, another one of these beasties trying to be part of it although they´re not and will never be." The bouncers standing in front of the "zoophilia" club won´t let the beasties in, so the beasties have built another club called "zoosexuality" right next to the original one. So far, no problem...the problem starts when the copycat "zoosexuality" club begins to suggest that they´re the original, but without a "dresscode" (zeta rules), without bouncers (" everyone is welcome, even the destructive and vile persons") and without someone who protects local residents from singing and shouting ,sometimes even violent drunk ass retards disrupting the peace ( fencehoppers, animal porn makers, etc.).
"Zoosexuality" is a hoax. Using this word, you´re practically teaming up with even the worst individual groping animals. Zoosexuality includes EVERY sexual act with an animal, even violent ones. I told you about Janis Benda, the German shepherd killer and sadist. By definition, this asshole is NOT a zoophile (no matter how often he shouts it....looking at you, Aluzky...) , but a legit "zoosexual". Even "zoo frotteurs" (people deriving sexual pleasure by rubbing themselves on an animal) and "zoo voyeurs" ( the famous "I wanna see a girl getting fucked by doggie!" ilk) are "zoosexuals". On the other hand, so called "romantic zoos" and "platonic zoos " not engaging in sexual activities with animals are NOT "zoosexuals"...
I´d suggest using the old three categories instead of the "special snowflake" approach of inventing new words until each and every one has his/her OWN definition, custom tailored. Normal (whatever that means), beasty and zoophile. There´s no use for other categories, it only will make confusion worse (inside and outside our community) and has this certain taste of "Don´t adjust your mind, it´s reality that´s malfunctioning".
I can only advertize to be what you really are. If you´re a beasty, so what? Be proud of it instead of trying to pretend to be what you´re clearly NOT. Don´t try to be a leech sucking blood from us zoophiles...get your OWN shit going instead of annexing us like Putin did with Ukraine. Fuck "zoosexuality".
I'm not interested in calling myself a zoophile, except inasmuch as it works as a word. But the sentiment a lot of responses here has underlined my sense that there's a binary of "zoophile" and "abusive." I think it makes conversation strange. Stranger.
Yeah, I don't like how things are made to be black and white. There is a grey area.
I think this is important 'mechanism' behind making any moral/ethical progress in any group of humans..Because if you have none 'above' you - you have no direction, and no feeling of importance to move your thinking/acting in some direction...
I'm perfectly fine with 'othering' people who prioritize their sexual gratification over the wellbeing of animals (in porn or otherwise).
Personally, I've been very happy with how regulars here have dealt with the issue on average. Whenever a new user submits a questionable post about, for example, which breed of female dogs can 'accommodate' a human, posters aren't shy about questioning the OP's motives. And when we get the inevitable posts about searching for bestiality porn online, the OPs are rightfully shut out and directed elsewhere.
I guess I don't see how your problem with a handful of people aggressively pushing their interpretation of zoophilia translates into a problem with 'the community' at large.
I don't want to imply that this is a serious problem that the community must resolve, only wanted to discuss language and connotations. Like another person said, "zoosexuality" would be a good umbrella that could hold the sexual and emotional sides in suspension, but it's not a word that's really in use much.
I agree-- as much as I'd prefer that the term 'zoosexuality' was used in place of 'zoophilia' for describing one's sexual orientation, realistically the way the word zoophilia is used in practice (other than as a synonym for bestiality) already tends to encompass those ideas.
Another thing I've noticed is that people who are into beastiality are all labeled animal abusers. You can engage in beastiality and still care for the animal(s) you are fucking.
Thanks, this. I don't think it's a strong tendency, more one of those subtle associations. but if "we" are zoophiles who care about our animals, there's a "they" that receives the other side of that coin.
Any further down this rabbit hole and we'd have to reference semiotics, and nobody wants that to happen.
Yeah, you also can take good care of your dildo but feeling actual love is just a completely different cup of tea...
Zoophilia is the orientation and bestiality the act. Some zoophiles do not partake in bestiality (because of legal, moral or practical reasons). Some non-zoophiles partake in bestiality despite not actually liking animals (curiosity, lack of human company). Kind of like lesbian =/= eating pussy.
When I differentiate between zoophiles and bestiality fetishists, I mean that zoophiles are actually attracted to the animal itself in the same way a heterosexual woman is attracted to men.
But bestiality fetishists are usually not actually interested in the animal, but rather, in watching someone else have sex with an animal. After chatting with so many people who first claim they are zoophiles, but then turn out to be men who are only interested in watching women being fucked by animals, I do think labels matter. Then there's those who have sex with animals just for the sake of a "different experience", using the animal as a tool, rather than being attracted to it and caring for it. You are not a zoophile just for watching bestiality porn. You are not a zoophile if you once banged a donkey while thinking about a human woman during the entire act. You are a zoophile if you are romantically and/or sexually attracted to animals, regardless if you watch porn or not, regardless if you've actually had the opportunity to have an animal relationship.
[deleted]
Well, I think that zoophilia is to animals what homo/bisexuality is to the same sex. Most zoophiles are romantically interested too, but you aren't completely non-zoo if you are sexually attracted to animals even if you have no thought of romance, I guess?
I'm not 100% sure though.
I would say this is correct. I have a personal bias that used to make me think like that, but really think about it...
A human can still be a whateversexual human if all they do is hook up with other humans correct? I mean someone can choose to go their whole life without ever wanting a romantic or serious relationship with another human, but only sex. that doesn't make them any less hetero, or homo, or whatever orientation they are just because they only want sex, does it?
I didn't think like this until I stumbled upon the asexuality community (I thought I was demisexual at one point). There is a difference between sexual orientation and romantic orientation. Sex and romance are not inherently tied together, one can desire one without the other, or desire none of those those things, or desire both of those things. We are a complicated social species.
I see no contradiction between being interested in animals and being interested in seeing women fuck them. As previously stated, I love, love dogs, and they love me. They generally pefer me to their owners, and I don't really know why, though it can be embarassing when their best friend suddenly decides to become mine! But... I am not paricularly interested in fucking them myself. I'm not sure my bum is capable of the punishment from a male, and female dogs don't turn me on.
And to clarify, I have also had a life-altering relationship (platonic) with a dog, now deceased, who I will love to the end of my days. AND I do not give a damn one way or another about the word "Zoophile", except where it becomes the trigger for visitors to this forum being harassed and alienated. When other people use that word I will establish what, if anything, they mean by it through talking to them, not by censoring them.
My point is - if you are only interested in watching women being banged by animals, and not sexually attracted to animals yourself, you are not a zoophile. Rather, a zoo-voyeur. If you ARE sexually attracted to animals, but abstain from acting on it for whatever reason (legal issues, practical issues), then you are a zoophile.
I'm tired of getting a lot of requests from men who want to watch me getting mounted by their dogs. They think it's somehow the same to like watching bestiality and to be an actual zoophile. It's not. It's like watching lesbian porn and being an actual lesbian, huge difference. They try to explain how they care for their dogs, and that is nice... I'd hate it if they didn't care about their pets! But it still seems to me to be friendship, not romantic or sexual attraction. It's not the same thing, really.
Perhaps you are not one of those men. But, even if you can't take anal from a dog, if you are sexually attracted to male dogs, you can always let him lick your dick or masturbate while petting him, etc. Penetration is not the only type of sex.
Yes, that last point in particular is one to think on. I'm not averse to the idea and have let a dog try it. It feels nice but it doesn't strike me as particularly sexual in its intent by the dog, nor does it go on very long. Once had tip of dong "gently" nipped by a young rottweiler. Agony! I mean licking vagina is part of a dog's natural mating/courting instinct and very commonly proceeds to mounting and sex if the female continues to indicate she is receptive. I'm unclear as to whether male dogs actually buttfuck each other. Anyone help me on that? But whether dogs buttfuck each other or not, does dick and arse licking count as particularly sexual behaviour between dogs? I don't know. Vagina licking by contrast is unambiguously sexual and a part of courtship. I don't find dog poon pretty or enticing in the least, whereas their cocks are admirable, so I guess I am slightly gay with dogs and straight with humans ... I do identify with the sexual nature of dogs, I have felt the sexual presence of male dogs intensely, have become physically aroused by it, but I am not particularly focussed on making that part of my relationship with them.
So is zoophilia a feeling or a behaviour? If it is the feeling and not the act which makes you a zoophile, how strongly do you have to feel it before your zoophilia counts? I am happy to be on the fence about all these definitions. By your measure I am less than a zoophile and more than a zoo voyeur. So do we invent a new word to describe me?
One more thought. When watching a woman with a dog the fantasy for me is not about objectifying the woman in the obvious way, it is about being the woman. It is about the fantasy of being able to express love for a dog and love for myself through the gift of having a female body and the female capacity to incite desire and receive pleasure. I have analysed the fantasy of sharing my life with a zoosexual woman and there is something unique about the setup which, if I am honest, probably protects me from some deep-seated attachment issues. I like women who like sex, but I don't particlarly like the idea of love being contingent on providing sexual gratification, even though that is somthing I appear to be capable of doing. Sex and love are best when combined but it seems risky to me when either one is contingent on the other. The dog loves and fucks unconditionally, whereas humans choose each other carefully and conditionally, it seems to me. I quite like the idea of having both... excuse ramble, this is going in circles.
I'd say that zoophilia is a feeling, kind of like heterosexuality or whatever else. You can be a zoophile, or straight, or gay, even before you even have your first kiss, as long as you know what you like!
But I'd say you sound quite autogynephilic, if you have sexual fantasies about being a woman.
Ooh! More new words :) I don't have any interest in changing my own gender though, or any angst about my sexuality or body from a gender POV. it is more subtle than that.... so there's a bit of this, and a bit of that. I think a lot of men get off on idealising women and their experiences... which is fine as long as you keep it in perspective. Afterall, nobody likes to be idealised at the cost of being seen for who they are, as that is lonely-making.
Not exactly answer, but I just want to point out ..with all this talk about 'love and care' don't forgot about actual non-humans..for example, just prior to posting this my dog wanted out, and I was reluctant to do so (partially due to low temperature outside, like -18c), but it was obvious wanting more is not possible, so we run around for some minutes, and Grey even found enough time to dig out yet another bone out of snow, even if he have all of them right here at kitchen ... I'm not different from any other 'animal owner' for outsider's look , and this is quite sad, because I don't see current mainstream human/animal relations as healthy at all - yet everyday examples like this constantly remind me about how much our actions must run before they reach our words ... and we tend to put our best image (according to some agreed or not agreed level) in words when talking to other humans, to ourselves, and even to non-humans...
"Othering" is a huge problem on this sub. Humans trying desperately to shame other humans, about whom they know very little, just as a way to try and create an "in group" and an "out group", and then put themselves on the inside.
Members here routinely preach intolerance, with staggering hypocrisy, often in the faces of new members who ask perfectly reasonable questions.
I believe anyone should be welcome on this sub or anywhere else in the world provided they are committed to taking responsibility for their behaviour and doing no harm.
Oh, gosh....another one mistaking indifference and immunity for tolerance.
Let´s look at the root of "tolerance", the Latin word "tolerare". It translates to "endure something you´re not okay/comfy with". Silencing every form of criticism is NOT tolerance. Raising important ethical questions is NOT preaching intolerance.
I´m familiar with that kind of "safe space" attitude you´re displaying here. It´s boring. It´s the enemy of real progress for our community. It´s escapism at its finest. "Don´t bother me with criticism of any kind , or you´re a -phobe and intolerant!"
I never demanded the extinction of bestialists. I never said "Lock ´em all up!". I never proposed to ship all bestialists to an island. I tolerate bestialists as I tolerate gays, polysexuals, bisexuals, s/m-folks, fetishists, whatever...but tolerance isn´t immunity. All I want is our name back. If someone is honest with me and says " I´m a beasty", I´d be the last one refusing to talk to that person. I have no problems with beasties, I don´t consider them to be inferior to me in any way. Just different. Stop spamming the z-word. Stop pretending. No one will look down upon you because you´re "just" a beasty. Get rid of that inferiority complex. Beasties and zoos may be doing the same, but they aren´t the same. The lack of respect that is included when randomly mixing up definitions doesn´t seem to be acknowledged here...have you ever shed a thought about how we, the true zoophiles, think about invading and annexing our territory? Invasions seldom are successful. They create partisans. Think about that....who threw the first stone?
Your post history suggests otherwise.
And off you go again, speaking your opinion and claiming it comes from all the "true zoophiles".
In this sub, it's usually done by /u/30-30
There is no such thing as "true scottsman", just as there isn't a such thing as a "true zoophile".
You have an agenda. It is your personal agenda. Nobody appointed you the spokesman for anything or asked you to represent them. You appointed yourself to the head of a church of precisely one member, First Church of Misanthropic Zoophiles. Then you gave yourself an imaginary congregation for whom you now speak "our territory", "our word", and in your imaginary canonical territory you have appointed yourself as the judge and the executioner, terrorising all who trespass into the public lands which your imagination has tried to capture, with the threat of the ducking stool, a witches pyre and eternal damnation or at the very least shunning by your imaginary congregation. All that newcomers know is that this is an environment in which people judge and flame first and ask questions later, and it is largely down to your behaviour in this forum.
Would you please go fuck yourself?
As much as I may agree with you on this one, I've gotta put on my moderator hat. You got reported for this post as well. The trial period is still in effect, but not trying to reign in your temper now will only make it more difficult when there are consequences to be had.
If you were operating under the assumption that this was a mild one-off... That's not mild. In this case, it may have been better to not respond at all, as tempting as it may be to relegate our decisions to our emotions or get the last word.
Anyway, this is your second infraction in two days. While I can sympathize, displays like this simply won't be tolerated in the future, and we won't be able to make any exceptions for you.
Look, I tried to keep it civil. It really made me laugh that even my little joke about fucking a VW beetle is "controversial" and a reason to complain.
I´ll tell you where this is going...it will lead to the inevitable loss of me in here. Many would appreciate that because their little "animal fuck fantasy refuge" is finally restored...if that is what this community really wants, then so be it.
I won´t change my views for the special snowflakes who cannot even take a joke and feel triggered by anything I write..not because of what I write, but because I write it. If the community wants to destroy their chances...so be it. I can live without all that online shit and it´s actually even less stressful, more rewarding to give a flying fuck about the mess that this community is.
You said these new stipulations aren´t meant to be censorship, but exactly that is what it turns out to be. Good lick with this sub and its retarded special snowflakes lacking any knowledge about what they claim to be...have a nice day. Oh, and good luck with the wiki, too. Bye.
Encouraging introspection is fine, and the rule is not against meaningful and civil criticism of people. The issue is that the same thing can be said a different way to get the same message across without stepping on any toes. Your comparison to "fucking a VW" was never the issue(and other people made the comparison without issue); it was the way it was phrased that was found disrespectful. That's what this rule is, really. Anything goes so long as it's phrased in a way that people can't or rather aren't likely to construe as insulting or inflammatory.
Like when I was speaking with sheppsoldier. I never said "I'ts clear that you you wouldn't know what a real scientific study was if it shot you in the head"; I said "It would seem that you don't know very much about scientific studies, or the lengths that people go to to test them. Well, most people don't, I suppose, but if you're going to play psychologist, you should at least know what a T-Test is". The latter is more persuasive and less inflammatory, all in one, while saying the same thing.
Merriam-Webster defines zoophilia as "an erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or imagined contact," and before I saw this sub, that's the way I've always heard the definition, which follows the general scheme of paraphilias. I would interpret that definition as including anyone who finds non-human animals sexually exciting (so faunoiphiles are included as zoophililes), but not people who get sexually excited from seeing humans having sex with animals. Having sex with an animal is not addressed (so opportunistic "farmboys" are not included), and nor is having romantic relations, so having a romantic relation with an animal but no sexual attraction towards them would not be included either.
It should be pointed out that the original definition of "philia" was not sex-related. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes philia as being a non-sexual/romantic love, like that one normally shares with family and friends. Although, this might not be relevant, considering that the definition of zoophilia is more related to paraphilia.
Merriam-Webster obviously took Richard von Krafft-Ebing´s (a German-Austrian psychiatrist) definition of zoophilia from his 1886 book psychopathia sexualis, so I wouldn´t give too much on MW´s definition here.
Funny how even this ancient and outdated definition puts the stress on "erotic fixation", what would exclude all the "non exclusive zoos" from zoophilia.
It should be pointed out that "philia" not only meant non-sexual/romantic love, but also the love of a husband for his spouse...philia isn´t completely non-sexual. Philos first and foremost means "friend", including every connotation, non-sexual and sexual. When thinking about the ancient Greek culture and its general permissive attitude towards sex, excluding sexuality from "philia" is kinda bold.
Please look up eros,philia and agape, the three main Greek categories of love. Maybe you´ll see clearer , then. And keep in mind that the ancient Greeks had an entirely different view on sexuality as we have today.
That makes sense. Frankly, dictionaries are not always right, I just think that the MW definition closer matches the common definition of zoophilia than any of the others stated.
I do my share to correct people for using the definitions incorrectly.
And we should also welcome the bestialists (non-zoosexuals who have sex with animals for non-zoosexual reasons) just like L y G welcome transsexuals (even that they have nothing to do wtih homosexuality)
Zoophilia = zoosexuality = sexual orientation for animals = you are able to form relationship with animals, fall inlove with them.
Bestiality = zoosex = sex with an animal (non-human)
Bestialist = A non-zoosexual who has sex with animals. Either for taboo reasons (they find taboo stuff arousing) or for curiosity or for doing a porno movie and get paid, or to please his partner who likes to watch that, ect.
Any more definitions needed? I think those are pretty clear to understand.
[removed]