How is zoophilia treated in equestrian circles? (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-02-03 15:27:18 by BurnedRowan big ol' pupper
I've always wondered how known zoophiles are treated in many of these communities. For many years, I had a roommate who was a riding instructor, and she once told me that "sometimes people want to fuck their horses. it's just something that happens and we have to accept that."
Having road in the past as a teenager I never encountered anything like this, but I have since then been curious what life is like for equestrians who find love under the saddle.
Some equestrians can be very snooty and despicable. They use the equestrian lifestyle as a status symbol. Of course there are zoos, in general, who treat "zoo" as a status symbol but the equestrians can be so much worse about it.
Zoo or not, those types of equestrians would shoot another zoo in the back by their belief that you are not "deserving" enough to have sex with horses or even own one for that matter. If you do not belong to their "high-grade circle" they will treat you like crap. They might even collaborate to have you arrested to "put you back where you belong" to "cleanse" you from making them look bad.
Therefore, equestrianism is especially volitile concerning zoophiles.
Yeah, prejudices are comfy...when they´re YOUR prejudices. When they´re the prejudices of others, it´s "unfair" and "intolerant".... sigh
You must come from the most tolerant place on earth, but such a place does not exist. Since you might have claimed in a previous thread that "zoophilia tolerance" is high and nearly dry and not worth fighting for, I'm going to label you as a serial liar or deceitful in correlation to your essay below. If you won't speak out against it, then you're obviously trying to limit availability and conserve zoophilia for your status exclusively.
Really must have offend you calling out those posh posh priveleged zoos that discriminate against the "unworthy" or "underprivileged" zoos. Tolerance, acceptability, and innocence must only belong to that exclusive club from the looks of things. Meanwhile, those people excluded from your fantasy priveleged world gets throw in prison, their animals taken or beaten to death. Probably by your deceitful orders.
That is an explanation of the "bad equestrian" and "bad zoo" I mentioned prior.
Do we have to play "Spot the looney" again?
It's getting a little too easy these days.
Think of a new game or make it harder if you really wanna challenge us.
I wonder what our next ''zoo clown'' is going to be like.
Did someone call?
[deleted]
Yeah, I already know you think people who have sex with animals are easy prey. Predator.
People who stigmatize bestiality are sexual predators, because they are preying on a zoophiles sex drive and the animals inability to speak in favor of the zoo. If you're preying on peoples love and sexual attraction for dogs horses or otherwise, then you're a sexual predator.
Life isn't a game. All zoophiles want to do is love and have sex with animals but the sex haters and exploiters can't help their monster compulsions to trample all over us. Freak-monster predators.
So I take it you've hit your head on a corner on your way down or something?
Shepp (or sheep, rather), I think you might wanna check that out because for some reason you're calling me a zoo hater.
I'm willing to believe that lie if I ever drop down to the same level of intelligence as you.
Sadly for you, you have no evidence.
I don't know if I should be bothered by this or actually feel bad for you.
You're right though, I've shown clear signs of baiting zoos to get their animals.
Man, look at all that evidence!
Hhmmm hhmmm hmn!
No evidence? You scum! That's what the antizoos say when they rape, torture, kill and steal our animals and our livelihoods while pretending to be zoophiles. In the name of their filthy murderous agenda. Anti-zoos are fake animal lovers, with no evidence to convict them because they hide behind a false love for animals.
Using me for practice, antizoo? It appears you already have the experience, to deny the sexual Holocaust you're committing against zoophiles and their animals. If you speak like the murdering rapist tyrant anti-zoos then you must be an anti-zoo.
The most disgusting people hide behind animals and an innocent face when they commit crimes of cruelty punishment and constriction against other human beings. Anti-zoos are monsters who repress evidence of their own crimes against humanity, using the animals as their meat shields and scapegoats.
Ah yes, the antis rape our animals.
How ironic and believable.
We rape animals according to them, but then they rape our animals themselves.
Yeah, nothings strange or weird or off or anything, ye? 👍
You really are making a fool of yourself.
I wonder if there is an actual person who agrees with what you're saying.
Damn, you know I'm taking some screens, right?
You deserve a spot next to Mr. A
That's indeed disgusting, but it's quite irrelevant, unless you're talking about yourself.
You know what's funny? You are avoiding the fact that you can't give evidence.
Good job, no zoo agrees with you.
If you didn't argue with me so much then maybe "no zoo would believe me." However, you're obsessive opposition to my claims makes it clear that I have some truth worth censoring, to somebody who claims to be a zoo. Hence, if no zoo believes me, then somebody who is not a zoo does. Ironic huh?
No evidence? Then why are you trying so hard to discredit it? What am I saying that's such a threat to you? Zoo?
One way or the other, zoo or not, you not only believe me but you are afraid of what I know.
Let me give you a tip, just the tip because I'll be gentle with you fairy... You might have a better chance ignoring me than growing a set of balls - you might have a better chance growing a set of balls than discrediting me.
You do have the right to remain silent for a reason.
Fifteen year olds shouldn´t go online unsupervised....that´s for sure...
It wouldn't make a difference.
The bullshit that flows out of your mouth is always the same.
You being a zoo does not make you a king and immune to these things.
I don't care who the fuck anyone is, if you tell me bullshit then I will let you know.
So no, that's not true.
I'm not trying really hard, I'm just replying.
You are accusing me of being a zoo hater and a fake zoo.
I can again do the same thing with you.
I can also accuse you of certain things without evidence and when you tell me I'm wrong I can just tellyou're trying too hard and hiding it.
Nice logic! 👍
Bwahaha, do you believe this yourself?
Aluzky v2.0. Definitely
Again, with no evidence you accuse me of this. It's got to the point where I'm keeping track of this.
It's always something here.
I just wish this community didn't have the typical deluded village idiot.
If any outsiders or lurkers are reading this, please don't see this idiot as one of us.
He's just a little lost in his head.
Let's just sympathize with him and hope that he might recover some day.
Outsider reading this!
That was actually kinda bizarre and hilarious (though I do sympathize that there's obviously something "off" there).
I'd submit the whole thing to SRD for ridiculous Karma, but I'm sure you've all got enough to deal with as it is without getting brigaded to all hell. (Still disinclined to acceptance of the sub, but again, sympathetic to the fact that you gave to deal with some shit you can't help)
Found the potential fence jumper/crazy person
No, it really just establishes the person is stubborn. I think it's fairly safe to say from your upvotes alone few if any here take you seriously.
[deleted]
Yikes. No one person has the same (dis)priveleges as another just because you've been around negative reactions of your lifestyle doesn't mean that every person propagates those same opinions.
It is no joke that zoophilia is not socially accepted anywhere.
He was just lucky, that is all.
He even stated himself that he was surprised because of it.
I really don't know what it is with you but this community always has that guy.
There's no community. Its like a cult. Like Jim Jones and David Koresh.
They make all the decisions about what animals were allowed to love and have sex with, how were allowed to do it, if they even allow us to do it in the first place. They bait and switch us, make us work for nothing. Anybody that doesn't work for or make sacrifices to their "important league" gets abandoned or turned over to the police.
They tell us that life isn't fair. We are not allowed to walk off their tight leash. Basically, theyre collaborating with antizoos and the people who made sex with animals illegal. They don't care because they don't have to worry about the laws that they helped create to extort us.
Bad zoos
okay.
What leads you to believe that Germany is a more tolerant place than the US or any other democratic country? To me, 30/30’s post does not imply that the horse owners he was dealing with had a positive opinion about zoophilia in general. Rather, he is telling us that he as a respected member of the community at the stables he was working at, had managed to reach some level of tolerance or even acceptance for his sexual attraction by means of his horsemanship and riding skills. While owning a mare myself makes me somewhat biased in this respect, I am still convinced that the experience 30-30 made is not as uncommon or irrational as you claim. In fact, I am certain that in a community of people who keep or work with horses, your social status or renown correlates with your ability to interact with these animals, especially when it comes to your own horse. Returning to 30-30’s example, the people he dealt with at those public stables have most likely judged him by the non-sexual aspects of his relationship with his mare and by the way he was dealing with other horses. This utterly positive impression must have played a major part in changing their perception of 30-30’s zoophile tendencies, shattering their preconceived opinions about sex with animals. Of course, this effect is largely centered around their personal experience with 30-30, meaning that the majority of these people are still likely to take an anti-zoo stance. Which, at least for me, makes some sense, taking into account the disastrous image of the zoo community that the major online communities like BF convey.
Yes, exactly...everything depends on your personal character traits rather than on your sexual orientation. I earned the tolerance with actions...I always was the one keeping an eye on the horses on New Years Eve, when everyone else is getting drunk, celebrating and starting fireworks. I was the one fighting through the night when a foal was expected, I was the one calling the vet early in the morning when a horse had a colic, I was the one finally catching a fencehopper invading our stables for about 4 weeks. People can be tolerant if you make this an easy as possible task for them. Your level of dedication counts. It also helps trememduously when your horse, once a ill tempered known kicker and biter, miraculously changes into a gentle, but self confident mare with bright eyes and a shiny fur. I really believe that being forced to semi openly live our relationship immensely shaped pepole´s perception of me. They saw the undoubtedly positive changes she went through quickly after she wasn´t forced anymore to accept 4-6 different riders on a daily basis. I even recall my old riding instructor´s astonishment when she was visiting me in the small private stables I moved to. She said "That´s your horse? I hardly recognise her although I worked with her for nearly two years. She looks beautiful and well muscled. I´m glad she was sold to you."
People always could see that my mare meant anything to me. It surely impressed them even more when I was staying with her when she had her two colics...for more than 14 hours straight. Finding that thin line between "normal" care for an animal and exaggerated anthropomorpisation of an animal is the key. Words don´t mean a thing and you can rap down all the rational arguments pro zoophilia with no significant effect when you don´t show that you´re living your ideals.
Nevermind that sheppsoldier guy, man. He´s trapped in his illusion of being a persecuted minority (although nobody knows whether sheppsoldier is just another "online zoo" with a big mouth and little actual experience). Most often, the ones crying wolf the loudest are those with the least to lose...
Anyway, nevermind that guy. I really think our community is smart enough to correctly file his contributions under "n" for nonsense or "b" for belligerent bullshit not helping anyone at all. Fantasising about a "zoo riot", trying to turn us against the oh so hateful society, going completely blind for all the reasonable and legit criticism, ....I guess it´s the idea to mobilise us all, so Sheppsoldier can be the glorious pro zoo fighting hero he fantasises himself into. The invincible warrior finally making fucking animals legal again. The icon. Fantasies like this may be suitable for teenagers, but for adults, it´s rather infantile to think in such basic patterns.Like a kid, Sheppsoldier denies any responsibility and blames everyone else for his misery but himself. It´s always the others who are to blame, society, "bad zoos" not supporting any retard wanting to fuck animals, basically anyone...except himself and his likeminded. Legit criticism of the recent bestiality/"zoophilia" scene is anti zoo propaganda per se and avoiding useless trench fights in an infantile "us versus them" style is proof that you´re throwing "fellow zoos" under the bus.
You know that Sheppsoldier´s narrative absolutely reminds me of Carsten Thierfelder, the German "Anti Zoo numero uno" and his steady complaints about a "pro zoo" conspiracy working behind the curtains to protect us animal fuckers from the authorities. How does that mix with Sheppsoldier´s repetitive "You´re all part of the evil big anti zoo conspiracy if you´re not agreeing with me"? Well, one thing that can be found in both, Thierfelder and Sheppsoldier, is the immense level of paranoid thoughts. "They´re out to get us", "we must defend ourselves against the evil conspiracy", stuff like that, you know...
If only that were actually true.
At most I think a handful of brownie points depend on your personal character traits, but your sexual orientation can in many places completely overwhelm all other facets of your personality. That is why phrases like "I'm still the same person you became friends with" are so common among gay coming-out stories.
It is less true now than earlier, but nevertheless it is far from a certain thing that orientation (let alone sexual activities) will have no significant bearing on one's public image.
I´m busy the entire week with delivering hay to a riding club, thus I won´t have time for an extended discussion, but let me drop a few lines.
What I have to say isn´t made out of thin air or a fever dream of some online "zoophile". I actually taught my method to roughly 20 fellow zoophiles (all monogamous, "exclusive" and mostly hetero), 14 I´m still in regular contact with. They all can live a quite easy life and don´t have to fear exposure. Supported by family and friends, they can live their orientation rather openly. My ex rommate, for example, was caught twice with his head under his cow´s tail by the two polish workers of the farm his cow lives on. I still can see his face ridden with fear when he came home after his "bust". But I taught him a few things beforehand and managed to calm him down enough. A few days later, the farmer´s son approached him and took him aside for a talk. And this was what the farmer´s son had to say: "I´ve been told that you do inappropriate things with your cow. But you don´t have to be afraid, man. I know you for a while now and I also know how much you love your cow. I really appreciate your will to work, your lack of hesitation to help when help is needed. I see your honesty and your good character; and although I cannot understand your motives, please take note of the fact that you´ll never have to worry about being drawn into the public for your special form of love as long as you´re here, on my farm." The evening after this, my rommate returned and told me everything, almost crying, grateful for what I told him in the years before he moved to my town. He also was very sceptical before, but that experience gave him reason enough to confirm everything I told him about.
Before you voice your continued disbelief, let me tell you this wasn´t the first time one of my zoo friends made such an unexpectedly friendly experience. This method worked for almost all of my zoo friends across Europe. Sure, this isn´t a foolproof "tolerance algorithm" you just work your way thorugh and get the desired result, but I have passed on this method to quite a lot of zoos and never heard about a bad turnout. Believe it or not, this works. BTW, I´m not talking about a huge public campaign , but individual circumstances in specific situations. "In individuals, insanity is rare. In large crowds, it´s the rule." Friedrich Nietzsche
If you'd be open to sending me a PM on the topic, I would be happy and interested to hear further details.
I fully believe your examples, I just disagree that such experiences accurately define the feeling of people or equestrian circles in general, and I disagree "everything depends on your personal character traits." A lot does, but not yet everything.
Of course I am at a rhetorical disadvantage in that I cannot prove what HASN'T YET happened or what WOULD happen, I can only extrapolate from what I've observed with gay friends, the moral compasses of those I know well enough that similar topics have come up, etc.
MDCCCLXIIII, I like your post better than the posts those other seemingly fake zoos make. They come off as being "outsiders" who are paid to take a zoo-oppositional stance from a zoo perspective. Hired debaters pretending to be zoo.
You're paragraph however, provides better examples and explains things without the fanatical "joblike" denials of an obviously politically themed argument. Very believable. However, I still do not believe a word from those reverse-bias crusaders.
They try too hard to censor things they perceive to make them look bad. Denying sex without love? Denying the existence of corrupt zoos? Censoring my balls to speak out against anti-zoos, love bombers, and status crutches? Censorship is only good for obscuring truths, but there is no good in that unless it's good for them but nobody else.
Just when you think we reached the lowest, Sheppsoldier lowers the bar even more.
So, let me sum this up so I can get it right...anyone who is not agreeing to your opinion is an anti zoo, anyone not misinterpreting zoophilia as a sexual playground where "anything goes" is an anti as well. The least little bit of contradiction and woosh!, you changed sides. Correct so far? We "bad zoos" secretly teamed up with the antis, we bad, bad zoos demanding that zoophilia should not be abused, that animals shouldn´t be abused to exonerate even the most vicious, egoistic and vile behaviour some beasties display. Gosh, and I always thought that zoophilia is about "animals first"...what a fool I am. No, according to you, human sexual gratification comes first.
I guess you haven´t fully understood what zoophilia is and why we "bad zoos" raise our voice when animals are treated as live sex toys. You also missed out on , well, everything happening around you...the fencehoppers caught, the animal porn producers drawn in front of the court...there IS something that went terribly bad among us, but it surely isn´t the zoophiles who take their orientation seriously and try to live with this orientation in harmony with their animals, their friends and society.
But you won´t listen anyway, you´re so deep in your own swamp you don´t even realise how silly you look in your self dug mud hole. Nice level of paranoia, too...keep on blaming everyone else...don´t forget: we´re out to get you , you shiny zoo knight...;)
MD didn't agree with me, but I didn't call him/her an antizoo.
You're just disagreeing wrong, because you don't know how to disagree properly. You make it very obvious that you are a controlling person with limited facts and intuitions at you're disposal and the only fact you do have is not sufficient enough. That's why you hope "every zoo" to disagree with me because you can't disagree enough yourself. At least I'm able to hold up my own arguments, myself. I don't need puppets to do it for me. I'm better off if nobody agrees with me.
Wait a moment, you're talking about taking the orientation seriously? Claiming that I'm paranoid, but you're the ones that want to "hide away" because there's nothing that can be done? Sounds more like you're gaslighting, and projecting you're own paranoia onto the people that want to do something about it. Paranoid that people are going to affect you're safe space much?
You know, paranoid people like yourself make a nasty habit of selling out on zoos when you're harmony, or control, is threatened. That's the convenient way out because as you've already admitted you're not willing to do very much good for anybody else if it takes effort.
A zoo is a zoo. Zoos are attracted to animals. It doesn't matter if they fall in love or don't. Sex doesn't require love but if you follow scripture and think it does, then that's you're personal limitation that should not interfere with and limit the lives of others. You'd just be another control freak. There's a big difference between "using animals for" sexual gratification and "having sex with" animals because you're attracted to them. Love is a whole different concept. Love is an "outsider" and different from sex. Love and sex are both extended benefits to the attraction. One does not require the other in order to be zoo, but one has the option for both.
Basically, you're discriminating against zoos who are attracted to and have sex with animals, but didn't find love in any particular or individual animal. That's nothing more than a compulsive script kiddie standard and as far as we know animals do not follow human kiddie scriptures because animals are not children. They are animals. The term for this type of script kiddie is called "Love Nazi" who is basically a control freak who requires that everybody have love, OR ELSE! That's forced love and clearly abusive.
All the Love Nazis know is love and all they need is love, but they apply their half-truths as an invasive standard for everybody else. Let's say it's something similar to "penis envy" where you're only option is to "take the dick" (love) but you can't "give dick" (sex) because you don't have it. Makes sense that you would stigmatize against something you're not quite experienced with. You don't want anybody to have the sex that you don't, unless they're taking the love that you have first. Interesting theory right?
I can understand why this compulsiveness would argue with my versatility. Strict adherence to doctrine is the polar opposite of having a choice. Hopefully, by you're standards, you wouldn't also support compulsive marriages and selling daughters into love slavery, would you? If you're not allowing people or animals the mobility to sleep around without the strings attached, then you're obviously enslaving and controlling them like puppets. Forcing love on them because you disagree with letting them find it for themselves. You already own the animals, you don't have to own other people and their animals too.
There is an obvious link between discrimination of casual sex and abusive puppetry. There's no True love in hiding the controlling bad-zoo behavior behind an iron curtain of love, otherwise that love is False. This abusive controlling behavior will inevitably show itself by the way one tries to restrict, censor or control other zoos.
Perhaps zoophilia is not you're true love, but the label is a perceptively convenient method for control over others? It is no surprise to me that both zoo and anti-zoo would use (abuse) animals as the means for abusive control over people, because both (based individually) appear to have a deep seeded hatred for the choices and freedoms of people.
sighs
Can you try to be a little less crazy? Or at least substantiate your claims with something other than buzzwords and what appears to be an overactive imagination?
I'm starting to get the feeling that shepp is a joke account.
This would be the place for it right? Amongst all the other jokes?
The jokes that you spawned, no less.
Hey don't thank me, thank your mother for having you. Wasn't my choice.
If they own horses they are probably more likely to turn into a lynch mob than the general public, I am sure they share stories about fence hoppers and what they'd like to do to them all the time.
Yes that will happen if you're not of the "priveleged" kind. Regular people aren't allowed to be happy with horses.
There´s a very good reason for not allowing "regular" people, usually "blessed" with absolute ignorance about horses, near animals that might be of real value. Much too often, those so called "regular" people fed rotten bread to horses on the pasture, have fed grass to arthritic horses (swollen legs are the consequence), much too often, stupid things are done around horses by so called "regular" people. It´s incredibly easy for someone to make a horse shy away and stampede through the area. The horse can get seriously injured, and the outsider also can be in great danger. Horses are no dogs, for god´s sake. This has nothing to do with privilege, this is about real dangers involved in handling horses.
The equestrian scene is absolutely open for you when you have proven to be worthy. Even I , with my dreadlocks and my visible tattoos in addition to my special sexual orientation, managed to be accepted. When you show them you can responsibly and reliably take proper care for a horse, there is no form of rejection. Maybe the general hostility towards "zoophiles" from the equestrian crowd is a direct reaction on the non existent horse sense , accompanied by knowledge limited only to sexual functions many "equine zoos" display. If your only impulse to meet horses is to have sex with them, it´d be way better for you and the horses if you never meet.
Also, most of those "underprivileged", "regular" people don´t want to spend money for a horse...they´re cherrypicking. "Yes, I´m absolutely interested in fucking a horse!"..."What? I have to buy a horse? I have to pay for it, have to take care of it everyday, some 2 - 3 hours?" If this scenario is what applies to you, then keeping you off the horses is the best one can do.
You may not believe it, but in the equestrian crowd, you have to EARN your right to own a horse by being responsible, interested in horses (not only sexually!) and reliable. Trust won´t come raining down from the sky. The amount of bitterness you display here only shows that it might be appropriate to keep you off horses for a very good reason.
You just openly display your own illusion; the illusion that the world owes you something like unproblematic access to horses. So, the bad equestrian people rejected you? There must be a very obvious reason to do that, if you ask me...
Perhaps, but if you are not fairly well-off financially, and/or on good terms with a family that is fairly well-off, and/or already living near an area where horses are common, it doesn't matter how skilled or deeply in love with horses you are. You won't be able to afford your own for several years, and that can really suck if you're deeply in love with horses.
If you want some measure of privacy as was described a few topics ago with "close the blinds and you'll be fine" then the bar - and cost - is raised even higher.
I'm sincerely happy to hear of your good experiences in the past, but I do not think that is typical in most areas. In fact I could easily see such cavalier sexual behavior (get it??) being something you might be highly critical of, if a random person off the street came to the group and described it.
Of course we've talked before about how someone who has an interest in dolphins or big cats or sloths or something may have an even bigger problem. I realize ultimately it comes down to "life's not fair" but that doesn't mean people need to like it.
But I agree it is silly to suggest there's some kind of underground horse conspiracy, collaborating to prevent people from owning horses.
From my personal experience as a member of the equestrian community and riding instructor, I can only say that many riders can be quite tolerant towards zoophilia. All the years, I never experienced real hatred although the relationship with my mare was no secret. Whenever I was attacked by someone, another one jumped in to defend me; the chairman of my riding club protected me against some club members complaining that I "care too much about my horse", my riding instructor, although she caught me with my tongue in my mare´s mouth, always stood by my side, I even remember what a Dutch mother whose daughter had riding lessons told me frankly when she saw my mare and me interacting... "Your mare is the love of your life".
Even the usually very conservative equestrian crowd can be tolerant towards zoophilia, but it really depends on your personality. I remember that the attacks towards me behind my back ceased after I showed some unique talent with horses. We had one mare that obviously had negative experience with men, she wouldn´t allow men near her. Her owner, a woman roughly 10 years older than me, walked her by me on her way to the pasture....and her eyes nearly fell out of their sockets when her mare stopped walking and started nibbling at me. "You have something very special about you...", that was what the owner told me. Another woman who usually avoided contact with me suddenly warmed up after she accidentally heard me confessing my love to my mare in her box...I can´t say what exactly she heard, but after this, she also started to protect me whereever she could.
After some years, I got increasingly annoyed from the overcrowded riding club and started searching for an alternative. The owner of the horse in the box next to my mare´s, an experienced L- and M-level dressage rider herself, somehow heard that I was looking for another stable and offered me a box in her completely new built private stables. We talked for a while and she ended with saying "I´d like to have you as a member of our stable community, I know you and have no problems with you. I know that you love horses and would never harm one, especially not your own." At that time, I tought this was a general statement, but only 5 - 6 weeks after I changed the stables, I happened to overhear the stable owner talking to her father...about me. She was arguing with her father about me and my "very intimate" relationship with my mare, defending me. Her father was sceptical first, but due to the fact he already had met me in person , his scepticism quickly vanished. I can still hear his last words ringing in my ears ... "At least, it´s a female". In the last stables my mare lived in before her death, people also quickly realised the special relationship with my mare. They showed respect by raising their voices before entering the part of the stables my mare was located at, probably to give me enough time to step off the plastic pedestal and pull the pants back up.
In more than 29 years of being a zoophile member of the equestrian community, I surely ran into one or two people hostile towards zoophilia. But I also experienced support from people I never thought they would support me in any way. And when I caught my first fencehopper, showing that I am willing to defend other horses from "my own kind", tolerance levels went through the roof. After that, I never heard about anyone whispering behind my back "He fucks his horse!".
In summary, my positive experiences as a zoo among the equestrian community outweigh the few negative ones. Sure, there´s a chance that I´m the one lucky exception and another horse zoo´s experience may differ largely from that. But all I can say is that even those highly conservative horseowners can be tolerant towards zoophilia when the circumstances and the zoo´s personality are right. First hand experience with horses is an incredibly effective antidote against the "poor,defenseless, innocent horsie" plague.
tl;dr: Had support from the equestrian community, never experienced negative stuff.
Thank you for such a heartfelt and personal response! I'm glad that you have generally experienced support in your community.
Show a moral compass and you will get support. case closed.
chuckles The comments here have been entertaining as well as interesting, even perhaps a bit educational. I don't know how the equestrian 'community' views zoophilia as my association with said community has been limited in my 40 plus years as an equine keeper/steward. Being an opinionated, outspoken, misanthropic old curmudgeon I prefer the company of most equines to most people. Honestly the only people that I have any interest in befriending on a limited basis are other equiphiles and those with a genuine interest in knowing the heart of equus. The best teachers for such are the equines themselves. Why do humans feel compelled to make simple, common sense things complicated and cumbersome? Learning is a lifelong process, thankfully my beloveds are kind and patient with me as well as those that are also willing to learn...
"I also believe that horses are the closest to God in the animal world. Horses are karmic, and they come to us in our lives karmically, when it is time for us truly to learn." – Dominique Barbier, 'Dressage for the New Age'