I haven't had the time to touch it yet, but man do they love their dark rooms and creepy music.
madethisaccount4zooLesbian, Questioning Zoo 2 points on 2017-02-20 05:37:01
They sure do.
Happy cakeday!
KynophileDog lover 6 points on 2017-02-20 00:17:57
Personally, I like "Animal Passions" from BBC Channel 4. A little creepy music, and some cringe lines from a couple interviewees (especially Mark Matthews), but overall it's just interviews with zoos. Gives a pretty good overview from a personal standpoint.
madethisaccount4zooLesbian, Questioning Zoo 1 point on 2017-02-20 05:37:12
I'll have to check it out, thanks!
30-30amator equae 5 points on 2017-02-20 14:59:20
Let me make one thing absolutely clear: the movie "Zoo" and all that is related to Pinyan is NOT zoo in any way. Read the Vice article about Enumclaw. Note what names the animals had in this "exclusive little club", read about Pinyan´s motorbike accident that allegedly left him with his body numbed. Enumclaw was a gay bestialist enclave and Pinyan was a masochist ; that´s all you need to know.
Besides being a really shitty movie, "Zoo" is far from what is called a documentary. Much has been changed for "dramatical purposes", compared to what really went down in Enumclaw. "Zoo" is a sensationalist flic, highly inaccurate, desperately trying to gain sympathy for a guy who was, objectively seen, a customer of one of those "non existing" animal brothels. AFAIK, Pinyan never had animals of his own, neither did those guys who were presenting their buttholes to various male animals each weekend.
I really recommend reading the Vice articles about the whole incident and would subscribe to what the author of the article presented as his final conclusion. "Maybe those guys weren´t in love with the animals, maybe they are just into big dicks in the end."
That IMHO sums up the entire Enumclaw complex perfectly.
To call this waste of celluloid "Zoo" is a front kick into every zoophile´s face....
YearningmiceZoophile 3 points on 2017-02-20 20:07:54
If the link doesn't work google the title to get you there it'll be in the first several links.
I've only briefly glanced at the article as of yet but it seems the most through of any account I've read.
fuzzyfurry 2 points on 2017-02-21 01:43:00
in support of /u/30-30
Well, it doesn't support the "animal brothel" narrative. People keep saying this and I don't get it. This one describes the story as
On July 1, 2005, Pinyan came to the farm to have sex with a horse he kept
there. His preference was to have the animal penetrate him. A regular at the
parties stated that Pinyan’s affinity for inserting large objects into himself
was nothing strange. He was into the “fisting scene” and “had this large de
vice he liked to keep inside of him because it would wiggle around and re
mind him internally he had feelings” (Devor & Mudede, 2007, p. 18). Pinyan’s
horse refused to participate, so he and two other members of the group, in
cluding the owner of the farm James Tait, trespassed onto a neighbor’s farm.
Where is the animal brothel?
I read a bit further and..
As shown
in Hodges and Ulsperger’s (2010) ICM study of satanic panic in the 1980s,
people call for new legislation when they merely perceive an increase in de
viant activity (see also Joutsen, 1993). Literature that emerged after the in
troduction of the ICM refers to this as a moral panic (Altheide, 2009; Goode
& Ben-Yehuda, 1994). The public consumes emerging stories through, for
example, the media. The stories detail issues they did not pay attention to
before. Newfound concern elevates hostility and pulls otherwise divergent
groups of people together. Subsequently, those groups call for the state to
act (for a recent example, see Schildkraut, 2016). ICM literature discusses
this as a “legitimation deficit,” and lawmakers are quick to react toward such
deficits when they occur, especially if doing so elevates their own political
capital (McGarrell & Castellano, 1991, p. 183).
This actually applies perfectly to the "animal brothel" issue. I'm not saying animal brothels don't exist. In a world where child trafficking exists, surely some people are doing that too. But it's obvious that "animal brothels" are mainly used as a propaganda device by anti zoos, and yet they don't even have real cases to show for it. None of the antis has ever said "We need to ban animal brothels, but maybe sex with animals is not always bad". They will try to use it as justification for a bestiality ban every time. That's why I take such issue with it, not because I want to deny them, but because of the nature of these claims.
people call for new legislation when they merely perceive an increase in deviant activity
Just read the headlines in the press
Bestiality brothels are 'spreading through Germany'
Bestiality Brothels Are Taking Germany By Storm
Animal brothels flourishing in Germany
Animal rights groups warn of erotic zoo epidemic.
You can bet that none of the people who write this stuff has an actual interest in animal brothels. Where is the research into the number of animal brothels that shows an increase? The sole purpose of these claims and articles is described in this paper.
Sorry, didn't want to rant at you, just at 30-30.
YearningmiceZoophile 2 points on 2017-02-21 02:48:30
No worries, I said more clinical.... which I hoped to imply more factual, less emotional than what has been presented on the issue before. I personally think it lends some support to him.
Look, I don't know these guys very well if at all, I've heard tons of stories good and bad over the years. I'm tired of things always being either all good or all bad. These were people.
As for the term brothel thrown around in the media, yeah, stupid. But I've seen ads. I doubt there was/is any booming business yet there are those who would.
We aren't going to be able to separate us from them in the eyes of many. No matter how much we might protest.
30-30amator equae 2 points on 2017-02-21 15:11:49
When a farmowner "trespasses" onto his neigbor´s farm for the sole reason to "satisfy" his customers because his own animals wouldn´t "perform" and thus literally is pimping out animals that aren´t even his own to his "friends" (the ones simply dropping Pinyan off in front of a hospital, remember?), what else the fuck do you need to call Enumclaw what it really was?
Would you please explain why , of all human kinks, fetishes, sexual deviancies, orientations, only zoophilia is the one and only exception without any brothel? Legal, illegal, it doesn´t matter, when you know the right persons, you can buy sex with animals as you can buy sex with males, females, kids, even more obscure and "specialised" sexual practices have their "special interest" brothels. How can anyone seriously think that we "zoophiles" are the only sexual subgroup firmly withstanding the temptation to make a happy buck out of it? Each and every single "zoophile"?
Sure, "professional" animal brothels don´t exist, but when you drop this stupid fight about definitions and what a brothel is and isn´t, instead accepting the common definition of "brothel", a place where you can exchange money or other benefits for sexual gratification, each "hobby filmer" offering his animal to strangers from the internet in exchange for any benefit (ranging from the porn that´s shot to real financial contributions or even the "right" to fuck your "friend´s" animal because you let him do your animal), each person pimping out his/her animals is running some sort of animal brothel. We can sure argue about what a brothel is and isn´t , but animal prostitution is real. Just take a quick view in BF´s hook up sections, even when you subtract a solid 95% of the ads as fake, you still have enough people searching and/or offering animals for sex. I know of sex parties with animals that are held regularly and you only can participate when you pay hard money, prices for one hour with an animal of your choice ranging from 100 - 350 Euro). I know that in the nineties, Amsterdam had at least three * etablissements * that offered various sex acts with animals for money.
Just let me ask you this: where´s the point when your "friends" you let have sex with your animals turn into customers? How many monthly "visitors" are necessary to turn a "farm where zoophiles gather to have a good time" into a full blown animal prostitution facility? One a month? Ten? Fifty? Where you draw the line between "amateur" and brothel? When your human partner sells his/her body for money, how many "fucks for bucks" will make her/him a hooker? One a month? two? Three in a week? One hundred in a month?
Seen in this light, the usual media allegations of animal brothels don´t look so made up anymore. Of course there´s no house or farm with a huge neonsign above the entrance saying "Animal brothel". But brothels exist in many forms and for many Avergae Joes, any house or compound that is used to pimp out animals for whatever benefits is legitimately called a brothel. BTW, it´s true there was a "trend" in Germany some years ago. I remember seeing BF´s hook up section at that time, wondering why all of a sudden there were lots of ads placed searching or offering animals for sex instead of the usual two to three daily.
Spink took money for animal sex, he ran ads for his farm in several well known forums for bestialists, the guy from Reuschbach, Ramstein also did some very dubious things, " You can fuck my horse when I can fuck yours" being just the tip of the iceberg. The guy from Verl, not even a zoophile himself, but a "zoo" voyeur, had some financial gain from selling the footage of the women with his dog.
Categorically excluding the possibility of real, existing animal brothels is naive at least. Even ZETA had to learn from me why this categorical denial is immensely detrimental to our cause, I´d be so happy if you could also dismiss this completely blue eyed, rather silly and infantile attitude of yours.
MDCCCLXIIII 2 points on 2017-02-21 17:59:11
Thank you for the extensive information on the Enumclaw case and the Ramstein-Miesenbach incident – your comment really changes my perspective on the matter. While my primary sources have been online newspapers, the ZETA blog and Karin Burger's "Doggennetz" back in 2013 when I did my research on the topic, you seem to have a more sophisticated approach towards gathering information. May I ask you how you've managed to gain such a detailed insight into the matter? Do you have reliable informants who provide you with first-hand information or are there publicly available sources which I haven't considered? While the Enumclaw case might be considered as well-documented, I find it incredibly hard to find unbiased information on the incidents in Germany. On the one hand, there's the anti-zoo activists' version of events, which usually draws an overly dramatized image of reality. On the other hand, we have ZETA's point of, which is an equally biased and subjective interpretation of facts. Third, there are newspaper articles and official statements, which, in turn, rarely cover the circumstances in detail. Thus, I find it hard hard to draw a conclusion or to form an opinion about a subject without some sort of insider information on the matter.
With regards to your assertion that you have been in contact with ZETA, a simple, but rather indiscreet question comes to my mind. While I do not expect you to provide me with an honest answer, in case you feel uncomfortable with the issue, I am still curious if it was you who has regularly taken a critical stance in the discussions on the ZETA blog. To be honest, I've been assuming that this has to be the case ever since I discovered this subreddit in October 2016, taking into consideration the information this person has provided about his relationship to his mare. Of course, this is nothing but a mere assumption made by an uninformed outsider, so please forgive me if I have mistaken you for someone else.
30-30amator equae 3 points on 2017-02-21 18:50:38
In the Ramstein case, I didn´t even had to make contact myself with "Caballogermany" as Martin P. is known in BF. When I commented the case in BF, I got a reply directly from him, accusing me of "believeing the antis". I then replied by going into detail what bothers me about him and his conduct as a self proclaimed "zoophile", his videos in which he and another one of his "zoo friends" raped a sheep ´til it bled. The mass gatherings of "zoophiles" at his home, his "contributions" to BF (AP), well, basically anything that For example, I asked him where all the videos of his paint mare with a very distinctable fur pattern with all the strangers come from if he truly is a "genuine zoo" that is NOT pimping out his animals to others. In his second PM, after which he blocked any reply from me , he frankly admitted he did all of which he´s accused, but called it "Jugendsünden" although the entire shit went down in the years 2010 - 2012.
In case you don´t know it, Martin P. was the administrator of the German beastforum.info and much of what he did has been quite well documented on his own "zoo forum", the appointments with other "zoos" , the big number of "initiates" knowing that you can always ask Caballogermany if you want a quick fuck with dogs or horses and many more...it didn´t come as a big surprise that the day after his "zoo birthday party" was raided by the Police (btw, on Hitler´s birthday, the 20th of April...honi soit qui mal y pense ;) ), his "beastforum.info" vanished into digital nirvana.
Sometimes it´s really easy to contact "animal sex offenders", sometimes they even contact you. ;)
Regarding the replies in ZETA´s comment section I have to admit that it was me criticising ZETA. Please notice ZETA only published some of my replies, they tend to censor lots of what I write because they don´t have an appropriate "zoo answer" to it and try to file it under "insulting posts that are not unlocked for the public eye".
The name "Mechahorse" should be a dead giveaway if you know where my name I use here comes from ;)
Battlecropscat kisser extraordinaire 3 points on 2017-02-20 22:08:02
I watched it, but it was a little too slow and pretentious for me lol. A lot of the long lingering shots made it hard to visually keep my attention. I agree Animal Passions is better overall, and more of a traditional "documentary" style, since it was made for TV.
30-30amator equae 2 points on 2017-02-21 00:31:04
Well, kudos to you if you can endure the first 10 minutes of Animal passions without cringe attacks....and don´t let us speak about Willard´s ridiculous tattoo he shows off in the last third of the documentary. I wouldn´t use the word "better" for each one of those two embarrassing films, "less bad" fits it more...and even that is debatable given the reactions of outsiders after they have seen them.
What I missed most in Animal Passions was some opposing opinions, some hard questions for the protagonists. As a documentary in the truest meaning of the word, Animal Passions just kept the camera rolling and asked a few, rather irrelevant questions; Animal Passions wants to show, not explain "zoophilia". AP´s sensationalism is well hidden behind this documentary facade, but the predominant idea behind AP was to generate TV ratings and maybe to stir up society , getting known by a bigger audience.
The protagonists of AP are another issue and IMO chosen very badly. The first few "zoophiles", the couple and especially George Willard a.k.a. Mark Matthews with his book and history (stuffing a pony into a wedding gown, for example) give me immediate cancer.
Willard literally described word for word in his book how he kept a pony in his garage (!) and snuck out every night when his wife wasn´t "in the mood". He even described his real initial motive to have sex with animals...he wrote in his book that "women are complicated, horses are not". Pulling someone into the limelight as a "zoo representative" who so damn clearly is into human females, but chooses horses because "you don´t have to do the talk to get laid" and probably has some misogynic leanings too is just a slight hint at how well researched AP really was. Remember the wedding gown? I loved and worshipped my mare from the first moment we met to her last breath, but I´d never, NEVER put her into some white, fluffy crap for my own stupid needs and the obvious incapability to realise that "horseworld" isn´t "humanworld".
Until this day, I´ve not seen any good zoo documentary. If only all those "amateur filmmakers" within our community would redirect their activities for some time..... ;)
Zeta_WolfWolf trapped in a human body 2 points on 2017-02-21 21:58:45
I mostly "sandbag" here on this reddit. But I feel the need to jump in here. ALL of the "documentaries" I have seen so far (and though not a documentary......even in quotes......I include the never aired "Jerry Springer" episode hosting the "zoophiles"......there are those damn quotes again) are NOT representative of zoophiles. They (and the people featured as part of the "mainstream zoo community") did a lot of damage to any positive image we might have with some open minded people. "ZOO"? That showed sad gay guys who had trouble finding dicks big enough to satisfy them......and so had a farm where they kept horses. NOTHING "zoo" about it. "Animal Passions"? Mark Matthews was well known for not only "taking horses as a fallback when human relationships failed" type of "zoo", but also hosting "zoo get-togethers" which is just code for a sex party where animals are swapped around. Horse guy who never made it with a bitch? Vice versa? Here's your chance to "try one". The JS show had three BESTIALISTS on. NOT zoophiles. Of course, this is my opinion, but when I see one guy (Mark Mathews) spend the entire time feeding carrots to his so called "wife" from his mouth and a bitch-guy who's partner (who would have ever guessed that she'd be the oh so typical Great Dane LOL) was FAR more interested in the dog-girl's male companion (who was likewise trying to pull away from her) it leaves a very poor image in my mind. And so forth. And so on.
30-30's replies on this thread, ESPECIALLY the last reply and the last paragraph hits it well. Read and absorb that POV. Just try to squint a bit through the major bitterness and judgment ;) Some of us have been around a long, LONG time.
MDCCCLXIIII 3 points on 2017-02-23 08:02:04
I’d like to express my gratitude to all who promoted a realistic point of view in this discussion for taking a stance against the mystification of George Willard’s horseman, the Enumclaw case and all the other shameful stories which were covered by the media – stories and people who have shaped the public image of zoophilia in an utterly negative way. Take, for instance, Willard’s „magnum opus“ – the story of an arrogant, self-complacent guy, whose main interest is to fulfill his sexual desires. Back in 2010, during the process of discovering and accepting my sexual orientation, I was so naive to believe that his book would grant me a more thorough understanding of my sexuality. Indeed, I felt repulsed and disgusted at what I read and it left me with a feeling of uncertainty if Miletski’s view on zoophilia is really accurate. I mean, how can a man who keeps a single pony mare in his backyard serve as an example of a sexual orientation which is allegedly centered around an emotional affection towards animals?
Where are the stories of zoophile scientists, lawyers, medical doctors, civil engineers, veterinaries, in short, honorable members of society leading a normal life? Considering that we have homosexuals in high political positions or as executives of multinational corporations, why does the zoophile community have to perpetuate the image of sociopaths and perverts living on the edge of society? Isn't it high time we found ourselves some new testimonials to advance our cause instead of clinging to a set of poorly written stories, low-quality documentaries and embarrassing interviews?
When I discovered this subreddit at the end of last year, I believed that 30-30 takes a much too radical stance in discussions. Though, the more I learn about what is going on beyond the surface, the more I understand his point of view. It must be frustrating to observe how our community fails to emancipate itself from the mistakes of the past if you have been part of it for so long.
/r/zoophilia archive
Here's the doc on YT.
I haven't had the time to touch it yet, but man do they love their dark rooms and creepy music.
They sure do.
Happy cakeday!
Personally, I like "Animal Passions" from BBC Channel 4. A little creepy music, and some cringe lines from a couple interviewees (especially Mark Matthews), but overall it's just interviews with zoos. Gives a pretty good overview from a personal standpoint.
I'll have to check it out, thanks!
Let me make one thing absolutely clear: the movie "Zoo" and all that is related to Pinyan is NOT zoo in any way. Read the Vice article about Enumclaw. Note what names the animals had in this "exclusive little club", read about Pinyan´s motorbike accident that allegedly left him with his body numbed. Enumclaw was a gay bestialist enclave and Pinyan was a masochist ; that´s all you need to know.
Besides being a really shitty movie, "Zoo" is far from what is called a documentary. Much has been changed for "dramatical purposes", compared to what really went down in Enumclaw. "Zoo" is a sensationalist flic, highly inaccurate, desperately trying to gain sympathy for a guy who was, objectively seen, a customer of one of those "non existing" animal brothels. AFAIK, Pinyan never had animals of his own, neither did those guys who were presenting their buttholes to various male animals each weekend.
I really recommend reading the Vice articles about the whole incident and would subscribe to what the author of the article presented as his final conclusion. "Maybe those guys weren´t in love with the animals, maybe they are just into big dicks in the end." That IMHO sums up the entire Enumclaw complex perfectly.
To call this waste of celluloid "Zoo" is a front kick into every zoophile´s face....
For a very clinical description in support of /u/30-30 please check out The Emergence of Contemporary Bestiality Law: Applying the Integrative Conflict Model to the Enumclaw Case from the Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice & Criminology's current issue.
If the link doesn't work google the title to get you there it'll be in the first several links.
I've only briefly glanced at the article as of yet but it seems the most through of any account I've read.
Well, it doesn't support the "animal brothel" narrative. People keep saying this and I don't get it. This one describes the story as
Where is the animal brothel?
I read a bit further and..
This actually applies perfectly to the "animal brothel" issue. I'm not saying animal brothels don't exist. In a world where child trafficking exists, surely some people are doing that too. But it's obvious that "animal brothels" are mainly used as a propaganda device by anti zoos, and yet they don't even have real cases to show for it. None of the antis has ever said "We need to ban animal brothels, but maybe sex with animals is not always bad". They will try to use it as justification for a bestiality ban every time. That's why I take such issue with it, not because I want to deny them, but because of the nature of these claims.
Just read the headlines in the press
You can bet that none of the people who write this stuff has an actual interest in animal brothels. Where is the research into the number of animal brothels that shows an increase? The sole purpose of these claims and articles is described in this paper.
Sorry, didn't want to rant at you, just at 30-30.
No worries, I said more clinical.... which I hoped to imply more factual, less emotional than what has been presented on the issue before. I personally think it lends some support to him.
Look, I don't know these guys very well if at all, I've heard tons of stories good and bad over the years. I'm tired of things always being either all good or all bad. These were people.
As for the term brothel thrown around in the media, yeah, stupid. But I've seen ads. I doubt there was/is any booming business yet there are those who would.
We aren't going to be able to separate us from them in the eyes of many. No matter how much we might protest.
When a farmowner "trespasses" onto his neigbor´s farm for the sole reason to "satisfy" his customers because his own animals wouldn´t "perform" and thus literally is pimping out animals that aren´t even his own to his "friends" (the ones simply dropping Pinyan off in front of a hospital, remember?), what else the fuck do you need to call Enumclaw what it really was?
Would you please explain why , of all human kinks, fetishes, sexual deviancies, orientations, only zoophilia is the one and only exception without any brothel? Legal, illegal, it doesn´t matter, when you know the right persons, you can buy sex with animals as you can buy sex with males, females, kids, even more obscure and "specialised" sexual practices have their "special interest" brothels. How can anyone seriously think that we "zoophiles" are the only sexual subgroup firmly withstanding the temptation to make a happy buck out of it? Each and every single "zoophile"?
Sure, "professional" animal brothels don´t exist, but when you drop this stupid fight about definitions and what a brothel is and isn´t, instead accepting the common definition of "brothel", a place where you can exchange money or other benefits for sexual gratification, each "hobby filmer" offering his animal to strangers from the internet in exchange for any benefit (ranging from the porn that´s shot to real financial contributions or even the "right" to fuck your "friend´s" animal because you let him do your animal), each person pimping out his/her animals is running some sort of animal brothel. We can sure argue about what a brothel is and isn´t , but animal prostitution is real. Just take a quick view in BF´s hook up sections, even when you subtract a solid 95% of the ads as fake, you still have enough people searching and/or offering animals for sex. I know of sex parties with animals that are held regularly and you only can participate when you pay hard money, prices for one hour with an animal of your choice ranging from 100 - 350 Euro). I know that in the nineties, Amsterdam had at least three * etablissements * that offered various sex acts with animals for money.
Just let me ask you this: where´s the point when your "friends" you let have sex with your animals turn into customers? How many monthly "visitors" are necessary to turn a "farm where zoophiles gather to have a good time" into a full blown animal prostitution facility? One a month? Ten? Fifty? Where you draw the line between "amateur" and brothel? When your human partner sells his/her body for money, how many "fucks for bucks" will make her/him a hooker? One a month? two? Three in a week? One hundred in a month?
Seen in this light, the usual media allegations of animal brothels don´t look so made up anymore. Of course there´s no house or farm with a huge neonsign above the entrance saying "Animal brothel". But brothels exist in many forms and for many Avergae Joes, any house or compound that is used to pimp out animals for whatever benefits is legitimately called a brothel. BTW, it´s true there was a "trend" in Germany some years ago. I remember seeing BF´s hook up section at that time, wondering why all of a sudden there were lots of ads placed searching or offering animals for sex instead of the usual two to three daily.
Spink took money for animal sex, he ran ads for his farm in several well known forums for bestialists, the guy from Reuschbach, Ramstein also did some very dubious things, " You can fuck my horse when I can fuck yours" being just the tip of the iceberg. The guy from Verl, not even a zoophile himself, but a "zoo" voyeur, had some financial gain from selling the footage of the women with his dog.
Categorically excluding the possibility of real, existing animal brothels is naive at least. Even ZETA had to learn from me why this categorical denial is immensely detrimental to our cause, I´d be so happy if you could also dismiss this completely blue eyed, rather silly and infantile attitude of yours.
Thank you for the extensive information on the Enumclaw case and the Ramstein-Miesenbach incident – your comment really changes my perspective on the matter. While my primary sources have been online newspapers, the ZETA blog and Karin Burger's "Doggennetz" back in 2013 when I did my research on the topic, you seem to have a more sophisticated approach towards gathering information. May I ask you how you've managed to gain such a detailed insight into the matter? Do you have reliable informants who provide you with first-hand information or are there publicly available sources which I haven't considered? While the Enumclaw case might be considered as well-documented, I find it incredibly hard to find unbiased information on the incidents in Germany. On the one hand, there's the anti-zoo activists' version of events, which usually draws an overly dramatized image of reality. On the other hand, we have ZETA's point of, which is an equally biased and subjective interpretation of facts. Third, there are newspaper articles and official statements, which, in turn, rarely cover the circumstances in detail. Thus, I find it hard hard to draw a conclusion or to form an opinion about a subject without some sort of insider information on the matter.
With regards to your assertion that you have been in contact with ZETA, a simple, but rather indiscreet question comes to my mind. While I do not expect you to provide me with an honest answer, in case you feel uncomfortable with the issue, I am still curious if it was you who has regularly taken a critical stance in the discussions on the ZETA blog. To be honest, I've been assuming that this has to be the case ever since I discovered this subreddit in October 2016, taking into consideration the information this person has provided about his relationship to his mare. Of course, this is nothing but a mere assumption made by an uninformed outsider, so please forgive me if I have mistaken you for someone else.
In the Ramstein case, I didn´t even had to make contact myself with "Caballogermany" as Martin P. is known in BF. When I commented the case in BF, I got a reply directly from him, accusing me of "believeing the antis". I then replied by going into detail what bothers me about him and his conduct as a self proclaimed "zoophile", his videos in which he and another one of his "zoo friends" raped a sheep ´til it bled. The mass gatherings of "zoophiles" at his home, his "contributions" to BF (AP), well, basically anything that For example, I asked him where all the videos of his paint mare with a very distinctable fur pattern with all the strangers come from if he truly is a "genuine zoo" that is NOT pimping out his animals to others. In his second PM, after which he blocked any reply from me , he frankly admitted he did all of which he´s accused, but called it "Jugendsünden" although the entire shit went down in the years 2010 - 2012. In case you don´t know it, Martin P. was the administrator of the German beastforum.info and much of what he did has been quite well documented on his own "zoo forum", the appointments with other "zoos" , the big number of "initiates" knowing that you can always ask Caballogermany if you want a quick fuck with dogs or horses and many more...it didn´t come as a big surprise that the day after his "zoo birthday party" was raided by the Police (btw, on Hitler´s birthday, the 20th of April...honi soit qui mal y pense ;) ), his "beastforum.info" vanished into digital nirvana.
Sometimes it´s really easy to contact "animal sex offenders", sometimes they even contact you. ;)
Regarding the replies in ZETA´s comment section I have to admit that it was me criticising ZETA. Please notice ZETA only published some of my replies, they tend to censor lots of what I write because they don´t have an appropriate "zoo answer" to it and try to file it under "insulting posts that are not unlocked for the public eye".
The name "Mechahorse" should be a dead giveaway if you know where my name I use here comes from ;)
I watched it, but it was a little too slow and pretentious for me lol. A lot of the long lingering shots made it hard to visually keep my attention. I agree Animal Passions is better overall, and more of a traditional "documentary" style, since it was made for TV.
Well, kudos to you if you can endure the first 10 minutes of Animal passions without cringe attacks....and don´t let us speak about Willard´s ridiculous tattoo he shows off in the last third of the documentary. I wouldn´t use the word "better" for each one of those two embarrassing films, "less bad" fits it more...and even that is debatable given the reactions of outsiders after they have seen them. What I missed most in Animal Passions was some opposing opinions, some hard questions for the protagonists. As a documentary in the truest meaning of the word, Animal Passions just kept the camera rolling and asked a few, rather irrelevant questions; Animal Passions wants to show, not explain "zoophilia". AP´s sensationalism is well hidden behind this documentary facade, but the predominant idea behind AP was to generate TV ratings and maybe to stir up society , getting known by a bigger audience.
The protagonists of AP are another issue and IMO chosen very badly. The first few "zoophiles", the couple and especially George Willard a.k.a. Mark Matthews with his book and history (stuffing a pony into a wedding gown, for example) give me immediate cancer.
Willard literally described word for word in his book how he kept a pony in his garage (!) and snuck out every night when his wife wasn´t "in the mood". He even described his real initial motive to have sex with animals...he wrote in his book that "women are complicated, horses are not". Pulling someone into the limelight as a "zoo representative" who so damn clearly is into human females, but chooses horses because "you don´t have to do the talk to get laid" and probably has some misogynic leanings too is just a slight hint at how well researched AP really was. Remember the wedding gown? I loved and worshipped my mare from the first moment we met to her last breath, but I´d never, NEVER put her into some white, fluffy crap for my own stupid needs and the obvious incapability to realise that "horseworld" isn´t "humanworld".
Until this day, I´ve not seen any good zoo documentary. If only all those "amateur filmmakers" within our community would redirect their activities for some time..... ;)
I mostly "sandbag" here on this reddit. But I feel the need to jump in here. ALL of the "documentaries" I have seen so far (and though not a documentary......even in quotes......I include the never aired "Jerry Springer" episode hosting the "zoophiles"......there are those damn quotes again) are NOT representative of zoophiles. They (and the people featured as part of the "mainstream zoo community") did a lot of damage to any positive image we might have with some open minded people. "ZOO"? That showed sad gay guys who had trouble finding dicks big enough to satisfy them......and so had a farm where they kept horses. NOTHING "zoo" about it. "Animal Passions"? Mark Matthews was well known for not only "taking horses as a fallback when human relationships failed" type of "zoo", but also hosting "zoo get-togethers" which is just code for a sex party where animals are swapped around. Horse guy who never made it with a bitch? Vice versa? Here's your chance to "try one". The JS show had three BESTIALISTS on. NOT zoophiles. Of course, this is my opinion, but when I see one guy (Mark Mathews) spend the entire time feeding carrots to his so called "wife" from his mouth and a bitch-guy who's partner (who would have ever guessed that she'd be the oh so typical Great Dane LOL) was FAR more interested in the dog-girl's male companion (who was likewise trying to pull away from her) it leaves a very poor image in my mind. And so forth. And so on.
30-30's replies on this thread, ESPECIALLY the last reply and the last paragraph hits it well. Read and absorb that POV. Just try to squint a bit through the major bitterness and judgment ;) Some of us have been around a long, LONG time.
I’d like to express my gratitude to all who promoted a realistic point of view in this discussion for taking a stance against the mystification of George Willard’s horseman, the Enumclaw case and all the other shameful stories which were covered by the media – stories and people who have shaped the public image of zoophilia in an utterly negative way. Take, for instance, Willard’s „magnum opus“ – the story of an arrogant, self-complacent guy, whose main interest is to fulfill his sexual desires. Back in 2010, during the process of discovering and accepting my sexual orientation, I was so naive to believe that his book would grant me a more thorough understanding of my sexuality. Indeed, I felt repulsed and disgusted at what I read and it left me with a feeling of uncertainty if Miletski’s view on zoophilia is really accurate. I mean, how can a man who keeps a single pony mare in his backyard serve as an example of a sexual orientation which is allegedly centered around an emotional affection towards animals? Where are the stories of zoophile scientists, lawyers, medical doctors, civil engineers, veterinaries, in short, honorable members of society leading a normal life? Considering that we have homosexuals in high political positions or as executives of multinational corporations, why does the zoophile community have to perpetuate the image of sociopaths and perverts living on the edge of society? Isn't it high time we found ourselves some new testimonials to advance our cause instead of clinging to a set of poorly written stories, low-quality documentaries and embarrassing interviews? When I discovered this subreddit at the end of last year, I believed that 30-30 takes a much too radical stance in discussions. Though, the more I learn about what is going on beyond the surface, the more I understand his point of view. It must be frustrating to observe how our community fails to emancipate itself from the mistakes of the past if you have been part of it for so long.
[removed]