What are some things you think about human sexuality based on your position as an "outsider"? (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-03-16 19:14:41 by Swibblestein
This question is primarily addressed at those who are zoo-exclusive, but at the same time I don't want to exclude anyone else who wants to answer.
Basically, I'm curious what opinions you might have about human sexuality, given that we sort of have a position as an "outsider". We ought to (you would think) be more able to notice absurdities or contradictions. We at least theoretically have the ability to be less biased, less involved, and more impartial.
Maybe you don't agree with that assessment, in which case let me know, but if you do, I'd like to hear what sorts of things you might have observed.
Many people don't realize or acknowledge how much social influence it has for one thing.
How come normies (ree) glorify buts? i mean, honestly its literally the most disgusting part of the body and yet it is seen as the most attractive to some people. And those same people find scat fetishes gross, which is just hypocritical.
Also, cheating. I just really dont know why people get so mad about it. you can love more than one person. *and animals frequently have WAY more than one partner. monogamy is the minority position.
Could be due to their looking somewhat like breasts, at least for males.
Well, some say so, some say it´s the other way around and breasts are attractive because they look like butts...either way, it´s about fertility signals. Voluptuous breasts, a big butt, both hint at fertility and a positive prognosis for raising a kid. Lots of fat tissue = constant access to enough food. From an evolutionary perspective, that´s all it takes.
Another influence on what is seen as attractive and desirable is the era´s predominant beauty ideal. In the sixties, there was Twiggy, a skinny young girl, several decades ago, it was the type of women Peter Paul Rubens painted, voluptuous and with "lots of curves".
It's all a part of one's attraction. Some could say the exact same things about genitals... or anything else.
Also, if you cheat itfp you know you are doing something wrong if you hide it, which makes the whole situation worse.
And some people only want to have one partner and that is more than enough.
I honestly don't want more than one partner. It's overwhelming and why would I...?
or, you know the other person thinks its wrong.
Also, many animals (at least deer, the animal im attracted to) are polygamous. And i know my lover would happily go for a doe if he had the chance (which he very rarely does because it will open a legal can {more like barrel} of worms and such. And the rut usually coincides with hunting season sooo...). So why force him to follow the subjective moral laws of my species? And if those standards dont apply to him, why me?
Then don't cheat if you know the other person is against that idea.
If you do, I don't think you can really love your partner if you are willing to take such a big risk.
Because keeping secrets is bad and not to mention it's against their will.
I can accept others having multiple partners but not me or my bitch.
And now that would be disgusting to 'share' a partner. I wouldn't want another one's germs in her.
If the partner is against the idea, then the primary individual shouldn't be focused on worrying about getting caught cheating. They should be focused on ending the relationship completely, because if your partner considers it cheating then their partner does not "relate to" or respect you.
You can't rape the willing and you cannot cheat on the truly loving. You cannot be in a loving relationship if your partner does not love you enough to let you be happy with anything other than an obsession for the partner and what the partner has. That's more like a hostage scenario if you're afraid of getting caught "cheating" or "Sneaking away from an armed bank robber."
People and animals who truly love and respect you want you to be happy. They wouldn't hold you against your will. Sometimes it's better to keep secrets from criminals with "guns" (political, lawful, physical power) because their will is to hold you against yours. The will of domestic abusers is no excuse for what you're implying. People aren't allowed to tell their secrets to prevent abuse, without the information being abused to committ abuse against those people.
Don't you see the problem here? The law and social stigmas enable all kinds of abuse, especially domestic abuse by proxy.
but why does that person have to bend to the will of the other and not the other way around? what gives the other person more leverage in that decision?
As a youngster, I spent quite some time observing "normal" human-on-human relationships. What shocked me the most was how shallow lots of those relationships were, how quickly "lovers" became enemies, struggling about who was the "boss", cheating each other, the collision of two egos rather than unification into something synergetic. And I found out that the Japanese proverb "Every person wears three masks; one he shows in public, the second he shows to those close and the third he never shows" was pretty accurate, but the mask that is worn in relationships needs to be added.
I´ve seen so much lies and deceit done in the name of "love" that I started to believe only a few select humans have the ability to love in the truest sense of this word. The monkey using/abusing sex and relationships always is present in all humans; I can see the makaque, the bonobo behind their furless skin. Bonobos fuck anybody to calm themselves and the pack down, makaque males bribe females with food for sex; my observations have led to my conviction humans are indeed not much more than furless monkeys.
What else? Well, living with horses forces you to listen to your instincts rather than to the voice that is whispering these silly things inside every human´s head and is called "consciousness". The gut feelings versus the brain, if you know what I am talking about. This special form of "equine zen", simple manifestation of the self instead of the ego made it almost painful to see how much most humans are living in their heads, in their reality tunnels; how hard humans find adaption to what "is", how much effort they put into keeping up their illusions.
One thing I have found out for sure...I know why any "god" can´t destroy all evil on this planet, he/she is much too busy laughing at all the terrible, ridiculous faces humans make during sex and the fancy sex acrobatics humans need to get the job done. I bet "god" sits on his golden throne in heaven and literally shits his celestial pants all day, mimicking the silly faces his "best creation yet" makes during intercourse. Then he surely cries a bit about that fact before starting to laugh like the Joker again. A manic-depressive god observing his wayward creation.
The fact that humans who are in a relationship with other humans only see within the perspective of their own species and no other species; to them, sex is a one-species thing, and interspecies sex is not even considered. They think having sex with a member of one's own species (humans) is the only kind of sex one can have.
Yes I agree and I'll add on...
They are in a "relationship" with one another. They can relate to one another by the fact that they both prefer relationships with other humans. However, they cannot relate to zoophiles because they do not like animals.
They hold a perspective from the point of "forced polygamy" where they want everybody to be polygamous with other humans. They want to "relate" directly or indirectly through relationship with people (zoophiles) who cannot actually relate to them, so they criminalize the person's choice of forming any relationship to animals different than their own. This falls somewhere along the lines of forced marriage (forced "relationships") and domestic abuse, where the polygamous human lovers will find ways to triangulate a person's choices down to only once choice... human polygamy.
That which appears to give us a choice is not actually a choice, because it's a "variety." It's like being given a variety of 300 types of tomatoes while criminalizing the choice of any other fruits and vegetables like pumpkins, apples, and green beans. This can lead to nutritional malnourishment when speaking of food... When speaking of relationships, the stigmatization and deduction of choices can lead to emotional malnourishment (mental illnesses) and even STD's. When your legal "variety" is diseased and harmful, why were the good "choices" criminalized? Think about that.
Unusually enough, supporters of monogamy who force others into being monogamous are in fact forcing a "relationship" to their own relationship expectations on others who did not belong to the original relationship, therefore masking a subconscious polygamy by forcing you into their relationship to monogamy. It's not monogamy if two people in a relationship can't keep their expectations to their own relationship.
One key factor of all opposition to zoophilia is... "What do the animals have that humans do not have?" Think of it as something similar to "penis envy" or "ego down". When people are attracted to animals, other humans feel as if the animals have something sexually that they do not. This triggers these human beings into acting out, sometimes violently in defense of their human pride.
Mainly, because of my love for animals and reading about the biological roots of love, I've noticed that love is simpler and more universal than most would admit. It appears mostly correlated with proximity in a psychological sense, which basically means that "soulmates" tend to be just people who spend a lot of time together and have a lot in common. Cynically, I might use this to devalue love as a whole, but I think it's more wonderful to look at it as love being possible for anyone who can feel it, animals included.
I've also noticed that a lot of the complications in human relationships arises from their extended social networks and uniquely human problems (finances, legal troubles, old age, expectations of complete monogamy). With animals, because they have relatively little effect on one's friendships or tax filing status, among other things, there's less incentive to start or stay in a relationship that will likely fail, and so I would expect that such relationships are often happier than those within our species.
Finally, I think that many of the cultural aspects of love (music, art, writing) result from people trying to express feelings they don't understand. They use spiritual and lofty terms, ironically, because these feelings arise from the most common roots, predating language and culture by millions of years, much like fear of the unknown and awe at nature's grandeur.
Ape breeding is pretty disgusting.
You have a lot of people on the far-left talking about how awful a person anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is, and yet the majority of them are firmly anti-zoo.
So being on the far left is, according to you, about complete permissiveness towards any sexual orientation, including pedo- and necrophilia? Interesting. There´s a big difference between homosexuality and zoophilia, it´s the harm factor and consent. Usually, gays consent and can speak out/take actions should the act become uncomfortable/violent/abusive. An animal can´t give "informed consent" in a way the average human recognises (a.k.a. words) , cannot turn in the police when abused. These are ,even in the opinion of a far left anarchist zoophile (me), valid reasons to deny "legal zoophilia". I´ve seen too much evidence of animal abuse from self proclaimed "zoos" ( both incidental ´cause not enough knowledge about the species and intentional ´cause clandestine sadist or carried away from the "perversity rush") to fully understand the leftist perspective on this controversial issue. Since many leftists, especially those on the extremer ends of the spectrum, are also animal rights advocators/activists, it shouldn´t be much of a surprise...
No, it is just annoys me how people who claim to be more open and tolerant than others are just as intolerant towards us as everyone else. Sorry for being unclear, I meant anti-zoo in the sense of "zoophiles should all be locked away/killed like the degenerates they are" rather than supporting legalization of zoophilia or not.
You haven´t read beyond my first sentende, have you? As I said, there are reasons for the hostility a rational zoophile can´t deny. Abuse of animals for sexual gratification is NO fairy tale, it´s real and it´s happening. Furthermore: there are NO "anti zoo" laws. There are laws against bestiality/acts of bestiality, and that´s it. And by the way: how I love generalisations. Some of my closest friends, those I have come out to, are equally leftist as myself, or even more leftist...and none of them has proposed to get my ass locked up or killed. Quite the opposite, they cannot understand what I see in horses, but they can understand the love I have for my mare. Zoophilia questions the image humans have of themselves. It antagonises what has been forcefed into the religious minds , it is seen as a form of self denigration from atheists (like when an M.D. marries the cleaner woman, but more self denigration), the real issues (consent and potential abuse) also play an important role in forming our public image. The usual headlines of fencehoppers caught and animal porn ring raided (with the occasional connections to kiddie porn), the stories about animals allegedly and even provably hurt by "zoophiles", all of this isn´t beneficial, too.
I doubt rejection of zoophilia has much to do with political attitude/belief system. It is rather universal.
You claim that somebody used an argument that is easy to counter or make fun off and then tear that person appart, when said person never used that argument to begin with.
Yes that's the whole purpose. They can persecute and prosecute people at their own discretion. Even if the animal is not harmed, and even if you are correct, they have the power to do whatever they want to you and say whatever they want about you despite no wrong doing on your part.
They can just wake up one day and say, "This guy talks too much about my political party, sexual orientation, etc.. so Im going to accuse him of being a rapist, bestialist, etc because the law is on my side when I want it to be."
Have you noticed how those tactics are being used against you? This is why the laws against sex with animals are bad, and why bad people support them. It enables bad people to take down whatever zoophile they want for whatever hidden reason they harbor against them, by falsely claiming that you did something wrong.
Why? For the same reason the laws were created. Because the animals can't speak for or against. If an animal can't speak and claim rape to the authorities, then an animal cannot speak to defend the person who's being falsely accused. It's a game of unequal power in favor of false accusers and anti-zoos. False accusations can become a nasty habit or addiction.
The funny thing is... the people who've formed habits of successfully making false claims against zoos might not notice how unsuccessfully theyre making false claims against zoos about everything else. It's a learned behavior. Their accusatory benefits only reach so far before the authorities become suspicious.
Similarly, it's very easy to tell the difference between an occasional heroin user and an addict. Use it too much and people start to notice.
The Swedish government just allowed the marriage of a 21 year old "refugee" to his 14 year old cousin (who he also knocked up), so I'm gonna go with "yes". How long until people start being pardoned for fucking corpses, I don't know. But I have a feeling it isn't too far away.
The fact of the matter is, the "progressive" left blanket condemnation of (non-harmful) zoophilia is as hypocritical as the rest of their pompous ideology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx457T7iWMA
I'm also very curious how you would enforce laws against zoophilia in an anarchist society.
It depends on your specific anarchist model.
You wouldn't enforce such "law" under an anarcho-capitalist model unless a bestialist act had been committed involving animals that belonged to somebody who didn't want them to be involved in the first place.
In an anarcho-syndicalist model, means of production belong to absolutist syndicates that have monopolies over them, so a bestialist act involving an animal belonging to the syndicate (typically cattle, or farm animals that are to be exploited by the syndicate) would be punished by the enforcers of said syndicate. A similar reasoning would do it for an anarcho-communist or anarcho-primitivist model.
Keep in mind that most anarchists are against "formal" power structures, not against every power structure, so rule enforcement might still be possible.
In the USA, anti-zoo bills and laws are supported from both the left and right — the Texas bill is sponsored by a Republican, and the Kentucky bill is sponsored by Democrats. So in the USA it is a bipartisan hatred of zoo.
Wondering why? Despite the popular theory, it has nothing to do with an animals consent. Political? Left and Right are just about the same if not opposite by this theory...
Left connects zoophilia to racism, while Right connects zoophilia to tolerance. They both plainly and simply contradict one another. For instance... Left might see zoophilia as an escape from interracial, homosexual, or other "tolerant" human companionship and rights. Although the left supports tolerance, they will only tolerate anything up to the point of directly contributing to society, aka socialism. Right might see zoophilia as an escape from procreative, straight, inbred human relationships. Although the right has always been supportive of property rights, they will only tolerate your property up to the point of directly contributing to society, aka socialism. Politics views zoophiles as "non-contributing" to society because the zoophiles do not contribute precisely to their agendas. In this fact politics is for liars. Stigmatization of zoophiles and sex with animals is the product of politics regardless if politics is ever mentioned. The order in which side supports what doesn't matter very much because the end result is the same.
Other than that it's all about control. Some people don't want to have to care for expensive animals in order to control the people who are attracted to them. They expect zoophiles to want only what they're selling, which includes human companionship. Animals are an inconvenience. They will force zoophiles into a position where they have no choice but to accept human companionship and other unsavory actions by forcing them to sacrifice their attraction to animals.
Zoophiles in a sense can be considered "uncontrollable" by people who do not have animals to use for control over the zoophile. Zoophiles are known to like and want animals. The people with animals can become jealous when zoophiles don't want them or the animals that they have. They want you to work hard for what they have, not what they don't because they wouldn't benefit from it. These people are abusers.
Both sides don't want zoophiles to have their own animals because when zoophiles have their own they won't work hard for or pay attention to the people who use animals to abuse people. This leads to my theory that both instances will find ways to make a zoophiles animal ownership or access to animals increasingly difficult if not impossible.
Therefore this was never actually a consent, Left, or Right issue. It's a human pride act of terrorism against zoophiles. Public opinion regarding zoophilia and sex with animals has been a violent political issue since the dawn of "civilization". Politics, policy, civility, law, control. It's not that they're trying to stop violence as much as they're trying to remain in control of their ability to commit violence against people with any particular reason as their excuse. There is no real civility or control in societies who use control to conserve their true lacking of self-control, because if they're not controlling themselves then they are controlling others for themselves.
Control for what purpose? Obviously not for the animals safety or benefit. It was never about the animals. Its about political and personal gain devoid of consent, or a balance of actual sexuality relevant to the sexual attractions. Justice is balance and since there is no balance there is no justification in criminalizing or stigmatizing against zoophiles or people who have sex with animals for any reason, not even for balance.
Put your tin foil hat on, folks, he´s back....
I will always be here.
Are you selling anything other than tinfoil? I hope it doesn't put you're ego down when I tell you that nobody wants what you have, just like most zoophiles wouldn't want to have human sex. If you paid attention to my earlier lesson you would have understood this simple economic concept of supply and demand.
You have to pay people to take tinfoil and they will determine how much it's worth.
Like the last week, right? ;)
The week you didn't work or pay for? Yes...Exactly XD
Both extremes of the political spectrum are quite similar in their inability to question or reflect their ideology and in their refusal to tolerate different opinions. Be it in an online discussion or in a real life debate, their argumentative tactics resemble those of religious fundamentalists who try to legitimize their statements with bible quotes. Judging by my experience with people from both sides, the far left tend to be characterized by a distinctive sense of moral superiority, which makes them immune to criticism, while the far right seem to have cultivated some kind of "don't bother me with facts, I've already made up my mind" attitude. In fact, this is what makes it virtually impossible to discuss with political extremists on a rational basis.
I agree. There's something you forgot to mention about politics though. The people who have sided with political views don't actually work for what they have no matter how much they claim to have worked for it.
It's very difficult to hide lies behind the Left's moral superiority and the Right's denial of facts. When Left and Right come together and share ideas all we really end up with is the same thing. Doesn't matter how we mix them or how they trade ideas, they both have the same ideas for the same bad reasons.
Zoophilia is unfortunately a politically sanctioned lifestyle no matter how many frauds here try to tell you otherwise. If it wasn't then there would be no laws restricting people's access to it. Whether people know it or not there were already "proxy laws" that target zoophiles. Nobody talks about it because they don't want people to know the political intentions behind them. Location and gerrymandering determines the power of these discriminatory laws for the benefit of political gains. The side does not matter because they will all abuse a zoophiles attraction. They will not prove otherwise because their party will become furious and cut off their benefits for helping us, like excommunication or "blacklisting"
Basically, political parties made sex with animals illegal because they wanted to intimidate and force us to choose sides while intimidating their opposition on the opposing side.
I think hookup culture is garbage. I see it as devaluing intimacy and love, and I find human sexuality to usually be either repulsive or boring in general. I believe in strict monogamy.
Funnily enough, I wasn't raised in a household where sex was considered taboo to talk about, and I've never had any negative sexual experiences. It's just a position that I've personally came to and stems from a deeper sense of moral disgust, which is alright. Normies (REEeeEEEeeEEEE) can do their own thing, I'll do mine.
Since you believe in strict monogamy... if you were to force other people to be strictly monogamous like yourself, wouldn't that be polygamy since you would be dragging people with their own relationships into your relationship expectations?
Not saying that you would, but that is how I feel most of society operates. Subcobsciously polygamous by their efforts to force relationships with others by tearing down a zoophiles already existing relationships and attractions to animals.
How so? Monogamy is just when two partners share exclusive romantic and sexual intimacy. It's how most people feel about relationships, and I wouldn't actually want to legislate against polyamory. I just hate it. People can feel free to hate zoophilia too, as long as they don't support discriminatory policies against us.
Yes Monogamy is when only Two Partners share with eachother. So... when those two partners want to share their love of monogamy with others, or in worst case force it on others, it is no longer monogamous because other people become involved by the will of those people who claimed to be monogamous. Truly monogamous people wouldn't force other people by law to share the relationship goals of the monogamous.
Here I agree with you based on this:
There is nothing wrong with disliking something. However, when a persons dislike for something disables other peoples love for for it, to redirect it towards themselves, that can be considered an intrusive "non-consenting" form of polyamory. Therefore, those people who are willing to invade and criminalize zoophilia or the act of sex with animals are sort-of consenting to the sharing of themselves and their property by treating us as if we were their spouses. They consent to being invaded. Otherwise they wouldn't be giving themselves to zoophiles so aggressively in the first place.
...they use self-restraint.
The previous poster already addressed this: " I wouldn't actually want to legislate against polyamory."
YOU wouldn't do it. You are not a potential rapist. Other people are not like you, because they are potential rapists.
Self-restraint is a luxury here and self-restraint is usually misapplied to mean... "You should restrain yourself from doing things amongst yourselves, because I cannot restrain myself from doing things to yourselves."
For instance. People believe that we should restrain ourselves for them, from having sex with animals... because those people can't restrain themselves from harming us even if they were never involved in the first place.
Even if we didn't have sex with animals... as potential rapists those people would find another reason to restrain us against our will.
Self restraint doesn't have a different definition for every occasion. In fact, I only see one.
This stemmed from a discuccion by /u/Cephaliarch in Monoamory and his/her take of polyamory. The 'oppressors' or whatever you think of them in this case are literally saying you can love how you like and they won't say anything or do anything against it, even if they don't like it themselves.
Didn't anybody ever teach you Chinese philosophy? There isn't only one definition or one side to anything. It doesn't work that way. Self restraint has two sides. One side believes it should be the only one to impose self restraint on the other. There will never be only one.
Philosophy isn't an interest of mine, but yes, I studied confucianism and a bit of daoism. It was a requirement for my degree.
It can and does.
Nope, and I'll explain why in a moment.
There is a concept, though the originator eludes me, that there is one or more conceptualization of something to everyone that knows the word. There is enough nuance in each persons interpretation, beyond the verbal reality of the word in this case, that each person has a different but often functionally similar version of each. So, if we want to use an all-inclusive scientific approach, there are a few billion definitions for self control whose nuances are so expansive and diverse that their combined interpretations are both sublime and paradoxical.
But that's not useful here, and nor is your coin flip. Only one or two definitions, ones in agreement are ever used at one time, barring specific circumstances. While you may have invented or introduced this new definition to the fray, that wasn't being considered in the sentence, and given their way of writing, it's more appropriate to deign your other definition of self control as 'control', temperantia dari non potest. It's like walking into a math class and yelling "I like rhubarb! What's your favorite kind?" when they talk about Pi.
Don't get carried away now, I didn't invent anything and there is no new definition. You should be very careful who you give credit to. Nothing of anything that I say is a new idea or concept. Maybe gone but not forgotten by everybody, and I have no intentions of recreating the wheel.
Have you ever considered maybe this "coin" was flipped originally by somebody else? People wouldn't know because they never saw it happen in the first place, providing this misconception that I was the first. No person alive today was the first at anything, no matter how much anyone believes they were.
Anyways, sometimes concepts that appear to be flipped are actually only being viewed from the wrong side, when in reality the concept is symetrical. Therefore, if it looks flipped to you then maybe you're on the wrong side, or perhaps it's not being viewed from a neutral point of view?
Self-control was not being used semantically here, and nothing was actually flipped. It was being applied as it was meant, how people should have the self-control to keep their own relationship expectations to their own relationships. By the persecutors telling zoophiles to have the self-control to not have sex with animals shows a complete lack of self-control by the persecutors and their own relationships.
If you abide world line theory, sure.
Never said that the definition was flipped.
In the original sentence, it was being used semantically, and was used as it was meant to be by the poster.
My response to this is in last month's thread: "How does being a zoo affect your daily life? How does it affect your life outside of your relationship with your partner(s)"