The zoo community has done nothing but split and fracture under pressure. For a community that wants nothing more than acceptance, it's pretty disgusting how so many of you blame eachother. The prudes against sex and porn, the self loathing zoos who won't even accept themselves. Instead of sticking together under a common goal, you split and try to reinvent what a zoo is, and all I see is this constantly perpetuating no true scotsman garbage.
All I ever see whenever I come on here is about how X group of zoos is dragging group Y down, that they're " not true zoophiles "
Stop attacking fetishists, it just makes you and your position look weak. You have no right to attack " beastialists " either, stop trying to use sex and porn as a scapegoat. You can be against real abuse, you can be against real harm, but stop trying to throw others under the bus for inane bullshit.
A very trustworthy contribution from a "new" member...;)
I repeat it for you once again: this isn´t about taking away "zoophilia" from all the ones not fitting into our moral codex. This is about creating a spearhead group that is most fit to tackle society because they abstain from all behaviour that can easily be interpreted as unhealthy, mentally disturbed or excessiveness. You act like your animal gets taken away immediately once "we" evil persons declare you officially non zoo, beasty. So what? What changes for you, except you´re not part of this spearhead primarily created to have a better stance with normal folks who DON`T believe in animal fetishism, despise animal porn as what it is , animal exploitation, reject polyamoury and all the other stuff that is objectively placing unnecessary obstacles in the way towards more tolerance.
Do you really prefer your egocentric fear "not to belong" over a possibly increased chance to get a foot into the door of society? Is your self esteem as a "zoo" really more important than actual change that might be possible? If yes, then you´re completely lost and things will get worse and worse in every way, for everyone. Do you accuse pioneers scanning unknown grounds as elitists and "splitters", especially when there never was any unity that could be split within our community? It is clear now: as much as you all demand tolerance and permissiveness from society, as much you really are deeply fascistoid, not tolerating opinions other than your own. "There shall be no god besides me". And the pariahs who dare think differently are treated like you all complain to be treated by society. Bigrony....bigotry and irony.
What threatens you so much in the idea to form a spearhead group with morals that are the most likely to gain tolerance from Joe Average who believes in a traditional pitcure of love and maybe can relate to us "pervos" just because of these matching morals? Are you really so self indulged, so self obsessed you don´t realise you´re throwing away a possible improvement solely for the "reason" not having to feel "left out" although no one has ever proposed to wage a "zoo vs. beasty" war against you? Are you and your peculiar feelings "to belong" really more important than actual possible change. Are you more important than the target you pretend to have, an improvement in perception of interspecies sex? All I see in this is selfishness and the ineptness to deal with an alleged setback from "your own kind". Infantile and selfish, on a scale that really makes me wonder about your objective ability to selflessly deal with animals.
PS: A spearhead group like the one I described above already exists for several years now. And, where is the war we elitist assholes are supposed to wage against you? Has one true zoo ever did you anything wrong? Except from hurting your precious feelings? We´re already at work here in Europe, dude. And we all live in relative safety, in our environments. And, has anything changed? Or isn´t it true that these beasty vs. zoo controversies ALWAYS existed.
[deleted]
Ah fuck, another insane 30-30 rant.
You talk about having a better stance with normal folks, but the fact is that that fools nobody. By sweeping things under the rug, you're just creating a bigger problem. By disassociating like that, all you do is make everything else you say look weak.
Also, I will never understand how you can believe zoo porn is exploitation, unless you believe ALL porn is exploitation. If no harm is done, then there is no exploitation, and that is all there is to it.
I see what you mean in some ways, but disagree in other ways.
Yes it's true that this community generally lacks a unified position on any one subject. First, we come from all walks of life and all backgrounds. Some of us feel romantic attraction and others do not. Like any orientation it's hard to pin down.
Second, many of us generally see fetishists/bestialists/what have you as having little regard for the consent and well being of the animal they are having sex with. Therein lies our conundrum as a community of zoophiles.
Do we separate or include ourselves with individuals who are potentially raping and abusing the animals we love and care for? And in excluding ourselves from this subsection, are we weakening our platform by dismissively exclaiming "not all zoophiles!"?
This also goes for porn as well. You say there is no harm in the pornography, but are you sure? Do you know that, once the cameras are off, that they are treating the four legged actor with dignity and respect, and that they're not drugged, bound, and abused?
By our very nature as zoophiles we are a community of people on uneasy ground with our own community. I think that, by saying our acrid cautiousness is wholly intentional, you are looking at it in a very two-dimensional way.
tl;dr: I don't think anyone wants to create rifts in the community, but with so many variables and viewpoints on things like consent, it is hard to get a steady and uniform bearing.
In porn, you can see the sling laid around a mare´s hind legs, you can see cornered mares, mares that are led to a stallion but the human fucks her (how poor a zoo must you be if you cannot ignite her fire yourself), you can see definitive defense reactions from the "loved" animals...so no need to focus on the scene behind the curtain...that surely is even more disturbing and unbearable for a real zoo than you can imagine. It´s already out there, visible and undeniable. Only the insensitive refuse to see the clear signs of instrumentalising animals/ab-using them in porn...how can you not see this? And I don´t think we need to debate slings that prevent the oh so "loved" mare from kicking you. In more than 20 years with my mare, she never kicked at me. Only when we were running free in the riding hall ´cause she always had to be the boss, running ahead of the "herd", only then she taunted me with fake attacks when I was ahead of her. She just couldn´t stand someone running in front of her...me or other horses, no difference. But she never even lifted a hind leg when I slept with her. Her sign that she had more than enough was doing a little stomp with her hind leg. With this she signaled she had enough for the moment...and I respected that...It didn´t happen too often, though.
With easily perceivable signs of an animal being restrained by ropes, who can really insist on animal porn not being abusive? Not to mention what happens when the camera is off or all the snippets that are cut out and never included in the "official" version?
Absolutely. Porn as an industry is by its very nature abusive. That is why, if you do partake in the porn, you should be responsible enough to spot the warning signs of neglect and discomfort in the animal. I don't think all porn is bad, but a great deal of it, ESPECIALLY non-amateur zoo porn, is very exploitative. That is the platform that I think the OP is confused about.
People can exploit themselves for pornography. If they didn't, then the footage was taken illegally. That's why some places have laws criminalizing the act of taking audio and video footage of another person without their consent.
It's only exploitative if the person in the video did not agree to making the pornography, or did not agree to having the footage released. That's the problem with laws banning sex with animals. The laws didn't exist when the footage was created, so whoever is creating the laws are exploiting those people who's identity was captured in the video/audio footage when the sex was still legal. The laws are harming people who will be captured by secret video/audio recordings in the future.
Technically, the people who recorded the footage are using the footage to exploit, blackmail and hold zoophiles hostage. The footage was taken when the sex was legal, and without a timestamp the footage is being "necroed" or brought back to life as if it was taken recently.
People don't understand the concept... there is nothing wrong with having sex with animals. Now we have a situation where zoophiles are being accused of making pornography for fetishists, when in reality the pornographers are secretly filming and abusing people who have sex with animals by using the footage as leverage. The pornographers are taking advantage of the laws against sex with animals to hurt zoophiles.
This is no different than the way Anti-Gay and other criminals would secretly film homosexuals, creating blackmail and harassment footage. Yes, zoophilia is very similar to the homosexual struggle by the fact that both did not have protection against privacy intrusions or identity theft.
Here is a page that verifies my claims.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._Dharun_Ravi
However, the difference between this case and zoophiles is that people created the laws against sex with animals with the actual intentions to harm zoophiles, by using video/audio footage or otherwise.
As an industry, yes, I agree. But widely condemning porn is just an ignorant bias.
I agree because I personally do not condemn porn. There is nothing wrong with porn. However, I do condemn when people abuse porn for the criminal justice system or otherwise to commit bias intimidation crimes against sexual zoophiles. It's a institutionalized hate crime when the criminal justice system allows Anti-zoos to get away with using a zoophiles image as a weapon against the zoophile.
Please just stop.
Why? So those monsters can just willy-nilly walk off into the sunset and destroy my sexuality? Hell no. I'm getting so tired of zoophilia-hijacking "posers" crashing airplanes into everybody and making my grassroots sexual practices look evil.
They're sick enough to use airplanes as a weapon, and they're sick enough to use a person's sexual attraction to animals as a weapon. What's the difference?
You seem to be blissfully unaware that inserting your penis in an animal orifice is precisely seen as "behavior that can easily be interpreted as unhealthy, mentally disturbed or excessiveness."
Ask AlphaOmegaSith what he thinks of me....
This is what I see too.
I'm against real-life bestiality porn. I've also written a literal novel's worth of erotica.
Cool, I'm against real abuse and real harm. Because of that, I'm against welcoming 'bestialists' with open arms and implicitly condoning their consumption of porn that involves (or active participation in) real abuse and harm.
Not all bestiality porn is abusive, but quite frankly most of it is. Of the people who pop up here looking to get their rocks off before disappearing because we were too mean to them or whatever, does anyone actually think they're the type to give a fuck?
This is the third time I've noticed someone new popping up in the sub and basically concern trolling about how 'the community' isn't doing a good enough job of embracing a group of people who're rightfully associated with animal abuse. Luckily it doesn't seem like there are many people around here falling for it this time around.
EDIT: I mean, come on:
There is no reason to take these complaints seriously when the person making them seems to be completely ignorant of the consequences of the huge power imbalance between an animal and its owner/handler or what can (and has) happen to animals that were used to produce porn.
"This is the third time... (...)"
Well, "I´ve been banned on Beastforum with 15 + accounts..." quote of a certain user´s post history.
Honi soit qui mal y pense. ;)
I have literally seem the majority of any bestial porn in which the dog tops a woman and 95% of it is produced by consenting amateur enthusiasts and their equally enthusiastic pets. Speak not of things you di nit know.
There's so many things you can miss.
Things off camera and what happened before that.
Training, drugging, tricking them into sex...
Sure, we don't have evidence that it happened but it's some things to keep in mind.
But if you're not a zoo and just a fetishist you are not to be trusted.
Although I don't find having sex with female animals a more 'gray area' than having sex with male ones, in porn this is harder to decide if it's rape or not.
And honestly, I have seen it happen for both genders. I can't really call it consent if the animals are tied up, stuck in a room, kept being encouraged 'til it happens or with treats.
Lastly, profiting from having sex with an animal isn't right either.
A non-zoo fetishist bestialist pornstar wouldn't spend a single penny on the animals themselves.
This is coming from someone who watches and sometimes even defended zoo porn.
Nice post history by the way.
Really shows you're the sexual type and not the thinking type.
Any you are a fantasist who again knows nothing of the subject on which you are speculating. I have met, in person, women and couples who have filmed their dogs having sex with women. I have been present while said acts were filmed. None of the horror stories you are imaging applied. They treated their dogs and each other very well indeed.
I'm not even a fantasist. I have a bitch who I have a relationship with.
I'm an actual zoo, you aren't. You're some non-exclusive zoo obsessed with incest and probably other sexual taboo stuff.
I have seen these things happen in porn and you should not ignore that just because sex is the most important thing in your life.
And fetishists treat animals like objects. That's what their name implies.
Next time don't pull a story outta your ass. Thanks.
[deleted]
I'm sorry you can't get past a couple of typos or take the trouble to actually comprehend anything that i have written here or elsewhere. You appear to be literally incapable of comprehension or critical thinking. I am worried that you apply the same self-serving stupidity to your relationships with animals and i genuinely fear for the welfare of the poor dog on whom you impose you body.
The difference between me and you is that i can tell the difference between my fantasies and my experiences, whereas it seems you cannot. I'm not going to go around preaching to people about how to rape a bitch because that is your department. You stick to what you know and I'll stick to what i know. How about that?
Truly deluded and a big ego. The 'I'm in the realistic world, you are not.' card.
What a sight to behold.
And now I'm the one raping my bitch? And these beasties don't?
If you haven't read, I'm against rape as I'm willing to sacrifice anything to prevent it. Beasties don't even give a shit.
You're right, I'm not fit for this, we have other zoos who are expert in dealing with deluded and stubborn beasties.
"...and I´ll stick to what I know." ...aaand that is, according to what you wrote a month ago in another thread, not much. Mixoscopia bestialis is NOT a part of zoophilia, mind you.
I see you got offended and acquired a dictionary. Good for you.
I know exactly what you say and I know it does not make sense. Funny how I am the one who doesn't treat animals well. Unfortunately for you I am not insulted because I treat my bitch with respect and also respect her decisions, unlike your beastie friends who would not even know such a thing as sexual animal abuse.
If somebody's got to be worried here, it should be me. I should be afraid that you follow your beastie friend's steps and abuse animals to the max. But I know that even someone like you would only walk on the edge, not cross it. Or that's what I hope at least.
Also, does this sound any familiar?
Strange how I got a "that comment has been deleted message" right after that.
Since I can't think properly, why don't you explain?
Wanting to be part of any community, ISHYGDDT
If there are bad people in our community then we have to say something about it.
Zoophilia is a very weird topic because literally everyone has different opinions on it.
Nobody really agrees on the same thing and we can't do anything about it.
No.
They harm our image and are the scum of anything zoo related.
The word fetishist already tells that they treat animals like objects.
" They harm our image and are the scum of anything zoo related. "
How? You treat fetishists like the rest of the fucking world treats us. Assuming that somebody who is primarily interested in sex is some scum abuser is just fucking stupid. Does that mean that men who like lesbians are misogynist? What about aromantic people and swingers? what the fuck is the difference?
You can be against abuse, but I don't think you can be against those " fetishist scum " if you truly believe in zoo rights. You're just looking for somebody to blame.
I never said they were abusers, I was saying that they were scum.
A fetishist treats animals like objects.
The word fetish means an unusual sexual attraction to objects or body parts, so that's where my thoughts come from.
It's disrespectful to the animals. And they don't care about the animal if these animals are really sex objects to them so I doubt anything good will happen to these animals.
If we treat them how we are treated, then so be it.
We don't deserve it, that's for sure.
Also, zoo rights are rights for zoophiles. So that doesn't mean fetishists.
They don't even deserve that horrible 'zoophile' title.
Here's a little hint: Zoophilia isn't just about sex.
They're one of the right groups to blame as they really do harm our image.
If you are a zoophile and you support zoo sex, then you can not persecute people who are only interested in sex. That's just hypocrisy.
Saying that zoo rights excludes fetishists is just fucking absurd and impossible, unless you are completely against sex in the first place.
Same can be said for abusive zoosex.
That indeed sounds impossible, but that's why I'd rather keep zoosex illegal and prefer it not to happen by those who are not zoophiles.
Until we find solutions, of course.
Though, there are ways around it like AmoreBestia told me.
Like specific rules and such to stop such things from happening.
I'm not going to support humans who treat animals like objects, ever. They're a bad influence and if you really want zoo rights to happen, you best not support them yourself.
Imagine the antis when they know you support such people. Won't be great stuff.
So, being a hetero faithful husband and thus "supporting" hetero sex excludes speaking out against ONS´s and "hookup culture"? If you sleep with your wife, then you MUST be permissive of dark room sex orgies? What world are you living in? Oh, I see....obviously in the "simplify" dimensions...
"Saying that ZOO rights excludes FETISHISTS"...find the mistake! Hint: Animal fetishists are NOT zoos. That´s equally stupid as demanding black rights for white folks...
Nothing is absurd in separating from those who basically are responsible for the extremely unfavourable picture our entire "community" gives to the public. In fact, separating us zoos from the fetishists and the animal abusers is a key for more tolerance. You beasties are leeches, has somebody told you that? You stole our name, you stole everything we achieved and now, you obviously try to marginalise us and get rid of us. You say, we´re bigots because we don´t support any sexual activity with animals? I say you´re the bigots here, instrumentalising the "zoo sermon" whenever it comes in handy defending yourself ("But love...yaddayadda...no harm ...yaddayadda..."), but abandoning every moral rule when pants are unzipped. It´s only logical that animals don´t even appear in your equation. It´s all about "zoo rights"....where is the animals´right to refuse sex with humans? Where is your concern about abuse? Anthropocentrism and selfishness, that´s all what is in you.
Folks, you heard it here first: if you have sex, you MUST be accepting pornography, prostitution, abuse et al.. , otherwise you´re bigots. If being a bigot means to stand up against unnecessary physical and psychological harm inflicted onto animals by wannabe animal "lovers", then I prefer being a bigot over being a silent bystander supporting animal sexual exploitation anytime.
How are those things any of your business? You sound like a nosy prude.
While they may not be the exact same thing, they are the exact same rights. You either have legality or illegality, you don't get special privileges for your special little group of snowflakes. You don't get to decide who is and isn't allowed to do something.
I never said that, fuck off. You can have whatever opinion you want, so long as it does not interfere with the freedom of others.
If an animal loves you or loves the sex, they will let you have sex with them. That's enough love to define love and discredits the "sex toy" accusation.
Animals cannot truly be used as sex toys unless they are completely immobilized or unconscious to the point where they must be handled like an inanimate object. Drugged, comatose, tied, chained, bound, limbs broken.
Therefore a true fetishist doesn't "treat" animals like objects as much as they physically reduce animals into objects.
Sex alone cannot not define objectification, because objectification requires the animal be turned into an object, like "dead." Objects do not have brain activity.
A fetish can be more than just "an object." It can be an activity or non-physical desire and doesn't intrinsically mean that a fetishist who's desire falls with animals treats them like an object.
Yours is a very narrow view based solely on a single aspect of, and not even the entire fucking definition, of a word with apparently no thought given to the people who may identify as such.
I am not scum. I do not treat animals as objects. I do however understand that some of my desires are fetishes. Such as emotionally bonding with animals and, yes, even sex with them. But just as I treat a human being with other fetishes I have, so too do I treat animals.
You might not consider or think your being a zoophile isn't a fetish, but every non-zoo out there doesn't see it that way. And guess what? You're scum to them just for the thoughts in your thick head.
By the same logic, every sexual orientation is a fetish. What is exactly the difference between zoophilia and heterosexuality?
We both are sexually and romantically attracted to something and there's no excuse zoophilia is a fetish and heterosexuality isn't.
Good for you then. Glad to know you aren't a fetishist and an actual zoophile.
If you think emotionally bonding with animals and having sex with them is a fetish, then have fun with that, but I do know that's not a fetish.
And your point is...?
These humans barely know what zoophilia is, so I can hardly take them seriously.
And I prefer quality over quantity in this case. It's the ultimate truth that makes sense, not the false opinions of many humans.
Mmmmhmn, I'm the thick headed out of all of them. Sure.
Again, I don't care what they think. The majority of humans also believe in a fictional fairy tale and talk to their imaginary friend.
By the way, my condolences for your feelings. May they stop suffering.
Just kidding, I don't sympathize with humans, especially when they behave like a dumbass.
There is always Beastforum if someone is only interested in fucking animals. All kinds of fetishists over there.
How else are zoophiles supposed to find an animal boyfriend/girlfriend? Zoos aren't given a choice and there are many instances where they are denied caring for an animal of their own.
Even if they use BeastForum or any other website, the places are loaded with "bad zoos and beasts" who would commit hate crimes in the name of twisted morals against zoophiles...or commit hate crimes in the name of the law using the law against zoophiles who are just trying to live their lives.
There is nothing wrong with sex, and discriminating against it is a vile act of intimidation that can eventually lead to torture and murder. Regular people as well as bigoted zoophiles are forcing zoophiles to choose between abstinance or being held hostage sexually by other human beings.
Bigotry against these sexual zoophiles is bias intimidation and a hate crime whether or not sex with animals is against the law. The legal system is known to be used as a weapon against innocent groups of people, no different than holding a loaded gun to a person's head for the purpose of raping them.
There is nothing wrong with having sex with an animal who is showing clear signs of wanting it, and with the consent of the owner. These zoos are not bad, and I'm sure that there have been plenty of them who have done this. It really depends on the situation. When I think of a "fetishist," I think of someone who is not capable of being emotionally attracted to the animal, and uses it only to satisfy their sexual urges. As an extension, they may do things to harm the animal, but I suppose this is not always the case. So perhaps when we choose to judge someone, we should only look at how their actions have affected the animal(s) in question, and leave out any preconceived notions of what they might have done.
Beastforum does have a bad reputation for having certain people on there who have clearly abused animals. However, I also realize that not everyone who visits that site is a fetishist. It is a complicated matter, and really makes me wonder if I'm not just being a hypocrite.
I'll just go pet my horse.
Next you'll be advocating for "Bestiality Brothels" I'm sure 😡
No, fuck off.
Or what?
I agree with you Wibbler. There is nothing wrong with just having sex. This is because "sex for sex" is an even trade, and people and animals make these "mutual agreements" because of love. If you love somebody, you will give them sex. If an animal loves you, they will let you have sex. Love cannot be defined solely by strings attached, because that has the probability of defining puppetry, which is abuse. Strings attached means: money or favors unrelated to sexuality.
Money is the root of all evil.
Giving zoophiles no other choice but to work for love and sex is no different than advocating for brothels and prostitution. People should be able to have sex, free from prostitution which is sexual imprisonment.
Bigotry against people who have sex with animals is nothing more than a game, played against people in the name of forcing their attention and lifestyles into slavery. You can advocate for sexual freedom without advocating for brothels, simply by letting people practice their sexual beliefs.
Anybody who does not let people have sex with animals are very obviously in the trade of sexual slavery. This is because prostitution and brothels are both the opposite of sexual freedom.
There is no such thing as love without sexual freedom. There is no such thing as zoophilia without love. Anyone who makes you work or pay for sex does not believe in love, and that means they are not zoophiles. They are animal, human, and sexual abusers, abusing the sex for "unrelated" favors.
Yes, thank you.
Quite funny that you're the first one to really agree with him.
Congratulations, you just embarassed yourself.
How am I embarrassing myself? I'm sure shepp has said some shit I disagree with, but overall I think shepp is being fairly reasonable.
The fact is, if you want rights, you sometimes have to cede those same rights to people you dislike. you can't have zoo rights without also ceding certain things to those " scum fetishists "
That isn't just some shit. Look at his posts. I can promise you that his negative karma is not for nothing.
I don't do it just because I dislike these people, they treat animals in a wrong way.
Animals are not objects, they aren't made for sex.
And 'animals participating in the act 'cuz they love the human' isn't a good reason. Ever heard of training them for sex? Oh boy surprise surprise! When do you train animals again? Oh yes, at an early age.
And of course making porn to get money...
And of course caring only about your sexual urges...
And of course keeping an animal just for sex and not spend actual time with them...
And the list is even longer!
I really shouldn't have to tell this to anyone here. Common zoo sense.
Our 'zoophile rights' are not worth extra suffering of animals.
The animal comes first, not us.
So we zoophiles should not get our freedom until these wrongdoings can be easily tracked so no animals suffer from our rights.
All I care about morally is if harm is done. You're making the same shitty argument that people make against incest. It's like saying that sex should be illegal for everybody because SOME people are raped. The fucking problem is that you assume some sort of abuse where none exists just by proxy.
Sex laws like that don't stop abuse, they just prosecute innocent people.
Harm is done by these people.
Do I really have to pull that list out again?
And why is harm your only concern? Abuse is very serious too.
Using them for sex or money shouldn't be ignored.
How can you trust people who do not care about animals with animals?
No one should be trusted with anything they don't care about. Ever.
These laws do stop abuse from happening. Not always, but it's out there.
Making it legal will definitely increase the chances of abuse happening.
Now that's what I call a bestialist heaven.
No, legality will not increase the chances. Abuse will happen regardless of legality.
Yes it does.
If it stops a small amount of crazies abusing animals, then that already proves that it stops some abuse.
It does not stop all abuse, but it's better than nothing.
This is a good reason for us to find solutions first.
Also, bestiality being legal means less people being afraid to do it, which will result in more abusive zoosex.
Lastly, going by your logic we don't need zoo rights if it doesn't stop zoosex from happening.
I'm not Wibbler
Pretty much exactly my opinion. This place should exist first and foremost to help zoos, not to gratuitously chastise a huge percentage of them in the name of "our image."
While I go along with your statement that the zoo community lacks a common goal and is divided by severe conflicts which have been smoldering for years, everything else you wrote makes little to no sense to me. First, I'd like to point out that at least in my opinion, your demand for acceptance goes way too far. Instead, I suggest we strive for a minimum level of tolerance, which would be a more realistic starting point, taking into account the current legal situation that zoophiles face in most western societies. Your idea to lower the moral and ethical standards required to qualify as a "true zoophile" seems equally problematic to me and in fact, it undermines our community's efforts to reach actual tolerance or even acceptance. The current public image of zoophiles all across the world has been shaped by scandals such as the Enumclaw incident, by bestiality porn sites such as BF and by cases of fencehopping which frequently appear on the media. Thus, it is up to the zoophile community to prove that we are not the despicable monsters and perverts that society perceives us as. In fact, the only way of accomplishing this challenging task is to set higher standards and shed light on the "grey areas" such as fencehopping. Our community has to take a clear stance against potentially abusive or illegal behavior in order to emancipate itself from its negative image, even if this means we have to exclude those who are unwilling to accept this transition. Of course, I do not encourage any kind of elitism – there's no sense in promoting a notion of superiority among our "gold star zoophiles" on the forum. When it comes down to it, zoophilia is still a sexual orientation, not a contest. Thus, while it might be acceptable to brag about one's olympic gold medal, one's excellent PHD thesis or one's photo on the cover of the TIME magazine, it seems a bit ridiculous if people feel superior to others just because they have never touched a human woman in their entire life. To get back to the point, we desperately need these standards to give proof of our integrity, to restore our damaged reputation and in order to achieve this goal, at least on this forum, neither censorship nor aggressive behavior are the weapons of choice. Deviant opinions have to be tolerated as long as they are backed with reasonable arguments, which might subsequently be refuted in an equally reasonable and objective way. I think that yesterday's dispute between u/Sheppsoldier and u/30-30 could serve as a prototypical example of how quickly a discussion can escalate if we ignore this basic principle. For no matter how delusional and irrational u/Sheppsioldier's comments might have been, they could have been countered more effectively with a factual, non-emotional response than with a plethora of insults.
I do not like when the lifestyle, sexual orientation or practice is violently attacked...not by the laws, not by murder fetishists, prison/concentration camp fetishists and definitely not by other zoos.
You bet I'm going to defend it, no matter how insane the means might be. I didn't make myself this way, I am the consequence of bias intimidation and bigotry. Those are life's choices and rules, not mine.
Before something can be split apart, it needs to be together, and I think that's the fundamental difference in viewpoint. We are not fracturing people off, in my opinion, rather this is a group of people with "a common goal" as you put it... like any community.
The people sharing that common goal DO include some prudes, and DO include some people who feel badly about themselves, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Also it includes other people who buy into the "more than just sex" mindset.
People with different or even incompatible goals are welcome to join anyway and contribute their ideas - with no guarantee of acceptance but also no threat of baseless attack - or they are welcome to find one of the many other "circlejerks" (a.k.a. communities) out there with more liberal views, who have split the community in a way that suits their purposes, arguably purposes which are genuinely detrimental, but that is a matter of debate.
As to "true zoophile"... the phrase has no single definition. Even if it did, basing your identity on the opinion of one internet community is a bad idea.
Yes.
I'm a bit late to the topic, and certainly what I'm going to say has been said before.
Letting everybody into a community blank card isn't wise. There are people who do (on accident or not) damage to the reputation of a community. Even if they care about the community they can be very damaging. So great you are a fetishist that does care about animals' welbeing? Where is the critique to those who do? What if I support gay people but think that gay sex just because is stupid? What if I support straight people, but think that ordinary sex just because of doing it is retarded? Does it invalidate my support for it, if I think that just having sex "just because" doesn't have any of my support?
As with zoo, my inherit fear is (accidental) abuse of a partner. An animal is completely dependent on you when you take it in. And how many people abuse their animals by not knowing what they do and make mistakes.
Quick example I see almost everyday when out in the local park: I see folk just scream at their dog SIIIT SIITTT, grab it by the scruff or tap the dog somewhat forcefully and more yelling SITT SIIIIIIT. And the dog just tells them: "you make me nervous, I don't know what it is you want." And then when you tell them; the dog doesn't understand you, they get all bitchy at you "keep out of it, my dog knows what sit means he is just an asshole".
Quite frankly I HATE humans because they always act superior and wise towards animals. Yet a lot are clueless of what happens or what a dog tells them.
And the porn industry being nice for dogs, I bet they've at least been trained to fuck, if they want it or not, that's not important. Why do I know that? Because even in the husbandry sector, not everyone follows them properly if possible, and reading an animal to their feelings? even more rare. Just mention dog breeders who just are in it for the money, an socialized, scared sick sad pup is what they get ya. And they still have their company running legally.
You really think that zoo porn without any laws (as it is forbidden) really do have better conditions? Sure, I agree, there are a number who care about the wellbeing, take good care, treat them wonderful, but not all of them are like that. because where money can be made, assholes aren't far away from it. Especially in illegal entrepreneurship. And THAT'S why I have extreme criticism towards fetishism.
Though, it seems that by;
That has got to be the most disgusting thing you wish for in a community. Absolutely no self criticism or thought as of why that might be a bad idea, no, instead you just care for your own dick or vagina. Sorry not sorry that not everyone just thinks its all right to just fuck without thinking twice.
I have my doubts you even think of an animal as an equal or a companion, but just another thing that you can have sex with (fucktoy)
If that is the case, please do yourself and any pet you think of getting, the pleasure of just going to baddragon.com and get a fucktoy, they're cheaper and you only spend your money once. I have criticism that as where 2 humans would have sex, with an animal there is a species language barrier which a lot of people have difficulty to cross. Harm is done a lot of times, even if we try to prevent it, and since animals depend on us, when we care for them, the risks are much higher for abuse.
Yes you can learn me to have sex, hell, you might pay me for it, but it doesn't take away that even though I could do it, I wouldn't at all appreciate it.
Does an animal have a choice if it doesn't want sex? if yes, then wonderful.
You feel fucking horny and really want to get to fuck, but the animal doesn't? And how do you even know it doesn't want sex? If you don't know the answer to that then better not have sex to begin with. And each animal as an individual has their own way of saying no. and even that will be different each time.
Humans have a number of ways to say no, some reside in body language only. So, yeh, I'm very skeptic
This is what confuses me... zoophilia is sex with animals. If you like hugging your dog and laying in bed with him, can you really even say you're talking about zoophilia? If you just like the way horses look and have no sexual attraction to them, then you just like horses. Most of these people here seem more like furries or just people who appreciate animals than zoophiles. If you're so mad about sexual activity with animals, why are you placing yourself in this group?
I believe it's because there is also largely considered to be an emotional aspect to it. Many in this community interpret it as a sexual orientation, given the inclusion of romance. A good number of users take issue with relationships that are exclusively sexual because there is less assurance, in their eyes, that someone isn't being neglectful or overlooking the desires of their partner.
I agree with a relationship that is overly focused on sex and has a lack of an emotional or caring element, but these people who are angry at even the suggestion of sex with animals are kind of stepping on their own feet. I'm pretty sure everybody knows, regardless of what the actual definition of zoophilia is, that it is associated with sexual activity.
[deleted]
It's more than just sex.
Bestiality/Zooerasty is sex with animals.
Zoophilia is a sexual orientation. It's the sexual and/or romantic attraction to (certain) non-human animals.
And if you read OP's OP, you'd know that he doesn't really hate zoophiles for having sex with animals.