submitted 2017-03-26 19:10:42 by YearningmiceZoophile
AutoModerator 1 point on 2017-03-26 19:10:42
###This thread is in NO SALT mode!
Please be aware that rule 7 will be enforced more heavily in this thread and all disrespectful or derogatory comments in this thread will be immediately removed pending a report and moderator discretion.
Disrespect is defined as anything, intentional or unintentional, that appears to be meant to offend, shame, harass, or otherwise derogate another individual or group, within /r/zoophilia or without.
This does not include observations or fair criticisms whose verbiage is not inherently inflammatory and can be reasonably inferred or verified in some capacity. Potentially inflammatory opinions that are clarified as such and are in posts not intended to be inflammatory are not infractions. Our definition of disrespect is not meant to infringe upon freedom of speech, and if you think a post was wrongly marked for infraction, you are free to appeal it in a reply to a moderator's comment.
If you're unsure about whether your post has dangerously high sodium content, submit a modmail with a copy of your comment. We will tell you how to keep your comment heart healthy when needed.
YearningmiceZoophile 3 points on 2017-03-26 19:14:01
I thought this would be a good read for many here. Our future is neither bright nor dim. It simply is. We either embrace that things change, better or worse, and move forward or not.
It behooves us to understand sexuality, history, advocacy and how social movements get traction. Seldom is it because we just speak up.
ZooMasil 1 point on 2017-03-26 19:40:07
What has any of this got to do with zoophilia?
YearningmiceZoophile 7 points on 2017-03-26 19:59:40
Specifically? Nothing. The word zoophilia doesn't appear anywhere in the title.
In general, it is information we can integrate into our understanding of zoosexuality, what sexuality means and so forth... I thought it particularly interesting that to be considered heterosexual was to be considered pathological. Imagine, from pathological to being "mainstream". As I said above I think it is very germane to our little group to understand the history of social movements.
Dirty_CowDyke Bovine 1 point on 2017-03-27 13:58:01
As I understand it, "heterosexuality" as we understand it today wasn't considered pathological. It was simply a change in how the word has been used, not how sexuality in itself "worked". In a time when "heterosexuality" meant "having non-procreative sex with multiple partners" the norm was simply that heterosexual couples only have sex to procreate, but there was no term to define it since it was "normal" and normality didn't have to be defined. This view was heavily influenced by religious ethics (the article being very anglo-centric it is understandable). What changed is the base understanding of sexuality and that there is no natural standard to it, but I don't think it applies in the context you suggest here.
/r/zoophilia archive
###This thread is in NO SALT mode!
Please be aware that rule 7 will be enforced more heavily in this thread and all disrespectful or derogatory comments in this thread will be immediately removed pending a report and moderator discretion.
Disrespect is defined as anything, intentional or unintentional, that appears to be meant to offend, shame, harass, or otherwise derogate another individual or group, within /r/zoophilia or without.
This does not include observations or fair criticisms whose verbiage is not inherently inflammatory and can be reasonably inferred or verified in some capacity. Potentially inflammatory opinions that are clarified as such and are in posts not intended to be inflammatory are not infractions. Our definition of disrespect is not meant to infringe upon freedom of speech, and if you think a post was wrongly marked for infraction, you are free to appeal it in a reply to a moderator's comment.
If you're unsure about whether your post has dangerously high sodium content, submit a modmail with a copy of your comment. We will tell you how to keep your comment heart healthy when needed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I thought this would be a good read for many here. Our future is neither bright nor dim. It simply is. We either embrace that things change, better or worse, and move forward or not.
It behooves us to understand sexuality, history, advocacy and how social movements get traction. Seldom is it because we just speak up.
What has any of this got to do with zoophilia?
Specifically? Nothing. The word zoophilia doesn't appear anywhere in the title.
In general, it is information we can integrate into our understanding of zoosexuality, what sexuality means and so forth... I thought it particularly interesting that to be considered heterosexual was to be considered pathological. Imagine, from pathological to being "mainstream". As I said above I think it is very germane to our little group to understand the history of social movements.
As I understand it, "heterosexuality" as we understand it today wasn't considered pathological. It was simply a change in how the word has been used, not how sexuality in itself "worked". In a time when "heterosexuality" meant "having non-procreative sex with multiple partners" the norm was simply that heterosexual couples only have sex to procreate, but there was no term to define it since it was "normal" and normality didn't have to be defined. This view was heavily influenced by religious ethics (the article being very anglo-centric it is understandable). What changed is the base understanding of sexuality and that there is no natural standard to it, but I don't think it applies in the context you suggest here.