An article (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-04-02 23:13:38 by Zoo_ofreddit
OS2Oslov Deer Zoo (non-active) 3 points on 2017-04-03 06:14:10

Aparently our favorite "victims" are "dogs, horses and sometimes Deer?"

That's... different. The only other Deer zoo I know of around here is well, dead. We aren't common. Are they just making shit up at this point?

WarCanine Love knows no boundaries between species or gender-Mᴬᴰᴬᴿᴬᴼ 2 points on 2017-04-03 06:44:20

They're antis. What are you expecting? To say something smart? Not in a million years. Making shit up is their thing.
I've read something like this once: "Dogs, horses, cows, pigs, and chickens are popular victims with zoophiles."

OS2Oslov Deer Zoo (non-active) 1 point on 2017-04-03 07:53:21

There's different grades of antis. Not all are frothing at the mouth lunatics.

You'd expect this kind of nonsense from OpBeast. But this is an actual animal welfare official making BS comments like this.

You'd think he'd have more brains than that.

Swibblestein 2 points on 2017-04-03 11:15:13

If it counts for anything, I find deer to be quite attractive, maybe in my top three attractive species, though I don't mention them as much for reasons that are a pain to explain.

Cephaliarch Fox of Firstdark 1 point on 2017-04-03 12:15:11

The only other Deer zoo I know of around here is well, dead.

Damn, I forgot that you changed your name and thought that you meant that Huntington's got you prematurely. :thinking: Who's the other deer zoo?

OS2Oslov Deer Zoo (non-active) 2 points on 2017-04-03 13:25:21

He wasn't active online.

I'm still here. Hanging on by a thread maybe, but around.

thelongestusernameee lurklurklurk all day long, lurklurklurk while i sing this song 1 point on 2017-04-03 21:57:32

im dead? im a HUUUGGGGEEE deer zoo. but im not too active here because im just not a social person

thelongestusernameee lurklurklurk all day long, lurklurklurk while i sing this song 1 point on 2017-04-03 21:59:39

And, owning deer as pets itself is very rare. practicing deer zoos are even rarer. i haven't met any other than myself

OS2Oslov Deer Zoo (non-active) 1 point on 2017-04-03 22:30:05

I thought of you, but I qualified my statement with "around here" meaning local to me. I have no idea where you are located, and it's probably best I don't ask, but yes you are counted. :)

thelongestusernameee lurklurklurk all day long, lurklurklurk while i sing this song 1 point on 2017-04-03 22:34:41

YAY. But just for curiosities sake, ABOUT where are you located?

OS2Oslov Deer Zoo (non-active) 1 point on 2017-04-04 02:35:59

Northwest.

thelongestusernameee lurklurklurk all day long, lurklurklurk while i sing this song 1 point on 2017-04-04 09:38:00

Nice. Im northeast

Edog91 1 point on 2017-04-07 03:19:38

actually I like Doe's and dogs. Just not to Vocal about it.

OS2Oslov Deer Zoo (non-active) 1 point on 2017-04-07 04:10:34

Yeah, but how many deer have you actually done it with?

My point is that consummating the fantasy is very uncommon, certainly not a "common animal" as they claim.

Skgrsgpf 2 points on 2017-04-03 07:48:22

What I don't like is how the article views zoos within the context of "criminality". People ought to stop thinking of zoos as "criminals" and start thinking of them in other less-hostile ways.

A few quotes from the article:

"The judge called Rendon's actions 'despicable and highly disturbing.'"

I thought judges weren't supposed to have an undue bias in their decision-making.

"... with tougher penalties and no requirement to prove physical harm"

Proves the Ohio law was made for irrational reasons (no harm needed means it wasn't really about animal abuse)

"The Humane Society of the United States led the lobbying effort to outlaw bestiality"

Why so many states are making new bills

"This did have ramifications for human violence. Sexually deviant acts are a red flag to other acts of sexual violence."

That's not true (in terms of zoo). They've made up this idea that zoos are "violent" because of "linkage".

"Since 2005, arrests for animal sex abuse and exploitation in the U.S. have risen dramatically."

Because of the new laws being made (also, the word "abuse" should not be applied to all sex with animals)

Jenny Edwards, a criminologist in Washington who studies the issue... "It's been great for deviants," Edwards said. ... "[it is] far more sinister than people realize it is."

She is a prominent anti-zoo. Sex with animals is not "sinister"

"A decade of research by Edwards also shows links between those who abuse animals and those who abuse other vulnerable groups"

Nonsense / lies (if by "abuse" they mean sex with animals). Research done by an anti-zoo is going to be anti-zoo (confirmation bias)

fuzzyfurry 1 point on 2017-04-03 08:16:58

"... with tougher penalties and no requirement to prove physical harm"

Proves the Ohio law was made for irrational reasons (no harm needed means it wasn't really about animal abuse)

Well, physical harm is not the only harm that should be relevant. Psychological harm should be animal cruelty too.

"This did have ramifications for human violence. Sexually deviant acts are a red flag to other acts of sexual violence."

That's not true (in terms of zoo). They've made up this idea that zoos are "violent" because of "linkage".

They're not talking about zoos at all. Read carefully: "other acts of sexual violence". They're only thinking of bestiality as a "sexual act of violence" in the first place. Zoos are not even part of the discussion. You could call it erasure.

(if by "abuse" they mean sex with animals)

I would say it depends who "they" is. People who put significant work into research like Chandler Edwards are surely keeping their language vague and ambiguous intentionally for their agenda. Other people like most politicians and probably even most people in the humane society just don't know better because they believe those "experts" - from their perspective, why would those experts lie and mislead?

Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-04-03 21:50:10

Well, physical harm is not the only harm that should be relevant. Psychological harm should be animal cruelty too.

True, but anti-zoos believe that ALL sex with animals causes psychological harm to animals, which isn't true. For example, if an animal initiates a sex act (with a human), how would that be "psychologically harmful" to the animal? And why don't anti-zoos ever question the "psychological harm" (potentially) done to animals who are artificially inseminated, or slaughtered in terrible conditions? What about the psychological harm done to a deer that is hunted?

Zoos are not even part of the discussion.

They are insofar as zoos being denigrated by alleged "association" with those other things.

from their perspective, why would those experts lie and mislead?

I can see how they could be misled, however people like Edwards (who clearly have an anti-zoo bias and agenda) should not be trusted to produce reliable data.

AmoreBestia Pro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-04-03 22:44:58

And why don't anti-zoos ever question the "psychological harm" (potentially) done to animals who are artificially inseminated, or slaughtered in terrible conditions? What about the psychological harm done to a deer that is hunted?

They do. Just, it serves a material purpose. Try finding someone that won't support better living conditions for farm animals.

I can see how they could be misled, however people like Edwards (who clearly have an anti-zoo bias and agenda) should not be trusted to produce reliable data.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can't assess it accurately. I don't like the republican agenda, for instance, but I can still be rational about it and assess it pretty accurately. A person's feelings on the matter needn't influence their understanding of it.

Swibblestein 1 point on 2017-04-04 01:22:46

Try finding someone that won't support better living conditions for farm animals.

That's actually not too hard, unfortunately.

Yearningmice Zoophile 1 point on 2017-04-07 12:00:32

Jenny Edwards is an idealogue. I've actually talked to her to find out how she "researches" things. First, she has no real formal training, you can search up her CV online. She has a 'proprietary' database of zoo crimes pulled from newspapers and court documents(which is already a hugely biased sample as any gay man from the 50s would tell you!). I asked her how she filters the database and what goes into it and it is on an "as it feels" basis although she wouldn't say so directly.

She literally just pays to be a member of a criminology professional group. Another example of why credentials matter when it comes to professionals.

It reminds me of the doctor here in Canada. He was the leading expert in child death by violence for decades. He had no real formal training in the task just was a doctor and had been a coroner if I recall for a few years. He was instrumental in putting dozens of parents behind bars do to a "shaken baby syndrome" like explanation of certain neck x-rays he was willing to go on the stand and state "expertly" it was the cause of death. Of course, it turns out two decades later he never had any clue what he was talking about. Professional radiologists finally challenged what was going on in the court and the entire radiology professional group here put out a statement that the "syndrome" didn't actually exist.

I will say, categorically, that you cannot "hate" something and be a reasonable arbiter of what is really going on. Just like they always say about any pro-zoo, they gotta be a zoo so of course they say what they say.

Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-04-08 00:46:03

What bothers me is that the media treats Jenny Edwards as a reliable source, and the fact that she is interviewed in many news articles, such as the one in this thread. Her narrative is one which paints all zoos as "deviant criminals", and her propaganda damages the image of zoos in the public (for example, talking about zoo in terms of "criminality" rather then as a sexual orientation).

Yearningmice Zoophile 1 point on 2017-04-08 01:52:10

The basis of videos like this 1950s beauty was the same kind of study on gays as has been cited against zoos today.

We don't learn from our collective history and the same deceptions always seem to work.

30-30 amator equae 1 point on 2017-04-04 09:54:44

It´s nice you see how others are "mislead", but completely fail to see how you are simultaneously mislead and misleading others by posting your generic "Pro zoo" rants in here. You don´t even get the words right and make stuff up/pull stuff out of your arse, yet present it as "absolutely true".

First (well, not really ´cause I´ve told you over and over again), there is NO "anti zoo" law, there are anti bestiality laws. Second, define the word "antis"...to you, it seems as if every single person not immediately saying "You fuck animals? Cool stuff,dude! Where can I see footage?" is an "anti". But in reality, actual antis are but a very small group of people who dedicate lots of time (some even their entire life, as it seems) on trying to "doxx" , "expose" or "hunt" "zoos". Then there´s a vast majority of rather undecided normal people, obviously leaning to the "we don´t want people to fuck animals" side. Are they antis too?

No, they´re not. They don´t care about someone fucking HIS animal as long as this guy isn´t shoving it into their faces or physical abuse is clearly visible. Or, as Silkythighs has told you in BF "Yeah, be weird, but don´t be weird anywhere near me".

You really are a braindead, man. Sometimes I even wonder if you´re a bot or something, but then I realise that bots would probably adapt their narrative from time to time.

You vastly exaggerate the power laws have over you, you also have this trench fight mentality (" us versus them ") and see the world in black and white and all of that without a single second of actual real experience with an animal yourself. In a novel, you´d be the textbook flat character who´s not changing at all from page one to the final page, you do not learn, you do not adapt, you do not reevaluate your own views. Stiff like a frozen stick. In a way, you´re not different from those antis ; you don´t listen, nothing can penetrate your prefabricated "truths", your logical abilities are somewhere near dim and nought and a real discussion with you simply isn´t possible due to your fixated reality tunnel of "Ooooh, we zoos are sooo persecuted and unjustly treated".

With what you do in here, Beastforum and probably in some more "zoo" forums is DETRIMENTAL to our cause. You don´t reflect actual truth, actual reality in your posts, no, you´re trying to incite a "zoo riot" (...well, just look at the footage of the "Zoophile Rights day" to get an idea what such a "riot" would be like) and don´t even waste a single thought on the consequences...for each single person stepping into the limelight, for our entire community and , last but not least, the animals. Actually I am honestly surprised how little place the animals´ perspective of zoophilia has in your rants...almost as if they don´t have anything to "say" or contribute. All you do is pushing your "zoophile" agenda, your human centered illusion of "zoo rights" (once again, NOBODY on this goddamn rock spinning in space has a RIGHT on sex, NO ONE!!).

Honestly, you´re basically the same as those braindead campaigners against "zoophilia", you´re equally brainless in your rants and posts, you too fall short of seeing things objectively, you too cannot transgress the line of your ideological prison you´ve built for yourself.

All you present in here is so damn far off from actual reality , so far off from a real zoo´s life reality...how difficult is it to simply accept that people don´t want to be confronted with "zoophilia", not for religious reasons or because they hate us, zoophilia or anything else, but because they don´t want to see, hear or read about people fucking animals.You demand "zoo rights", but society has a right not to be confronted with us, too. The biggest detrimental effects for our cause always emerged when things surfaced from privacy into the public. Enumclaw, Doug Spink, fencehoppers, animal porn makers seized etc... if you really want to improve things for zoophiles, don´t campaign for a ridiculously stupid attempt to overthrow legislation...it won´t happen, not with 10, 100,1000 or a million supporters. If you really want to change things, stop idiots from surfacing with their bullshit. Disencourage ANY fencehopper, stop supporting the illegal porn mafia from twisting and tearing our already badly shaped public image. You simply don´t dismantle a bomb with brute force and a sledgehammer, you know...leave this job to the specialists, for god´s sake. And, for god´s sake, find the key that unlocks your friggin´ mind and sets you free from your self built cage. If we actually want to change things, we need THINKING,ADAPTIVE minds, not "ZOO" ZOMBIES like you obviously are...

[deleted] 1 point on 2017-04-03 14:16:56

[deleted]

Darkspirit5 1 point on 2017-04-04 00:11:43

Outlawing bestiality won't change anything for non-practicing zoos such as myself, so I don't even care.

OS2Oslov Deer Zoo (non-active) 4 points on 2017-04-05 21:06:37

It won't change anything for me either, but I like to think beyond my own self.

AmoreBestia Pro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-04-05 23:53:42

Same. I try my best to think globally about decisions. I find that that kind of mindset is relative to the scope of ones' own ambitions and concerns.

Darkspirit5 1 point on 2017-04-06 05:51:25

Good luck with trying to change the law, though

OS2Oslov Deer Zoo (non-active) 1 point on 2017-04-07 04:11:08

It's by and large out of our hands, but regardless, I start with public perception and work up. You don't eat a whale whole.

Darkspirit5 1 point on 2017-04-07 15:55:38

I'll make sure to spread the word of how great people that zoophiles are. Of course, then I'd be lying. This community isn't doing such a good job of portraying an image of love and acceptance. And I can say firsthand that zoophiles seem to be even worse than the general population when it comes to either of those things, which is ironic. Even though I'm a misanthrope, I still do try to be nice to other people, but only if they're treating me with respect first.

OS2Oslov Deer Zoo (non-active) 1 point on 2017-04-08 04:31:36

I'll make sure to spread the word of how great people that zoophiles are. Of course, then I'd be lying.

shrugs

Not surprising you say that knowing you come from zoophilesforum, frankly.

Darkspirit5 1 point on 2017-04-08 06:25:42

I left that place because it was full of old timers who were out of touch with the younger generation. And of course, some have even had animals literally handed to them from a young age. I suppose being at that forum provided a lot of negative exposure. They also pretty much treated me like an outcast the whole time I was there, but only because I wasn't as fortunate as them. Is that what you're getting at?

OS2Oslov Deer Zoo (non-active) 1 point on 2017-04-09 23:33:35

It's not being old. I'm friends with an old zoo (or was, anyways, he's gone now). They are a.) paranoid as fuck. b.) don't like outsiders. c.) ban anyone who doesn't fit the mold.

They also have some questionable ethics permeating their mists.

I can't think of one good thing to say about that place, other than it's a slight cut above beastforum.

I've been with the zoophile community for quite some time. This reddit is probably the best community we have at the moment, but it's not the best we've ever had. We've had our ups and downs to be certain, and right now we are very very down.

PS: BTW, when I was banned, they read my PMs and then pretended they didn't. I had it confirmed from a mod who quit over it later. Don't trust them, like, at all.

Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-04-08 00:36:11

Things might turn out better if zoos organized and tried to fight the laws in court, but the problem is that they're all in the closet. Anti-zoos have carte blanche control because there's no one around to oppose them.

The public perception is that of an assumption of illegality (for example, legislators referring to sex with animals as a "crime" even when it hasn't been outlawed in their state); and that assumption needs to be eliminated (a less hostile narrative needs to be adopted, one that focuses on zoos as people instead of as "criminals").

OS2Oslov Deer Zoo (non-active) 1 point on 2017-04-08 04:32:42

I've thought about taking a court case out in my state. It's not like I'd care, I got nearly nothing to lose, and I'm a highly sympathetic character. Problem in my case isn't a closet situation, it's lack of money.

30-30 amator equae 1 point on 2017-04-08 13:32:48

Well, then start showing YOUR face to the public, Skgfxyz...oh, btw, there ARE people doing exactly this, they call themselves ZETA and their results are ..well...your equation is flawed. How long will you keep up your infantile "all we (you still haven´t told us how you´re involved in zoophilia, btw) have to do is organise and show our faces" narrative.

With what is and isn´t known about you, you could aswell be an agent provocateur trying to lure zoos into thinking that "now is our time" ...only to be easily "plucked" down by authorities....Well, thanks, officer, but no...

OS2Oslov Deer Zoo (non-active) 1 point on 2017-04-09 23:38:14

To be fair as a counter argument, I think he's arguing we all do it "at once."

To be sure, a large number would help. It might make them think for 5 minutes before they lock us up... mostly about how to build new prisons.