###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.

In answering some questions on another article for a friend I came across this conference "paper". When I researched it all I could find was the video made of the presentation. Since it is directly on the sub's topic I thought I'd share it. I have not had a chance to watch it yet but I suspect, seeing the quotes from the other article, that it is a good example of the "thought" behind the next wave of anti-zoo sentiment.

"...Milk stolen by men..." She obviously hasn´t heard cows mooing, begging to be milked to release pressure in their abnormally big udders. The first sentence and I´m almost out again..."ecofeminist" , my ass...and what´s this "beastiality" crap about, Mrs Eacofeaminist? ;)

I'm interested, but not so interested that I want to spend four hours watching it. :P Any chance of an executive summary?

It's a bit weird (what's with the frequent references to furries, but never actually saying anything about them), but actually not bad. Well, the racial point is. Something about nationalism and zoophilia is white privilege because black people who have been enslaved have historically been regarded as on the same "level" as animal as "degradation", so now they have it harder to identify as zoos? I mean I follow the thought, but what am I supposed to do with that? It's not as if there was anything that we could change about that other than being inclusive, which I believe is mostly the case.

She then continues with something like people who pay prostitutes and prefer "exotic" prostitutes are racist and what she says makes sense when you consider the cherry picked quotes by "zoophiles" she reads. The problem is, they are cherry picked. There are many, many zoophiles that fall way outside this characterization.

It just deteriorates from then on. She talks so long and says so little... In the end it's something about domestication is oppression in the first place and animals are forced to learn from little on how to behave according to the will of their masters and "breaking" them etc. But that is not really true, just somewhat. We do much of the same with human children: It's called nurture with the goal that when they grow up they can safely live in our society.

It sounds a bit ironic when she says zoophiles are arrogant because they don't consider what the animals want if they had other options. I'm sure many zoos do consider this often and deeply. I'd rather say she is the one who is arrogant when she presumes to know how zoophiles feel, how they view animals and what they do to accommodate their animals' preferences.

Even animal and environmental ethicists have had trouble conceiving of nature and of other animals as anything more than extensions and reflections of human interests ?? because they are resources for us. In contrast ecofeminists insist that we must resist seeing animals arrogantly as mere extensions of ourselves and should see them instead with a loving eye. This would mean recognizing other animals as having independent existences of their own.

Thank you! But I see two problems. The first is that it's basically a strawman when she says that "zoophiles are so and so and they thing this and that". Personally, I'm agreeing with a lot of what she says about animals, but I do disagree with what she thinks zoophiles are like. The second problem is that she is trying to argue both ways. The animals have been so "broken" by domestication and "breaking" them when they grow up always being made to do what their owners want that they can't possibly consent to sex. At the same time they are just forced to do what we want, because we give them no other options. If they had other options, they would surely choose them!

I mean I get where she comes from. With the cherry picked quotes she read, I do agree with her that those people most likely project their own interests on their animals. But it's the generalization that's so problematic. I guess zoos who are strongly supportive of animal rights and who do like animals showing independence and a strong will are not very visible. Or maybe there aren't just that many...

edit: In the discussion at the end she actually does differentiate more. To be honest that presentation is all over the place and I can't really make out the point.

I'd rather not have our 'community' and sexuality looked at under the lens of feminism, mostly because I can already guess their 'analysis', something along the lines of "zoophilia is just a tactic used by the strait white cis capitalistic patriarchy to devalue women and oppress of fundamentally as a class, reducing us to nothing more than objects, property like the very creatures they fuck" or some babble. My point I guess, is that feminist 'academics' really probably aren't the allies we want or need, they won't lead to a scientific understanding of us, as they aren't scientists, and they can't help us socially as they are generally seen as cancerous by the populous.

"That Zoophiles would claim that we shouldn't castrate animals but rather have sex with them and that would be the new way of not having puppies.<gigglegiggle>"

Hmm, no arrogance there at all.

"Species dysphoria" and so, therefore, a trans identity. While I know some who feel species dysphoria that would be a small minority. Most zoos I know consider themselves fully human..

I think she is doing a great disservice erasing women, POC and trans zoophiles. She claims that it is a male group but only goes on to explore this with the assumption that men are "fragile" or "dominant". Even so far as to dismiss women zoophiles as "one time" or "contextually not oriented" based on "the acts being substantively different for men and women". I'd argue that women have an easier time of it, and also are less likely to identify/talk about it for a variety of reasons.

Of course, it also goes on to "white men" after that. Noting that neo-liberal "tokenism" is used to deflect the problematic makeup of the community. Then going on to completely erase POC from the zoo community by talking about the Hopi snake dancers and completely ignoring the many dozens of bestiality cases that can be easily researched from Africa and India. So, therefore, white men have the privilege to choose to identify with animals as opposed to being identified as one by others... So yeah, North American much? This is one of the biggest problems I have with white women gender study professors when they ignore complete continents in order to make their case.

I also enjoyed the fact that because I'm a white male I want to be given privilege rather than identifying as queer. I wonder, did she ever ask herself if the queers wanted us. I'd be happy under the LGBT since I already identify under that label. I mean, it's like they aren't even trying to get more than a superficial view of the world.

The part where she argues that zoos are like a prostitute's Johns and that women cannot ever consent to sex, motherhood, etc due to "the patriarchy" are pretty wild but common themes I've seen in this group of arguments. To paraphrase, "Like a women, a horse has no better option so is coerced into sex." I do think her circling around to animal ownership and the rights that seems to imply is a topic zoos need to think about more. The other big problem I've had with feminism is the idea that women are absolutely helpless and have never had influence. I'm sorry, if they were intellectually honest, you'd be quoting MGTOWs on the way a women's power works. Of course, that stuff is as hard to go though as feminisms dark recesses.

On to the training of animals. It is interesting that here, again, a rather gaping lack of knowledge shows, with "young" animals being the focus of coercion, and yet much of the most successful and difficult training of horses occurs later, many don't even start until they are fully adult animals. (notably Icelandic and many warmbloods)

And now she's into feminist la la land where proof is words and fictional stories made up to describe situations which never existed outside of someone's mind.And a link to paedophilia, also "only" performed by men despite an overwhelming evidence that it is actually extremely prevalent amongst women, perhaps more so than men. It's just the act of penetration has been deemed "violent" and other things not.

A kick at "science" in for form of "cartesian" ideas and other "dog whistle" words.

It is interesting to watch how and where she changes references to the general as his or as hers. Each time she talks about the general "his" it is a negative, and each time she uses the general "hers" it is a positive uplifting thing. A starting point like that can hardly be called unbiased.

As has been noted, strange references to "furries" without context or meaning.

To sum up, sadly, "Anything I see as problematic should be considered problematic, those closest to animals cannot see as I do."

Finally, on my "live blog", as a professional instructor and as someone who has attended years of lectures such as this on diverse topics, wow, what a crappy presentation style.

And this is why I check the references, even from "bad" sources. Could someone add this to the wiki in media?

I French-kiss my dog all day & night

and sometimes in the morn,

Uptown folks with sideway glances

turn away and scorn.

As if it’s doggy-porn

But it’s true love, the best I’ve known

I stopped kissing frogs because I’ve grown.

And if you think it isn’t good

I’m sure you’ve just misunderstood.

Try it first; I know you should.

French-kissing my dog melts my troubles away

As if dog spelled backwards has something to say.

What works for me will work for you

Get rid of the zanax and prozac too.

Why pay the therapist all that dough?

When it’s the magical doggies we really owe.

Spend it on doggie-treats tied up with a bow.

For they will love you no matter what

I know it’s embarrassing when they sniff your butt.

Those loving eyes, those wagging tails

Are quite impossible to resist,

Let’s not forget those floppy ears

Just waiting to be kissed.

Think of the good-lovin’ that you have missed.

Go to the pound & adopt today,

You won’t be sorry or have cause to dismay.

Oh my God I love doggies & can’t get enough

Although French-kissing my dog

Leaves my lips very rough.

A small price to pay for this limitless love

Doggies bring the olive branch

So forget the dove.

I’ll French-kiss my dog till the end of time

It’s supremely exalting & profoundly sublime.

(“I French Kiss my Dog” by Gail Glassman in Urban Dog 2004)"