Bad anti article (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-05-16 03:10:58 by Zoo_ofreddit
Article:
http://blog.humanesociety.org/wayne/2017/05/deliver-us-evils-bestiality.html
More bullcrap.
/r/zoophilia archive /r/zoophilia archiveArticle:
http://blog.humanesociety.org/wayne/2017/05/deliver-us-evils-bestiality.html
More bullcrap.
Here's a summary and critique of the article: we start with a cherry-picked case in which a man in West Virginia accused of animal cruelty possibly involving sex with eight dogs, of which one was put down due to her injuries. West Virginia has no law against sex with animals specifically, the necessity of which is doubtful given police response to this case, but for some reason the author wags his finger at West Virginia when other states have passed such laws in the past few years. He then complains that legislators in other states haven't tackled this issue (despite the HSUS's successes in recent years), pointing to this one case as a plea to their hearts rather than their heads.
The fact that these laws are barely enforced for the most part is also brought up, which leads one to wonder what sort of enforcement would be required to prevent or punish an act that involves one person and generally leaves few distinctive traces on the "victim" if done with attention to their desires. It's even more absurd than a "listen and believe" attitude toward sexual assault as a matter of law, in that the accuser is usually so distant both physically and psychologically from the act itself as to have no way to assess accurately whether anyone was harmed by it.
Then we get the links to violence and sexual abuse with children stated as clearly as said links were made with marijuana in the 20s and 30s, or homosexuality in the 50s or 60s, and with equally compelling evidence: a study of 44,000 male adult sexual offenders which is not cited directly, probably because its author, Gene Abel, has claimed such links for twenty years by the use of a proprietary assessment never assessed by peer review and found to be inadmissible in numerous courts of law given its unreliability and unscientific method. Another study, which the author does cite, has a sample size of a dozen and a likely insignificant effect.
So, having failed to convince by both Ethos (this is wrong because... um...) and Logos (please don't look at the evidence, just trust me), the author resorts to Pathos one more time by reminding us of Grace, the injured dog put down in West Virginia. While Grace's story may have ended sadly, there may be other cases which turn out badly for precisely the opposite reason. The following scenario, while fictional, is bound to happen occasionally if mutually beneficial relationships with dogs exist.
A man and a bitch (let's call her Faith, for a parallel) live together, and act as a normal dog and owner: he feeds and cares for her, plays with her, takes her for walks in the woods. When she goes into heat, Faith begs him for relief as both a trusted friend and powerful being, and he has sex with her. She enjoys it, asks again, gets more, and the cycle continues. They continue in this fashion for a while, and he foolishly records video of it with his face and posts it on 8chan. Someone he knows discovers this and gets him arrested while Faith is taken to a shelter. She gets depressed and goes crazy because of the new environment without her friend. The shelter workers, convinced that Faith's abuse took its toll on her mentally, decide to euthanize her.
My question for those in favor of laws against zoosex is this: if such a law were put in place and enforced, do you have enough information to be confident that it would prevent more harm to abuse victims like Grace than it causes to happy dogs like Faith? If so, how do you know that, given that no expert knows how many interspecies relationships of this kind even exist, much less their effects on the animals in them?
Let me counter your question with another one:
How long will you try to maintain this myth of "All zoos are decent and caring people, only a few singular cases of violent "zoophilia" like the one mentioned in this article exist"?
If you look at the member figures in here and compare them to the "site for bestiality enthusiasts" with registered 1.5 mil users, it should be totally clear by now that we, the loving, caring zoophiles ARE THE MINORITY. Why do you think I´m trying to open your eyes on that fact although it constantly gets me into arguments and fights? Why can´t you see that you´re victims of positive prejudice when you keep up this "we´re ALL harmless and terribly misjudged by society" narrative? And why is it so hard for self proclaimed animal "lovers" to see the obvious? Look at the picture of "Grace" in the article....the proportions of her head yell "puppy!" at me. Look at the horse fencehopper´s case, he´s "active" since the friggin´ 80s, it took more than 30 (!) goddamn years to get this fuckhead arrested for the first time....
I don´t participate in speculations, I just evaluate the hard evidence...and this evidence says that we zoophiles are fooling ourselves, despite all of the contrary signals given by cases as the ones mentioned in the article. We should stop living in this fantasy world and start living in the real world instead....
This article, like many others, is of course generalising; it links phenomena with each other that aren´t connected.....in SOME cases. In others, they indeed are connected. Look at the vast detrimental effects sites like beastforum (that obviously is the mentioned "bestiality enthusiast" site) have on our cause. Why are "zoophiles", people who claim their overwhelming "love" for animals, so goddamn compliant, so goddamn inactive when it comes to blatant and obvious animal abuse and rape? Shouldn´t it be our group of real animal lovers to first open their mouths against ANY form of animal abuse? How long until you all realise that I´m not a hateful person when I propose and urge you to distinguishably DISCONNECT with the beasty scene, to do the "Mason-Dixon" ("Somebody has gotta draw a red line somewhere") on those that make us look like them? How long will you be fooled into this special form of "groupthink", how long will your deception of "all animal fuckers are basically very decent persons" last? How many articles of clearly visible animal abuse until you finally see the truth? The popularisation of the internet has made it incredibly easy for real zoos to connect...but it also made it incredibly easy for bestialists and "porn enthusiasts" to take our public image hostage; they even managed to steal our name and that´s why zoophilia in society has become a synonym for fucking an animal instead of what the z-word really means. How long until you all can identify the REAL guilty ones? How long until you see clear? Illusions are comfy and soothing, especially for those among us who are just learning to deal with their extraordinary sexuality...but articles like the one linked above are the price we pay for your delusions, for your denial to do the brain work. Where are OUR , the "real animal lover´s" voices against the sinister and vile that walks among us, usurpating our name, hiding behind us, the cancer growing among us?
What you folks do, what you automatically do whenever such articles surface is punishing the bringer of bad news instead of thanking him for the wake up call. There´s something evil we have let grown among us and now , this apathy begins to take its toll. Do you really think that your representants in all the public offices WANT to deal with animal fucking like they have been forced to in recent years? Don´t you read that all of those new laws have been installed as a reaction to what has become of our scene? I can only repeat what Mrs. Lautenschläger, the first one to address "zoophilia" and propose a law against it, has said: "What once was a relatively harmless phenomenon, only done by a few people in the privacy of their homes, has now become an internet sex cult"
Your narrative of "these articles aren´t balanced and one sided" strongly reminds me of the alt-right "Lügenpresse" narrative...yeah, it´s goddamn easy to deny when everybody else than you "has clandestine motives" to lie and misinform. If you don´t want to deal with reality, create a new one by discrediting every source, right? Tell "alternative facts", keep telling them until your narrative has overtaken reality...that´s how Trump got into office.
Fact is: as long as many of you keep their eyes shut on purpose, things will get worse. If 90 % of a certain group behave a certian way, is it really so wrong to make general statements about the entire group? In 9 out of 10 cases, the press is right about "zoophiles", whether you like that or not.
8 dogs...8 dogs were found with this "zoophile"....30 years, 30 years of fencehopping on horses he doesn´t own , 30 years of "love" in the other mentioned case...how long will you deny? This is NOT love. If you really want to change something, open your mouths...but not in denial, not to dismantle the "lies" of the press with the legion of "isolated, singular" cases of animal abuse in the name of "zoophilia". If you still think that beasties and zoos are closely related to each other, maybe think again....from all groups out there, the one group that uses animals as sex toys, objectifying them in reality is the one that´s the FURTHEST away from real zoophiles. It´s not society that´s our main enemy...our main enemy walks among us and is "supporting" us with their mouths, but is constantly stabbing us zoophiles in the backs with their actions.
How many cases do you think it takes to convince even the most benevolent and tolerant "normie" that "zoophilia" is inherently bad? How long until you can see the real enemy here? How many cases of neglected and killed animals of "zoophiles" does it take for you to open your eyes and face the grim reality? How many essays on "one sided" articles, how many scapegoat reflexes , how many delusions will you go through until you break free from the spell the online "zoo" community has enchanted you with?
https://youtu.be/iMAz9jofm_4
"We´re here, waiting for you..."
I know the point you're making, but you know as well as I do that figure is as inflated as it fucking can be. I'd be surprised if the real number is 1/16th of that.
Sure, I know and you know...but all those who are NOT "enjoying" "interspecies erotica" for breakfast on a daily basis, the 1.5 mil is a terrifying number, no matter if it´s genuine or inflated by the runners of BF in order to make even more money out of their animal porn shitshow. More users = higher value, more relevance, bigger target audience
That's a lot of words... although I read all of it.
You are right to be blaming the "porn enthusiasts" that infiltrate the zoophile population for tarnishing our image, but for all the time and effort that you put into writing, you failed to answer the most important factor of the equation here: How do we deal with these people, and furthermore, how do we separate ourselves from the bestiality community that has established itself through public forums such as BF? And quite honestly i'm curious about what your answer is, because I cant think of much we can do about it.
Sometimes it's fairly straightforward figuring out if someone is improperly identifying as a zoophile, but sometimes... It can be much less obvious, and like the man who has been abusing horses since the 80's, they can go unnoticed for years and no one would be the wiser. Anyone can call themselves a zoo, but who really is one is not as easy to identify. As for bestiality communities, and the many people who express interest in having sex with animals purely for sexual gratification, we cannot stop that from happening, and separation is difficult. We would effectively have to convince the public that we are different from them, no strings attached.
So what do I think about this article? Well, a man gets arrested for suspected animal abuse after a heavily injured and dying dog Grace is sent to an animal rescue for help by a member of the same family as the perpetrator. Was this man sexually abusing his dogs? I dont know, we dont know how Grace ended up in the situation she was in, and we dont know the state of the other dogs. In my opinion, between the injuries and the 7 other dogs he owned, I highly doubt this man is in any sort of a loving relationship with this dog. Maybe this man wasnt sexually abusing Grace, but that alone does not make him a zoo. So now we need to decide whether this man is moral with his actions, or immoral, and how we, as the zoophile community, should respond to things like this.
Key phrase in your text : "Anyone can call themselves a zoo"...and that´s exactly what the issue is. But I´ve given up hope for this to change anytime, basically because of this automated "tolerance" reflex the worldwide "zoo" community has developed. Just take a look at all the replies to my posts in which I propose a bold cut, painting a red line not to be crossed..."intolerant", "egocentric", "selfish"...as if this is something I propose so I can feel better about me. Well, folks, this NEVER was about me, it was about us all, each and every single real and genuine zoo. We usually read about how society abuses us and cripples us, but the bigger crippling is basically done by our own hands, by believing in what I call "the big zoo hoax". "Tolerance" has become your idol, your golden calf you dance around, worshipping it beyond any reason. As long as we, the zoos, don´t do a bold cut and condemn certain actions, as long as we flex and bend to "increase our numbers", no matter what it´ll cost us in the long run, our fight is lost before it even began.
And for those who don´t believe me, just hop over to the thread with the tattoo topic. Two people started recommending animal porn sites and it immediately spread into the Drama sub. People watch us, they recognise whenever we preach water, but drink wine. The ideas to distinguishably separate from the beasties and the illegal porn mafia are all out there, the only thing our scene lacks is the determination to live up to our ideals. If you´re into animal porn, you´re not a zoo; if you´re a zoo, you´re not into animal porn...it´s really as simple as that to cut all the connections. Principles before sex consumerism. Ideals before carnal desire. Standing for what we believe in instead of opportunistic actions. There´s nothinbg more impressive than people who actually act according to their ideals. Show a moral compass, be disobedient to our scene´s common "tolerance" narrative. Speak out openly against it. Don´t do like ZETA: condemning animal pornography, but supporting "amateur" animal pornographers when they face trial (as it has happened in the infamous "Verl dog brothel" case and the "Ramstein animal brothel" case).
Fact is, we´re so self indulged into our "tolerance" narrative (for reasons I can partially understand, btw) that we´ve lost track of what really is going on out there. We need to view our own scene through normal people´s eyes, see our flaws and correct them instead of whining about how society "oppresses" us. Everything we experience now is a direct result of our apathy, of our complacency, of our misunderstood tolerance. Our entire community needs an attitude shift; the days of "safe spaces" are over, guys. Everything is political. The dissidents like me are essential; our scene has put so much effort in disencouraging people like me, subjugate them under the joch of "tolerance", either forcing them to "sing the common song" or turn silent. There´s nothing alive anymore, just a mutual reassurance circle jerk...and, as our outsider "friend" has correctly stated, once there´s no movement in a scene anymore, it can be rightfully considered dead. Let´s reanimate our scene, let´s fill our words that now are no more than a comfy shield of defense with life again. We need to keep our turf clean...not for selfish reasons, but for the survival of our ideals as zoophiles, for the equality of ALL animals, for the greater good. Sometimes, the only thing that grants you survival is an AMPUTATION. Once you identify what poisons you from inside, CUT IT OFF, mercilessly.
And that is ZOO PRIDE, real zoo pride. Shout it out loud: "I am a zoophile: There´s nothing wrong with me as long as I obey the ideals of total equality of any animal , the golden rules of respectful relationships with animals (the original zeta rules) and also take into account what others see in us." Don´t dive into the filter bubble, be a living, breathing example of a better future for all life. If you haven´t already, go vegan if your body allows it. Refrain from all the furless monkey sex acrobatics and deviations, try to grow beyond human sexuality instead of full blown indulgence in it. Change the sides. Don´t play an animal, be one. Manifest, don´t play. Open your mouth when necessary, even when it´s your own peer group you´re criticising. Quit the trench fights, become free and confident agents of a different future. Don´t preach, be a living example instead. Nature has made us this way, has planted this special attraction in us for a reason. Be a fighter, not a whiner, show ´em what we´re made of. Don´t fall for sexual consumerism and supermarket mentality, show ´em there´s another way...show ´em that real love isn´t dead....even if it is for a quarduped...especially if it is for a quadruped. Don´t complain; accept and try to improve...as McMurphy did in "One flew over the cuckoo´s nest. Tear shit up, nature gave something important and precious to you, a small glimpse of what a paradise for all living beings could be like...be proud to walk the path that only a few dare or are able to walk. Be aware that THEY fear you for a very good reason...if zoophilia ever becomes acceptable by many, our world won´t be the same anymore. For the animals! For the ones who still are the REAL oppressed! Fuck your ego, develop your inner self, become a true warrior for those you love. And finally: don´t be afraid of anything. Walk through your life with your head held high, nobody knows what we are until he has walked in our shoes a hundered miles. Truth WILL prevail. True selfless love WILL prevail, even in the worst circumstances and environments.
No that's not simple and it's a very, very silly line. What's the definition of animal porn? Just real, live-action human-on-animal images and videos? Does it include art? Mating footage? Genital images? Who gets to decide this and why should we trust this person to be the king of the zoos?
Yes, the expectation to perform that porn and prostitution creates adds an additional potential for abuse. But if the abuse doesn't happen, why should I care? If someone gives their dog a handjob without feeling romantic attraction towards him, why should I care? Until harm- real, actual physical and/or psychological harm- is done, why should anyone's interaction with an animal, be it sexual or non-sexual, be my business?
Statistics sure are easy when you can just make them up.
[removed]
But didn't you forget? 30-30 and his buddies once upon a time used the term "zoophile" and that granted them rights to it for an eternity...
Did YOU forget who changed this so we face the situation we face nowadays, with a tsunami of new laws, zoophilia becoming a synonym for fucking animals and all the other negative changes? As I said before, MY life and that of my "buddies" is good....so, how about yours,huh?
All changes in society are very difficult to track. Your guess is as good as mine. So I'm going to say "Mickey Mouse" and not entertain your stupid question.
Oh, and my life is fine, thanks for asking.
I really like how you try to knock me down though. It shows your lack of a real argument.
If you've given up hope then why do you still keep trying? This is one of the biggest issues we have. We are constantly seen as them.
If we don't manage to find a way trough that, than wave any small chance of victory good bye.
Except that's not the problem. Anything we say is considered unusual and retarded in the first place.
We are judged already for the fact we're zoophiles, or just the fact that we have sex with them. We'll end up in any of the ''huehue lits maek fun of autistz xDDD'' subs any ways.
They even made fun of a certain animal's death, I'd rather not say who's animal, it's probably obvious.
See? Anything will end up there, even when our loved ones die.
You call anyone, even actual zoophiles such as me who have no sexual outlet, not real zoophiles? Godfuckingdammit, man...
That doesn't make sense. Because I am a zoo I watch porn.
If I didn't, I'd probably have fencehopped already, so which one do you want? Constant depression and jealousy is already worse enough, but me watching several videos is a problem? Yeah yeah...
But this is all pretty funny for someone who gets to fuck several times daily, and brags about it too.
I wonder how'd you feel if you couldn't have sex... I'm only wondering, I wouldn't wish such a horrible and lonely fate upon anyone, not even the antis.
police sirens
Anyways, it's nice that you think we should work together and improve, but that's a delusional thought.
I'd listen to the things you said in your message, but only certain things. No zoo agrees with the same things.
No matter how much I'd like to work together, I won't because we don't agree with the same things and have my own rules. And other zoos also think similarly.
I´ve given up hope for this thing called "worldwide zoophile community", haven´t given up hope for specific individuals who are willing to try and see beyond their limited reality tunnels. YOu actually hit the nail on its head with "If we´re not able to find a way through that..."...and that´s why I keep trying. This entire community really is like "Shower me, but don´t make me wet!"...we want change, but we don´t want to change ourselves. Egocentric fillter bubbles...
On the reactions in the Drama sub: In this specific case of allowing two zoophilia sub users to recommend porn sites to go to uncontradicted, we´re once again called out on our priciples being nothing more than made up excuses. The issue here: we as a community frequently speak out against animal exploitation and bigotry, but when animal porn, a pretty clear form of animal abuse and exploitation, is in question, boy, how all these "1000% bona fide zoos" jump to AP´s defense. You do too... You are disturbing me lately...you confessed that you basically would fuck any dog that comes along and now, you´re even doing the same stupid justification routines for your animal porn consumption...if your "zoophilia" isn´t more than wanting to fuck dogs, no matter what and if your "zoophilia" is the choice between consuming animal porn and fencehopping, then there´s nothing to add. What was that definition of zoophilia again? "Zoophilia CAN involve sexuality, but isn´t focused on it"...
"Because I´m a zoo, I watch animal porn"...well, dude, you can starve to death, you can die from lack of water, but YOU CAN`T die from lack of sex! And there´s this little thing called "fantasy" and "imagination"..nobody needs animal porn, normie or zoophile. Your argumentation is weak and similar to that of a meat eater who claims he "needs" meat, but in reality just isn´t willing to change his life, unwilling to abstain from mindless and egocentrical consumerism. Every click , every donwloaded porn flic is encouraging the illegal animal porn industry to produce more of them, "new" ones...and all of that just because people like you put their desires before their principles. Bra-vo! /s
Let me assure you that I had to go through times in which I also had no sex...without using animal porn...and I survived it! Incredible, isn´t it? And yeah, watching videos IS a problem! You´re fueling the animal porn idustry with your behaviour, man! Summed up, you´re saying: exploitation of animals is bad...unless this exploitation helps me to cope with my carnal desires. As I said, ego before principles...sigh...that´s how the original zeta rules have been watered down and hollowed out, btw...because people like you thought these rules were only recommendations. All these priciples and rules are pulled out quickly when under attack from the outside, but are discarded and wiped off the table when nobody from the outside is watching and pants are unzipped...and exactly THAT is why no outsider trusts us.
Last paragraph: Wow, you just found out we all differ from each other. Everyone has his own, personal beliefs...well, like in political parties, eh? But political parties get shit done because they actually find compromises and espace this stalemate of egocentrism "I only collaborate if ALL my demands are met! YOU should make compromises, but not me!!".
By the way, the last quote from me isn´t something you should tell/yell at the outside world, you should keep telling this to YOURSELF, so....sorry, no sirens ringing here. Learning the difference between the inside and the outside world can actually improve your life...and your obvious misunderstanding of what I have to say.
"I have my own rules"....well, that sums up the whole problem with the so called "zoophile community" perfectly. I´ll guess I´ll just leave it at that...
One small addendum you might think about: I went through 2 years of total, forced celibacy when I first met my mare and instantly fell in love with her. When she wasn´t mine yet, I simply had NO chance of sleeping with her. Then I bought her in January of ´94...and waited for another 6 months before I did it with her the very first time in July...maybe you want to think about that for a while...
If he's watching the vods with adblock on, then he's not really supporting anything unless the site is its own ad host which almost never happens. Clicks don't mean much if there's no ad money riding on them.
Then my point still stands, wave your ''victory'' of zoophilia good bye.
The position we're in now, we're going to need almost everyone to cooperate. Even then, it would be close to impossible considering how everything goes.
Like I already said, we'll be judged for everything.
You're one of the many who make zoophilia look worse. I'm not blaming you, I'm blaming the antis.
Zoophilia's image gets destroyed even more every time because ''omg hes fuxing n kising horses ;(''
Everything we say, every time we say ''I kiss / have sex with...'' we're already judged, and that will never change.
Please tell me how porn is always abuse and exploitation?
I'm going to be honest, most of it is either abuse or exploitation. Most people just do it for the money and even train them to do it. I've even seen obvious rape.
Yet I still won't believe all of it is bad. I absolutely see no problem in recording yourselves having a fun time.
If anyone has sex with their animal, it's suddenly bad when a camera is recording? That's some logic. Earning some extra money, that you could all spend on that animal, is really a bad thing, isn't it?
Did I really say every dog? I take that back if that's true. I only had one lovely male dog in mind. And hey, maybe I'll even find a horse instead? Just kidding, wow, I have humor left in me. I kept it a secret, but I always had slight feelings for some equids. And... fencehopping was only a thought. I would never do it because I want sex with my bitch and of course, I'm don't even know how.
And I'm disturbing you? When you wanted to give me ''advice'' for having sex with my bitch, you disturbed me. It was something like ''Using a little force isn't rape.'' which I don't agree with.
Let's not get feelings in our way, now.
I remember you also had sex with a mare you did not legally own.
There's not much difference between fencehopping and what you did.
Only difference = no legal owner. Is that really a problem to you an animal is owned by someone else?
Anyone fencehopping can be compared to what you did with that mare back in the day. But I don't really care if people don't like being fencehopped unless they're zoos who own the animal. It doesn't matter if we have sex with their animal or our own, they will get disturbed by it anyways, might as well never have sex if people's opinions are so important.
Ever though about how much you admitted to doing stuff with your mare? Do you know how much people you have disturbed by saying that?
I lost most of the romantic feelings I used to have, I feel empty.
Not saying I don't care about her anymore, but I just don't feel much of it anymore.
I shouldn't be blamed for that, it's not my fault. I just have a hard time thinking that romance is possible with animals and it really put me off and lost such feelings. I'm not aromantic. it just results in me wanting to have a real animal partner who understands romance, but that's impossible. I've never even seen the evidence that it is possible. It's probably a more grayer area to me than sex is.
So if I wasn't a zoo, do you think I'd be watching animal porn? Of course not, so my reasoning for watching animal porn is: I am a zoo (who has no sexual outlet, which is already bad enough.)
But what you said can be applied to everything we do for our fun.
You don't need a lot of things, yet you have and do them.
I should use my imagination and fantasy?
I remember you being against those ''fantasizers'' and those kind of people. And also thinking that your opinions about sex are more worth than theirs.
And I'm quite curious, what do you exactly mean?
If you mean that I must imagine about me having sex with her, then what do you think I do several times per day? It's what depressed me a lot, knowing that my fantasy will never become real. It's not even supposed to be a fantasy, I've heard so many bestialists (also zoos) my breed is easily capable of having sex with me. Yet, here we are...
And how am I supposed to masturbate to that? I can't, I tried. But if that's such a solution... I guess everyone can stop masturbating to porn and just imagine it. Hey 30-30, why don't you do the same if it's not such a big deal?
First, I never download porn.
Second, I sometimes find videos or gifs, so they can't get views or money off of it.
Third, even if I watch a video, one extra view will not encourage them.
Fourth, I don't watch porn that much, my jealousy even strikes there and can't masturbate most of the time.
Oh, my video only has 124 views, if only there was one extra view I'd totally make more. But I guess people don't want any more videos.
When, will that ever in life, ever happen? It's one of the reasons I won't vote: It's so fucking useless.
And remember, I have ads disabled. No ad revenue.
But in the end you did get sex. I expected sex and didn't get it and never will have sex with her, or my following ''''''partners'''''' if I haven't killed myself yet at that point, of course. Do you know how fucking hard that hits? To be so disappointed, and even see your own partner ask for it, but didn't get it?
You had sex at the age of 17. Do you know how fucking lucky you are? In my eyes, you are winning the lottery.
And hey, can you guess when I started freaking about our lack of sex? Yes, a few months before I hit 18, and at that age you had sex for the first time.
I know how you feel, though. It's hard to sympathize with people who are going trough things you've never been trough, or even understand what it feels like to be like that.
30-30, if sex is not a big deal to you at all... Why do you brag about it and have sex so much? I've only seen you admit multiple times you actually do have sex with her. And why do you continue to have so much sex too?
If you do it so much, then it MUST be REALLY important to you!
Whatever you answer to that is, is my answer too to why I want to have sex so badly with her.
Do you know how hard I worked for this? I've never put so much effort in almost anything, especially in such a small time span. (It is actually a long time span because nobody takes that much time to have sex.)
Think about this for a moment, put yourself in my situation. You realize that after she is fully grown, you can't have sex even though you expected it to happen 100%. You lied to yourself all this time. But you're an idiot and keep trying your best.
Your animal wants to have sex with you very badly, but later learns to stop trying to have sex with you because you can't have sex with her, avoiding all sexual contact after that. You want to only have sex with your first animal. You don't want to have sex with any other animal you get after that because you'd think it's unfair and because you wanted your first experience with your first animal, and even then. You'll never experience sex, and nobody will or can help you. You will never experience a simple thing that anyone can do together. The thing that ''feels like heaven'' and ''greatly improves your bond.'' You're already a not-so-mentally stable person suffering from depression, and all you want is have a little fun that anyone can have for once. If you could only have sex with her once, you'd be grateful for life. Even if other people will have more sex and enjoyment than you, you'd still be grateful because it only happened once. People with big egos dismiss your opinions because you're a virgin and abuse the fuck out of it. And you can't do anything to stop it, you only have one life, and you couldn't even have sex. Even the worst of people...
Wow, 1 view extra. We're popular!
I don't encourage shit and porn isn't always exploitation.
I don't support the production of porn, just so you know. Not really against the production of porn where an animal is clearly enjoying it and not being used.
But you judge anyone for watching it...
You're doing the exact same. Why don't I shove a list of rules you don't agree with in your face?
Why do you think you're in charge and that everyone must listen to you?
Indeed, this is everyone's problem. Yours too.
You also wouldn't listen to every rule some1 makes up in this community.
Please tell me what you mean by this. What are you trying to say to me?
I will be forced to not have sex forever. I hopefully don't need to explain that for a 10th time.
I'm looking really forward to your reply. I'm really curious to what you have to say.
To me the money making angle seems dangerous because humans aren't really immune to the psychological effects that make them want to make more money. People may start to think less about what's best for their nonhuman partner and more about the money without realizing...
Uh oh, too many people think like this. Imagine if all the people in the US who usually don't vote had voiced their support and voted for Bernie Sanders. The current political situation in the US would be completely different. Instead all those people don't vote because they think it's fucking useless. Talk about throwing away the little influence you could have...
Anyway, to me the viewcount of videos would be a much smaller motivator to rape an animal than money would be, though it's still a concern and shouldn't be dismissed. Places like beastforum at least look like they try to encourage such things.
Again, that's just being stretchy in my opinion.
If I made porn (IF I wanted to or even COULD) I'd definitely spend that money on her, and to be honest it wouldn't hurt so we can use it to live easier.
I just don't see the problem with this. You're making extra profit.
You both enjoy it, and as a bonus, you have money.
If that goes out of hand because of greediness, then that depends on the human.
Except that's a group of people. I'm only one person.
I understand that if multiple people shared this opinion with me, it will change something.
But what really matters in these cases, is that if I stop doing this, will there be a change?
If the answer is no, keep doing it. If the answer is yes, stop.
In my opinion the answer is no, look at my example. Nobody is going to change their mind because of there's one view less.
Hell, not even around 20 views.
And I'm not even sure if the bestiality sites containing these videos are the original owners of these videos, I have seen duplicates of them.
And as I already said, I don't even always watch videos so even if I influenced these porn makers, it would be so small. First, they get no ad revenue. It's rare, but sometimes even drawn porn can work for me. And gifs don't have ''views'' in the first place.
how do you not get crushed by the weight of that chip on your shoulder?
also you know how people are anti-zoo, you're like the polar opposite, an anti-hetero. what a laugh.
I'm not arguing this case as nonabusive. I'm saying that it need not be representative, in precisely the same way that my fictional counterexample isn't representative. The point of my question was that because people who have sex with animals are forced to stay in the shadows, there is not yet a rational reason to suppose these laws prevent more harm than they cause. Unlike animal cruelty laws, which do appear to prevent harm to animals and people, these laws are poorly considered reactions to moral outrage.
What you are saying about zoos and their community has parallels in the human world: college campuses are struggling to deal with an "epidemic" of rape, despite having lower sexual assault rates than their surrounding cities. This is because every alleged case is publicized nonstop as indicative of the larger culture. While there may be problematic subcultures (certain fraternities, say) within colleges that must be addressed, the actual response has been the subversion of justice in favor of accusers and a witch hunt atmosphere perpetuated by both students and faculty. Is this a net benefit for students on college campuses? I sincerely doubt it. I have less evidence either way with laws against animal sex, but due to the similar political and social situation, I think that they suffer from the same ideological disease.
I feel like in order for these stories to have a similar effect as anti-zoo stories, they need to have real faces and names behind them. Yes, often the 'factual' value of these anecdotes is much less important than the emotional/argument component, but having it based at least in part on real events would be helpful.
Partially this is because you can make anything happen in fiction and it doesn't matter if it goes against all real-world evidence. To anti-zoos this is the equivalent argument of "okay but what about a fictional dog that can only be trained by being kicked in the head and the dog is totally happy with this and healthy, would it be okay to kick this fictional dog in the head?" Regardless of if there is compelling evidence of inherent harm in bestiality (I have yet to see it), they believe that there is.
Using a real story would still present issues (How credible is it? Is there spin to it? Can the events be interpreted differently?) but at least dodges the problem of "you can literally make fiction argue anything".
[removed]
I would do this if I had a genuine story of this kind. The closest ones I have are people who lived with their animal partners until they died, never facing arrest for it, and it's hard to publicize those without outing the people involved.
Everyone here is aparently too young to remember what happened to ThunderBaySydney and his dog. That's a tear jerker, but I will not divulge the real names for obvious reasons.
So... what was that about?
They took his dog on an accusation of bestiality, which was blind and had numerous health issues. When he won his case in Canada and the dog was ordered returned (there really was no evidence other than internet posts, he was a mod at zoophilesdestiny.org, a then popular zoophile site), they euthanized the dog before he could pick it up.
He's still around, but not in the zoo community really. It was very emotional to him though for obvious reasons, to the point he completely withdrew from the zoo community for the most part.
That's absolutely horrifying. I haven't felt so bad for anyone in any stories I've heard online...
The people responsible for that should've had a fucking punishment.
Not so fun fact, I have nightmares, or daymares rather, and it's similar to this. The fact that it can actually in real life is terrible.
Not to discourage you, but I'm pretty sure shit like this happens everyday that we don't hear about.
That is the evil spawn of anti-zoo belief mixed with the "better dead than in the wrong hands" philosophy that an unfortunate number of shelters and rescues have. I hope that someone who has this happen to them takes it to court, though I completely understand why most won't.
If I recall, he tried. He didn't have enough money though, and ended his case with nothing more than a restraining order banning him from visiting the shelter (whom he was understandably pissed at).
[removed]
Not sure if I'm thinking of the right person here (the passage of time makes many things fuzzy and some of the more horrific stories start to blend together) but was this Sydney (Sidney?) the GSD whom he'd rescued from that shelter? iirc she was blind due to having been beaten and starved almost to death in her previous life, she was supposed to be euthanised as nobody could get near her but TBS took her on and rehabilitated her to an almost normal life. Just the thought of what happened to her still brings a tear to my eye and sets an impotent rage burning in the pit of my stomach.
Realistically, it's the true side of stories like this that are the ones people actually need to know...it is as horrific as it is tragic for both the human and the canine alike, but it shows a completely different side of the common zoophile to the usual public perception of "opportunistic dog fucker". It should also be a reminder to all right thinking zoo's out there, "there but for the grace of God go I".
Now if you'll excuse me, I see a big bottle of Ru...err, brain bleach with my name on it. I think I need to forget this stuff ever happened again, at least for a while.
You got it. Sad stuff and yes brain bleach... I'd use it but I think it's important people remember stuff like this, lest we forget and assume "everything is ok" with blanket illegality like 30-30 sometimes tries to sell.
[removed]
This is correct: anti-zoo laws can cause more harm than good -- in the hypothetical scenario, in which a human and a dog have sex, both enjoy it and neither are harmed, then police arrest the man and seize the dog (leading to the dog being traumatized and then euthanized) -- this causes far more harm than good, ruining the lives of both the man and dog, when ultimately nothing unethical was happening.
Yes, for sure, especially considering he was charged anyway.
"evils"...
I will not add something, believers could be hurt.
[removed]
This article is such nonsense.
In the article, they mentioned that a dog in West Virginia suffered injuries (which happened to be sexual) and died. But then, the author concludes that just because of that one case, ALL sex with animals needs to be banned. This argument is flawed, because sex with animals is not inherently "abusive" (in and of itself). It is possible for a human and animal to have sex and for no injury/abuse to be involved, something the author neglected to mention. It is wrong and deceptive to "cherry-pick" (as Kynophile said) a specific case and then apply that to all sex with animals.
Furthermore, the highlighted West Virginia case proves that there is no need for a specifically anti-zoo law in West Virginia and elsewhere -- that is to say, the person who was abusive was arrested under existing animal cruelty laws, which is the way it should be when actual cruelty occurs. A law banning ALL sex with animals is irrational because it is being driven by "morality", not by whether an animal was actually harmed. As stated, because sex with animals is not inherently abusive, there should not be laws specifically banning it.
The article also mentioned the commonly-used anti argument of "studies say..." -- the studies cited are not a good sample selection -- they cannot be used to represent ALL zoos, which is what the author is attempting to do. The studies only sampled a small selection of incarcerated people, and as /u/Kynophile said, these arguments (attempting to "link" it with unrelated crimes) is the same slandering that happened to marijuana and homosexuality in the past. So to use these "studies" to condemn zoos is dishonest and wrong.
The article also admits that HSUS is "methodically" going from state to state in the USA, and targeting the few remaining states where it's legal so they can push their anti-zoo agenda on legislators.
Also, the author says that all sex with animals is "assault", which isn't true.
Overall, it is a slanderous and misleading article designed to spread misinformation and propaganda in order to further their own anti-zoo agenda of banning it in all 50 states.
What concerns me is that legislators will blindly follow the flawed anti-zoo rhetoric of HSUS and that new laws will keep being made (in states which up until now have had no anti-zoo law). No one appears to be questioning or opposing HSUS's BS -- for example, zero legislators voted against the current anti-zoo bill in Nevada, and zero legislators voted against the current anti-zoo bill in Texas.
[removed]