OG dogdoodler, writer, artist, programmer, forum admin, animal rights activist, and zoophilia ethics advocate Ebonlupus passed away a few weeks ago. (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-06-11 08:53:58 by Cephaliarch Fox of Firstdark
He died of a heart attack on May 29th, something that was confirmed by a family member (or friend?) on his Facebook page.
Pretty unfortunate, but he lived a good life.
well then
did his family know?
Honestly I'd be surprised if they didn't. A lot of his work, even quite a bit of his tame stuff, involved rather sexual imagery. His name was also known to the anti-zoophilia crowd.
Saw this on another forum. It is confirmed BTW, by several sources.
Ebon, Hermes to the old timers here, was a good friend who had a very strong belief in ethics toward our animal partners, and toward animals in general. It was his stance against all bestial pornography that had he and I part ways back in the early 2000s.
I disagree with the statement "He lived a good life" . He lived a hard life fraught with illness at the time I knew him, and I doubt that changed much.
I'd always considered him a good friend though, and continued to even after we parted ways.
Rest in peace Hermes.
And his abrasive nature didn't help. It wasn't his beliefs alone that got him kicked out of so many places… it was his violent response to anyone who disagreed with him, or even who got in his way. Even his friends, often. Ultimately that's what left him as alone as he ended up.
Yes, well that was after I knew him, and after I'd gone offline.
Although he shared some of my views, I never liked EL for plenty of reasons. The massive campaigning, his delusional world views of zoophiles being superior beings etc...the Vivisector article sums it up quite perfectly for me and I really, REALLY advise anyone to read this article as it also contains some of my criticism towards the whole internet zoo community. Written from a very non-hateful, rather objective perspective, this article gives us all an idea why campaigning, invading "foreign territory" on purpose and the oh so common "ev0l yoomans are to blame" attitude are dead ends.
When someone dies, you are told "de mortuis, nihil nisi bene" , but in EL´s case, I have to push aside this ancient Latin proverb because he was such a textbook example for many things that are still going entirely wrong in our community. Be it the temporary realtionship with a 17 y.o. human male or him quickly giving away one of his female dogs (and I thought he was a wolf /s) after a fight with another one of his "fuck pack" although "love"...
Sure, I´m sad whenever the grim reaper visits, but I´m absolutely not recommending writing eulogies in his favour. Too much of what he said and did still bugs me to this day.
Oh so you do get mad over others opinions?
I knew it, it was simply too obvious! Man, do I feel better you've admitted it just now.
By the way, just like always you don't explain your shit.
What's wrong with sharing an animal? It's called a polygamous relationship.
And as zoophiles we kind of are superior like other non-hetero sexualities. At least we don't breed.
And he is right, zoophilia's doom exists because of evil humans.
"And as zoophiles we kind of are superior like other non-hetero sexualities.."
No, we aren't. Nor are we inherently worse. We're just a bunch of different humans who made one or more different choices...
Choices? Zoophilia isn't a choice, mate. If so, I'd be way happier right now, not having to deal with the many problems that come with zoophilia.
We aren't superior, but we are at certain parts because at least actual zoophiles don't breed, luckily.
And not to mention it's about animals and not those icky humans.
Well, that's your opinion. I've yet to see a definitive study saying it isn't, nor do I believe I've surrendered my free will by choosing it as a lifestyle, behavior or life.
Not breeding doesn't make one even partially superior, just makes you a non-breeder. BTW, you being a non-breeder doesn't mean all zoophiles are either.
You are one of many. That doesn't mean your opinions, or beliefs, represent the whole or even a major portion of it.
Another "by the way". Even if you were right in zoophilia being an attraction beyond our control, the choice to act on it wouldn't.
Because zoophilia is a sexual orientation, you can't even change it with ''healing.''
Do I need to repeat it again? If zoophilia was a choice, then I wouldn't have been a zoophile now, living a happy attractionless life.
You are the one of many who does not believe zoophilia isn't a choice.
And not breeding makes you superior. Breeders only harm this world by putting more humans on our earth.
You're not only hurting the earth and animals, but EVEN these human creatures themselves.
What's your logic that zoophiles breed? Why would you fuck something you aren't attracted to? That's the weirdest thing I've ever heard. Might as well eat shit and bathe in piss while you're at it, doesn't matter if you're disgusted by it or not. Apparently what we like and don't like doesn't matter.
Note, I'm talking about ACTUAL 100% zoophiles who are only attracted to animals.
Why do you need scientific evidence? Change your attraction now. Do it. Change it right now. I'll be waiting. Force yourself to be not attracted for a minute.
If the 00.01% chance it works, you're a one in thousand. And if it doesn't work out for y- wait, I know it won't.
Our acts have nothing to do with this at all. Yeah, some can choose not to fuck a dog, so what?
If you're an actual 100% zoophile that is not attracted to humans, you will not fuck a human. If you do, you are not an actual zoophile as you're fucking something you're not attracted to, which makes zero sense.
First, not all zoophiles are ONLY attracted to animals, thus your second assumption falls short.
Sexual attraction is a compulsion. Acting on it remains a choice. "Sexual Orientation" is naught, no more than an invented term used to describe a group who have one thing, their choice of sexual identity, in common.
Why scientific evidence? Because with-out it there remain differing opinions, any of whom may be correct.
I continue to be of the opinion that saying that we have no choice implies that we are forced into acting, and seeks to excuse our actions. I don't need excuses.
It's clear that you cannot accept that there are those who think differently than yourself, so I'm done with you and your narrow-minded circular argument. I'll no longer respond to you in this thread at any rate, as this has nothing to do with the original post.
Even with scientific evidence there are different opinions, by the way. Ask particle physicists, the International Astronomical Union, etc. If the method of action or observation isn't clear, if the input or output isn't reliably and independently measurable, if the definition drifts over time, there is always room for debate.
"Sexual Orientation" is a phrase widely used to describe one's innate interests, irrespective of whether they act on them or typically even how they identify (a gay person can "identify" as heterosexual, get married, have kids, etc., but a gay person cannot simultaneously be said to have a "straight" sexual orientation).
Of course it is difficult to measure and the term has evolved over the years, so I'm sure there are disputes to this point, but that is the common use, which most people intend.
I'm talking about ACTUAL 100% zoophiles, who are not one bit attracted to humans.
Sorry, I can't really take it seriously when people call themselves true zoophiles when they're also attracted to humans. Just doesn't make sense to me.
I'm not talking about the acts, I'm talking about the sexual orientation itself.
Holy shit, I keep getting surprised by humanity's stupidity day by day. You don't choose what you're attracted to. That's one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. I'm starting to feel sorry for myself of what this community had become. Beastforum really is a better place than this, sadly to say.
Nobody chooses their sexual orientation and what they're attracted to. How many times do I have to repeat it? If it was like this, I wouldn't be a zoophile and a lot of people wouldn't be either. Explain it to me, if you're not afraid of truth.
Sexual orientations are indeed a thing, you're quite dumb to ignore such a fact because you have attractions you can not control yourself. You even know what it feels like yourself. You are attracted to both humans and dogs and you can not control it, only your actions.
You can stop yourself from fucking an animal, but you can't force yourself to have sex with a creature you aren't attracted to.
You can not get me to have sex with a human, it's not because I despise humans, it's because I'm not attracted to them. Same goes for other actual 100% zoophiles.
Here's a test you sadly can't pass, while everyone else in the world could:
''Please explain why a gay male wouldn't fuck a hetero female.''
Keep your opinions to yourself please. I think you're blinded by your own anger. In fact, it's pretty obvious.
''I don't need excuses.'' My ass.
I know you're afraid of the truth and then run away.
Sorry mate, but you were the first one to reply to me, which makes it all obvious you can't accept the truth yourself.
Goddamnit mate, even anti-zoos know this... embarassing...
There are lots of reasons why an exclusive zoo might have kids. Social convention- feeling like it's something you're supposed to do makes a lot of people do it. For a spouse- regardless of if they're attracted to humans sexually, they may have a human life partner or spouse who wants kids. For themselves- not being attracted to humans sexually doesn't inherently mean someone doesn't want children. Rape- it's grim, but it happens, and regardless of the circumstances, someone might choose to carry to term.
Not all zoophiles hate humans or reject human companionship, not even all exclusive zoophiles. Those are your opinions, not a definition of any sort.
Then you are not a zoo exclusive, you have a feeling that you want to mate with a human. That proves you're not a zoo exclusive.
There's also such a thing as adopting.
-Zoo exclusive
-Human partner
Yeah no, then you aren't an exclusive zoo at all either, sorry bud.
Oh I know, I also have the desire to reproduce. I'd have puppies if I could.
But the thing is that you can't get yourself to fuck something you aren't attracted to. It makes no sense.
If you don't agree with me, please go ahead and have sex with an animal that you aren't attracted to. Of course you aren't going to, and then you're only proving my point, as you have no interest in doing such a thing, even though you still have the desire to have sex.
Also, like I said: Adoption.
We're talking about our own choices here.
If you get raped and don't abort your baby, you're quite an idiot.
You're hurting yourself, animals, the earth and other humans around you. And of course the baby itself, being another unwanted human.
That's not the point, if you aren't attracted to something you have NO interest of having sex with it, having a relationship with it or wanting children with it.
Tell me, are you a zoo exclusive / an actual 100% zoophile? It seriously doesn't seem like it as you don't understand anything of it.
No, the hypothetical person here does not. They feel pressured into societal convention regardless of what they want. This is actually very common outside of zoo circles as well. Another possibility is cover to avoid certain questions and remain in the closet. For some people this means not only getting a spouse but having children. This is ethically dubious when the other person isn't aware that they are a beard, but this happens.
Having a human partner doesn't mean someone is sexually attracted to them. I already brought up the concept of beards, but truly bonded partners happens too. Strong bonds not based off of sexual attraction exist. Human-animal interaction and human-human interaction are fundamentally different and can't replace each other. Some people have a stronger need to interact with humans than others even though their sexual attraction is still towards animals.
Adoption is always an option but it isn't one that everyone chooses. It doesn't matter for the purposes of this which is 'why would a zoo exclusive have a baby' because most reasons a zoo would adopt apply to why a zoo would have a biological child.
This is like saying you can't get yourself to eat food you don't like. As long as it can go in your mouth you damn well can. Similarly as long as you have functional genitalia you can have sex regardless of attraction and people do all the time. It might not be very enjoyable, but it's possible, especially when you're talking about utility rather than recreation. I'm sure you already know and understand that not everyone who has sex with animals is necessarily attracted to them. It works the same with human-human sex.
I have no sexual attraction to humans, never have, and I don't require human contact. I'm actually phobic of human sex and babies, so that's not an option for me. I'm just able to see past my own experiences. I'm in the asexual, queer, and zoo communities and have seen people in all of those communities have their own biological children without sexual attraction to the other biological parent.
That's just plain stupid and can't take them very seriously. It's like smoking because you think it's cool.
You don't really like it but you do it anyway because others force / encourage / brainwash you.
Quite sad if this ever happens. Should probably seek for a doctor in such a case as that's not very mentally healthy.
As an adult you can make your own choices and should not be a sheep of society.
I doubt that someone will ever have children to hide their identity.
Sorry, but c'mon, we both know people aren't that stupid to put so much effort in hiding their attraction. ''Oh that person doesn't want children, it must be a zoophile!'' The logic here does not make sense.
I completely understand when you pretend to be attracted to humans but that's just the best thing you can do. Having an actual relationship or having children is way overboard and pointless. This is not an excuse at all.
Again, the logic here does not make sense.
If you aren't romantically / sexually attracted to a creature, you won't be in a relationship with them.
If you are in a relationship with them, you are either hiding the fact that you're attracted to them or aren't sure of it. There is no other possible explanation.
Speak for yourself. I haven't eaten certain foods in years because of this reason. You can't force me to eat fruit or a carrot, I promise you. Funny enough, as I was typing this I just gave my dog my whole plate as I can't eat the crap that was given to me.
Anyways, a better comparison would be is that you have two options here.
Eat your preferred food or eat food you don't like. There is no good reason why you should eat the food you don't like.
But for some reason you are choosing to eat the food you don't like, and that's because you secretly like it or there's something deep inside you telling that you actually like it.
And I don't believe that they have zero attractions to these animals. I don't believe they're entirely true heterosexuals either. There is a little percentage of zoo in every bestialist.
Even then, there is a difference here. The point here is about zoo exclusives reproducing with humans or having a relationship with them. I've never seen a ''non-zoo'' bestialist want to have a relationship or have young ones with animals, so your comparison doesn't make much sense.
Back to the point, if you at least have a little urge to mate with xxxxx, you are attracted to it. To me, it's all a part of your attraction.
It doesn't matter for what reason. Even if it's wanting children. Even if it's because ''it's a normal thing to do.'' All these things are part of your attraction.
Many people just don't admit it or don't realize it themselves.
I think that not being disgusted by a certain species can be (and is very likely, if not always) a part of your attraction. If you look at what we all do, it is in reality pretty disgusting and quite the same thing.
Just look at how many people think bestiality is disgusting. Some people even had the opinion that even if bestiality was ethical, they'd still want it to be banned just because it's disgusting to them.
They'd eat human ass, yet they'd never eat animal ass. This is all because of their attraction and aren't always disgusted by the animal itself.
To me, the definition of an ''exclusive zoophile'' is us, or ''true zoophile,'' rather. Especially when you're like me who's very phobic of human germs.
When you have no interest in having a relationship with a human / having sex with them you are a true zoophile to me.
We need to get rid of this ''zoophiles secretly want to have sex with humans'' stereotype this instant.
Even if you don't agree, we at least need a way to tell the difference between zoo ''''''exclusives'''''' who would have sex / have a relationship with humans and the real ones like us who wouldn't do such a thing.
The fact that even ''inclusive'' zoos are considered zoophiles makes me already embarassed enough, we at least need a new term for people like us. It's very disrespectful to be the considered same as them.
Really, it makes me want to hinder zoophilia's progress really bad as I don't want to be seen as a person who would have sex with a human, as I'd rather die than ever do thay myself. We should be seen as who we actually are.
Your definition of a zoophile is based entirely around what caters to you lol. Of course it's easy to say true zoos are never and will never be attracted to humans if you are germophobic of them. The fact is sexuality is a fluid spectrum and it always will be, and you never know where your feelings may take you.
Bruh just because you don't understand something or something doesn't happen to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen to other people. Also just cuz you won't do something doesn't mean you can't.
Have you never done something that you didn't want to but you felt had to? At all? Even something as simple as pouring alcohol on a cut or being polite to somebody you don't like? That's all I'm saying that people with no human attraction are doing when they have sex with a human. They don't want to, but they will do it if they feel like they have no choice or if it helps them achieve a goal.
Good thing you don't make the rules lmao.
Stop pretending I don't understand. It's a sign you don't have anything left to say and is used as an attack.
Not really, that's extremely stupid.
I listen to my actual feelings which have a reason behind it, like wanting to fuck the shit out of a dog. That makes sense because it's a part of my attraction.
But I've never done anything because I ''''felt'''' something for no reason. I don't really understand the logic behind it.
This is one of the many things that make people blind. It's even one of the reasons zoophilia is so hated. ''It just doesn't feel right so I'm against you animal fuckers.''
Anyways, your comparison (again) does not make any sense.
We are talking about a zoo exclusive who is not attracted to humans, but is having a relationship and having sex with a human.
And you said: ''Have you never done something that you didn't want to but you felt had to?''
Notice the word felt. Then you aren't an exclusive zoo if you have the feeling that you want to mate and have a relationship with a human.
There's no reason for it to enjoy such a thing. If they do, they aren't zoo exclusives like I keep saying, but you ignore because the truth seems really hard for some people to accept here.
You are an adult, you have your own choices. There's no feeling of ''having no choice but to.''
I'm assuming ''achieving a goal'' is having kids, then it's a part of your attraction. You aren't a real zoo exclusive in that case.
Attention please: Wanting to have children is a part of your attraction.
It's really obvious why. We want relationships and sex BECAUSE deep in our heads it's all because we want to reproduce.
But the human mind has changed over time, not everyone wants to reproduce, but like I just said it's deep in our heads.
We only really have the desire to have relationships and sex because it's our instinct telling us we want to reproduce, even if you say you don't want to reproduce.
Good thing nobody does, the zoo community is already pretty fucked up on it's own but this subreddit is really one of the most fucked up ones compared to other zoo places. Or at least worse than BF, but they can still dissapoint me too.
No one can cooperate well here. Yes, including me. Not really surprising.
You say you understand and yet here you are saying things like 'They probably weren't genuinely gay.' and 'There's no feeling of ''having no choice but to.''' If you're so immune to feelings of necessity and social pressure to the point that you can't understand why someone would do something they don't want to you're incredibly lucky. Go back to beastforum if you prefer it there lmao.
I'm not lucky, I'm just an actual person who can decide for himself and is an actual zoo.
At this point I can just repeat the same thing I kept saying in my replies, but I guess if you aren't ever looking to change your opinion then it's pretty useless.
If you ever do anything, even though ''you don't want to do it'', you actually want to do it deep inside.
Otherwise, you wouldn't do it at all. That's how our minds work.
Same goes for sex. Even if you're ''''pressured'''' into having sex with something you aren't attracted to, deep inside you want it, as you wouldn't do it if you really didn't want to.
Any kind of urge to mate with xxxxx means you're attracted to it. Simple as that.
Doesn't matter what reason, it's always a part of your attraction.
You can NEVER have a feeling of having ''no choice but to.'' You're a fucking human adult. You can choose and decide for yourself.
No, I'd rather not go to Beastforum because I'm not afraid of the truth, unlike you who wants me to leave and doesn't want me to spill the truth.
Tough luck, bud.
I don't have a "deep inside" need to go to work or go to the doctor or to eat healthy... I do it because I consciously deem it more valuable than being a slave to my brain stem. Self control is a special case of this exact phenomenon.
I realize this is not a perfect analogy to what you're getting at, but nevertheless people in the past ABSOLUTELY have married to hide being gay, and some gay people ABSOLUTELY have kids. It's possible without ever having heterosexual intercourse, by the way.
Except for all the gay people over the course of history who have done exactly that. They probably weren't genuinely gay.
There already is "exclusive zoophile".
You can propose a new word and if it's a good one maybe it gets traction. Something like bisexual, but for species.
I wouldn't exist if people didn't have kids to hide their identity/sexuality! My grandfather was a gay man in the 1950s/60s, married my grandmother and had two kids to hide the fact that he was gay. He was a prominent member of the local church and pastor so his life could easily be ruined if anyone knew. And it was, when he came out and started living authentically in the 70s. Lost his whole career he'd spent a lifetime building, and many people abandoned him. It was (and probably still is) a very common practice for gay/lesbian folks to marry the opposite sex and have children to hide their sexuality and thus stay safe. I can easily imagine a zoo doing the same thing.
Sounds like he needs to team up with 30 and his idea of a community of """true zoos""" who only fit his standards lol
Oh look, even the moderators are acting childish. No surprise I didn't vote for you.
''Yeah this is... a bad one. I gave up. The atmosphere in this sub has been bad for a while now and it really disappoints me.''
Why are you taunting us, then? You're seriously asking for it.
Sounds like you fake zoophiles should start learning about exclusive zoophilia sometime. But considering how this community is I can wave goodbye to that chance.
All exclusive zoophiles out there, I'm sorry I couldn't defend our image.
Sadly, no one will realize that we're not retarded and not interested in humans, and that we don't make excuses to have sex with them. Sorry, every reasonable real zoophile out there...
And as a bonus, isn't it funny how in previous arguments with different topics, people made this excuse to come out. Such as: ''We should stop the zoo stereotype that they secretly want humans by coming out to people.'' yet here we are. Hypocrisy at it's fucking best.
Hey, remember that, /u/zootrashcan? /u/Kynophile?
This really shows how the community is. First they use it as an excuse, then they're suddenly against it. ''Fencehopping is wrong, except when they have no owners!'' ''I don't care about the humans though, zoophilia is only about the animals, so the human's feelings don't really matter that much!'' Our friend, /u/30-30
So yes, I completely agree with you. Everything's gone to shit. Awww...
Hello. It's me. I had stayed out of this little bickering session because, frankly, I didn't know Ebonlupus and had nothing to say on him or anything he's done. But your continued tirades against essentially everyone on this subreddit have forced me to outpedant the pedant and tell you each and every reason why your arguments have failed to convince anyone of your position. Since you have complained about assumptions on your motives and character (hypocritically, I might add), I will make no such assumptions, focusing instead on your failures in rhetoric and dialectic. I also don't pretend to think that you will back down on any given point, since that is generally unlikely to occur between opponents in a heated debate, so I am merely addressing this post to you as a rhetorical device to communicate with a wider audience, even if that audience is five commenters already embroiled in this discussion.
Firstly, you seem to be quite hung up on technical details, such as what does and doesn't count as a zoophile and a "choice" in regard to sexual orientation. You and the others (battlecrops, longestusername, zootrashcan) seem to be talking past each other, as generally happens, so here is the synthesis of your two positions, since I understand them to be compatible when properly understood: zoophilia is, in this context, sexual attraction to animals, and your contention is that this must be exclusive in order to be properly labelled a zoophile. This is because, in effect, whatever stigma and social consequences come with attraction to and/or sex with animals are significantly lessened when one has the option of having a sexual relationship with a human being.
While I do not deny that this is true to some extent by virtue of being closer to accepted social norms, it has unique problems of its own as well. For example, in my case, the attraction to animals is much stronger than attraction to humans, and it is important to me. So if I decide to enter a relationship with a man or woman, my choices are to hide my true sexuality from them and deny a central part of my personality the entire time I'm with them, or to find a partner who is accepting of these attractions at some level, even if they require sexual monogamy with them. That, in turn, presents some risk, particularly if I am not careful in my choice of human partner.
This is where the "choice" mentioned by others enters the picture. People aren't choosing their emotional reactions to things, or their attraction to humans or animals, or really any aspect of their personalities. However, taking that into account (and ignoring some philosophical problems with free will), they do decide what to do about those thoughts and feelings. The fact that your sexual orientation is not identical to theirs, and that theirs has more similarities to that of the average person than yours, does not invalidate their orientation, nor does it make yours better or worse than theirs.
With regard to your pessimism about zoos ever being tolerated by society: I understand where that comes from, or at least can reconstruct it from my understanding of the facts. More states and countries ban sex with animals every year, even sometimes banning speech and action which "organizes, promotes, conducts, advertises, aids, abets, observes, or performs any service furthering an act involving sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal for a commercial or recreational purpose." Every day it seems there's another article in another local newspaper about either arrests for sex with animals, or a scandal involving porn collections containing bestiality and far worse practices, it's difficult not to simply give up and live completely apart from humans, knowing that our only solace in life will be our animal companions.
However, to say that sex with animals has been, is and will always be seen as a crime against nature is both factually inaccurate and self-fulfilling. So much social change has happened even in the fifty years since Loving v. Virginia legalized interracial marriage nationwide that I would hesitate to call any law or tradition permanent, though some are more difficult than others to change with good reason. As for popular support, interracial marriage gained majority popular approval in the United States in 1995, within my relatively short life time: by contrast, gay marriage was approved of by the majority of people in the U.S. in 2011, four years before it was legalized nationwide.
Now, obviously this implies nothing specifically regarding sex with animals, because there is a whole slew of legal, psychological, and biological questions entailed in that issue. But it does imply that public opinion on what is and isn't an acceptable relationship, as well as laws regarding them, can and do change over time, and provides useful examples in constructing a path to that change, at least in theory.
Another source which has been of use, directly and indirectly, to push for change in these areas and hundreds of others is the tactical manual "Rules for Radicals", which attempts to codify different strategies for people who lack power to make the changes they want in the world to be able to gain said power, through entirely nonviolent and legal means. I intend, at some point, to dissect this work chapter by chapter, but for now, I'd like to focus on one crucial point: The surest way to fail in a social movement is to become engrossed in an inflexible ideology.
That is precisely the sort of thing that you have done in this thread: complained that those who don't believe exactly what you do must be mocked and shamed for that difference of opinion. By calling those who aren't purely zoophilic in their attractions "fake", you have attempted to separate yourself from them and maintain some sense of purity in yourself. Incidentally, the word "holy" comes from a root meaning "to separate or cut off", so in that sense your actions come off as those of someone with a "holier than thou" attitude. Whether this is in fact your view I cannot definitively say, but it seems to be implied by your reaction to any expansion of the the term "zoophile" outside your immediate experience.
The specific reason you mentioned me, my comments on coming out to stop our perception as "idiots who can't get laid", seems to have been left mostly intact in your first restatement, but then completely distorted in the second. Either that, or you are addressing zootrashcan's point in that part rather than mine. Either way, you seem to be under the misapprehension than we would come out to people in part to engage their trust and sleep with them, when in my experience that is the furthest thing from the truth. Even if you're zoo-exclusive in the sense you describe, there may be good reasons to come out to others, whether as a means of deepening a friendship or family relationship or even merely to head off disaster by presenting this aspect of yourself to someone who knows enough to figure it out and might assume the worst.
And, again, there is a humongous difference between my position toward individual zoos (come out if you think it best to do so in your dealings with other people) and my position toward the zoo community, for lack of a better word (the more of us come out, the easier it will be for others to do so, so more should do it). By assuming the worst case scenario and presenting a fear narrative to dissuade others, you commit precisely the same cowardly and stupid act as some of the worst anti-zoo activists, such as Joe Arpaio and Carol Adams. That you are doing it from within said community, and with concern for their well-being, does not make it less wrong overall or less damaging in the long term.
Finally, with regard to "our" hypocrisy: what you pointed at appears 30-30's reconsideration of his own position and his priorities in making a moral judgment. This is not hypocritical, in the same sense that the following two statements are not hypocritical: "It's wrong for the government to take people's houses, unless no one lives in them." "I don't care about rich people though, the homeless need places to live, so rich people's property rights don't matter that much." The second expands the realm of permissible behavior beyond the first, but unless the two positions were held simultaneously, there is not a reason to cry foul here.
But all of that is irrelevant, since that is an issue you have with 30-30, not the community as a whole. We are not a monolith, nor should we be expected to be, as evidenced by this very thread. People are not required to behave in any particular way to belong here, nor are they required to believe anything in particular. The fact that you place yourself on a pedestal because of arbitrary criteria for how much worth your opinion should have makes your judgment in the matter suspect at best.
I'll leave you with a philosophical problem from Neil Levy's paper, "What (if Anything) is Wrong with Bestiality?" Levy, in this paper, does an excellent job logically deconstructing the most common arguments that sex with animals should be banned and stigmatized in society, but in the second part, he makes an argument that the taboo against bestiality is a rational one. It postulates that by having sex with animals, one commits an act so out of the ordinary human experience that it threatens their identity as human beings, an identity which is socially constructed but nonetheless real, and which is furthered by a lack of certain nearly universal human behaviors. If we define a "real zoophile" as you do, having no attraction to humans and denying any and all possibilities of becoming romantically entangled with them, doesn't that imply that real zoophiles are, in this sense, inhuman?
Any of this never made sense to me.
We don't call bisexuals gay or ''exclusive gays'' either. We don't call pedos who are also attracted to adults ''inclusive pedos.'' Why should it be any different with zoophilia?
It's not just that, it's how we are.
We aren't even sure if exclusive zoophiles will have sex with a human or not. I know that's not what I said originally but I'm just staying neutral right now.
How can we progress if we can't even decide this? And even if we did, there are truly no exclusive zoophiles because there's a small chance exclusive zoophiles may have sex with a human.
This community lacks a lot of terms yet refuses to accept new ones. How hard is it to understand that we exclusive zoophiles do not want to be compared with people who fuck humans? Not only do we think it's false, it also offends us very much.
I don't remember doing so, give me some examples of that. By the way, everyone here complains that they don't believe the other.
And I believe that this is actually true. It's not an insult.
He was an example of what's going on with our community.
Someone holds an opinion that something is wrong, but later I find out that that person is in some way supporting it.
To make it seem less personal, I'll try to make a different example.
A person is against adultery, so sex with anyone who is married. Later he states that sex with anyone who isn't married but is in a relationship isn't wrong because it's different.
Yet, there aren't much differences. All the risks and problems to this are exactly the same, except that since they're not married, it may be less serious.
As a bonus, this person also states that he doesn't care much for humans to begin with, which makes no sense.
This is what is wrong with our community, it's just like that double standards bullshit.
I also called you here because you claimed that one of the reasons zoos should come out is to prevent the ''zoophiles secretly want humans'' stereotype from spreading.
Okay, even though I think it's extremely ridiculous, you can hold the opinion that exclusive zoos may have sex / a relationship with a human. But at the same time you're not doing anything to differentiate an ''''''exclusive zoophile'''''' who would have sex and relationships with humans, and real exclusive zoophiles who wouldn't do such a thing.
To me, that's like complaining there's a chair in the way but you're not even trying to move it, except encouraging others to push it with a needle. (As in, encouraging others to come out. Which is risky and will likely result in bad things and there's a very low chance that it may get rid of that ''zoophiles secretly want humans'' stereotype.)
I'm not sure how any of that makes sense.
Me playing a videogame is much much much more weird than me eating out my dog. Sex and attractions aren't strange at all. In fact, sex and attractions are very human. It's a part of humans and how they work as we can have some out of the ordinary attractions and interests.
Interspecies sex happens in nature too. But we were never intended to play something like a videogame. Why am I not being judged for that?
You know, I wish I wasn't a human. So even though I think it's bullshit and hate humans for having such an attitude, I see it as a compliment.
I'm glad this conversation is turning out to be productive, at least as I see it. Let's go through your points, and I'll try to clarify a bit.
Because there isn't an accepted term for liking both, and we're struggling to find language to describe ourselves. "Pansexual" and "omnisexual" might include these things sometimes, but they appear far too broad to be justifiably used for someone who, for example, only likes women and male dogs. If you really want, you could help popularize a new term: I'd recommend "bizoo" or "bizoophile".
To me, this distinction doesn't matter. I don't care whether someone only wants sex with animals or they want sex with humans to some extent: all that matters is whether their actions cause harm to anyone, including their partners, and that doesn't appear to have anything to do with this form of exclusivity. Maybe you think you're being conflated with fetishists who just like it because it's dirty or who want to watch women do it, not caring much at all about the animals themselves. Whatever image you have about people who want both, I guarantee that there exist people who subvert that image, and there's no reason not to include them in discussions about this topic in law and society.
Maybe it's a problem of definitions, but I still don't see a valid reason for separating people in this way. Unless you are claiming that anyone who wants humans too is not actually attracted to animals in their own right, and that exclusive zoophiles are completely immune from that criticism, I don't see the problem here.
I'm happy to make the distinction, but for practical purposes it simply doesn't matter: to an outside observer, it doesn't matter whether someone likes humans too; they will be labelled a freak regardless. That is, of course, unless they are informed on the topic beforehand, and recognize that these stereotypes are simply untrue, something which can only happen if they are exposed to it, preferably by a trusted friend or relative. To extend your metaphor, a single need will bend and fail to move a chair. But thousands of them, tightly bound together and pushing in the same direction? That can actually move it. But there has to be a first needle pushing to show that it is not necessarily as dangerous as you think.
Also, if you believe that more radical, direct action is needed, what action would you suggest? Going back to your metaphor, at least I am attempting to push the chair and suggesting others do likewise. You are sitting on the floor, crying, because there is a chair in your way, and hopeless at ever being able to move it, at least from your comments so far.
That's a good argument against this point, followed by precisely the reason I made it: in order to become accepted or tolerated in society, sex with animals has to become relatable, in some sense, to more people. The worst possible thing you can do in that regard is reject humanity entirely. Even if you don't want a human in your bed, you still appreciate some of the things they do: you are writing on the internet, you likely read books and watch movies. The point is to show people that we are, for the most part, the same as them, warts and all. If that bothers you, I'm sorry about that, but your misanthropy will only make you unhappy so long as you live in human societies and depend on them for survival. Ideologically, you have two choices to improve your happiness: reject humans utterly, go off the grid, and revel in your solitude as Thoreau did, or become a little more tolerant and open to the people around you, and try to find what little good is in them, more for your own sake than for theirs.
That's how I always figured it; minority/marginalized communities aren't formed based on differences, but what the people in them have in common (and are thus ostracized for). We're all attracted to animals, have similar experiences with that attraction, and all face the same societal and legal problems because of that attraction. Of course outside opinion of attraction isn't the only reason for a community, but that part of your comment just got me thinking about it.
[deleted]
Yeah, well inclusive zoophile and exclusive zoophile are both accepted terms too so it must be possible to make new terms, even tho no one will probably co operate. Wondering how ''inclusive'' and ''exclusive'' got accepted...
I know this sounds very dumb, but what does it mean? So it's like someone who's attracted to male or female humans, but also attracted to animals but of the opposite gender?
It may be a problem because of the confusing name. It looks like it's a term for any kind of bisexual zoophile. I used to call myself this, too.
And you know, nobody asked for it. Not sure if it will be useful. But if it'll make people more comfortable, then go ahead.
Lastly, I'm not sure how we popularize a new term, nor do I want to. I have low faith in anyone, including myself, here. It's possible, just don't know how.
Yeah that may not matter to you but it matters to us.
I hate being called something that I am not. Minus most insults and my own gender for some reason, but that doesn't really matter.
Even the name ''dogfucker'' or ''furry'' triggers the fuck out of me when people realize I'm a zoophile, because it's not even true.
There's also other reasons, of course my misanthropy and that I consider a lot of normal human stuff to be shameful. (Religion, attracted to humans, etc.)
I think that other zoos saying that exclusive zoophiles may have a small chance of having sex with a human ruins our and my own image in some kind of way. I don't want to be known as someone who would do that, ever. I think that calling myself an exclusive zoophile at that point is just useless.
Yeah well I thought that was obvious.
I consider a lot of things to be a part of your attraction. Even if you have sex with a human because you'll win respect from others, want kids, or anything along the lines of that.
They're all urges to me and that such things ''awaken'' different part of your attractions.
And about the whole ''inclusives aren't true zoos'' thing. I mean, they still have the attraction but exclusives are ''more zoo'' to me.
Yeah well at least I want to chance to say that I'm an exclusive zoo and that people realize I'm not one bit interested in doing stuff with humans.
I'd rather be known as a freak than someone attracted to humans.
And yes, if we push together it may work.
Few problems: 1. Our number is extremely small, even with the supporters we have. (I even believe that us zoos + supporters make out less than 2% of humans. I have no evidence to back it up, it's just my expectation.) 2. Even then, nobody here holds the same opinions so that makes the numbers even smaller. 3. Coming out is still dangerous. I'm never in my life doing it again, even if zoophilia /bestiality is accepted or legal. Even then, I think there's a lot of risk as people'll happily put a bullet through our heads or the heads of our animals.
Even I won't support zoophilia myself any more, it's like waiting for Half-Life 3 to happen and even if ''zoophilia wins'' I won't feel very comfortable as I don't agree with many things that zoophiles say and that that victory will result in more suffering of animals. Not to mention non-zoo bestialists will abuse this victory too.
I know I went a little off-topic there, but I just wanted to explain why I'm not looking forward this myself, so we don't need to discuss about it if you don't want to.
I wish I knew.
All I'm saying is that I could help, but like I just said, I'm not really looking forward to that victory unless it goes exactly how I want it.
I know that's not a good thing at all, but imagine if we supported killing animals, you wouldn't want to support zoophilia any more either.
I don't think the way you push that chair is good. Coming out to me is still a silly thing and always will be. Especially since I had some really horrible experience with it myself, I know that doesn't count for everybody, but I'm still not convinced coming out is a very dumb thing to do.
Yeah well it's more than that. I know that most of my happiness exists because of human themselves. We have shelter, I have a dog that loves me, we have enough food, etc.
Right now warming up a pizza for us, just grabbed my favorite drink, giving my girl attention from time to time, and after this I'll probably kill my time with a videogame.
Seems all good and innocent right? Well to me it does right now because I'm ignoring the bad parts of humanity now. But in reality it's all different...
Remember how you said that it's up to the person to decide if coming out will be worth it or not? That's the same here, in a way.
Even with all these things, I am an unhappy person and am not satisfied with how humanity is going.
I'm unhappy because of the downsides of being human, but also because of humans are.
I have so many reasons for not respecting humans or the fact that I'm human myself that I seriously am not sure where to begin. I don't think it's really worth pointing out why as you probably already know why or because you don't want to know.
Yeah, and our similarities are the things I mostly hate about humans.
I seriously feel like a monster myself, and it's really sad that I'm aware of the fact that I'm evil...
Yeah, and I can't do anything about any of these things.
I'm not sure how that's going to help me. I wouldn't even know how, nor would I have the energy or courage to do any of that.
I've tried looking at the good things. I mean, I try to look at it realistically instead of blind optimism.
I'm not going to look at something with fullblown optimism, that's a dumb mistake many humans make themselves and it disgusts me.
And from my own experience I know that I won't ever respect humans because I can't. I don't trust anyone, even myself.
I may be known for my pessimism, but it sure gets you at better places than optimism does. It is one of the reasons I got so depressed because me and my dog will die a virgin. I was so optimistic that it'd happen, yet was hit with nothing but dissapointment and self-hatred.
It's best not to give me advice for this sort of thing. I piss many people off even though I try to take their advice seriously and work on it, but people always blame me for not even trying and I'm sure that's the same for you. I guess some people like me can't be helped, so it's better to leave me alone with this. I've messed up my own life and don't care about my future that much any more and don't have enough energy to get myself back up again. Case closed on this one.
There's nothing more to say to you then, really. I'll leave you with the "To be, or not to be" speech from Hamlet, which summarizes your points and mine beautifully, and I'll wish you well for the future, even if you don't expect the future to go well.
Hey, how'd you know I hate texts like that?
Man, you really thought about me, so that's something worth more than that piece of text. To me, at least.
"...there isn´t an accepted term..." au contraire, au contraire! There IS a term for liking animals AND humans sexually: bestiality. May I remind everyone , especially those who are trying to redefine, that you ALL are standing on the shoulders of us "exclusive zoos"? While you non exclusives back in the nineties had nothing else in mind than finding some "zoo friends" who can accompany you when fucking Fido, it was the exclusives who started writing, started to think politically, started to make zoophilia (what then was what "exclusive zoophilia" is today) into what it is now. You non exclusives stole the z-word from us. And now you´re trying to do it again, saying that exclusive zoophilia also includes the possibility to have sex with a human. Bullshit. Simply bullshit. How dare you...
And let´s look at this whole keruffle with a tid bit of objectivism: what you´re proposing here, trying to water down OUR definition of us exclusives is nothing more than an attempt to make us exclusives disappear. Or, as someone has put it, to get rid of all those among us who are fundamentally opposed to human relationships for a "better" public reception. This is two things at once: first, it is a vile, maybe THE most vile thing to do as all your basic texts, all which you are referring to when talking about zoophilia has been written by us first generation exclusives. Second, whoever actually believes that fucking an animal is looked at more favourably by society because "you can fuck humans too" is just a delusional moron. If this would be true, then why isn´t zoophilia already tolerated in society yet, with the overwhelming majority of so called "zoos" trying to "walk down both paths at once"? Listen up: we exclusives might be seen as strange individuals because we´re NOT interested in humans at all, but you non exclusives are JUST SEEN AS LIMITLESS PERVERTS WHO KNOW NO BOUNDARIES. How can anyone even say stuff like "exclusivity hinders society to tolerate animal fucking" , let alone believe in his bs, mouth/keyboard diarrhea?
We exclusives already gave in to you non exclusives with the definition of the z-word and included quite a lot of you into this. But this isn´t enough for you, right? Now you all want to call yourselves "exclusives" and I cannot come up with any other reason to do so but stupid greed and envy. We lent you our hand in support and you are trying to rip our arm off, that´s what you do. Why can´t you just accept that there are folks among you who are different? If I´d actually be so intolerant, why am I still talking to you non exclusives? There are others, MANY others, mostly real exclusives who were driven off by YOU guys, driven off by massive disrespect for OUR orientation, pissed off by your continued attempts of appropriation of what is NOT yours. You´re basically thieves, you know...thieves who stole everything and now even want to make those disappear they have stolen from. How can you look into a mirror and not be disgusted by what you see?
You want tolerance. We "evil exclusives" allowed you to use OUR word, but that´s still not enough for you. We exclusives tolerated so much of your shit, but now it´s enough! If you´re NOT an exclusive (and I really, REALLY mean exclusive as in " I have never and will never have sex with a human, for NO reason!" ), sod off and don´t try to tell us exclusives whom we should accept. This is OUR identity! You already had your piece of cake...and even that you stole.
How about simply accepting what even FUCKING BEASTFORUM says: "zoophile: someone who exclusively has sex with animals"? Why don´t you accept the old definitions of beasty and zoophile and end this bullshit definition bending once and for all? All this fuss originates in YOUR FUTILE ATTEMPTS to redefine things until they fit you. We don´t need terms for someone who fucks human females and canine males! We don´t need a whole dictionary of definitions for each and every friggin´ situation! If you´re into animals ONLY, then you´re a zoo; if you´re not, then you´re a beasty. End of line.
And could someone please answer the question I have typed in so many times now: What the fuck is wrong with calling yourself a beasty? Call yourself what you want, but get your own word, goddamnit! May I remind you that it was YOUR careless usage of the z-word that made it into a sad synonym for fucking animals in society? Do you want to do this again by redefining and careless, non thoughtful usage of the term "exclusive zoo" again?
Fact is: it isn´t society that is our worst enemy, it is ourselves...as this thread impressively proves. Instead of creating "new" words like this bogus "zoosexual" crap, how about simply obeying to the old definitions...by the way, these old definitions worked out for us quite well, but that was obviously another time, with another set of folks who weren´t fuckin´ brainwashed and -fucked by internet "culture". How it comes that back then, nobody felt set back because he was "just a beasty"? This entire "online zoophilia" thing just went rogue and turned against ourselves, that´s the truth. All those fantasizers, the mental cases trying to find a community that doesn´t "judge" them although they´re seriously fucked up in their heads, all this SJW "tolerance" and "all inclusiveness" backfired...and you still cannot get rid of your SJW reflexes. "Oh noes, there are people who claim to be different from us! They MUST feel superior and that we cannot let happen! Let´s all cuddle with our rainbow coloured unicorns and poop pink candy to celebrate "equality"...or what we think equality is!"
If you non exclusives can´t understand that a true exclusive does NOT want to hear about your human partner and you having sex with each other and your dog, porcupine, gerbil, then you´re seriously fucked up in your heads. Try to see your bs through our, through an exclusive´s eyes for once...only once!
Dude... you are trying to blame your problems on the "other" and control who is and isn't part of your community, which cannot possibly work if the portion you accept is something like one tenth of the whole, and is the portion which tries the hardest to separate itself from the society around you. Learn a lesson from the Quakers: the more exclusive you make your community, the more certain it is to die a slow, ineffectual death.
Also, while I agree with you that certain harmful behaviors should warrant exclusion (such as being caught abusing their animals), that is hardly the same as making the criterion a form of ideological purity, such as the Zeta rules or a lack of attraction to human beings. You don't have to like or agree with everyone, but you do have to tolerate everyone who doesn't harm your cause in a pragmatic way, unless you are content making no impact on the world around you. Drawing lines in the sand will not make you a better zoophile than those outside the lines, just a lonelier and less tolerable one to anyone else.
As you yourself have posted as recently as a few days ago, "bestiality" is a physical sexual act between a human and a nonhuman. It has nothing to do with whether you like humans or whether you like animals.
There is no "watering down of exclusives" because the word "exclusive" by definition calls out a specialized case of a more general term.
Et tu? We've already discussed how "zoophile" already is defined by scientific and non-scientific sources (which, again, you've previously acknowledged) to have no bearing on sexual orientation, and certainly not exclusive desire. So stop trying to re-define the term, as people have been doing unsuccessfully (and to the confusion of all) since the early 90s.
If you develop a term that you define to ONLY mean exclusively interested in animals, then by all means use that term, and I doubt you will find "less-worthy" people using it. Until then, the approach of using a general term, and specializing it with a qualifier, is exactly appropriate for exclusive and non-exclusive people.
I look forward to the next generation of important discussions, like whether we need a special term to describe people who are interested in only one species, instead of multiple species.
Then like I said, they aren't true gays.
This is putting way too much effort into hiding your identity. It's way too ridiculous that I can't take it very seriously.
You can just say: ''I'm not interested in having children / sex / a partner.'' Holy shit man...
Yeah, but the point here is that people who call themselves exclusive zoos still have sex / relationships with humans.
I don't want to be put in the same place as them. I want to be known as an ACTUAL exclusive zoophile, who wouldn't even do anything romantic / sexual with humans ever. Being attracted to humans is a shameful thing to me and don't want to be recognized as someone who is.
First, that's not what I want. Second, that will never work as I everyone can be attracted to multiple species.
I'm attracted to every canid, also I am slightly attracted to horses and zebras. Try to make a word for every possible combination...
You have no clue about societal pressure (especially in the past, not so much now) or LGBT history if you honestly think gay/lesbian people who hide in heterosexual marriages aren't "true gays." Wow.
I do.
This societal pressure is the cause of these people not being true gay people.
You know how you can become gay/bi/zoo/pedo because of childhood trauma or things that have happened in your life? That's the same thing here.
And if this affects you, you are really weakminded which makes it easier for you to get affected by mental problems.
Not to mention you may be a slave of society, too. This also plays a part in this. People can things to you and you'll believe them, since you were weak enough to be pressured into having a relationship / sex with a human.
EDIT: Someone's downvotes are precious, mate. I can refresh the page a few times and there you go. A little bit sad, to be honest.
God, I'd give anything to be in your situation. Yet you continue to complain about it. Why?
I've never really complained about food. The only time I talked about food were vegans thread if I remember correctly.
It's a pretty serious situation, even for my dog as she is actually a bad eater too. I was surprised she even ate the crap from that plate.
This explains why she's so small. But I guess I can love her for being so similar to me, even if that's not a good thing at all...
I'm not sure why you're accusing me of complaining about food. But if you don't have it and are so jealous of me eating then I really am confused why you're still here.
Sorry to say, but utter BS. Maybe you should look up the word "exclusive" in Merriam-Webster, it could clarify things here...
Nothing I said implied the person in the situation has any attraction to humans. Not rejecting human companionship isn't the same as being attracted to humans.
People are able to act independent of their attractions, so zootrashcan's statement seems valid to me.
In English, "Exclusive zoophile" would mean someone with an exclusive attraction to nonhuman animals, but that doesn't speak to anything else.
I´ve tried to explain this issue so many times now... There´s no "semi-exclusive" zoophilia, if you decide for a human relationship, you cease to be an exclusive zoo, that simple. It´s not a matter of twisting and turning definitions until they fit, goddamnit. And I don´t care for any reasons that could be thrown into here, not for "Oh, this Sunday, I feel a little less exclusive and hook up with a human." , there´s no "Well, in order to give me an alibi, I need to get a human partner and kids" (what is obviously the most degenerate and heartless thing to do).... You know what´s funny? How you all try to steal again, take hostage, rob and destroy. You already took the z-word from us and now you all feel experts to define exclusive zoophilia for us true exclusive zoos. Aren´t you ashamed of yourselves? You who all whine so much about societal oppression, you don´t hesitate to oppress us true exclusives with your BS definitions. Why can´t you accept that some folks are different and don´t want to be mixed in to your group? Don´t you realise that we exclusives have an entirely different life reality than you? What the fuck is wrong with you all? "The oppressed of yesterday will become the oppressors of tomorrow"...well, why wait for tomorrow, right?
You can bend definitions all you want, but you cannot discuss reality away, would you please recognise this now? Or do you prefer to continue with your bullshit, with your fake ass "all inclusive" crap?
Why are there no "exclusive gays", huh? Why no "exclusive heteros"? Can you answer that? Why can´t you even accept the simple fact that exclusive really MEANS exclusive (exclusive, adjective: being one, but not the other, being part of one group and not being part of any other group). What the f is wrong with you all?
Reality is no wishing well and you won´t turn it into one by your semantic voodoo. You´ll never know how an exclusive feels when you shittalk about us. Congratilations for opening my eyes about the very nature of your entire weltbild...have a nice day in la la land.
Let's start at the root, "exclusive zoophilia". To explore the etymology, exclusive in this case would mean to exclude all other sexual and romantic interests, while zoophilia describes the condition as relating to nonhuman animals and involving through the use of the -philia suffix sexual and/or romantic attraction. The suffix substitution of phile only serves to translate the word into a noun but other than that doesn't alter the semantic definition.
Your definition isn't necessarily invalid(as many words can be diversely defined), but zootrashcan's definition keeps more true to the term it was sourced from given that 'zoophile' still doesn't have any implication beyond the condition itself and the existence of an affected subject noun. I always found it fascinating how dialects managed to so distinctly form in this overarching community... and how outraged some people get over it. But in fairness, etymology is two parts word science, one part history, and you've got history. Tell me, what was your history with the word? Not you fitting the mold of it, but your exposure to the word itself.
Oh, and I'm still not a zoo, in case you forgot or just don't read usernames.
This is what I always wondered.
I never understood the logic about any of this. Godfuckingdamnit this pisses me off so much.
The logic is extremely basic: In a continuum, you're either at one extreme, the other extreme, or somewhere in between.
In modern terms, homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual describe all three of these locations on the male/female attraction continuum. There's no need to further qualify unless you're trying to be really analytical or pedantic (such as "gold star gays" which are a thing in some circles).
The term zoophile grew out of sexual psychology and only really addressed "some amount of attraction was present" (whether 1% or 100%). Therefore, people got in the habit of adding "exclusive" to emphasize the nonzero amount was around 100% for those people. It has only recently (arguably incorrectly) been applied to people with a sexual orientation involving animals.
An analogy: if gay/bisexual terms never existed and the only choice was, say, straight vs. atypical, then the term atypical accurately describes completely homosexual people... but such people might call themselves "exclusively atypical" to reinforce where they are on the continuum. Maybe a stupid example, but it illustrates the semantics involved.
As mentioned elsewhere, bisexual people faced lots of prejudice from the gay community, since they supposedly could always choose a conventional partner, or they were just confused, or they were going through phases, or couldn't make up their minds, or otherwise weren't gay therefore shouldn't be included. The fact of the matter is, maybe they AREN'T gay, but they still face nearly all of the problems faced by gay people, and likely more.
The same is true for non-exclusive zoophiles. Maybe they aren't exclusive but they face nearly all of the problems faced by exclusives, and likely more.
Yeah, and many popular animals are polygamous by nature. forcing an animal to stick to one partner because of greed or jealousy is wrong. Both partners should have a "say" in a relationship.
"Forcing an animal to stick to one partner"....gosh, I´m already gettin´ a headache by simply reading this.
Why?
HOLY SHIT.
Aluzky, is that you? Or are you just a person who's hit their head just as hard as Aluzky did?
You realize that animals would always rather fuck their own species instead of a human? This is always the case as it's a part of instinct and how animals work.
Not to mention you keep animals yourself. You're keeping them away from freedom and you're also in a relationship with an animal while they'd rather have their own species.
you really need to learn to stay away from the a word in nature.
And the keyword in my comment was "greed or jealously". if i let my clyde run around the woods right in the middle of hunting season, either A: he will die B: someone will realize hes a pet, report him, and my entire life gets fucked in every hole.
Back when i still had dogs i was active with, I did stud them (though they didnt get much action) and "shared" with another zoo.
Please don't assume shit about people you dont know. And i dont really care if you think im aluzky or not.
No, what you don't understand is that you are keeping an animal from having sex with their own species instead.
Why not drop them off at a place where there are animals of the same species?
Why not do the opposite by buying more animals for the animals you already have so they can copulate together?
You are always keeping them from freedom in a way.
If your animal wants to live with another human, would you allow it?
It's the exact same stupid logic you use. Stop being a damn hypocrite.
It's sad that you're not even trying to understand monogamy. Just because you're not disgusted by another human cumming in the same animals as yours doesn't mean we aren't disgusted by it either.
If all zoos actually agreed with your stupid logic then the majority of zoophiles wouldn't even have sex or kiss with animals as most zoos are monogamous.
This also goes against the very logic of being an (exclusive) zoophile: You're letting a human have sex with your animals. We aren't attracted to humans, so that's really fucking disgusting.
Might as well have sex and kiss with the human itself, as their germs are already present in your animal.
Thats only for one of my animals, clyde. funnily enough, mating season for deer is conveniently hunting season, and since i dont have millions of years of trial and error baked into my brain, i cant teach him how to survive each and every year. Sorry, but life isnt that easy.
And option 2 is death for them, guaranteed prison for me, and having my other animals put down. Not every situation is black and white. Life is very complicated, and i have to juggle alot of things. I give them as much freedom as i possibly can without fucking up that juggle. Im probably too close to fucking it up as is.
Theres a few variables that come in to play there, but generally yes.
uhhhhhhh do you know how sex works? At no point in that process do i have sex with a human. And germs? really? Is this whole thing just about you feeling an animal is "soiled" if it strays from you?
Judging from how hostile you got, ive hit something real personal, and its pretty obvious that nothing i can say will change how you feel. No point in continuing this argument. Have a wonderful day
A wild Alot appeared!
^This Action ^was performed ^by a ^bot ^- Please ^message eto_eskape ^if you ^have any ^problems
Click me to opt out!
alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot
A wild Alot appeared!
^This Action ^was performed ^by a ^bot ^- Please ^message eto_eskape ^if you ^have any ^problems
Click me to opt out!
alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot
A wild Alot appeared!
^This Action ^was performed ^by a ^bot ^- Please ^message eto_eskape ^if you ^have any ^problems
Click me to opt out!
alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot
A wild Alot appeared!
^This Action ^was performed ^by a ^bot ^- Please ^message eto_eskape ^if you ^have any ^problems
Click me to opt out!
alotalot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot exec: del c:\WINDOWS\system32 alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot
A wild Alot appeared!
^This Action ^was performed ^by a ^bot ^- Please ^message eto_eskape ^if you ^have any ^problems
Click me to opt out!
im too tired to keep this going for alot longer
A wild Alot appeared!
^This Action ^was performed ^by a ^bot ^- Please ^message eto_eskape ^if you ^have any ^problems
Click me to opt out!
That's alot of alots.
A wild Alot appeared!
^This Action ^was performed ^by a ^bot ^- Please ^message eto_eskape ^if you ^have any ^problems
Click me to opt out!
Then what about your other animals? Do you let them mate with eachother? When you are in public with them and they don't follow you do you just leave them?
If both answers are no, you are a hypocrite.
Anyways, why'd you get this ''Clyde'' anyways? You kept them from freedom, so you're wrong in your logic.
Uhhhhh do you know how hygene and germs work? Or any logic at all?
Do you seriously not realize that if someone kisses or has sex with an animal, the animal itself is full of human germs and human body fluids?
Don't be dumb, we all exactly know this happens and that it's very unhygienic and disgusting.
But you are covered in them.
Holy shit, you seem like one disgusting person already.
So when's the last time you had a shower? NEVER?
Nice excuse, but this is my personality. You know exactly how I am and how I act. You're using this as an excuse to stop arguing.
Remember this? ''Please don't assume shit about people you dont know.''
That's right. Don't. I am willing to change my mind, but you clearly aren't as you're so obsessed with this opinion.
By the way, I'm pretty happy that you deep inside you realize that monogamy isn't wrong. (Since you had to use an excuse to stop arguing.) But it's pretty sad that you don't want to admit it. Don't worry buddy, everyone who is a monogamous zoo, including me, will have monogamous relationships and there's nothing you can do about it, ever. I have no problem with your relationships either, I just think it's silly, dirty and quite unhealthy. But whatever, whenever man.
i meant it.
Then you're being silly.
I can change my mind, but you had to make an excuse and assumed I wouldn't. I have the same feeling about you, so let's agree to disagree then, huh?
You think you can, but to the human brain, thats a form of losing, and the human brain doesnt like losing.
I dont hate monogamy, i hate forcing animals that arent usually monogamous to be monogamous becuase that person cant stand their partner being with any"one"(including other animals) else. I find that selfish and completely unsympathetic of the animals wants and needs. A zoo relationship shouldnt be focused only on what the human wants, and it shouldnt be focused only on what the animal wants either.
Then that counts the exact same for anyone else and for that reason should not argue with anyone else. Why should I be different? You seem in a lot of denial yourself. Why do you think you can too, then?
I am willing to change my mind, believe it or not. It has happened enough times in the past. The past I am speaking of is even yesterday.
So you don't understand monogamy.
Maybe if you felt like us, you'd know. Some people just can't love more than two creatures. It's also extremely disgusting to know that another creature is having sex with your partner.
You know that we aren't keeping them from anything at all?
We give them enough sexual attention they need, so they don't even care. We also give them enough attention in overall, so they don't run low on that either.
Almost no monogamous zoo would have a """relationship""" with animals if it had to be this way, and would be lonely forever. Animals don't feel lonely when they're in a """relationship""" with us.
If you have animals yourself, you are already keeping them from freedom. It doesn't matter how good you're trying to give them as much as freedom as possible.
I may despise humans with a passion and may not give a shit about them, but I think that both the humans and animals "wants and needs" should be respected.
With your logic we should not have """relationships""" with animals as they prefer their own species instead, and let them mate and live with their own species instead.
Is this a mistake or what? 'Cuz I don't get it since it looks like you're contradicting yourself here.
so THATS where all this is coming from.
nope. relationships should be a balance of what each side wants and whats ultimately best for both. No contradictions there
Not specifically, I hate everything in general. And my own life is shit too.
But you said that none of the relationships should only focus on the animal or human.
So you're saying that the human can make some rules, but the human should also give something in return, for example freedom, to make all of this balanced?
Well, you can consider a monogamous relationship as a rule (I don't, though.), and the reward for the animal should be much love and care, and that the human itself wouldn't cheat on the animal.
what do you mean but? no relationship should be entirely one sided. Im not contradicting myself, i think relationships should be a balance of what each side wants and whats best for both.
Thats just one situation that can come out of what im saying. I cant predict what balances out for the human and animal in every relationship.
Yeah well like I already said I consider a monogamous ''''relationship'''' to be belanced if in return the human really focuses on the animal and would not leave the animal ever.
Then why judge others in the first place if you don't know whats going on?
I can't predict anyones ''''relationship'''' here. In fact, you could all be animal rapists but I don't call any of you that either because I won't judge them if I don't know whats going on.
now theres a contradiction. you cant hate something with a passion and not care about at the same time.
What kind of logic is that?
Not giving a shit about something you hate is normal.
Tell me, if you would hate someone a fucking lot, would you leave that person to die?
That's how you hate and don't care about something.
no, if you dont give a shit about something, how can you hate it? hating something "with a passion" is clearly giving a shit.
I'm not sure how your mind works, but you can hate something and not care what happens to them.
I get what you're trying to say, but I think how he meant that was he doesn't care about the emotions, opinions, or well-being of humans? I suppose true by-the-definition "not caring" would be apathy, but I don't think that's what he meant. The phrase/usage of the word "care" isn't always that literal.
I wouldn't call anything Rodox writes non-hateful or objective on the topic of zoophilia and bestiality because neither of those terms apply to him.
I can't speak for EbonLupus's situation specifically, I didn't know the guy and all of his journals and such have been deleted, but I've seen multiple instances of Rodox displaying some combination of misrepresenting situations/selective sharing of details to fit the anti-zoophilia narrative, conspiracy theories, and promoting just plain bad understanding of animal behavior. I've seen this enough to take the articles with a grain of salt, especially in ones where most outside sources no longer exist. The basic details might be true, but everything is going to be interpreted through the lens of someone against zoophilia who is obsessed with the topic.
The one thing I will say is that I'm not comfortable with condemning someone I don't know for rehoming an animal. Aggression cases can be very difficult and involve heartbreaking decisions. Not knowing the specifics of his situation, I can't know what underlying issues were going on, or for how long, or what solutions had been attempted already, so I'll hold my judgement.
What exactly was going on is beyond my knowledge also, but the image it once again hands out to the public is devastating to our credo as zoophiles. Once again. :(
I´ve read through the article I linked several times now and cannot see more than sarcasm in it, and no outright hate at all, but maybe that´s because I do NOT tend to weigh in every single f`ing word for its possible hateful connotations. Maybe it has to do with me growing a very thick skin towards any verbal assaults over my decades being into this whole thing.
Maybe we all should cease to be so sensitive about words and start to man up a little bit, right? PC is over, folks.
I know a bit about the guy who wrote it. He passionately hates zoophiles and actively collects information on and monitors people. It's not about 'pc', Rodox is an obsessive anti-zoophile.
Okay, but that doesn´t invalidate his critique of EL. Just as being pro zoophilia doesn´t make everything a pro zoo says right. End this trench fight mentality, please.
Combined with the impression EL gave to me when I was talking to him a few times, I´d say I lean more to the "obsessive anti zoo´s" side .
No, and as I said the basic 'things that happened' might be true, but I've seen him misrepresent other cases and leave out crucial details to the point I'm skeptical that what he says is the full story. He only reports what is necessary for anti-zoo purposes and interprets all facts through his anti-zoo lens. This is really obvious in his garbage discussions of animal behavior. That's why I say to take anything he says with a grain of salt.
I'd heard he'd gone "off the rails" after we had parted ways. I didn't know how bad, and never cared enough to find out. I left the zoo community, as some folks call it, not long after I left our friendship. I returned online a few years ago with a completely different opinion of the community and a more mature attitude to zoophilia in general, that wouldn't have paired well with anything I'd known him to stand for back then even so didn't bother to look him up.
I'll just keep my memories as they stand at any rate. Especially since I don't believe we as a whole really have much in common in the 'community' anyway other than that we love and sometimes fuck, non-humans. We're no more one community that the straight, hetero, people fuckers are...
Out of curiosity -- when was that, more or less?
After 2003, from what I've been told. I can't really say since I'd already gone offline for the most part and didn't return until 2014 or so, and no longer associated with him by 2003.
Agreed. This is our dilemma, we´re pulling onto the same string...but everyone´s pulling in different directions. Without unity, no progress. Quod erat demonstrandum.
I don't see it ever changing either, and am honestly unsure I want it to. There's so much out there I don't want to be associated with that I would have to be to make a unified front. So many delusions, illusions and foolish falsehoods are beliefs of the appearant majority (or at least most vocal minority) among us, and I'd need to represent that. I shudder at the thought.
Life is so stupid and random, you suffer through all this shit for decades then one day bam heart attack, no pension for you. Read about some guy on furaffinity who died from falling in the shower. Knowing drivers around here I'm convinced I'll die crossing the street.
Can't remember if I talked to ebon directly but damn he made an impression for better and for worse. Down in infamy.
Oh yeah. The upside is at least we got to know what happened to him.
I posted on a different type of forum (not zoophilia) where a handful of users are reported to die every year by friends and family. But it has thousands of members and only some have real life contacts. Tons of prominent users go dark with no notice and no one has a clue what happened to them. Because of circumstances there are good odds a number of them are dead from complications... and nobody will ever know.
Do not mourn for the dead. Instead, feel sorry for the living.
RIP
I feel the opposite, frankly. But to each their own.
This whole thread threatens my sanity though, so I'm out.
Yeah this is... a bad one. I gave up. The atmosphere in this sub has been bad for a while now and it really disappoints me.
Yeah, it's bad when I find my job more comforting than this sub, but I do.
We all die eventually, you know. It's something that I am personally looking forward to myself. Not everyone has had such a great life filled with love and happiness. There are some people who are really suffering every day. It's just how it is.
Good for you.
Some cultures promote celebration of life after a death rather than mourning their death, especially in communities rife with hardship. It's quite an admirable way to approach the issue.
Ahh, more zoo gatekeeping for no good reason. Turn us against ourselves.
Hey, did you see the latest trend in identity politics? LGBT doesn't include bisexuals, because they really need to "choose a side" you can't be bisexual you can only be het or homo...
To be honest I thought you folks would be smarter than this but it's way too obvious you want to be special snowflakes and "better" than your fellow zoophiles. Go ahead and judge me, I give not a shit about your tiny world view. I know exactly who and what I am.
We really need to stamp down this idea that zoos just can't handle human relationships/friendships and so they turn to defenceless animals.
On the topic at hand, condolences to those who have lost a friend.
What made you think that?
[I couldn't help it]
Yeah, the lgBt doesn´t include bisexuals....can you accompany me when I´m scubadiving? This way, I´ll always have an extra reserve of air when the oxygen bottle gets empty, I just need to suck on your ear then...Why do you think there´s this lettersalad of LGBTQABCDEFG, huh? What if all the bisexuals would claim that there´s no gay, no lesbian, only bisexuality? `cause that´s what you are doing here right now. But you´ll surely are convinced that you´re right...well, then go outside and call a gay bisexual. Come on, try it. Call a lesbian bisexual, then and enjoy the shit hitting the fan. They, the lgbt, have their identities, but you won´t let us have ours , no, you even stole our words, you hold us hostage. Proud of yourself doing this?
And again, you come up with this "you wanna be better" bs argument. No one wants to be better than a beasty, there IS NO "better than others" when it´s about having sex with animals. You again accuse us of having a superiority complex, but we don´t. In fact, it´s you and your kin that obviously suffers from an excessive inferiority complex here. Have you ever heard about such a thing in the LGBT community? That bisexuals are upset because they´re not gays or lesbians although they eventually engage in such activities from time to time? Your false analogies crap won´t work here anymore. The classical separation of beasty and zoo left no questions unanswered, it was you folks who weren´t cool because of your envy. "Me wants the z-word , too sniff sniff ". You guys always stole and took hostage, that´s your nature, I guess. You cannot stand that you´re not in the "cool kids club" although we exclusive zoos don´t want to be the cool kids, we just want to have OUR part of it without you dumbasses interfering because of envy and greed.
And yeah, "stomp down this idea that zoo´s just can´t handle human relationships" like you stomp down everything that doesn´t fit into your bs agenda. Nevermind the fact that it´s exceedingly easier for an exclusive zoo to get the point of having NO CHOICE, of BEING MADE THAT WAY across to the normals.
As I said, it is obviously YOU who cannot handle us "evil dissidents". So sort out your personal mental problems, okay? Don´t blame it on us when you are the ones who really are to blame for stealing our name, our identity, our ideas, instrumentalise our property to justify your fuckfest with your human partner and Lassie/Fido.
Or should we excluives now force ourselves to fuck a human so you retards can sleep well at night, huh? As I said: the oppressed of yesterday will become the oppressors of tomorrow...but you seem to be one of them too who apparently cannot wait for tomorrow..FU! If you want war, be careful what you are bargaining for.
Whether or not bisexuals are a part of the community is a very real controversy within LGBT circles. Yearningmice isn't making a joke or analogy. There's a lot of infighting about which groups are "allowed" to be in LGBT spaces and why. Hell, even within gay and lesbian groups there's gatekeepers, the so-called 'gold-star's.
The groups that get excluded and attacked (really anyone aside from gay and lesbian people) don't get upset that 'they're not gays'. They DO get upset that they're rejected by mainstream society for their sexuality/gender and then once they find a space that should be for them, some gatekeeper tries to kick them out of there too.
This is not dissimilar from zoo resistance to gatekeeping. People who have an attraction to animals, exclusive or not, have very few places to talk about it. They find a place that's all about that and it gives them a needed sense of community and identity. They're going to be resistant to people telling them "actually you need to leave, you're not zoo enough."
Nobody ever said that, ever.
No, only that thinking they belong was, how did you put it... embarrassing and disrespectful to the real zoophiles. And that by being here they're hindering acceptance of others.
"..it gives them a needed sense of community and identity."...no, it´doesn´t give them an identity, they´re taking an already made identity and appropriate this identity. No one would say a thing if the beasties would call themselves that, they would still be a part of this "animal fucker" community, but would have their own identity instead of taking the party they just entered hostage. That is your basic mistake here. Wanna proof? The z-word in the beginning of the nineties was coined as a descriptive term for bestialists who are faithful to their animal (mind you, I use the sigular here!) NOT into humans at all, a.k.a. the so called "monogamous exclusive zoophiles". And look what the z-word has come to today, a mere and watered down word that is a synonym for fucking animals in general. That´s what you get when you have this stupid and delusional open door culture, executed by people with a Jesus complex. The non exclusives had their own word, but decided to just take and take and take instead of building up something of their own. "Hey you! Yes, you with the blonde hair in the Ferrari! I´m blond too, so you have the duty to hand over all what is yours to me!" Same logic you´re using here... "Hey you! Yes, you animal fucker! I fuck animals too, so you have to hand over all your words, your community, your pride and your ideals to me!" You someday have to realise that we, the original zoophiles, were invaded and occupied by all those "poor folks who were just searching for community and identity". Call me a gatekeeper if you want...but then , you have no other choice but to call the French resistance terrorists from now on. People like me aren´t "gatekeepers" for nothing, not in it for the thrill of fighting, we actually fight for OUR identity which was taken from us by all these "poor ones"...Thinking that way, you can also say that Hitler hasn´t invaded Poland, he "just came in search for community (a Germanic one, of course) and identity (again, a German one). You can bend and flex as you want, but this is the truth, all of you who are siding with those "poor folks" are indeed applauding invaders and oppressors. You want tolerance from society, yet you cannot tolerate your own "minorities", cannot even let them have a word of their own that describes them, is their identity? Pathetic.
At great risk of stating the blatantly obvious this was a thread about someone dying.
It is not a place to be carrying on with all this petty bullshit about who owns the trademark on a fucking word.
It is not the place to be discussing who is and who is not in your opinion a bona fide zoophile.
I don't care if you loved Ebonlupus or hated every fibre of his mortal being, nobody is forcing anyone to come here and sing his praises. All that stuff about not speaking ill of the dead, it's not for the benefit of person that passed but for those they have left behind.
A man has died. Those who knew and loved him will be grieving his loss. Stop pissing on his grave and show them some fucking respect.
// A man, apparently a zoophile, dies suddenly /// A few days later his death is reported in a forum full of zoophiles, people who by their own measure love animals, and not a single one asks if he had any animals that now need help. //// Not.A.Single.God-damn.Fucking.One
I agreed to a point until you wrote that. That's unfair and condescending, from reasonable to ridiculous. This is a web forum and nobody here unless they knew his address can do a damn thing about his animals. If someone honestly wrote that I'd brush it off as being disingenuous. There was a great post about this on a defunct forum. The reality is when push comes to shove this is a web thingy and none of us can do a damn thing for each other when shit hits the fan in real life, unless you risk yourself and your animals to meet people, at which point it's a conversation for somewhere else not here. It's just the sad state of affairs and people here don't deserve condescension for it.
We don't need to show respect. If someone's dead then that someone doesn't care what happens. I never understood the logic behind it.
This is a forum, we discuss.
And if he had animals that now need help then what's the point? We can't look after them. We don't know his adress and can just go there and take care of his animals.
I think they were highlighting the principle of the community being concerned for the nonhuman as well as mourning the human
But we don't know this human. I'm not sure why we would care about a random human's death.
Yes, someone dies every second. Do we cry about that?
If people want to cry about it, then that's fine. But don't just force others to care about it too.
I've never even met him. Only saw his sex art and he was mentioned once, but it was very negative.
A death is a death. It's a tragedy in principle, for most, and there are enough people here who knew him personally and in at least a somewhat positive light for it to still apply. And yes, deaths are frequent, but when we as individuals become numb to the deaths and suffering of those distant from us, the world foregoes any pretense of humanitarianism.
Sometimes, among those that are mourning at present, it's best not to interject with promulgations of your lack of personal investment or mourning. I suppose you could say it's a matter of etiquette. Like the amply evident wrongness of going to a funeral, eating some of the sandwiches in back, and saying "I don't see what the big deal is, I don't even know the guy!" in earshot of everybody before leaving. If you don't care about him, then there's no need to post to this thread in particular.
I click every thread because it interests me, no matter how boring the title is.
I even click those stories I know I will never read, but I don't usually comment there because in the end because I don't have anything to say.
But right now I had something to say because of someone posted a comment that I had to reply to. Then the discussion expanded and it all came to this.
I just can't ignore it. I don't take some things very kindly, especially when other people are being hypocritical or when things like ''Exclusive zoophiles may have an interest in doing sexual / romantic stuff with humans.'' get said.
The bonus here is that the same people who said that think that this whole ''zoos secretly want humans'' stereotype should be prevented. That's one of the hypocritical things going on here.
See, that's whats wrong with this community these days. Double fucking standarts. I see it. I see it happen so much.
Even the people who claim that this community has gone to shit keep going at it and still argue about it themselves, acting like other opinions are retards. Yeah ha ha ha, even me. But hey, I'm probably the worst I'll ever be in life. I'm a mess now.
But yeah, if somebody says bullshit at this funeral, I won't keep quiet.
Now let's make fun of this situation.
This all happened because I tried to make fun of someone who actually (kind of) agrees with me on what we were talking about.
It's just that until I got attacked myself, and then it all expanded, and then we had the circlejerk turned on and the downvote brigade came to rescue 'em.
Now, where the hell is my downvote? Hey guys look! I'm disagreeing with you!
I haven't seen people other than silverwolf say there was an interest in human relationships to be had in exclusive zoophiles myself. I heard many people say that its done to stay in the closet, appease family, and because they want kids, but none of those things entail an absence of exclusive zoophilia. On the issue of you not being able to imagine someone having intercourse with an individual they have no attraction to, that understanding will come to you in time if it has not already. It happens more frequently than you'd think, and it's not them going into it for the sex. I have no interest in alot of things too, but there are numerous cases where I did those things anyway in the interest of a desirable outcome... as I'm sure everyone here has at one point. It's not me suddenly completely changing myself on a fundamental level, I'm just acting against my baser self because through discipline and foresight I'm willing and able to overcome my inhibitions to achieve my goals.
A wild Alot appeared!
^This Action ^was performed ^by a ^bot ^- Please ^message eto_eskape ^if you ^have any ^problems
Click me to opt out!
alotabot does make a good point... this is a very informal obituary. If you feel too offended sometimes it's best to just, opt out, than try to fight a wall and hurt yourself for no reason.
Oh I remember things like that being said to me as a child, even now.
''Don't worry, you'll like others some day.'' Or just in short: ''You'll change.''
I couldn't believe things like that less. Especially when even you started to make such a dick move.
Yet I have never seen any evidence for this.
Where are the stats, the numbers, the studies? Excuse me, but don't you need scientific evidence for this sort of thing, or is it suddenly different?
Even if you somehow have them, it's still hard for me to believe them. Because they don't realize they truly are attracted to, or they're just straight up lying. Except maybe scientific evidence, but that'd be hard to get.
^^^^^^/
You heard it yourself, yet zero evidence was given. Great job man.
But that's different, we're talking about attraction here.
Any kind of urge to have sex with humans means you are attracted to them. There are no excuses but one.
The only thing I can think of is that if they put a gun to your head, because at that point you actually have no choice but to and you only do it to save your life.
Things like wanting to have children isn't a good excuse as this is the main reason attraction exists. It is seriously the thing that makes us hunger for sex and relationships.
If you want children for any reasons with a human, you are attracted to them. It's a part of your attraction.
There's just no excuse for this sort of thing. How hard is that to understand?
Is the public holding a gun to your head? Is your family holding a gun to your head? No. You're an adult.
You don't have sex or relationships to please others, only yourself and the one you're having sex with / having a relationship with. You can decide for yourself.
This isn't an excuse to stay in the closet. Do you know how overboard that is? I know I'm retarded for being so whiny over being a virgin for the rest of my life, but this is so fucking unbelievable and abnormal. I'm being ridiculed for me crying about not having sex, but this takes the fucking cake. This is the craziest thing I have ever heard in my life. What's the logic behind this? It's so unnecessary. Just say ''I'm not interested in anything.'' WTF???
You're forcing yourself to do something you are disgusted of to please others. Why do you not even consider this wrong?
It's like jumping in a fire because others do it. ''No, I'm not suicidal, it's just that my family wants to / I want to know what it's like to die / others do it too, even though I know it's unpleasant.''
Holy fucking shit...
This is the dumbest and silliest thing I've argued about yet that I've lost my trust for you. I've never though so alien of you. Consider me ''healed,'' by the way.
A wild Alot appeared!
^This Action ^was performed ^by a ^bot ^- Please ^message eto_eskape ^if you ^have any ^problems
Click me to opt out!
Fuck off.
What does it feel like to be made by humans? Whahaha, useless shit robot.
But it's so cute! D:
More annoying and pointless than cute, at least.
It's not that you'll want it. You'll just understand their motivations better.
There's actually an entire topic of study, focused on mixed orientation marriage, which you can study for a bit here if you'd like. While it doesn't cover zoophilia specifically, the principles of it would be roughly the same in such a situation.
I went through the entire thread trying to identify instances of people saying what they were accused of saying. Aside from silverwolf, I didn't see it.
Perhaps, instead, they aren't so deeply averse to humans as you let on, or rather, as you are. There's a security in having a human partner, regardless of attraction. There are statistics to evidence that marriage or living with a roommate even results in a relatively longer lifespan. At any rate "I want to have kids of my own" or "She wants it and even though I'm not attracted, she deserves that much" isn't the internal dialogue of someone drooling over the crotches of other humans. It's not an urge to have sex with other humans, it's an easier alternative in some ways.
Because ultimately, it renders alot of benefits that jumping into a fire doesn't. I'm never going to get married or have a partner to speak of myself but I know those benefits to be true too. These people that do choose it in spite of their contrary attractions probably respect and enjoy the presence of their spouses quite a bit platonically, as well. Wanting kids, the safety nets, the added household income, etc are all reasonable things in light of the demands of society at large. Living alone is absolutely not for everyone, and there are a great many burdens that get lifted when you have two people to manage the household and keep track of things.
But if there were no benefits, sure, you'd have a reasonable point to be had in that instance, barring people that want to get a 'full range of experiences'.
A wild Alot appeared!
^This Action ^was performed ^by a ^bot ^- Please ^message eto_eskape ^if you ^have any ^problems
Click me to opt out!
I've understood things I didn't want to understand.
My feelings have nothing to do with this as I'm no zombie controlled by my own feelings.
Your comment still gave me a very dirty vibe because it really looked like you pulled that weird shit there.
Well it is to be expected that such a thing exists, but I still want to see actual stats.
Still not convinced on this whole subject as some people aren't honest with themselves or don't know their feelings yet.
Ehm, what things exactly?
Did you quote the wrong part of my reply or...
Yeah well that's great but that doesn't change anything for me.
I'm not sure how you can be in a romantic relationship when they're not attracted to them. You don't have any feelings for them, so this makes no sense.
I mean, a relationship isn't an act, it's something in our minds.
Then why not live with a roommate instead of going against your own brain's logic and somehow magically control your mind into having a relationship with something you aren't attracted to?
And this makes me wonder, has there been a study done on humans and animals together? Because how is this longer lifespan possible?
I'm trying to apply common logic to this, so I'm going to say that it's because of the happiness of being together and loving eachother.
I don't see why this wouldn't count the same for zoos with ''relationships'' with animals or even normal human beings with animals.
Because attraction isn't just ''drooling over the crotches of xxxxx.'' Not even our sexual attraction is just that. I think you should know that yourself since I think you have a very slight attraction to human females yourself iIrc. See, this is what I mean, you're not aware of everything about your own attraction.
I consider wanting to have a baby both a part of our sexual and romantic attractions. I think I already explained on how it's the main thing that makes attraction exist.
I really don't think any excuses can be used for this, they are still urges to me.
You don't have to be in a relationship to do any of these.
You can just work together and that's it. You don't need feelings for eachother at all.
The benefits really don't change anything for me. You're still not an exclusive to me and won't treat them like one.
I've understood things I didn't want to understand.
My feelings have nothing to do with this as I'm no zombie controlled by my own feelings.
Your comment still gave me a very dirty vibe because it really looked like you pulled that weird shit there.
Well it is to be expected that such a thing exists, but I still want to see actual stats.
Still not convinced on this whole subject as some people aren't honest with themselves or don't know their feelings yet.
Ehm, what things exactly?
Did you quote the wrong part of my reply or...
Yeah well that's great but that doesn't change anything for me.
I'm not sure how you can be in a romantic relationship when they're not attracted to them. You don't have any feelings for them, so this makes no sense.
I mean, a relationship isn't an act, it's something in our minds.
Then why not live with a roommate instead of going against your own brain's logic and somehow magically control your mind into having a relationship with something you aren't attracted to?
And this makes me wonder, has there been a study done on humans and animals together? Because how is this longer lifespan possible?
I'm trying to apply common logic to this, so I'm going to say that it's because of the happiness of being together and loving eachother.
I don't see why this wouldn't count the same for zoos with ''relationships'' with animals or even normal human beings with animals.
Because attraction isn't just ''drooling over the crotches of xxxxx.'' Not even our sexual attraction is just that. I think you should know that yourself since I think you have a very slight attraction to human females yourself iIrc. See, this is what I mean, you're not aware of everything about your own attraction.
I consider wanting to have a baby both a part of our sexual and romantic attractions. I think I already explained on how it's the main thing that makes attraction exist.
I really don't think any excuses can be used for this, they are still urges to me.
You don't have to be in a relationship to do any of these.
You can just work together and that's it. You don't need feelings for eachother at all.
The benefits really don't change anything for me. You're still not an exclusive to me and won't treat them like one.
What do you mean by dirt vibe exactly? and what 'wierd shit'? Not sure I follow. I get the idea that you saw something you thought was suspicious but I don't know what would cause that exactly.
Then you'd question the statistics regardless, but I suppose obliging your inquiriy wouldn't hurt. You can review this study for an overview of a number of case studies on the matter of mixed orientation marriages. I'll not elaborate on the specifics here, as I think it's best viewed wholly.
You were saying people here were arguing that exclusive zoophiles had sexual/romantic interest in humans.
Marriage is a contract, not a condition. Throughout history marriages have been organized for political and personal reasons that superceded attraction and their feelings. In fact, marriage by merit of attraction was deemed a childish pursuit, especially by nobility and royal families who enforced diplomatic relations with marriage rather frequently. It's only recently that marriage as a utilitarian practice has been discarded by most, but that doesn't mean people can no longer do it. Marriage confers benefits (at least in the US) that you don't get from roommates or even civil unions. Children also confer certain financial benefits alongside their cost.
It's decreased stress from a shared workload as well, given that even bad marriages confer this benefit. Performing all the duties to maintain a household can cause a significant amount of stress, which a nonhuman partner can't alleviate, and a roommate isn't committed to do. Marriage in the US at least confers a huge number of benefits, rights, and spousal responsibilities that you don't have otherwise. As I understand it, this is similar throughout Europe as well. These benefits are rarely matched by civil unions, and never matched for roommates. It's also a good safety net for people with existing medical conditions or as they get older, so someone is available to call emergency medical services in the event of a MI, CVA, or even a fall that knocks you out. If you end up with a human spouse that has a low sex drive, then a platonic marriage can and often does work out just fine.
I've elaborated on my orientation in pretty great detail historically as I recall, but to recap, I err on the side of asexuality and am more attracted to the same sex than that of the opposite. In some respects, I'm pansexual. It should be noted that the slight attraction I have doesn't actually result in a desire for any individuals or even sexual or romantic contact.
My genes die with me, but wanting kids isn't just some base thing either. I'm of the philosophy that there are too many humans too, but we're all someone's kid. It's a part of culture at large, and part of the greater culture of animals in general. The thing is, despite whatever slight attract to females and males I have, the thought of me having a child with another or even caring for children in general is revolting on a deep, personal level. If they're one and the same or at least interconnected, then wouldn't it follow that I'd want children just a smidge, or at least be ambivalent to the prospect based on your logic?
Now, speaking as a geneticist, the biological factors of attraction exist independent of the prospect of childbearing. There's no evidence of an "I want babies" gene or any biological predictor for whether an individual wants children, nor is sexual or romantic attraction a causal predictor for the desire to have kids. It's learned and a part of our life experience from such an early point in time that it feels innate later, if I had to speculate the true cause.
If you have a human that you live with, work with, and don't plan on not working and living with in the future, there's no reason not to opt for legal marriage. To clarify, marriage does not necessitate a relationship, or even friendship. I could literally find a stranger on the street and file for a marriage certificate with them today, and we'd be legally married. My only personal investment would be the 50$ to finalize the marriage. There seemed to be some miscommunication about the ramifications of marriage, but that should clear up any confusion. It's little more than a contract, just romanticized into seeming like something more by the masses and popular choice.
It was your behavior that I thought was meant to insult me.
''Don't worry, you'll understand some day.'' can be taken negatively. Y'know, it's like ''You're acting dumb now, but later when you're older and smarter you'll understand it hopefully.''
Yeah as I said this stuff happens, but I'm still not convinced because of reasons I keep mentioning.
I'm sure in this reply that I'll repeat it anyways.
Yes, but that's only because I hold that opinion. In your eyes, they're only saying there's a chance that zoo exclusives may still have sex with / have a relationship with humans.
Fair enough, but the problem here I'm talking about if any sex or romance is involved.
I guess it depends on why you're marrying in this case. If it's to benefit from it and don't do ''stuff'' with humans then I can believe you're an exclusive zoophile.
I don't think it's learned. I know that we don't know where children come from until we're told by others or like animals, until we experience it ourselves. But our sex drive exists because we want to reproduce, and our sex drive itself isn't learned because it's developed.
Romantic attraction also plays a part in this because it brings two together so they can reproduce.
There are reasons attractions exist.
We humans and even other animals have lost parts or changed parts of our instincts over time. This is why not everyone wants children, has a sexual / romantic attraction and we can have strange attractions like zoophilia or things like fetishes and kinks. We have changed so much that attraction isn't just wanting to reproduce.
But in case any human ever wants to, it's always a part of their attraction. I consider it a leftover of that instinct.
Oh, yeah, no. I meant that literally as meaning we don't develop a good capacity for understanding it until adulthood. Brain development is weird.
The things I said were evidenced empirically, mind. It's not what I think, it's the product of scientific findings throughout the past few decades and extends to species outside of humans. The fact of the matter is, evolution, part of my field of study, isn't an intelligent or even intuitive process, but when you apply it to the right context you find that it is much more than random too. It makes sense that there would be a desire for reproduction, but it's not necessary. You only need the habits to generate and in the cases of mammals, avians, and some other outliers, sustain offspring. For millions of years, sex was enough to cause that until contraceptives came along less than 2,000 years ago(counting primitive contraceptives). Many vertebrates don't have the capacity, either mentally or due to cultural limitations to correlate things that happen several months between, so this trait would either have to predate and persist through the divergence events that led to cetaceans, corvids, and hominids, or it would need to confer such a great benefit that they all developed the same trait by means of convergent evolution.
Sex is all that's needed, so... why would there be a drive to reproduce specifically? We literally didn't have the time to genetically adapt to a need to desire reproduction. We've only just encountered ways to separate sex and reproduction. The layers and layers of complexity to create a desire to make offspring is just so much versus a mechanical instinct with some mating habits to ensure males find the proper receptacle that's rewarded with physical pleasure. Emotional imprinting from sex(where it applies), and romance just keeps the mates together long enough for them to be present and affected by their offspring, but even that isn't reliable sometimes and humans can and often do stay together for their kids even in light of a complete absence of romance or even a fulfilling relationship.
Given that having the desire to reproduce on top of the desire for sex would be needlessly redundant, it's more likely that one wins out. Less is more in the words of genetics, and in this case we're talking about an idea tantamount to giving humans two sets of eyes. It may not seem that way, but redundant genes like these don't help and sex drive is already regulated by animals in general in such a way that overbreeding isn't an issue. It leaves you at a reproductive disadvantage to have these redundant traits -- not only does it mean that you're genetically less adaptive, but you're exhausting more resources to express additional genes. A 'desire to procreate' gene is also contingent upon a great many factors that may never come to pass, and is more complex than it needs to be, quite frankly(It may sound simple when you think about it in terms of a sentence, but a look at the details yields a much more convoluted picture). Too complex to be reliable, and by a brief look at the diverse birthing habits throughout human history, much too heavily influenced by cultural factors to have a significant effect on the human thought process if it does exist.
Something to note is that the cultures that almost glorify childbirth are the ones that had the most explosive growth in late human history. Cultures that met child bearers with gifts, give mothers priority, protect them, and expect others to have children as well, religions that assign a duty to procreate... It only worked then because humans had the infrastructure to support a growing population -- even then, Europe was devastated by the bubonic and pneumonic plague which wouldn't have been nearly as pervasive had society at large not had those religious and cultural doctrines. It's not adaptive to want offspring by default, suffice to say, and having lower population density protected humans from epidemics(aka it gave humans a reproductive advantage because less died before reaching sexual maturity). The thing about culture as it relates to the issue at hand is, it's extremely adaptive. Culture can evolve on an extremely small timescale, even in the span of a few decades, years, or months.
A procreation instinct would have to be something that doesn't have to be learned, mind. It should be a drive that exists independent of reasonable environmental factors and as a genetic trait would be reliably expressed within the majority of humans... but... it's not. In fact, looking at the recent generational births within the US you'll find that childbirth fluctuates by /massive/ extremes. In the US in 1957, there was an average of 122.7 humans born for every 1000 women, but just 20 years later that number was halved. A number of countries are actually beginning to age due to a lack of procreation -- japan, germany, the UK, canada, poland, ukraine, even france, italy, spain, and believe it or not, the US. That list is projected to get much longer in the coming years. It can't be because of poor weather conditions, as these countries each have diverse climates. It can't be because of infertility -- these are all relatively well off first world countries with good healthcare. It can't be due to childbearing falling out of acceptance -- the japanese government and probably some others actively reward and promote childbirth in light of these developments, and spain in particular has a major culture that would in theory promote it as well. It can't be a lack of shelter or resources inhibiting reproduction, as food has never been so abundant in those countries. It can't be their health, since medical services have become extremely sophisticated and some of the countries with the highest birth rates also have among the worst healthcare. It can't be overpopulation either... some of the countries listed have remarkably low population densities as it is. Basically, all that means the basic needs of humans are met and there are no extreme circumstances to get in the way, so there shouldn't be anything inhibiting those people from having kids, and yet their birthrates are on a steady decline.
It could be due to the collapse of religious influence, or simply the lack of a need for children to work the fields or help maintain households, but that would imply a cultural and economic basis for childbirth... which there is. Impoverished, uneducated and religious individuals fairly reliably have more children than their opulent, educated, and areligious counterparts. Free and accessible birth control significantly lowers the birth rates for the former population, but it's still higher. Many of those children, however, were likely not planned.
What I will say, is that the baby schema may play a role here as a genetic factor. It is however, completely independent of any sexual and romantic attraction. You're compelled to care for or at least have an emotional response to kittens or puppies as a result of the baby schema due to a hormonal response when you're met with the low level and rather vague criteria that constitutes your genetic idea of a baby. The baby schema is what makes 'chibis', big eyed, big headed, or pudgy seeming anythings to appear 'cute'. So, it's less of an idea of a baby and more like a very rudimentary math equation with a ton of different answers. It triggers a hormonal response in humans that, while somewhat contingent on culture, generally results in a cared for baby, puppy, kitten, or what have you. The quality of that care tends to depend heavily on the quality of care given by the parents of the affected person... but again, if the baby schema triggers a desire to have kids, unless you're specifically attracted to kids which a decidedly large majority are not, sexual or romantic attraction isn't an observable genetic factor in the decision to have kids.
But still, this isn't really up for discussion. What anyone feels or thinks about possible links between sexual attraction and wanting kids doesn't amount to much in the face of discourse informed by empirical evidence. And again, I've specialized in the field of genetics for years now. This isn't me trying to push my own narrative that I thought up, because frankly, I don't have a horse in this race, this is just me looking at what I know from my year of studying evolutionary biology and several years studying genetics. The reason why you don't learn about a reproduction instinct in science class is because scientists asked that question, they specifically looked for it historically. They found sex and mating habits but nothing to reflect a desire for offspring specifically.
There is the possibility of in vitro fertilization if a zoophile wants a biological child, but if they're already married for whatever reason, it would raise red flags and be needlessly complicated and expensive to pursue.
Ow fuck, that is sad to hear. I love his art and his "don't neuter" website. :(
Hey, I can actually agree with you for once!
Yet he probably hasn't encouraged anyone to not neuter or spay their animals, sadly.
Him being so strong against it, I would think is more possible that he encouraged people to not do that. Though him living in the middle of nowhere... who knows. If I recall, he lived in a somewhat desolated area?
I don't think that's the problem, but the fact that humans are so protective about this shit. They're so obsessed with spaying and neutering for some unkown retarded shit reason.
Knowing how humans are, most of his supporters are humans who already were against spaying and neutering anyways.
Also, I'm pretty sure the FB page he had wasn't very popular.
i wanna see that website
I believe that it used to be this link neutering.org/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi but now is down.
You can use the captcha from google and still shows some info: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:N52PXrO0YAAJ:www.neutering.org/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-b
Or maybe, you can find that site on the time machine (a website that makes catpchas from almost all the internet every now and then)
surprised as hell he got that domain name. How old is that site?
Old Site, at least 7 years old. Is a shame, it had drawings made by him around the site and sound logic behind why is bad to neuter/spay.
Y'know, with spaying and nuetering as popular as ever, i think its time for a
rivalrevival of the anti spay-nueter movement. if nothing else, it gives puppy mills and a few breeders a monopoly and destroys the gene pool for some breeds.Forgive me, my english is not that good. When you said "it gives puppy mills" what is the "it" that you are referring to?
And I'm not in favor of reproducing dogs with bad genes. Some breeds should be illegal to breed, like bulldogs, poor dogs.
I was referring to spaying and neutering. If alot of people spay and neuter, there's less dogs to contribute their genes to the different breeds.
And with less spaying and neutering, genetic disasters, like what happened to the bulldog could be prevented, or at least delayed.
(also, if you think normal bulldogs are bad, look up toadline bulldogs. The SOLE purpose of that "breed" is selling them for profit)
I don't want to get depressed so I will trust your word. If I where a dictator of a country, man I would make very hard rules on pet ownership and breeding and make all the country go vegan by force (minus people who can't go vegan for some miraculously weird reason) One can only dream.
i guess so...
downvote me all you want people who read this, but i just dont get how people who claim to love animals enough to have sex with them still eat meat and animal products. It took me about a week after realizing i liked animals that much to completely refuse anything i knew had meat/animal products in.
i even knew a few zoos who hunted, and even one who worked in part of a factory farm and they just didnt understand what was wrong with it
Except you don't get the point. Meat eaters don't have sex with the animals they eat, so that doesn't make sense.
Oh yeah, and sorry for being extremely unhealthy without such products.
Man, I couldn't even live without meat. Can't imagine how weak and small I'd be if I never went back to meat again.
Because even with my current diet, I am unhealthy and weak.
dont forget this is humanity we're talking about. nothing is off the table.
and if you are one of those odd people who really cant handle a vegan diet, then my comment doesnt apply to you.
but have you even ever tried a vegan diet? (and tried it the right way, not just eating salad 3 times a day)
A vegan diet? No.
A vegetarian diet? Yes. Two times in my life.
I mean, not exactly, it depends on what you mean by vegan or vegetarian diet. I refused to eat meat and tried eating other healthy things in return, I also tried not eating anything with milk in it, yet couldn't take it.
You see, I don't even eat fruit and I barely eat vegetables.
In fact, I don't even eat meat that much because it has to be very specific. I don't even eat eggs directly or drink milk directly.
By the way, this isn't just some picky eating, this is something extremely serious that I had all my life.
My mom said she'd allow me to be vegetarian if I didn't have these problems, but otherwise she wouldn't even allow it.
Then go ahead and eat meat i guess.
That... seems very careless.
You scare me.
What do you want me to say? go vegan or kys? You said you cant handle a vegan diet, and i dont know you well enough to know if your lying.
Well, you could ask him what he has that prevents him from going vegan. (I have asked that) yet, he never gave an answer, probably because he doesn't have a valid excuse.
From what I remember, he can handle a vegan diet, he just doesn't want to have a balanced vegan diet and he loves meat too much. Odds are, he is making invalid excuses to not be a vegan.
Excuse me, but do you know my life?
No you don't, you have zero evidence of this. I tried a vegetarian diet twice and could not handle it because of my extreme bad eating habits.
As I said, I am still unhealthy with my current diet.
You are making invalid excuses, because you don't know who I am and how I live. Stop acting like you know shit, because you don't.
You're the worst example of a vegan I've ever seen. You even put them to shame like you put zoophiles to shame.
Oh and by the way, I don't even ''love'' meat because of the guilt that goes with it, not to mention it has to be the right kind. It's one of the foods I can actually eat, not to mention I give most of the meat to my girl who deserves meat because she's a goddamn dog.
The knowledge I have about you comes from your own statements that you made to me about 3 months ago.
The evidence is in your own comments, in the warcanine account. (unless you delete them or edit them out)
Extreme bad eating having is not a valid excuse for not being vegan. For example, this would not be a valid excuse: I can't stop being a rapist because I have extreme bad sex habits.
Which shows that you need a balanced (preferably vegan) diet. FYI: Vegan diets are on average healthier than the non-vegan version.
What invalid excuse?
Like I said, I know what you have said in your comments.
Subjective and irrational opinion.
Subjective and irrational opinion.
You said in the past: HMM so yummy, I'm eating this delicious meat burger yumm yumm (I'm rephrasing) You mock vegans and shovel your meat eating habits in their face. You clearly love meat, you act like the other vegan haters.
Vegan food has the same things that meat has, minus B12. Which you can buy in pills. If you can eat meat, then you can also eat vegan and swallow b12 pills. There is no know medical condition (that I know off) that stops some one from being vegan. So, almost always, if some one says that they can't go vegan, they are making invalid excuses.
Still not a valid excuse for you to buy (support buying) and eat meat.
This shows how you are delusional about my problem. You don't know shit about me and my life.
I've never in my life eaten well. In my whole life I have tried to eat better, but still haven't improved because it's hard.
This is a serious problem and with your attitude you aren't helping at all. Why would I make excuses if I have tried going vegetarian twice?
If you're just going to scream the word ''fallacy'' and ''excuse'' like usual then I refuse to argue with you. I'm looking to talk with humans who can act in a certain way and not with the behavior you always display.
Not irrational at all.
You are a bad example of a vegan because they're supposed to convince others, but with your attitude you're going to have a hard time.
You don't even give a chance at all to understand and you call almost everything an invalid excuse.
REAL vegans would understand that acting like you act now will get you nowhere.
That you call my reasons for not going vegan invalid excuses.
I don't buy my own meat. My mother does and she won't even allow me to go vegan nor vegetarian.
She'd allow me if I could eat healthier, but I can't.
I only buy meat for my girl because she's a dog who needs and deserves meat. Come up with your shit reasons why dogs don't need meat, but I couldn't give a shit less.
Never in my life under any circumstance will I stop giving her that. It's a basic thing for a normal dog diet.
[deleted]
Yes, let's force animals into changing their behavior and bodies, destroying useful parts in the process.
We zoophiles should be against these things, especially when they don't give consent to such a disgusting and unethical act.
See, this is actual exploitation of animals. Pretty sad to hear this, even from you.
This is one of the most disturbing things I've heard, forcing others to spay / neuter innocent animals.
As a REAL zoophile, I would at least push for better laws and at least think about getting an animal's tubes tied, something which does not really harm them. And I also would respect an animal's body by not modifying them against their will, as I think these animals are perfect on their own.
funny what a single typo can do. i meant revival, not rival.
Butterfly effect, especially when you have a bitter human like me around who's very protective of certain things.
i think you should reread my reply
Why? I don't see anything that I didn't addressed. And the stuff I didn't addressed is because I agree with you.
i made a major typo. I thought that was why you didnt respond. its all good tho
Shit. I talked to him a few times years ago. :C