I have been told that I am not a Zoophile because I can relate to humans non-sexually. I've also been told that I'm not exclusive because I tried (largely without success) to have sex with a human 40 odd years ago. There have been lots of similar (and worse) barbs thrown between members in many threads.
The basis for most of it seems to be an effort to distance individuals from "undesirables". "I don't want to be mistaken for sadist/rapist/beastialist/etc/etc." This is the attitude that we must outgrow. I have known some major league psychos and sociopaths that were indisputably Zoo.
I don't like them any more than anyone else here BUT they are ours. Trying to distance yourself from the broken Zoos by denying their existence just convinces the str8s that there's even more hiding somewhere else. Wouldn't "fixing" them make more sense?
Perhaps we could ask some of the str8s for help. Maybe a little less persecution would help some of the more stressed. Even some (age appropriate) education/prevention. Yes, it sounds like New Age psychobabble but those are exactly the terms that the antis have been using (successfully) against us.
It puts the ball back in their court too. By oppressing people they are just making things worse. Don't get any idea that this is original thought either. It was 1 of the steps that the gay movement had to go through to get where they are today.
So what's the chance that most of us might swallow our pride (individual) for the benefit of our Pride (collective)? The only other motivation that I can think of is the "Frog Method". The Frog Method is a political theory where controlling the size of the puddle (membership in a political group) makes it easier to stay the biggest frog in that puddle and we all know that's a bad idea.
I really appreciate your thoughts. Thank you for posting
I pretty much agree with this. I'd rather not belabor the arguments I've already made, but allow me to make an analogy to a more prominent social movement, to explain this problem and its solution more clearly. This isn't meant to state some moral equivalence between the situations, merely to address similarities in their social dynamics.
In the late 2000s, popular culture began to see a rise in skeptical and/or atheist books and articles. Scientists and philosophers, as well as their more layperson followers, were making good arguments against religion and for a more scientific and secular worldview. For a while, there were even somewhat popular conferences and rallies dedicated to skepticism and atheism.
Then, in 2012, a subset of this community began focusing on other issues of race, gender, and sexuality, and insisting that everyone else in the community agree with them completely on these issues or be branded morally inferior to them. This coalesced into the label "Atheism Plus", which was intended to denoted agreement on a broad spectrum of human rights issues. In practice, however, it shut out anyone who had priorities other than equality and tolerance (such as freedom of speech and individualism).
These conferences still exist, but have very low attendance numbers. Due to the ideological constraints placed upon the atheist community, they effectively splintered off on the basis of political and social values, and those in the "in-group" (now popularly termed progressives) essentially refuse to talk to anyone else and even berate members of their community who do so (most notably, in recent weeks, Laci Green).
In effect, a cult was formed around an inflexible and practically unlivable set of principles. Anyone who failed to promote these principles exactly as the group desired was banned from it, with the result that the only people left are too far removed from anyone else to ever effect real change other than the creation of resentment and a backlash against anything even remotely connected to their ideas.
you can change a few sentences in that and make it fit with a ton of other communities.The "core" refuses to change. the others begin splintering off, the core becomes further and further removed, then the group slowly starts to fade into obscurity.
[removed]
I agree with this completely.
Hey, you get back to your old name :)
It's easy enough to swap numbers, my old one was "2002" not "2012" but yeah, I didn't really want to ever change and with the threat gone, I'm back to being me. :)
[removed]
I'm with you.
Well... You spoke with some morons. Nothing more, nothing less.
What, specifically, are you proposing?
Speaking for myself, the interest in clear terminology is an interest in reducing misunderstanding in discussions.
Even in the context you mentioned, nobody is denying the existence of different motivations, but since you bring up politics and allies, isn't it reasonable to assume that more people will be sympathetic to the idea of sex as an expression of tender fondness, rather than sex as an expression of exotic lust? And a lot of people in the latter camp are not interested in being "fixed".
Same with homosexuality: In the 50s through 80s, it was assumed gay people were fetish-driven, possibly mentally ill people, whose perversion was likely linked to various criminal behavior. In the 90s and 00s when media started representing them as real humans, when the concept of "sexual orientation" started to be better understood, etc., it was at this point when traction really built up for acceptance.
Not to deny that seedy gay clubs still exist, but in general it's not something that is focused on, any more.
The issue I'm seeing with the terminology debates is a small number of people insist on using narrow definitions based upon their specific philosophies. These definitions aren't very clear or concise and have criteria that may or may not have to do with sexual and romantic attraction to animals like watching porn or having other sexual/romantic interests. Because people disagree on the philosophies these definitions are based on these definitions don't reduce misunderstanding but increase conflict and arguments.
Picking a definition based on what someone thinks will be the most palatable to mainstream audiences doesn't work well with sexual orientation because the specifics of how people experience and interact with their sexual attraction vary widely between individuals. While there's a lot of foggy area in what you do, at the base you either are sexually attracted to animals or you aren't. You bring up gay people, but note that a) the accepted definition of 'gay' remains broad and that b) gay people who are predatory are still by-and-large accepted as gay, their actions don't negate their attraction and identity.
I also find it untrue that being represented as 'real humans' has also meant the image of gay people has been desexualized. Gay clubs are still very large parts of the community, kink/fetish imagery is still very prominent in Pride events, etc. Even sfw depictions of gay people frequently involve lewd jokes and implications. It's less that these aspects of the gay experience were denied or hidden and more that other elements were allowed to be shown. Being represented and seen as real humans doesn't and shouldn't mean being desexualized since for many people that is a part of their experience and identity.
My personal definition of "Zoophile" has been "anyone who gives a non-human equal worth or value as a human." I also agree with the dictionary that the act of sex with any non-human is called "bestiality".
Where I depart is creating two new categories, Beastialist (someone who sex with an animal for no other reason than sexual satisfaction) and Zoosexual (A Zoophile that extends their relationship into sex). Note that anyone who requires harm to complete a sex act is a sadist or masochist no matter who or what they choose as a partner.
I'd disagree really just on the basis of that being different than the current commonly accepted definition of zoophile. Funny enough though, earlier uses of zoophile up until the 80s meant what 'animal rights activist' does today. It's not impossible for the word to change meaning again, but it's definitely swimming against the current.
I'd also point out that someone's stance on animal rights isn't connected to their opinion on sex with animals or how they treat/interact with animals sexually. Someone who is in a romantic and sexual relationship with their meat-eating dog wouldn't be a zoophile, zoosexual, or bestialist under your definitions. Someone who opposes sex with animals under arguments of animal rights and exploitation could be a zoophile.
I did not suggest picking a definition based on what shows well, only that focusing on the non-sexual side was useful to the acceptance of homosexuality, a community that also struggled with a definition problem for many years.
Also I specifically said "not to deny that seedy gay clubs still exist" - of course it is ridiculous to suggest that homosexuality is in some way not related to sexuality. However, it no longer is EXCLUSIVELY seen as being about sexuality. Now it is seen much more like "some people are attracted to males, others to females, but we're all in it together" rather than "those sex-focused perverts are mentally ill, and will prey on your children."
The point I'm aiming for is, I think the public at large - if this group is to care what they think at all - will likely be more receptive to normal-seeming, person-next-door types who happen to love their pets just like the average pet lover but a bit more so, which describes many people here. I think presenting the public with the image that fencehopping is okay, drugging your animal for sex is okay, etc., sends a much different message. Not to say only one group does this and another doesn't, but I think this is exactly the point causing a desire to differentiate.
I don't care what we call people in either camp, or even how many camps there are, so long as it is consistent.
That's fair, I just often see implications that presenting oneself as 'normal' means denying sexuality and throwing people who have higher sex drives or have fetishes under the bus. There's nothing really wrong with those, so long as the person doesn't act cruelly, inappropriately, or dangerously.
Something I think would be useful to differentiate between is "zoophilia the sexual orientation" and "zoophile communities". The former can't really be policed in a meaningful way, but the latter can. To go back to something I said earlier, a predatory gay person is still considered gay without any debate, but they will (in a perfect world) not be allowed in community spaces or have their participation and voice minimized.
In principle I agree with what you're saying, but what some people call being thrown under the bus, others will claim is setting reasonable boundaries. For example, I think messing around with an animal despite the owner's objection is pretty bad, but others see no problem with it. An "anything-goes" attitude will alienate people who don't want to be associated with too many of those things, and a "church-lady" attitude will alienate people who are put off by the gatekeeper mentality, or who are not allowed in.
For sure, one could differentiate zoophilia the sexual orientation, zoophilia the loving-active-monogamous-exclusive relationship, zoophilia the paraphilia, zoophilia the love of animals... this flexible definition is exactly the problem.
For the sexual orientation, "zoosexual" seems to me like the plain-as-day option, and indisputably there appears to be a sexual orientation component to it for many people... but the term seems to turn some people off.
how about
zoophilie: someone who loves animals sexually or romantically
zoo exclusive: a zoophilie who doesnt love humans sexually nor romantically.
bing bang boom. done.
In exclusive should be "nor" instead of "or". And in zoophile you forgot about short periods of time when outsiders can be attracted to almost anything. So you should add "for at least 6 months" like in DSM. I would also replace "loves" with "is attracted to".
No i didnt, and no i won't. making complex and rigorous definitions only serves to cause problems like what we're seeing now.
[removed]
"Making complex and rigorous definitions only serves to cause problems..." No, exactly the opposite is true. The "problems" we´re seeing now are the consequence of the exact opposite, the irrational "tolerance" dogma. "We´re all a happy family of animal fuckers"...no, may sound right, but won´t work.
You have yet to ever provide any objective evidence of that.
Do you consider someone who has been attracted for two weeks to his dog a zoo? Like zootrashcan said, those people don't even identify with us. You can't throw away someone who haven't came yet, so this extension won't cause our current problem.
For the most part I think people who become temporarily attracted to something don't really identify with it unless it's frequently recurring so it's kinda redundant to clarify that.
That's exactly why we should clarify that. To prevent situations like "What? I was a zoo for a month?". I thought we consider it very hard to change.
Like I said, it just seems redundant to me, especially when you're talking about definitions for normal conversation and not academic writing. There's also no need to exclude intrusive thoughts, dreaming, and people who might have found only one or two animals attractive, this will already be implied.
Personally I'm not really bothered by usage like in your example in casual conversation. It might not be the most technically correct but the meaning is clear and it's less wordy than "I was sexually attracted to animals for a month?" I also wouldn't be bothered by someone saying they were gay for a month. It might not be acceptable academically, but it gets the point across.
As far as it being hard to change, it's hard to change orientation intentionally but not everyone though experiences their orientation being hard set and unchanging throughout their life. This can range from fluctuations in intensity, change of preferences, change of target, or change induced by trauma. It can be cyclical, random, or permanent. I haven't seen a good term used yet for people whose attraction might cycle, dramatically fluctuate, or else is relatively minor and infrequent but present.
Of course not, they counts... Well, they should, now I see that "animals" should be replaced with "at least one nonhuman animal".
So we have reached consensus. As long as it is tagged "Commonly used as..." I have nothing to say, because those defs don't have to be perfectly precise.
How about:
Humans: another monkey that gets born, has a behavior, and dies.
I really think that people should be considered on an individual basis, this grouping doesn't work in the context of things; we humans just try to find patterns in everything and group people based on these pseudo-patterns we have found, but there's no such thing, ethics don't exist, emotions are in our imagination, there's no such thing as right and wrong, we are just monkeys trying to do our best to live in a world that has no meaning.
It is fine to come with these things for the sake of productive purposes, but sexual labeling becomes non-productive because there are just so many layers and so many differences; there's not them vs us, it's just us humans. Simply there are no scientific qualities in this sort of sexuality based grouping, we are individuals, and maybe we are individuals, because at the end we are a compound of cells. I think that the way to get on this is just say the fact, "I am attracted to animals", being a zoophile is not a group that defines you, it's just a characteristic of an individual.
Can someone, maybe even caikgoch, exactly explain what "attitude we must outgrow"? Are you really proposing teaming up with the "undesirables", even with sadists and animal rippers only to "outgrow" an attitude? "Yeah , buddy, go on and slash that horse! You know I would have called the police on you, but some random dude from BF told me that we should outgrow our attitude. Just let me know when you need another hand, gosh, these horses don´t like being slahed open..."
Seriously, is THIS really your solution? Playing the three monkey game, turning deaf , dumb and blind, just for the sake of a illusionary state of "unison", one our community never was in?
There never was unison and differences matter. Regardless of what you´re trying to get across, hard reality will teach you that there is no trick you can pull off to make us speak with one voice. Without rules , there´s only chaos...chaos that is tremendously detrimental to us all.
By trying to keep together what objectively has no commons with each other, you´re even doing some "rape routine" here by shoving the dissidents towards those they don´t want to be associated with. And, just to mention another inconvenient truth, it´s exactly this kind of attitude that objectively brought us here, into a reality in which state after state and country after country issues bans on "animal sex", with countless internet vids that more or less clearly shows abusive conduct ( tied and cornered mares etc...)...well, maybe it would be the best for all of us if we just could NOT legitimise and affirm every prejudice society has towards us zoophiles instead of doing the same mistakes over and over again and not learning a single bit from them.
Especially this "all inclusive" attitude is what has driven off many good people from our scene. They lost faith in your "project" because they saw what type of guys this attitude supports and benefits the most, all the "undesirables".
Your system is not working for us. And until this simple truth is realised by everyone and our whole community ceases to stick to an abstract idea that never was attached to the actual reality as it is and we´re all forced to live in your little rosey-tinted wonderland of "animal fuckers united", nothing good will come out of this ; guess what, no one asked us whether we want this or not.
Until you sorted out the basic flaws in your proposal, I´ll leave you discussing something that for some in here isn´t debatable at all. I´m not the same as a fencehopper, an animal porn producer, a fetishist, a fantasizer, or someone who needs an animal to spice up his marriage...these realities have nothing to do with mine and your post won´t change any of that.I can´t support what I don´t believe in, simple as that.
One more time, with feeling. Maybe calling them "broken Zoos" and trying to find ways to fix or prevent them is a bit more adult than just denying their existence. You want to join the "Real Worldtm"? Maybe acting like an adult will facilitate that.
I wouldn't worry, 30-30 reading about 3 lines and jumping to a completely wrong emotionally driven conclusion isn't new behavior by any means. Maybe someday he'll learn to "outgrow" this as well.
...says the guy that never had more than a little pussygrabbing experience with a doe...once... If you, Rannoch/OSlov/whatever, would use your head before you use your keyboard, you eventually might realise that "jumping to a completely wrong ,emotionally driven conclusion" is exactly what society does. Not speaking up against the "undesirables" equals teaming up with them for the outside...and no matter what stupid rhetoric tricks you´re trying to pull off to "prove your point", this is still an undeniable fact. Society has certain expectations of a "zoophile" , well "learned" by myriads of "educational animal fuck videos" (remember, like those you and your colleagues made available easier with your app), by hundereds of fencehopper headlines and by all kinds of other shit that´s pulled off in the name of the z-word. Maybe YOU can "outgrow" your selfishness and can actually try to see things through my eyes for a minute here... your "plan" is faulty, it was faulty right from scratch because you never included the real world into it. Instead of acknowledging how humans are, you are painting a picture that´s so far off from any reality , it really makes me wonder how delusional one can be.
"Hey, trainer, the other team is already 9 goals ahead of us, shouldn´t we start asking ourselves whether something is wrong with OUR plan, OUR tactics?" - " No, stick to the plan, our enemies eventually will adapt and then, we´ll beat them!"...I don´t have to mention that this is NOT how it works, do I?
If you play chess and sheepishly follow a plan that never included your opponent and his turns, totally self absorbed, you won´t win a single match of chess. And you´re not losing because of your opponent´s superior skills, you´re basically losing because you constantly trip yourself by employing a rigid strategy, totally detached from reality. That´s your and all of your likeminded folks´ biggest weakness. The world doesn´t behave the way you want it to and you can´t strip yourselves off this false dogma. Until you realise it´s YOUR turn to say goodbye to a belief, a dogma that never worked out as it was intended by you, things will continue going down the drain. So, Rannoch, "outgrow" my ass...maybe I will "outgrow" this, but only when you "outgrow" your delusional idea of continuing a strategy that has brought us the new laws, has supported those who give a flying fuck about our public image and has set us back 4 steps for every single step ahead we make. You and all your likeminded folks are dancing the "fool´s tango" , 1 steps forward, 4 steps back...and I´m not gonna join your little dance. You want change, but you don´t want to change....´nuff said.
You can no more prove your lameduck theory that what we're doing is responsible for the laws than you can link your jabs at my sexual inexperience to my ability to reason. Try again, preferably shorter and less full of drivel. I'd like to see you address how what you are proposing isn't a proven to fail (at least in this setting) "frogpond" tactic, in particular.
This does sound like a pretty poor approach.
no
no
Once is kind-of sort-of okay. This is excessive.
Of course, outside of the quotes here there's still the tone of a cutthroat throughout the whole thing.
I'd give you a long point by point of the more minor stuff that accumulated in this reply, but you're a grown man that knew rule 7 well enough to toe the line so close that you'd be able to cut hairs with the gap for months.
This is your third strike. Let's try to make this one the last one.
Yeah, doctoring other people´s sexuality/fetish/sadism/whatever surely is "a bit more adult" , even despite the fact that you cannot "fix", "unfetishize" , "unsadisize" and "unkinkisize" them...and who is denying their existence? I only know too good these people are real and they´re a huge fraction of the pile of shit that is "our community" right now. Nobody is denying their existence. And about "acting like an adult" : if that means going completely against what I believe in as a zoo, then that´s not acting like an adult, but fooling yourself. We did this "acting like an adult" once and let in all the porn fetishists, fencehoppers, kinksters etc....and look where "acting like an adult, with feeling" got us...teaming up with them hasn´t brought us any change for the better, the only effect it had was that our problems with society increases and increased. There´s nothing "adult" about your proposal, you only want us to make the same mistake for a second time, that´s all.Nothing adult about that, but there´s lots of "stupid" in there for sure...
What he means by "denying their existence" is denying they are zoo. Like it or not, they fit the dictionary definition and your opponents will immediately point this out.
I would bet a lot of money that if you walked up to the average fetish seeker (like the guy looking for a woman to watch with a dog who posted here briefly) and said "Hi! I like to fuck animals. How about you?" he would turn and run like hell. If that didn't do it I could just smile and say "My horse really likes fucking humans."
No, I just can't see a huge wave of preverts clamoring to join our ranks. They might play a Zoo online for the shock value but that would be as far as you could force one to go.
Heck, when someone posts man on bitch porn in /r/sexwithdogs, it happens regularly.
[removed]
[deleted]
I've wondered this for a while but, what are your thoughts on things like caniphile, feliphile, piscephile, equinophile and so on? Always thought zoophile was a bit... General, personally. But i guess any sexuality's word is a bit general.
[removed]
Anything is usable with sufficient context. But you will be bucking the human obsession for putting everything in neat piles.
BTW, how would you define Autophile?
I just know that they have an insane right hook.
What about the guy in Britain that has sex with his car? And I am sure that several people locally are in love with theirs.
Oh, I guess the word can go both ways. It's just that the latin root auto means self. Really, you can do just about anything to name it so long as people get the point. Vehiclophile or vehiculophile could work if there isn't a more specific word I guess. shrug
It's a humorous way of pointing out that all of those words have multiple meanings and spellings.
True, though that's part of the elegance of language.
Absolutely. And, to roll it back around to the point, it is the author's duty to manage the context and clear the understanding.
What about people attracted to more than one species? :)
Copying over an example from another of my replies since I'm a bit busy right now. "person x is a caniphile and equinophile".
It becomes word salad when you have people attracted to half the spectrum of animals, to be sure, but it's not really suited to those people.
You didn't ask me, but this is so unspecific that it's pointless.
Who's a caniphile and who isn't? Am I a caniphile for being attracted to dogs? Am I a caniphile for being attracted to all canines? Am I a caniphile for being attracted to all canids?
What am I if I'm attracted to both horses and dogs? Have fun finding a definition for zoos who are attracted to different animals.
The more specific you get, the larger the word pool gets. If we wanted to get a word for every specific scenario, it'd be bedlam. We'd be looking at dozens, hundreds of words. At that point, it's best to just describe your preference and use the words as a strong premise... kind of like how pretty much every other sexuality works. Straights, gays, etc, look for traits in 'the one' that can be considered to make the word straight or gay seem useless too. This guy only wants people with freckles, this woman wants a tall mister personality, etc.
Yes, yes, and yes.
You could just use the words individually. ie "Person x is a caniphile and equinophile".
True, but being unspecific can also be annoying and sometimes even confusing. I guess it makes sense though.
I mean, you imply that ''zoophile'' isn't too wide or specific enough, right?
Well I honestly thought it was good enough, or at least for now. The point is that we're attracted to animals.
Nobody here seems to have a problem with just ''zoophile,'' just saying. If someone asks us or in case we need to tell what we're attracted to, we just usally name all the animals. If we say ''I'm a caniphile and a equinophile.'' nobody really knows what you are truly attracted to.
But I do give this defintion a little credit though because for zoophiles it's common to be attracted to a group of similar animals. Mainly families.
Good luck getting it into this community, lmao.
That doesn't make much sense because it's not a good comparison.
Animals can also have certain traits and such which can make them more or less attractive.
And you know, there's no such words for being attracted to certain types / races / whatever of humans. It's not the same as the definitions you just named.
But that's all I wanted to say.
^^^^^^^^^^^^'
Seems like a lot of work.
I hope humans like Battlecrops aren't busy, because when someone asks what their attraction is they have a lot to explain.
Maybe it could be something like this: ''She's a feli-cani-equino(zoo?)phile'' because ''She's a whateverphile, whateverphile and a whateverphile.'' seems a bit long.
But still, even I myself in that case have a lot to explain: ''Auto-bi-faunoi-fictio-cani-equino-exclusive-zoophile'' I'm not even sure what to put first, but I guess that doesn't matter.
I also wonder how obscure the terms ''autozoophile'' ''bizoophile'' or ''faunoi(?zoo?)phile'' are.
Hah that's why even if these phrases were common or popular I wouldn't use them for myself. Not practical when I'm attracted to almost every mammal and reptile on the planet!
My possible concern with more specific words would be, could they split up the community even more? Would people want caniphile-only communities, equinophile communities? Anything that's could possibly split up the already-shaky community makes me a bit nervous. It's definitely not what we need right now imo, at least not on a wide scale.
I really don't think this would ever happen.
Even if we don't make these definitions a real thing, it does not change the fact that we're all attracted to different animals.
Not even I want it to go like this with inclusive zoophiles. Hell, I even bet 30-30 doesn't.
I haven't seen any discrimination against liking a different non-human animal here anyways. I'm actually quite curious if that ever happened.
The closest thing I've ever seen is somebody say something like: ''Every kind of zoo has their kind of crazy person, like the dog zoos have Aluzky, the horse zoos have 30-30.''
But that was probably just a joke.
I'm neutral on this.
I'd say that making new definitions can make teamwork easier together, but this seems like a pretty straightforward and obvious definition that might seem easy to implement, so I'm not sure on that one.
And yeah, nobody is too specific about being a zoophile it seems. Some just call themselves a zoophile and that's it.
Oh I wasn't thinking in like, a discriminatory way but more along the lines of someone thinking, "the species we're attracted to are different so we don't share the same experiences" or something like that. I don't think it would get very popular but I could see people having that thought process, kind of similar to the thoughts some exclusive zoos have about non-exclusives.
I think the last time I saw the phrase "caniphile" was like five plus years ago, on message board posts from the early 2000s. I hadn't thought about it much again until this thread so it's interesting species-specific words are being brought back up by somebody.
But don't you agree with that?
There's a difference between human and animal relationships. A big one, actually.
There's also a difference between horse and dog relationships, just not as big.
You know, if it weren't so important things like ''inclusive'' or ''exclusive'' wouldn't even exist.
I don't think anyone would do such a thing anyways. Not even us totally divide ourselves from inclusives.
"could they split up the community"...well, how much of a split is in the gay community, with all the subgroups in there, like the "Bears", the "leather folks" etc. ? The abbreviation LGBTQ already shows that there are several different subgroups, but they actually know and respect their differences instead of trying to wipe it all off like it seems to be common practice in this community.
The alleged shake up that you assume when people start using words like "caniphile/kynophile" and "equiphile/hippophile" is not happening. These words were already used 20 years ago and they haven´t dug a trench or created division between those two interest groups. Well, besides the obvious differences between house animal people and farm animal people, depending on the environments they have to deal with. The life of a "hippophile" is evidently very different , especially when this guy does not own a farm and is forced to approach outsiders with a vastly different attitude than people who can take their animal into their house, draw the curtains and lock the doors. But anyway, I really want to know what this subconscious demand for uniformity is based on. The only thing I can imagine is the illusion of "If only we are more, people won´t eventually be able to ignore our cause anymore." That´s why some 25 years ago, our community decided to cooperate with the beasties...and, what has this led us to? Moreso if you keep all the outsiders´ allegations of us being an "internet sex cult" that "brainwashes their members into an all perverted, all permissive attitude towards any kind of sexuality", how can you actually defend this uniformity?
And in case you haven´t realised it yet: the split up already happened, many of us exclusives couldn´t find the power to withstand this constant disrespect and bullshitting, this fearmongering with exaggerated power of authorities, this undeniable tendency to focus on the "zoophiles" and not on those who really need to be placed at the top, the animals, anymore. It´s more about "zoo rights" than the animals. Egotism has grown to an unbearable extent within the "zoophile" community.
Referring to WarCanine´s /SCP_2547´s post, I can assure you that I don´t want the word salad. What I don´t get is why the basic definitions of "normal, "bestialist" and "zoophile" aren´t accepted anymore and obviously are subject to "democratic processes"...Well, as some smart man has said once, democracy has a flaw. Just imagine the average person and how much brain capacity he has...and by definition, half of the people are even dumber than him. How can anyone expect to find the actual truth when listening to more than 50 % of people who are dim witted and uneducated? What if Galileo Galilei´s observations and his heliocentric theory would have been subject to a democratic vote? Well, we all still would be thinking the sun revolves around the earth now....
But nevermind, I already had my split up with this so called online zoo community long ago. Call me a renegade, or a rogue, whatever...but my criticism isn´t solely for the purpose of inflicting fights, it is because the common, dogmatic attitude this community has for ages now has led us to a dead end, with nothing else possible but further worsening our situation day by day. You "tolerant" folks must realise that this is a way into nowhere, into oblivion...or experience it yourselves...but know that you have OUR blood on your hands , too, not just your own when you finally realise your basic mistakes.
ONe final comment of the whole separation issue: you all don´t want to be associated with "zoosadists" and don´t hesitate to distance yourselves from them, saying things like "They´re not belonging to US, they don´t have the right motives, they etc. pp."...and you all cannot wrap your heads around the uncomfy idea that there´s a small but significant part of your own "fellow zoos" that feels practically the same whenever someone is clearly using his animal as a sex toy, whenever someone is doing it solely for sexual gratification etc....? Anyway, I won´t waste my time with explanations that aren´t read, let alone understood. This whole online zoo community is nothing but a big hoax for me right now. Another BF user has infiltated this community and you won´t have to wait for long until the BF virus will spread in here....as if hasn´t already... If you want to take a look at actual realities of "zoophilia", just browse BF. That´s your future...you seem to want to have it that way and that´s what you probably get...or already have.
You want people to pay attention to you and respect your views? The first step is to be the change you want to see. Actually read and try to understand what others are saying. You might find they have more in common with you than you are choosing to see.
For example:
BF users are not a monobloc. Sure, many are fetish seekers and porn hounds but because of that it is the largest and easiest found site about this subject on the web. And someone needs to be there to speak the voice of reason to the youngsters that show up looking for info.
And right there is the whole point that just flew over your head. Do we banish BF and all associated from the community and let the lowest common denominator define the community to the newcomers and general public? Or do we get our collective hands dirty pulling the children out of the muck?
You don't believe it's possible? Look down to the bottom of this thread.
That's super cute and everything, but are you serious? Going by track record, you guys can't fix a couple fricking websites. You think you can fix people now? Completely broken people? You guys crack me up sometimes.
huh?
Actaully, from my limited interactions with zoos, they tend to be pretty good at IT things. Not that that's even relevant, or matters. What are you going on about now?
You really suck at insulting that I only felt offended when I realized you were the same species as me because of how poor that was.
Interesting. I don't think I know you, why do you identify with the broken crowd?
Because I was blind and didn't realize how fucked up ethics and rules other zoophiles have.
I tried to improve them, but they're absolutely dumb and egoistic. I'm sadly a part of other zoophiles because I'm a zoophile myself.
Well, at least I can convince non-zoophiles that the humans participating here are indeed fucked up.
I know just the thing to give zoophilia a bad name, and it'll definitely break their progress.
But who knows? Tomorrow I'll wake up and forget it all anyways.
I'm... tired. Just fuck off or something.
[skipping] Yeah that fixing people thing, not as cut and dry business as it sounds, right?
Just waiting for caikgoch or one of his friends to give me an example of someone "broken" they managed to "fix", that's all. Or you can all just sail out on good intentions. Not here to try and stop people (not that I can). Island's pretty cozy if you ask me.
I have no idea what the fuck you are saying, but okay.
By the way, is Sheppsoldier your sibling or something?
I know, it's okay. It's not really for you.