Any (good) documentary talking about Zoophilia? (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-09-07 17:18:43 by Shadow_Melody
Even if good is pretty subject, I'm curious about the various documentary that people made on that subject. So far, I've heard that Zoo (2007) is a good one. And you, what's the best documentary (or movie) speaking about Zoophilia that you've saw?
Zoo IMO, is a terrible documentary. Too much fancy/creepy/non-relevant camera shots and weird music that didn't fit the setting, and sounded like it was made to scare people further about zoos. Animal passions is the best I've seen so far, lots of interviewing from multiple people who are actually zoophiles. Also, if you run across equality for all's documentary called "coming soon", it's fake/nothing more than shock value from what I hear from various zoos on the net, otherwise it would have been a pretty decent documentary. So far, those are the only 3 documentaries about zoos that I know of.
Someone was looking for Zoos to interview a couple of years ago. The people had credentials and were based in London but I have seen nothing out of them since. I'm not sure I would call it "documentary" but Jerry Springer did a show with Hossie and two anonymous Zoos. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0992149/
One of the zoos that was on the Jerry Springer show, is one of the people in animal passions. That guy with his mare, Pixel. I watched that episode, he admits to raping a mare....he said he regrets it, but still. That zoo should have never of got air time. He has more air time in zoo documentaries than any other zoo because he was on the Jerry Springer show, along with a good chunk of animal passions. He wrote "The Horseman", a autobiography about being a zoo. He had a serious drug problem apparently and passed away from it, so I'm not surprised he did what he did. People do all sorts of horrible things when they have a serious addiction like that.
I also know the British people you are referring to, they actually came out and interviewed me. They are with the watershed company? Group? TV network? Watershed something or another, I forget. Then their boss decided that they weren't going to go through with it, so the documentary never got made. There was another interview opportunity I had with The Sun newspaper about a year ago I think, but again, their boss didn't want to go through with it once the interview was over. They told me they legally could not publish the interview, because people admitted to having sex in a state where it was illegal at the time, but also because the boss chickened out and didn't want the negative attention.
Jesse Bering, writer for Scientific American etc, has had some sensible talks with Zoos and written on the subject. I think he even gave a TED Talk that included some comments on the subject. After Hani Miletski, I would name him as the most intelligent source.
Oh yeaaahhhh! I forgot about him! I still have yet to read his book.
Bering had the same problem as Miletski, Nasswetter and several other researchers: no validation of the stories. Studies like these to me are more of a description of how "zoos" want to be seen by the public than genuine studies about how "zoos" really are. No one would actually admit his wrongdoings ´cause he/she knows it´s all about coming across as "the real zoo deal". I even know of one guy I personally had contact with who lied his ass off to Miletski and claimed being "a longtime zoo with lots of experience" while in reality, he was barely more than one of those "internet zoophiles", sitting all day in front of his computer, jerking off to animal porn. His lies can be found in Miletski´s study....
Miletski bought it, without any attempt to validate any of the story she was presented with. Nasswetter made the same inexcusable mistake and so did Bering. None of what you read in these studies is scientifically validated to the real person , the real reality. All these studies and books featuring "stories of real zoophiles" are hardly more than compendia of the Brothers Grimm, the "zoo" version.
Not one real scientist would even consider these studies/books as material to work with in a scientific way. And by the way, most of these studies never had the goal to research zoophilia, they´re all mere sociological studies researching the narrative zoophiles sport in most of the cases.
It´s basically the same fundamental problem as it is in "zoo" forums like BF etc.....everybody is a "chivalrous and sensitive zoophile" on the outside, but that image quickly crumbles when you take a closer look into what these "totally real and 150% genuine zoos" contribute, how they perceive animals and what they actually do with their animals.If Aleister Crowley hadn´t already written a book with this title, I´d propose naming all "studies about zoophilia" "The book of lies" right away....and still wonder how actual scientists who ran through all the methodological education that´s needed to become a scientist can deliver such badly executed "studies" AND expect these studies to be taken seriously by anyone. Without scientific validation, all of these studies are just propaganda, something scientists never should be involved with if they want to be taken seriously.
Remember Marxian dialectics: "Every problem a society faces has its origins in the struggle between a THESIS and an ANTITHESIS; the problem only can be solved by a SYNTHESIS on a higher level" Don´t fall for these studies/books, they don´t help zoophiles in the slightest. I probably have read most of what is available out there about zoophilia....and none of that has helped me to develop, get along with me and society better or has made my life easier, quite the contrary. Distraction. The actual truth about zoophilia cannot be found in a book, a documentary or in forums like this.
Stop the presses!!! New headline: 30-30 and caikgoch found something to agree on!! Mostly.
But then, my background is hard science/engineering. I always see psychology/sociology types of studies as "soft" science. That doesn't keep them from being useful but the rules are different. And even simple logic should tell you that some studies are better than others. Miletski's sample bias of volunteers was nowhere near as bad as a few others whose sample was convicted sex offenders.
I can't tell you if books or the net would have helped me because I was grown and well set in my ways before they happened. I do think that I could have avoided some pain and confusion for both me and a few animals if I had more to go on than trial and error in the beginning. But then forcing me to study the animals directly and learn from them had its advantages too.
Try not to rush to judgement so enthusiastically. Sometime misunderstanding is just that, failures of language or communication. I have become more forgiving since age and drugs have had their way with me. I concede that others may have problems of their own.
But if you are going to rant, why don't you get some use out of it? Come over to BF and get your hands dirty with me. There are some men advocating "bellyriding" to the women there. I'm tormenting them (the men) with facts and mathematics.
But for using those tools of philosophy/thinking one must be philosopher/thinker enough ..and this is again, rare ...too rare for believing current (mass) education produces thinkers.
For example very phrase of thesis and antithesis tend to equate them in terms of power/space/time they occupy - yet what if one part is much bigger than other and supress it? What if two seemingly opposite sides are actually one - and in turn prevent seeing problem from truely other side? (like two views on captive dolphins - they either 'completely fine in captivity and thus nothing need t be done for them' or 'they are wild animals who must be forced to live in some complete isolation from any humans, for preserving their pureness' ..both views sucks and enforce dolphins into something ...I try to be some third kind of thinking there, but obviously without success ....
Also, there seems to be asymmetry between coming up abstracting hill and coming down from it - like, making abstract view of world/process (from multiple examples) seems to be easier (for those rare who can!) than applying gained knowledge for real-world situation, and navigating in them..in some unusual for most humans manner. I tend to be text-oriented human, so good texts moves me greatly.
For example while I first read somewhat scandalous article about 'man who had sex with dolphin", I, following my usual habit, read everything in comments, and moved to author's blog [1] and read it completely, and proceed to BF and read some dolphin stories there, and associated discussions.... about everything. Guess very fact I'm still reading after so many crashes of beliefs (coming or associated with reading/intellectual life) says something ....
[1] - roughly at this time (2013) - https://web.archive.org/web/20130330091613/http://blog.wetgoddess.net:80/ (Malcolm Brenner's pages). yes, I found them after years of being animal activist (or so I assumed back in 2013..turned out animal activism still too much about humans!) and I become animal activist because I somewhat was able to break rules of reality ("you must be dolphin trainer for spending any significant time with {captive} dolphins") and discovered some of realities from captives...So, in expectional cases this zoophilia thing can be quite complex in developing!
"Zoo" IMO is the most misleading title for a film that deals with the story of an individual who doesn´t qualify for the z-word in the slightest. "Zoo" is based on the story of Kenneth Pinyan and I recommend reading the VICE articles about him and the entire Enumclaw case that led to banning "zoophilia" in Washington in 2005 and practically started what we zoos experience today on an almost global scale; laws against "zoophilia"."Animal Passions" is far from being a decent documentary. The entire docu´s core statements of "what zoophiles are like" is represented in two scenes: 1) Right at the start, when this group of "zoos" stand at a fenced pasture, a horse curiously comes near and one of those "zoos" said "Hey there, pretty boy..." and 2) later in the docu, George Willard a.k.a. Hossie a.k.a. "Mark Matthews" a.k.a. "The Horseman" shows off his disgusting, badly done belly tattoo of a female centaur like monstrosity, a horse´s body and a woman´s upper body and head.
The first scene I mentioned left a very disturbing feeling in me, that of watching a fetishistic group "inspecting" new "fuck material". I also despise the exhibitionism that is shown quite clearly in that scene. Yes, there´s a camera team, but does that mean you have to be so disgustingly blatant about your "zoophilic" kink, your fetish? Like Michael Kiok, who once was visited by a reporter and had nothing better to do but to masturbate one of his cats in front of the fucking camera team? This is exactly how you alienate everyone "normal" right from the start, no matter what arguments you bring up. Watching this, normal people (and I too) immediately and justifiably will think: "If this "zoophile" can´t even control his urges when a camera team is present, he probably can´t control himself in other situations".
Scene 2) completely shows what´s wrong with "Animal passions"...if you have read Willard´s "The Horseman" , in which he describes incidents that clearly hint at his pony being nothing but a mere substitute for those annoying women, "who talk too much and deny sex, so I walked out into the garage to get off with my live pony sex toy", the impression strenghtens that Willard is a so called "substitute zoophile", a bestialist that only turns towards animals because of "all the complications, the talk and the other chores" one faces who is in a partnership with a woman. Misogynic vibes all over the place...Willard doesn´t want ponies, he wants a woman, one that doesn´t talk, is as easily controllable as his pony and fucks like a pony. And if you have seen the pictures of Willard and his pony "wife" (sic!) stuffed into a wedding gown, having a "wedding" ceremony, you slowly begin to understand why Willard never was a genuine zoo in the first place....
To summarise it: I´d say I never have seen anything close to a decent documentary about zoophilia. Not "Zoo", not "Animal Passion", not the VICE docus about "Donkey sex in South America"...all you can watch is just a distorted view of zoophilia for a truckload of various reasons. There´s isn´t anything out there that´s worth watching or reading IMO. Everything that IS out there focuses on the bestial aspect, the "animal sex" rather than the emotional dimension of genuine zoophilia. And that although we zoos all insist on zoophilia being "just 5 % about sex"...
And the study by some Brits Caikgoch mentioned...well, my cow loving comrade also participated in this study, but he told me his contribution to this study/docu was turned down because "it was too harmless" despite the fact he already has had real sexual experiences with cows and a sow. Honi soit qui mal y pense ....
As long as we don´t put something out there ourselves, but without the usual self absorbed "brilliance" so many "zoos" suffer from when a camera is rolling, there will be no comprehensive representation of us. Honesty, keeping the distance to fetishism and display of oversexualisation, being critical even toward the stuff we believe in ourselves, that´s what is needed, not "pro zoo" propaganda. I really wonder why "our community" produces such gems as Svadilfari who travelled from Sweden to New Zealand to fuck another BF member´s animals and such BF users as Welshpony who recently posted he doesn´t hesitate to "travel Europe for a good fuck" despite having horses himself, but isn´t able to use some energy for making a comprehensive and honest docu about zoophilia themselves.....
well, I'm fairly sure any documentary about this kind of relations will be at least initially only interesting for numerically small group of humans...It hardly will turn human-world around..over its own lifetime. But then, expressing something clearly even for small audience can be important - as setting bar, at least...
So, I think 30-30 is interesting enough case - because few humans in general can be autocritical, so it is rarity in itself. Making even short documentary is not easy, especially if you want to show something subtle..without ruining it by rushing for it (because camera). One idea I have is to focus on human body language/behavior in general, and then match this with words..second idea just walk around (with horse, say..who may do his/her own thing..not even related to subject of talk) with camera mostly focusing/following non-human(s). Yes, this one a bit more like monologue, but it shifts attention towards..another being, I hope? Showing bad moods and days seems also important part of making honest video story...
That might not be true. Washington state media outlets report that their most watched/read story of all time is the "Mr Hands" incident. That might have something to do with the inspiration for Zoo.
There are a couple that are alright. Not perfect, and they do reinforce stereotypes, but I'd recommend them to people who know nothing about zoophilia as an unbiased introduction to the subject.
One is "Animal Passions", produced in the UK in 2004. It features a bunch of American zoophiles discussing their lives and attractions, interspersed with the occasional interview with some form of psychological professional. A little too much creepy music for me, and it's where I learned about "JRHNBR" which is a cringy relic of 90s BBS's, but it at least has multiple perspectives.
The other is "Animal Fuckers", by Vice, made a few years ago in response to Denmark's debate on passing a law against sex with animals. It actually gives both sides a fair shake, and in my opinion is the closest to neutral to anything I've seen. It includes interviews with members of ZETA verein in Germany, some animal rights activists petitioning to get bestiality banned, and also a veterinarian and a pig farmer for a more down-to-earth perspective on the issue. Again cringy, but there's not really anything that makes zoos look really positive, because the good documentaries attempt to get both sides (and, let's face it, vocal zoos are by and large not people people) and the bad ones sensationalize and exaggerate the issues involved.
There aren't any IMO, not one "good" one has been made.