Coming To Terms!! (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-09-15 04:07:24 by Throwaway1992223
Well I have been denying the concept of me being a zoophile since I was a little boy. I had this dog who kept licking me and it felt good, a sensation come over me like I wanted to do more but I loved it and my family told the dog to quit. I just let it go, when I was 15, I saw a horses you know I wanted it. Badly. I let it go and later on down the line I loved getting kissed by a dog. It felt sexy, I do get a boner when I think about doing it. basically I'm accepting myself a s Zoophile.
I think what helps me is reading books.
See, when you talk to people about controversial ideas, you always put yourself in harms way. At any time, this person could report you. Even therapists are no long bound by secrecy. (Kothorix mentions this.)
But, books don't judge you.
Yay, Kothorix!!
What books do you suggest? I've been limited to just ASSTR Kristen Archive.
Sorry to butt in, but I remember my ignorant youth where ASSTR was the only place I knew to read stories like this. I'll assume your goal here is more than titillation, though sticking just to ASSTR, I find the Nifty bestiality archive has better variety in its stories as far as smut goes. It is, however, 95% garbage, like any other collection of written work, so you'll have to do some digging for anything good.
My first recommendation is a classic: "A Passion in the Desert", by Honore Dr Balzac. Framed as an explanation for how romantic love could arise between humans and animals, it tells the story of a French soldier on a desert oasis who falls in love with a panther. Wonderful descriptions of his growing affection for her.
Another, more modern piece is "The Goat, or Who is Sylvia?" by Edward Albee. In this play, a man falls head over heels in love with a goat, which upsets his friends and family. It's a tragedy, so don't expect a happy ending, but the man's enthusiasm and infatuation are relatable to me at least.
I hope those help you. PM me if you want more specific short stories online, since I don't especially know your taste in that and it's not exactly easy to discuss publicly, even on Reddit.
this doesnt sound very zooish. I mean, its not like you just pop a boner while petting dog and say "whelp, I guess I'm a zoophile now".
I gaurantee literally every person has these thoughts at least once in their life even for a split second. This is just teenage brains being stupid.
Probably worth holding out on calling yourself a zoo for little while yet champ.
No gatekeeping allowed.
Community, why aren't you complaining about gatekeeping when somebody else does it?
Did you pay attention to what others said? You aren't allowed to say others aren't real zoophiles.
Where are the warnings, the downvotes, the angry replies? What's this bullshit?
You can't redefine a word. OP is a damn zoophile whether you like it or not.
lol no. gatekeeping isn't the same as saying 'maybe your not a zoo'. especially as it seems to me as though OP has just jumped in without looking first. I may be wrong though, all I've got to go off is 5 lines of text.
It is gatekeeping.
You're saying they aren't a real zoo.
I'm saying they may not be a zoo full stop lol.
I think OP is probably a zoophile, but I don't think what you are doing is gatekeeping. Lots of people gatekeep here, which is very annoying, but this doesn't look like legit gatekeeping to me. Being a zoo isn't something you should decide on a whim, and although OP's way of expression makes it look like he is taking this casually, I get the empression he really isn't... Gatekeeping is usually much more direct, and is often the domain of zoo exclusives telling nonexclusives they aren't really zoophiles, which I don't know if this so called gate keeper is or not. Have you ever heard of the no true Scotsman fallacy? Wonder if that's applicable to the exclusives saying nonexclusives aren't real zoophiles?
Since you seem to be busy with us evil exclusives who just happen to apply a zoophilia definition you don´t share , have you ever spared a thought about the possibility we don´t do this for selfish reasons, but have something else in mind?
What if I told you that this "gatekeeping" follows the purpose of establishing a brand, a trademark that is the most likely to be sold to "normal" society. Or do you really think this "Anything goes" attitude many of you non exclusives sport is something that immediately connects you to "normal" persons? Or will it aggravate the usual impression of zoophiles as sexually corrupted "Fucks anything that walks" folks? Unfortunately, we miserably fail to gain tolerance, we even faced a huge wave of new laws against bestiality introduced in almost every nation of the world. Your plan to gain tolerance through jumping onto the sex lib bandwaggon went terribly wrong. "Zoo" is NOT becoming the "new gay", not now, not tomorrow, not anytime.
If you want to sell a car to somebody else, what will you do? Show the car´s flaws and defects first? Or will you deliberately try to hide exactly these? It´s practically the same with "zoo gatekeeping". We need to establish some kind of "elite" and a name for it. We have seen that zoophilia has been cut down to a mere synonym for bestiality and only a few dictionaries at least add something about "emotional attachment to the animal" to the definition of the z-word.In general , zoophilia is the same as bestiality now.
TBH, my impression of this is that you folks who wouldn´t be zoophiles anymore when our "gatekeeping" definition would be widely accepted are just afraid to "not belong to somewhere" anymore. What I find especially fascinating: why can no one give me an answer to the questions I usually ask when this issue comes up. What exactly would change for you if you couldn´t use the z-word to describe yourself anymore? And why does nobody seem to see how this isn´t a superiority complex of us exclusives, but rather an inferiority complex within you, the non exclusives? And why exactly is it wrong to establish an "elite" that may just be the right type of persons to get a foot into society´s door? From my experiences of talking to my outsider friends, I took it that their tolerance of me being a zoophile largely depended on the fact that I´m not an "Allesficker" (fucks everything), as one of my friends has put it. You knwo why our community seems to be unable to connect to the "normal" world? Because forums like this are barely more than a "zoo bubble", a "zoo echo chamber". That produces people like Aluzky, for example. What effect this has to to the public perception of us as a group can be seen under every youtube video´s commentary section that is "blessed" by Aluzky´s presence. Bubbles and echo chambers are fine for the insecure among us, but being in here won´t ever prepare us for what is out there. And OUT THERE is where gaining of tolerance is possible only. The world doesn´t care about your "openmindedness" , for the world out there, someone who fucks Fido, but also Alice and Mike will not be taken seriously when he claims to "love". From my experiences, being a monogamous, heterosexual horse zoo has gathered me more tolerance to live with my mare in a boarding stable for 22 years uninterfered with although people knew or at least suspected what was going on between my mare and me. Whether you folks like it or not, but morals can´t be just dismissed, they still are important for the vast majority of "normals". This is reality and your imaginary world of free sex isn´t.
So why can´t you all see that this isn´t just a "true Scotsman", this isn´t about being an elite that deems itself superior to all the beasty peasants. This is not about excluding you or anyone else from the " rad party", this has a political goal. Society doesn´t want to have anything to do with us, society won´t listen to all our elaborate "zoo justice" babble because everything we claim is undermined by easily available counterproof. Love of animals? Click.Click. "Well, this video of a restrained and cornered mare that shows definite signs of abuse and the mare´s defensive behaviour doesn´t look like love to me!"...just one example.
Who do you send to explore new and untouched grounds? Your best? You most apt ones? The ones who know how to erect a bridgehead, an outpost from which other operations into "enemy´s land" become possible? The ones who are best fit for surviving in the badlands? Or is it more important to "belong to anywhere" and your hurt feelings are worth more than a possible change in society´s mind regarding zoophilia? We´ve seen where all of the attempts by those "all inclusive zoos" ended, right? Ou folks had your chance, in fact, you had literally thousnads of chances. And you fucked up all of them. So why don´t you give us evil gatekeepers one chance? Or do you think we will pry open the door to society and slam it shut again once we, the evil gatekeepers are accepted? We just might be the right persons to get a foot into the door, at least that´s my experience. Those stubborn "normal" people unfortunately seem to be able to recognise actual love in us monogamous "exclusives"...and seldom in you non exclusive, non monogamous folks.If you want society to change their perception of zoophiles and zoophilia, you need to present them with a picture they can actually relate to.
Once again, egalitarianism ruins progress. We´re NOT the same, even if you managed to steal our word from us. Wearing a tutu doesn´t make you the primaballerina of the Bolshoi ballet and glueing a Mercedes star to your Lada won´t make you a Mercedes driver. A label =/= contents. Salt won´t become sugar just because you stick another label to it.
I'd say you should use a word that describes it more accurately. :P
I can't understand why this is still coming up. "Zoophile" is already defined in an explicit way, dating back probably decades, that does not rule out human interests. It is only calling out an interest in animals.
"Exclusive" is a completely appropriate qualifier to indicate the absence of (otherwise possibly included) human interests.
There is no need to make it complicated.
And while it is maybe not inherently about elitism, the way nearly everyone spouts off about it MAKES it come off as elitism, particularly when framed in the context of "not a REAL zoophile" as is so often meaninglessly and invalidly stated.
Or he could write it out as zoophiles™, so people know it's a product of 30-30 Incorporated®.
I had to say it. It's not clever but this joke has been haunting me ever since I read that brand line.
Now now... let's not violate the respect rule!
As I have said in another reply, the textbook definition of zoophilia has changed over the last decades. "Exclusive" is a completely appropriate qualifier....is it? So you can surely tell what other orientation needs this "exclusive" shit? I´m waiting for an answer...taptaptap
About the "elitism": We "exclusives" are not better than you "non exclusives", but we are different. Largely different. Our lives are totally different from yours and although we all share some basic similarities in our lives, there are too much differences to share the same name. What has happened here is marginalisation of a minority...and that from a community that will defend even the most idiotic claims of furries and all kinds of folks with a "sexual identity disorder". "What , you´re a 450 pound, bearded guy that claims to be a female fox? Sure, you totally are a female fox!!" , but "What, you´re telling me you don´t feel like belonging to us? You want a denominator of your own to avoid hearing about human on human sex stories making you puke? Fuck you and don´t be such a elitist pussy!"
"If peaceful resistance is made impossible , violent resistance becomes inevitable."
I can recap the same answer I gave last time.
Zoophilia, DSM-wise, describes some degree of sexual attraction to animals but not necessarily exclusive interest in animals. So normal (no interest) is defined, and zoophile (some interest) is defined, but no 100% end of the spectrum is defined, therefore exclusive zoophile provides clarification about the amount which is meant.
As to "what other orientations"... name your favorite and I'd be happy to clarify further. Sorry to use this example, but the only other one I can think of is so-called minor-attracted people, which works the same way. DSM-wise, such a diagnosis/adjective suggests one has some significant degree of sexual attraction toward young people. One might legitimately refer to an exclusive pedophile to clarify someone who had no interest in mature persons.
In contrast to this, Gay/Straight defines the extremes of the spectrum, therefore it is redundant, or at least pedantic, to say "exclusively straight" or "exclusively homosexual."
I'm not sure I mentioned (or care about) the status of my own exclusivity, but phrases like "you non-exclusives" followed by a rather lopsided, unflattering comparison, is the behavior that indicates you do not find them as separate-but-equal as you claim, I think.
And in total accordance to Gay/straight defining the extremes of the spectrum, I do nothing else but proposing to apply the exact same here. Zoo/non zoo, with all the non exclusives in between known as bestialists, according to all the non extreme gay/straight folks calling themselves bisexual.
And when I phrase "you non exclusives", please don´t turn it into this twisted "special snowflake/ I´m offended by the truth" crap. I´m not non exclusive, so what else should I say but "you non exclusives", huh?
I appreciate your point, but aren't you many decades (or per your information last time we discussed this, a bit over a century) too late to propose a different meaning for the word?
Many "non exclusives in between" have just as much of a heartfelt, love-driven relationship as exclusives.
I understand there is another category of fetish-minded folks too, or thrill-seekers, or label-seekers, or probably many others who just want some new exotic label. But just being "non-exclusive" does not therefore put someone in one of these other groups, apart from "zoophiles" (or zoosexual, or whatever correct term applies).
There are many ways to put it... "non-exclusive people" for example. Likewise I don't want to come off as the thought police or grammar police, but "you non-exclusives" has accusatory or condescending connotations, similar to "I've had enough of you people."
I wouldn't have mentioned it except for the immediate segue into lumping them along with other over-accepting cultures and coat-tail riders.
It´s the very same thing, only put more politely.Same meaning, different wording.
Perhaps. But he isn't saying, "your not a zoophile", not even in a polite way, I think he's saying, "don't assume you are a zoophile." I could be wrong, of course! But that's what it looks like to me. Like I said, OP probably is a zoophile.
This isn't really gatekeeping. They're fifteen and it really is liable to change, it could just be coincidence or a false alarm, etc. Raging hormones do some crazy stuff.
Then I didn't gatekeep either.
I've about had it with all of you. You choose one damn fucking thing.
What we both did is gatekeeping or it just isn't. I've also had my reasons for the, ahem, ''gatekeeping'' I did.
Say, how's that rule you thought about coming along? Doesn't he encourage you to actually add it?
Because our messages really aren't that much different.
The message here is that even if he is a zoophile right now, it may be subject to change. It's simply not certain as of now. If the feelings are still there after a few years, he's probably going to stay that way. Gatekeeping is the "you're not a true zoophile because you love humans too" and then going on long tirades and getting into frivolous arguments about it.
That's an extremely dumb assumption then. If OP claims he is a zoophile, then he is a damn zoophile. Nobody else but OP decides that.
Did you also realize attraction can change later at any time? You've said and even seen it yourself, which defeats this bullshit excuse.
Say, why is it even looked down upon to call an ''inclusive zoophile'' not a real zoophile? Whatever your answer is, I am already sure that it can also be applied here.
And you know, it's honestly hard to see the real zoophiles and the fake ones. Especially when they claim they have a girlfriend as most of them are just fetishists seeking for a male dog or male horse to get their girlfriend fucked.
There's a chance that this OP will change attraction, there's a chance that the OP I ''harassed'' was not a real zoophile. Apparently I discriminated by attraction, and he discriminated by age. Oh that's such a big difference and such a big deal.
So you're saying I can't defend my statements now?
And come on, the other ''gatekeeper'' and some other users here are making arguments now too.
The key difference is, they aren't discriminating. That person can stay here and make contributions and be treated the same as someone in their 60s that has been an exclusive zoophile with a nonhuman partner. It doesn't change the nature of his circumstances, though. What he provided was advice. Advice, mind, that does have a basis in science.
Because it deviates from the conventional definition, which lays no claim to exclusivity and only describes it as a trait.
We can spontaneously combust, too(See: SHC), so launching a criminal investigation when you see a burned corpse on the street is a bullshit excuse to prosecute someone. Think about how common it is to just burst into flames. It can happen to anyone at any time, but burning someone else to death takes so much effort. I mean, you need a lighter and fuel and all that. Who would go through the trouble, right?
Your attractions and your understanding of your attractions are most subject to change during your early to mid teens. They can change later, but it's significantly rarer.
In a sub about attraction and not an age group, the difference is a big deal. Again though, there's no discrimination happening. He's not saying that they don't belong here or that they aren't a zoophile because they're 15.
I'm saying that, and pardon my French, people can't be cunts toward non exclusive zoophiles because they're non exclusive zoophiles.
There's no rule against it yet.
AB, please be honest and quit that flash grenade throwing. The common psychological definition includes the word "fixation" in it. We don´t need to debate about that, really. Fact is, the only thing is can see is hurt egos, but no one has told me yet what exactly would change for them personally when they´re not allowed to use the "zoo" label anymore. And the most remarkable fact is that even BEastforum, fucking Beastforum has exclusivity as one core definition for a "real "zoo....fucking BEASTFORUM! Whadda you reply to that? I´ve already typed in so much regarding that issue, but all I get is this automatic autistic screeching you immediately hear when "safe spaces" are violated....all I get is "...muh zoo labul!!!" and "Intolerant hater" replies..is this free discussion about a basic issue of our community? Just because the majority of "non exclusive" zoos had us subdued for two decades now, that doesn´t mean the issue is solved. It´s not. I even explained why establishing an "elite" label is nothing but a necessity to start influencing the public in the right, least edgy way, the way it is most likely something will stick. We all know, you includied Ab, that our "strategy" we applied the last 20 years hasn´t made anything better for any of us. We´re doing the same flawed experiment over and over again for two friggin´ decades now...and all the majority in here seems to believe is "It´s hateful, bigoted society´s fault!!!". "An experimenter who repeats the same experiement over and over again, without any changes in the experiment´s setting, yet expecting different results..." you surely know how the quote continues, AB. If you want to sell a basket of apples to a stranger, you better make sure the apples on the top are spotless, shiny and immaculate. If you want to win a new longtime customer, you better make sure the whole basket is full with spotless, shiny and immaculate apples. That´s basically it...or how do you, AB, think we could ever separate us from all those irresponsible "zoo" who make it to the headlines or are "visited" by uniformed authority with the same fucking word describing this as the very same, with ONE word only? And don´t make me think that introducing a new , fancy word for us "exclusives" wouldn´t immediately result in everyone adapting this word as theirs regardless of whether they are within the definition or not. Just like some loonies tried to water down the word "exclusive" some weeks ago...or just like the big masses of whiners at the front door of Zoosanctum, remember? Until you "non exclusives" can swallow down your ego to open up a possibility to connect to the public (Well, sorry to break it to you, but fucking animals AND humans isn´t exactly leading to assmuptions like "Oh, well, At least he fucks a human girl once in a while!" instead of "Yuck! Disgusting! That´s the way AIDS was introduced to mankind!" reactions. And vice versa, the usual argument against us "exclusives" ("People who only feel love for animals are cases for the shrink!") being a spearhead for our cause is flawed as hell. I am an exclusive and always had the impression that normal people can see parallels to their idea of love easier because of that. I literally heard "Oh, so you´re normal with the only exception of your girl being a mare." more than just a few times. This community seems to have lost any ability to see things as they are: call society bigoted, hateful or "zoophobic" as you want, but exactly this is the society we have to deal with when we want to have change. Work with what is there, not with what you wish it would be there. Or dig up deeper in your trenches and defend your already lost position until you´re overrun by future negative developments. In this case, you all should wish that IS is never defeated...or what do you think all the funny espionage equipment and the spy agencies will be focused on once the "feindbild" has been destroyed? Who will be next? "Eeenie, meenie , minie, moo, I´ll guess we´ll next fuck the zoos!"...
PS: Checked for typos, but too stoned to correct them RN...I guess I´ll gonna visit my madame now...
That doesn't mean it exists exclusive of anything. It should be noted that paraphilias that are characterized as exclusive interests will be clarified as such in the DSM(partialism, for instance, is described as an exclusive interest in specific body parts). If it's exclusive, it would be outlined as exclusive.
You can play verbal gymnastics all you want here, but at the end of the day, the common definition is pretty expansive.
A website with no scientific accreditation, no foothold in psychology nor psychiatry, that is run by zoophiles of a particular and likely exclusive orientation themselves, and that doles out bans to people that work against their narrative... is not a source. You're talking about rotten apples when you just threw one into my lap with that one.
[deleted]
There are terrible/clueless and decent/rational people across the whole exclusivity spectrum. It seems to me public opinion will be swayed much more by the credibility of the person, rather than the scope and frequency of their sexual habits.
Since you bring it up, I don't see why coming up with a new word that actually means (and is defined as) what you think this one means would then be co-opted to mean something new. Why not try it and see... if you're right, you'll have some ammunition to prove your claim, for only a very minimal investment in effort.
Complaining when other people either make an innocent mistake because of the vagueness of a subjective word, or at worst are using the word in a still completely-accurate way, according to popularly established definitions, doesn't really seem productive.
I absolutely won´t introduce a new word in here...Remember the proverb? "Fool me once , your bad. Fool me twice, my bad." The moment I reveal a new word that defines the "elite", nobody will want to be "just a zoo" anymore...and I don´t need further proof for something that already and frequently has been proven in the last two and a half decades.You don´t need "ammunition" anymore when the war is long over and lost.
And since you bring up the standard, widely accepted definintion of the z-word: don´t you see that this is a circle argument? I remember times when zoophilia was NOT a synonym for bestiality...guess what made it into that...the common and unpunished misusage of that word by every single beasty because "it sounds more scientific". The commonly accepted definition is based on what people like Miletski and other "sex researchers" were confronted with when talking to "zoophiles". And, as in here, no one wants to be "just a beasty", we´re all "gallant zoophiles" in here, right? See? Scientists just took for granted what the animal fuckers were telling them...and that´s how zoophilia was degraded into a mere synonym for bestiality. I have no inclination to let this shit happen again with another word that, by the way, isn´t so easy to come up with as you imply.
So your approach is "fool me zero times, and I'll still call foul"? I assume you can see how that is indistinguishable from you not being willing to try for fear of being proven wrong about non-exclusives stealing a clearly exclusive-specific word.
I'm happy to break the circle of that argument, since it is meaningless/pointless without agreed definitions, and we don't agree on the definitions.
Fact is that it´s not "fool me zero times"...I was participating in the creation of the z-word and it was me who introduced the greek lower zeta as "our" symbol. So did you know that the lower zeta never just simply stood for zoophile, but for zeta zoophile, the ones among us who obeyed the zeta rules...so tell me about "fool me zero times"...
On the word side, I am pretty sure psychologists beat you to it. On the symbol side, the "brand" was lost shortly after it began, I think.
Even giving the benefit of the doubt that you were the first to create the word for that unique purpose 25 years ago, I'm sure lessons have been learned over the past years to make it work better now. And anyway, I'd say the current situation has less to do with other people maliciously or selfishly appropriating the word and more to do with the word having nothing implicitly to do with zeta-ness or zoo-exclusive-ness. It just is "animal-lover" or maybe "animal-paraphiliac."
I don't recall all the zeta rules but from those that stuck with me I expect just as many non-exclusives follow them as do exclusives.
Then neither am I. We both have our reasons for our suspicion.
So did I. Don't call yourself a zoophile because xxxxx.
I've been told that definitions don't matter that much, and now mods are considering whether or not to make it against the rules to use the wrong definition?
No man, I'm not falling for this shit. I'm using the wrong word? OH NO HE USED THE WRONG WORD! KILL HIM, KILL HIM HE'S USING THE WRONG WORD!
Of course I am the one here who always thinks ''unimportant'' stuff is important... How many times do I have to make fun of this community for it's hypocrisy and double standard bullshit?
Bad excuses.
It's true, but there's still a high chance that your attraction can change at any time, but so what?
Where do you even draw the line with that logic?
The dumb comparison you made with the spontaneous combustion doesn't really make much sense because changing attraction in adulthood isn't that rare.
A lot of humans have trouble in life and with their identities. Some just deny it until later or realize it later.
You even admitted that being depressed can fuck up your attraction. Well, guess how many humans are really fucking depressed?
I'd say it's even more common for zoophiles as we sometimes get posts like the OP here, except that such posts are made by adults too.
Yet he's saying he's not a zoophile because of reasons. I was doing the same.
As I said, it's hard to see the difference between a fake and a real one.
But again, what is the problem even if I meant it like that? What if this OP, someone who is even younger, gets offended? What if he feels like he doesn't belong here? I know that would hurt, especially a young one.
I think we'd welcome zoos in new open arms, but I guess not. Didn't expect that even from you, honestly.
But I guess it's just how life works. If you hang out with certain individuals, you'll be like them.
Oh, and they absolutely can be cunts towards me. Got it.
I don't think you've read actuallynotazoo's comment. It leaks from dickery.
''Probably worth holding out on calling yourself a zoo for little while yet champ.'' Yep, fuck you buddy. You definitely don't belong here kid, get out and come back when you're an adult.
And like I keep saying, it's hard to see the difference between a fake and a real zoo. Everything I've said in this thread applies here again.
The fact that you felt compelled to use the word suspicion there is at the core of this issue.
They don't matter too much, which is why it's in the best interest of the community for us to prevent most of the drama revolving around definitions. To be clear, you'd still be free to say what you think zoophilia is and what zoophiles are... but if someone fits the standard definition and identifies as a zoophile, you'd just need to respect that. We'd ask nothing more. And of course, you'd still have inclusive, exclusive, and all those other adjectives to tack on as long as it's not shitty or patronizing(ie fake zoos, true zoos).
He's saying wait on it to be sure, and that it's difficult to gauge the extent of his zoophilia just yet. In fact, there's no talk of definitions in his reply. He might just no longer identify as a zoophile during that time, for one reason or another. Maybe it fades after they find a certain woman or man in their life.
It really depends on severity. I'd say if there was even less than a 10% chance in this case, it'd probably be better to just let sleeping dogs lie, but we're likely looking at a 20-50% chance for it to change, if not higher. Though, after rereading OP's post, it would seem that they may not be 15 now, but rather were recalling something historically.
It isn't rare if you're not heterosexual. Heterosexuality is the most stable sexuality, with a rate of change that averages at about 1% between males and females; the aggregate chance of change rests at 2%. Generation Z is seriously defying existing statistics, so the odds are higher for OP, but they're still looking at a chance of change in the double digits during adolescence, potentially. We'll definitely need a study on the stability of zoophilia as an orientation in the future, as it seems to be the case that you're more likely to shift into heterosexual attractions than you are to shift away. The stability of zoophilic attractions is another thing that would make for a good research opportunity. But still, you've got significantly higher rarity in adulthood since your orientation is more or less established past 21, which is more the point. We should also consider the fact that zoophilia is itself an extremely rare orientation to have, and given existing data on orientation shifts between normative and non normative orientations, we can assume that it's much more likely to transition out of zoophilia than it is to transition into it.
Something tells me OP is not depressed.
Orientation shifts are scary the first time. Alot of things you think you know about yourself suddenly getting turned on its head. It ain't fun getting thrusted into a bunch of unfamiliar feelings and alien territory a second time, but knowing that it can happen is a great way to prepare for it.
This community should be functioning in such a way that anyone can come in here, make their first post, and feel welcome(assuming they're being civil ofc). The namesake of this community isn't really meant to be a roadblock. Funny that you'd be talking about being welcoming though, lol.
Well we tend to be of the philosophy that he who throws stones and has his stones thrown back at him is the one in the wrong.
OP made it sound like these were two instances in quick succession, tbf. There are alot of factors at play here that make those words sound advice, most of which I believe I've covered here already. I will say that there were some choice bits of terminology that may make this an ideal answer for OP. Note the title being "coming to terms with" it. You come to terms with a death, or losing a promotion... not positive things. They even mentioned how they were suppressing those feelings thrice in the same post.
What?
And actuallynotazoo isn't doing that.
Refusing the fact that someone is a zoophile isn't very respecting. Or at least, with such logic.
OP said he's a zoophile, no one must tell him otherwise then. Gatekeeping.
OP says he's a zoophile. There, done.
Right, let's not assume bullshit and just let OP decide because he's the only one who knows.
From my perspective, most, ahem, ''''''''zoophiles'''''''' with a girlfriend I've seen are just fetishists. If I gatekeep, so did he. If he didn't gatekeep, I didn't either.
I'm just saying there's higher chances.
Then actuallynotazoo did a bad thing.
Yeah, isn't that was this community is supposed to be? Welcoming?
I mean supposed to be, not is. Because if you think that's true I'd laugh out loud the first time this month.
Of course I don't act welcoming myself. And you know damn obvious why.
Never expect to see a change in that, because even if I could, I don't have an interest in being nice to others.
Coming from the man who oh so loved forgiveness, who always thought it was a better idea just to forgive the other.
I'd assume you'd stop both attackers in such cases, I guess not.
But that's not a good comparison, it's the first one throwing stones and the second one throwing boulders. And that's just the beginning of that.
Sometimes they don't even throw boulders, they don't throw anything but a small piece of paper with this written on it: ''You don't deserve a boulder, not even a rock for that matter.''
Connotations.
"lol no. gatekeeping isn't the same as saying 'maybe your not a zoo'. especially as it seems to me as though OP has just jumped in without looking first. I may be wrong though, all I've got to go off is 5 lines of text." "I'm saying they may not be a zoo full stop lol."
Also, gatekeeping will be described as being a direct, definitive statement, probably.
Respecting the orientation of another and introducing points to think about regarding said orientation for OP is not gatekeeping, per moderator discretion.
And I'm sure in some cases you're right, but you also have plenty of reasons, as a misanthrope, to assume the worst in others that associate with humans.
It's still a moot point with little bearing in the situation at hand, especially given that it requires extremely severe depression to happen spontaneously like that.
Given that I forgive the provoked, just not the provoker, it is quite forgiving. It's also the reason why we've abided those heated discussions with Aluzky.
Or perhaps the first thrower is unwittingly throwing boulders and papers, themself.
Yeah, he acts like it was ''maybe''. I can act just as innocent as him.
probably
Please give me a few examples, then.
But no, recently I was told ''The very epitome of "young and dumb" on my message. Where did I start attacking them?
They even acted innocent afterwards. If I'd ever act that innocent, it would never work.
After taking my revenge, it was repeated again: ''At least I lost my virginity.''
Do you know how much that hurts me? Well let's just say it makes me stray away from her more and more that I don't even bother to say hi when I come home and just leave her outside, instead of kissing and taking a walk afterwards. I've always been hurt mentally by others constantly, and I don't fucking need this.
You expect me to act nice towards anyone ever again after experiencing everything I ever experienced with humans? With literally no human to ever trust?
I just don't see anything in her anymore because my depressions worsens, and then THIS on top of it?
It had to be said again. I had to be reminded of it again, even though I think about it every minute already.
I had to be reminded that we will never experience that thing, yet they live in a life full of fucking luxury even though I worked my ass off for it while they didn't.
Say... when a very important relative of your dies... How would you like it if someone reminded you: ''Look! Look! I've still got my relative and I'm having fun with them! You don't, you're dumb!'' even though you think about it every minute, that it can't even get out of your mind for one second?
You're so depressed that you stopped caring about that relative, yet in some way you do care, but feel so bad you just can't control it.
...Just like how you can't control your happiness. You can't really be happy towards others anymore.
You have very disliked opinions and when you name them, you get insulted even though you're sharing your opinion.
Oh, and not to mention you've already had trauma as a child and are constantly afraid and paranoid of almost anything.
Do you know what's the problem here? Tell me,
Why is it wrong to beat up an 8 year old because they attacked you but not wrong to beat up an adult? Assuming you agree with that...
First off, children sometimes don't know any better. Let's just forget that, because that doesn't fully count for me.
But the thing is what effect it will have on them. THAT is what matters.
The intention, act and after effect all matter. But in the end the after effect really matters the most.
Want me to make another quick example? Which one do you think is more right to kick in the leg? The random person over there or the random person on crutches?
Intention doesn't really matter much in physical damage (only mental damage), act does technically matter but it's the after effect that really counts.
And that said, abusing someone like that is fucking disgusting. Taunting someone with something you have and what they want is just straight up sick, especially when it's a problem ruining their life.
'^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
'^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
'^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, and the lives of others, too.
Still, that's not the only insult of course. I was just making a disgusting example of one.
But I should've gotten my point accross.
Back on topic, I still think he ''gatekeeped'' as much as me. I can act alllll innocent too.
Of course it's always me, who else would it be? Just know one thing, if I really am in the wrong here and actuallynotazoo isn't, realize that it must be because I lost the difference between right and wrong.
I wonder if that has to do with my past. Being constantly targeted and accused of things I haven't done.
For a second I thought I finally couldn't blame this community for that, but a large chunk of that is their mistake again.
Well excuse me, I now have a crying annoying dog outside to shut the fuck up.
But you, nor 30-30, nor any gatekeeper I've seen in any circle, will. They either shut up about it or they burn with their stubbornness. Worth considering, too, is that it's going to be per moderator discretion in most capacities still. If we think someone is trying to circumvent a rule, we'll enforce.
History has very long coat-tails, and follows many closer than others. But still, my hands are currently tied if you don't take four seconds to report comments that are attacking you.
Because being violent toward juveniles predisposes them to violence later in life.
I'm afraid I may not be able to relate. I don't experience emotions in a negative light, in the first place.
A number of others, too. You aren't the focus of concern in most cases, though.
Do you have any romantic feelings for animals, or just sexual ones?