kye whiting
Citizen of Zooville
A mare wifey not a stallion that's a husbandey
Are all you folks already on the new forum (Zoocadia)?
- Thread starter Wolfspirit
- Start date
amorousdog5
Citizen of Zooville
Here's some definitions:
Definitions
There is a lot of confusion around terms used in the zoo community, so here is how science defines these terms: Bestialist: There are the “bestialists” who have one or a few sexual contacts with an animal, or they use animals when a more “normal” outlet is not available. (2002, Understanding...
www.zoovilleforum.net
Basically if you care about your animals and have formed or are interested in forming an emotional bond with them that goes beyond just sex, you're a zoophile.
valleyyote
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
If this site annoys you so much than why the hell don't you just stay away? I got news for you hypocrisy is an ugly thing and everybody's crap stinks. A zoo is a zoo period! you can't dress it up and make it different just because you say so. You would be shot just as quickly as me if some folks found out about it. Dictators like you disgust me they always feel everything has to be their way. No you disparage and disrupt because you and your cohorts keep coming back here and stirring the pot so to speak you are the ones who are upset because no one would listen to your unreasonable demands. Life isn't just about you and your way. A real adult understands this. This is the kind of crap that has people killing each other over politics, religion, and any other crap you can think of. It is also the thing that has gotten zoo anything band almost everywhere in the world. Mine is an open mind and heart.
Um yeah look up the true definition of zoophila it means sex with animals nothing else. Anything else where animals are concerned is defined as love, compassion, companionship etc.. those outside the zoo community at large make this distinction very clearly. They would never lump zoophilla in with anything else. They use it exclusively to call us out by name. Trust me I know because I have made the mistake of opening up to some I thouhgt were friends and they called me all sorts of horrible things and mde it clear our kind was fith and it would be jst awesome if they could do unspeakable things to the whole lot of us. Hell even my ultra hertro father who love my gay younger brother said all zoos should be shot on more than one occassion, he even said it would be awesome if bad stuff were allowed to happen to them, pretty harsh words considering they cam from a seventh day adventist. I do not appreciate getting constantly crapped on by hollier then though fellow zoos who think it is their right to dictate policy to everyone else becuse I already get that crap from outside the community. Jealous? Hell no i would never be jealous of something so obnoxis, ugly, and truly hypocritical.
So you are saying you would simply run everyone out simply to have it your way? How uterly childish, selfish, self serving, immature, closed minded, and hearted of you. You made your own forum simply becuse you didn't get to have it your way nothing else. You could have asked them to include a section for you at this open, friendly round table and let everyone else have their enjoyment and freedom in peace but no you kept badgering, heckling, being rude and disruptive. etc.. even to the point of hurting peoples feelings and doing things hetros have done to them everywhere else.
BTW I am not a zoo sadist or anything of that sort and I believe that animals shoud be treated wit the utmost love, kindness, and respect. They are truly wonderful beings that should be treated as any human wishes to be treated. I give them their space and their choice and have never met one that did not ablsolutely adore me on first site or after they got to know me. I tolerate others because it is supposed to be a free world especially in these kinds of settings, websites die becuse of your kind.
I am sorry you hate me but brother I do not hate you in the slightest on the contrary I love you just as any human should love another. We all need to stick toghether because if one falls we all fall at some point.
I hope you have a most beautiful Monday and a most awesome rest of the week!
??
Root
Tourist
Wait really?
Root
Tourist
Fair enough I guess
amorousdog5
Citizen of Zooville
Nope. But you can't trust me anymore than you can him, so I recommend you actually have a look for yourself rather than relying on the words of others.
nekdoneco123
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
if you translate boring as "no porn, no personal ads"
amorousdog5
Citizen of Zooville
Especially with such controversial and ever-evolving topics, dictionary definitions are not all that exist in heaven and earth. The definitions I linked are from the writings of social scientists who have studied these topics, and they define these terms in these ways for better clarity.
In fact he didn't say that. He said we made our own place because it's a much better solution than that.
All of these ideals align with those of Zoocadia, so what is it exactly you have a problem with? No vague nonsense about discrimination now; here at ZV we "discriminate" against animal abusers for very good reason and you don't object to that. So it is not discrimination itself, but something specific that is being discriminated against that must be your problem if your arguments are to make any sense. So specifically, what is it that you think Zoocadia discriminates against unjustly?
valleyyote
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Yeah no. You prove the point that some folks just wont accept that their acts are no better than anyone else an therefore your going to try and claim higher ground well there is none to be claimed in the world of zoos.You can not just way your magical Social scientist wand and say I now change this definiton because! Wordds ahve meaning and it does not change simply to suit ones needs, wants, and desires. Zoophilla like Pedophillia means exactly what it infers. the orginators gave it a defintion and that cannot be changed no matter how hard you try. Why becuse I do not ever see any one changing the term pedophilla simply because in the world at large no one accepts messing around with children. Thus logically they same would apply to animals. Fact a large percent of zoos are pedofiles experts have studied this sick fact for years it proves out in the furry commuity with all the baby fur crap. Also to prove a point by definion and animal cannot give consent becuase they do not have the mental faclties and understnding to do so, their actions are an impulse to certain stimuli that goes to their basic intincts. So yeah any zoo is going to fall into the same category if you wish to be logical and honest about it.
Give me a break, it only happend because for so long you all tried very hard to get the mods to see it your way and destroy it for the rest of us. It started not too long after the site was formed in fact. He explained that very clearly when he got disgusted with me. Had he gotten things to go his way alot of people would have been selfishly forced out simply becuae we saw things in a differnt light and had a diffrent opinion on the matter. But those who are selfish and stubbern will not adult up and will therefore blame everyone else and claim they were the better person. Well let me tell you what that is not the case at all. by continuing to come back here and argue the point and beat a dead horse you prove the point. A better person would have left and never come back and would not keep trying to recruit others to your cause.
If you own carnivores of any kind you are a zoo sadist by default becuse you have to feed your pets don't you? Do you yourself consume meat? I grew up in the country and understand how how food animals are treated I also know how big commercial industries treat their animals. Do you consume any products that come from animals, or from places the use animals as farm labor? Do you use comsetics or any number of other items that come into being via the use of animal testing? Do you keep any of your animals pinned up, do you have filthy living quarters for your animals, is their outdoor area large enough for them, is it nice or is it a nasty mudhole? Do your inside pets ever get to go outside on their on and have ample space to excercise? I could go on and on but if you answered yes to any of these questions you are guilty of cruelty yourself. Oh btw do not give me the bullshit answer of well food animals and work animals fall under a totally diffrent definiton becuse they do not . They are all living, breathing sentient beings all worhty of equal treatment. I can not fault others becuse i am no better in that I do consume animal products and things that come from all that I metioned above. I would be very hypocritcal if I did. there is a thing called freedom and everyone is entitled to it on their own terms.
I can not agree with you or take yor side because non of us is guiltless of any of the reasons you claim for creating your new, "better" site, in fact many of you are hypocrites because I knew damn well many of you are hiding dark sins from each other. It is how zoophilla works at its core. I'm never going to sugar coat it for anyone. I know becuse I have been a pansexul, meat consuming zoo since I was a child in gradeschool.
Give me a break, it only happend because for so long you all tried very hard to get the mods to see it your way and destroy it for the rest of us. It started not too long after the site was formed in fact. He explained that very clearly when he got disgusted with me. Had he gotten things to go his way alot of people would have been selfishly forced out simply becuae we saw things in a differnt light and had a diffrent opinion on the matter. But those who are selfish and stubbern will not adult up and will therefore blame everyone else and claim they were the better person. Well let me tell you what that is not the case at all. by continuing to come back here and argue the point and beat a dead horse you prove the point. A better person would have left and never come back and would not keep trying to recruit others to your cause.
If you own carnivores of any kind you are a zoo sadist by default becuse you have to feed your pets don't you? Do you yourself consume meat? I grew up in the country and understand how how food animals are treated I also know how big commercial industries treat their animals. Do you consume any products that come from animals, or from places the use animals as farm labor? Do you use comsetics or any number of other items that come into being via the use of animal testing? Do you keep any of your animals pinned up, do you have filthy living quarters for your animals, is their outdoor area large enough for them, is it nice or is it a nasty mudhole? Do your inside pets ever get to go outside on their on and have ample space to excercise? I could go on and on but if you answered yes to any of these questions you are guilty of cruelty yourself. Oh btw do not give me the bullshit answer of well food animals and work animals fall under a totally diffrent definiton becuse they do not . They are all living, breathing sentient beings all worhty of equal treatment. I can not fault others becuse i am no better in that I do consume animal products and things that come from all that I metioned above. I would be very hypocritcal if I did. there is a thing called freedom and everyone is entitled to it on their own terms.
I can not agree with you or take yor side because non of us is guiltless of any of the reasons you claim for creating your new, "better" site, in fact many of you are hypocrites because I knew damn well many of you are hiding dark sins from each other. It is how zoophilla works at its core. I'm never going to sugar coat it for anyone. I know becuse I have been a pansexul, meat consuming zoo since I was a child in gradeschool.
Last edited:
From my experience of zoocadia, it is a chill place where people discuss mostly mundane everyday stuff. Like lawnmowers. Sexual discussions do not happen much. There is some porn sharing, but not much.
There are obviously some pet related threads and some zoo related threads.
Newly registered people who would like to use zoocadia the same way you can use zooville do not stick around for long because you can not use the forum that way.
There is a small amount of hostility towards fetishists who generally do not find the forum interesting on their own no matter what small amount of comments they get because it is not zooville and you can not use it for hookups and the porn section is almost empty.
Overall this makes the forum interesting only for people who want the kind of interaction it offers. It is it's own thing with it's own audience.
There are obviously some pet related threads and some zoo related threads.
Newly registered people who would like to use zoocadia the same way you can use zooville do not stick around for long because you can not use the forum that way.
There is a small amount of hostility towards fetishists who generally do not find the forum interesting on their own no matter what small amount of comments they get because it is not zooville and you can not use it for hookups and the porn section is almost empty.
Overall this makes the forum interesting only for people who want the kind of interaction it offers. It is it's own thing with it's own audience.
MashaSobaka
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Not man, who doesn't have a good lawnmower.
amorousdog5
Citizen of Zooville
Sorry... are you implying that a man who rapes and beats his dogs is the same as a man who has mutually enjoyed and loving sex with his dogs?
Ah, I forgot. Language is immutable and never changes for any reason. Thanks for reminding me.
A zoosadist is one who derives sexual pleasure from exacting cruelty upon animals. It's not a person who eats meat or feeds meat to their dogs. Farmers are not required to take any form of pleasure in killing their livestock, and in fact can be prosecuted by law if they exhibit animal cruelty towards their livestock.
It's also wrong to say that a person who fails their dog in any way is being cruel to them. People are not perfect, and we cannot provide perfection to our dogs. Saying that we are cruel when we fail to do the impossible is simple stupidity.
Is that so? Can't honestly say I feel at all sinful for having a loving sexual relationship with my dog. What kinds of sins do you get up to, valleyvote?
Root
Tourist
No I mean the just being 3 people part.
VolkaSoyuza
Citizen of Zooville
I might check it out!
Goattobeloved
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Starts to look as it was "this" or "that".
It is not a choice but an option.
You can be on both at no addiotional cost. Even as staff ?.
Then post on each as it fits for the site and your interests.
It is not a choice but an option.
You can be on both at no addiotional cost. Even as staff ?.
Then post on each as it fits for the site and your interests.
Repreive
Tourist
Ah, then I guess I'm a zoophile?Here's some definitions:
Definitions
There is a lot of confusion around terms used in the zoo community, so here is how science defines these terms: Bestialist: There are the “bestialists” who have one or a few sexual contacts with an animal, or they use animals when a more “normal” outlet is not available. (2002, Understanding...
Basically if you care about your animals and have formed or are interested in forming an emotional bond with them that goes beyond just sex, you're a zoophile.
As much as I lust for beasts, I do enjoy their company and affection outside of perversion.
Was caring for and riding horses (non-lewd-ly) for a while in my teens, loved 'em. Real shame I couldn't stick around for more than a few months.
Repreive
Tourist
Nope. Stallion-wifey is only a husband if he's my hubby.
He'd be my wife. My pseudo-mare with a lil extra.
He might be male and have a fatter cock'n'balls than me... But he would be, in every regard, my wifey.
Repreive
Tourist
...I can't say I've heard of animals being used for testing cosmetics in like, several decades. At least not in the nation I live. It'd be absurd.
As for eating meat or feeding a carnivore...
There is a BIG difference between enjoying food made of animals...
And enjoying the suffering of animals. Most folks that eat meat don't do so for the sake of causing suffering, they eat meat because the meat itself tastes good, because it satisfies their hunger and nutrition needs, and because the alternative is often so prohibitively expensive or lacking in quality that they cannot afford it. Literally and figuratively.
Trying to equate such things to sadism of any kind is intellectually dishonest worst, painfully ignorant at best.
As for animal care... It depends on whom you ask? Typically those caring for greater numbers of animals care less about individual suffering and focus on making sure they live healthy and safe lives, something they couldn't achieve if they weren't domesticated and were left to fend for themselves in the wild. This sort of care, even if not equal to that which humans give to their children, is still worth seeking; this is proven by the wolf's ancestors becoming the most widely-known socially-symbiotic species tied to mankind's existence.
Personally, having cared for hens, I cared a great deal for them. Whenever they died of old age or in the rare case due to things such as the bird flue, I'd end up in an emotional fugue. In terms of their conditions... I'd say it's not a house line that which I live in, but it's definitely a place they enjoy living. Animals don't have the exact same desires, instincts and standards as humans do.
Hens enjoy sand, fluffy dirt, straw and such when it comes to materials in their shelters. They like to dig lil divots out to lie in and sprawl on a bit of a tilt when it's hot out and enjoy the shade. They have a funny preference for 'wild water' rather than more pure and clean water, as I've observed when I let them out to peck the yard.
...Getting a bit off track, but...
My point is that I enjoy eating meat. I like the taste and I need it to remain healthy, as do obligate-carnivores.
To deny an animal their dietary needs is feckless, idiotic cruelty. To claim owning or caring for a carnivore is immoral is even more rarted given that, if they had to kill to feed themselves, they'd likely cause far more drawn out and excruciating pain than is endured by those animals which humans farm. Farmed meat is, with proper standards of case, the best possible moral answer to the problem of 'how to not-starve with a belly full of leaves and beans'. Not to mention the stress and pain they might suffer during a hunt, whether or not they succeed.
Supplements are NOT replacements. Pills cannot fulfill your needs perfectly, they can only help offset them temporarily.
Plants which contain proteins do not contain the variety nor quality of proteins found in meats and dairy. The result of lacking in both is that in order to get all the proteins you need in addition to getting enough... Is that you have to eat a LOT. Like, so much it would bloat you.
Also be aware that not everyone can even absorb the vital nutrients found in various nutritional supplements and plant-based alternatives.
Many have tried to be vegan. Long-term, the majority cannot and eventually return to eating meat. It's not a choice; we need to eat meat.
Most people aren't aware, but humans aren't true carnivores; we can digest vegetables and the like, but it's more of a fall-back survival strategy when meat is scarce and all we have left is greenery. As a species, we're less restricted in diet than any other carnivorous animal... But we're far from being herbivorous in terms of our evolution and dietary roots.
TL;DR
Eating meat is not sadistic.
Slowly and thoroughly torturing an animal before killing it, or killing it in a brutal fashion...
Enjoying the act of torture and ending a life in and of itself? That is sadism.
P.S.
Valleyote, I believe you may be woefully misinformed on a number of topics... Particularly regarding the care and use of animals in various industries. While the poultry industry and other agricultural giants are known for their terrible conditions and careless workers, most actual small-scale farmers are far more humane, love their animals. I would literally stumble out of bed, grab a stick from the yard and try to fight off a mangy coyote than risk allowing my precious, dopey lil feathery babies to be harmed.
Also, as regards pedophilia, folks with paraphilias tend to have more than one or two.
The fact is that pedophilia has strong correlation with any form of sexual deviancy from the heterosexual 'norm' and 'vanilla sex'.
Last edited:
Spirals_Of_Fourth_Wall
Tourist
Thank you for this sane, informative response. And uh... wait what? Are you implying that pedophilia is prevalent among zoos? I'm not saying that incredulously, I agreed with pretty much everything else you said. If that's true, then I was blissfully unaware of something extremely major about this community
amorousdog5
Citizen of Zooville
Take what Reprieve said with a pinch of salt. While I agree with some of his points, his claims about veganism are demonstrably false. It is true to say maintaining nutritional balance is more difficult for vegans, and requires them to take supplements. It is not true to say that people NEED meat to be healthy, nor is it true that supplements only provide a temporary solution. There are a number of professional athletes that have maintained a vegan lifestyle for many years yet still get all the nutrition they need to maintain the peak physical fitness required to be among the best (if not the best) in their sports. Ultramarathon Champion Scott Jurek, NBA Star Chris Paul, and NFL defensive end Deatrich Wise, Jr. to name only a few.
As for pedophilia... not in THIS community. Any show of support for pedophilia will result in an instant ban, no warnings. Just as it should be.
Last edited:
Indeed it will, just like the half dozen that I banned earlier this morning for posting/liking a clearly underage video. There are no warnings or second chances for pedos here.
MashaSobaka
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
I guess they're all fetishists. It must be very rare among zoophiles.
Goattobeloved
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Um... I suppose it depends who you look.
Zoos usually have little interes in humans, let alone their underage form. No, I do not think you will find any in this group.
But, people in "extreme kinks, all taboo, etc", are likely to be into pedo and also to explore zoo... er... beasty as another "extremely weird kink", so you might find an overlapping in those, but:
- For one they will tipically not be zoos but people using animals as sex tools.
- On the other, both staff and users reporting them are doing a good job on playing wack-a-pedo with the banhammer as soon as spotted ?
Spirals_Of_Fourth_Wall
Tourist
Thank goodness, I was quite alarmed when @Repreive said that. And when I replied to him, I had just read the TL;DR section and skimmed the rest. While I don't agree with everything he said, I agree with the 'animal wellness matters' stuff, and I think that's among the most important things that our community should stand for.
Now that I think about it a bit more, the claim that "pedophilia has a strong correlation with any form of sexual deviancy from the heterosexual norm" is a bit sketchy, to say the least. Maybe I'm just a little wary given anti-LGBT conspiracy theories that seem to be prevalent talking points as of late, but it feels as though his claim could be taken to imply correlation between LGBT+ identities and pedophilia. I'm going to assume that's *not* what he meant to insinuate, given that he clearly fancies stallions and it'd be strange for him to parrot that kind of rhetoric. To be clear, I have no issue with @Repreive whatsoever. I'm just pointing out how his choice of words *could* be taken, and the issues with claims like that.
Since the topic is up, though, I would like to encourage people to steer clear of saying things like that, since it perpetuates the myth that anyone outside the heteronormative standards is a predator. I don't think I'd need to explain why that myth is harmful, especially since this is a forum made specifically for people who do fall outside of those standards (yes, even you're straight, liking females of another species means you're not "normal", whatever weight that word carries).
I think the more natural way to take it within context is what @Goattobeloved said, that he was referring to people with "extreme kinks", which in some people's minds may include zoos, or bestialists rather. I do still find the choice of the phrase "heterosexual norm" a bit off-putting, given what is being discussed.
In conclusion, uh sorry for derailing this thread further than it already has been, as it seems the nature of forum threads tends towards getting off topic. I'd personally rather stay on this site, but power to those who choose to join Zoocadia.
horseofcourse99
Tourist
Looks like things have gotten spicy for this announcement since I looked. ?
I still don't get the point to the site. After reading all the comments and checking out the site again I understand even less. I don't understand the vague rules regarding how "some" sex/porn is allowed and others is not. Lets take a look at the Zoocadia's rule I'm talking about:
"16. Threads/posts that are deemed overly or solely fetishistic and blatantly vulgar will be removed at moderator discretion. This includes fetishistic posts that derail the intended subject of a thread. This is to curb threads/posts from "pornhounds/fetishizers/leg-humpers" that are not zoos and only see zoophilia/bestiality as a degradation fetish."
The problem I have always had with rules like this is it's far to vague, what I consider a "pornhoud/fetishizer/leg-humper" might not entirely meet with the mods understanding of that rule and I will have no idea of that line until I break the rules and get banned, I can beg for forgiveness but what is the point, I'll just end up making another mistake somewhere down the line and get banned again.
Look, the way that this PSA was put out there was very antagonistic. For example:
1. This quote, "designed more for real zoos." I took this to mean 'as in anyone not a part of your website isn't a real zoo. That the people over on zoovile just rape their animals and jack off to animals being tortured.'
2. Then there's this quote "and to better keep out the fetishists, bestialists, kinksters and zoosadists that websites like this unfortunately tend to attract." I took this to mean 'to keep out the parasites and vermin that we think are harming animals but clearly most of the others don't think so which is why the content is still hear?' Please point to content that is in violation of whatever rules your going by so we can all get an idea of what you mean. Unless your talking about the users that get banned for posting anything against the rules, then what more do you want us to do then ban them?
3. This quote as well, "If you understand the difference between those terms and you fully identify as a zooromantic, zoophile or zoosexual zoophile, come on and join the growing pack!" To me this meant, 'we will force our beliefs down the throats everyone on our new site because we are the REAL zoophiles.' Your saying I can't love an animal and also have a fetish, it might not even be a fetish for the animal I love. That fetish might also push someone to explore themselves and others, so long as it's consensual, I don't see the problem.
So no personals to even have the chance of meeting anyone else out there, no porn (except when they arbitrarily say so) which means no way to show off your love if you were so inclined, no human on human porn at all (I agree with this one unless a fursuit or animal sex toy is involved. Basically unless you can involve something animal themed.), no pornagraphic images in PFP (Where else can they do this?).
Making broad generalizations about others could be the start of something with less then the purest of intentions. I bring that up because using words like "REAL ZOOS", "FETISHISTS", "BESTIALISTS", "KINKSTERS", and "ZOOSADISTS" in the way you used them comes off as painting EVERYONE else as the villian and yourself as the saviour that will bring us all back to the light. Give me a break! If you want the other website then fine, but don't go painting everyone else as the bad guys for not being the "REAL ZOOS" if we all don't join.
I still don't get the point to the site. After reading all the comments and checking out the site again I understand even less. I don't understand the vague rules regarding how "some" sex/porn is allowed and others is not. Lets take a look at the Zoocadia's rule I'm talking about:
"16. Threads/posts that are deemed overly or solely fetishistic and blatantly vulgar will be removed at moderator discretion. This includes fetishistic posts that derail the intended subject of a thread. This is to curb threads/posts from "pornhounds/fetishizers/leg-humpers" that are not zoos and only see zoophilia/bestiality as a degradation fetish."
The problem I have always had with rules like this is it's far to vague, what I consider a "pornhoud/fetishizer/leg-humper" might not entirely meet with the mods understanding of that rule and I will have no idea of that line until I break the rules and get banned, I can beg for forgiveness but what is the point, I'll just end up making another mistake somewhere down the line and get banned again.
Look, the way that this PSA was put out there was very antagonistic. For example:
1. This quote, "designed more for real zoos." I took this to mean 'as in anyone not a part of your website isn't a real zoo. That the people over on zoovile just rape their animals and jack off to animals being tortured.'
2. Then there's this quote "and to better keep out the fetishists, bestialists, kinksters and zoosadists that websites like this unfortunately tend to attract." I took this to mean 'to keep out the parasites and vermin that we think are harming animals but clearly most of the others don't think so which is why the content is still hear?' Please point to content that is in violation of whatever rules your going by so we can all get an idea of what you mean. Unless your talking about the users that get banned for posting anything against the rules, then what more do you want us to do then ban them?
3. This quote as well, "If you understand the difference between those terms and you fully identify as a zooromantic, zoophile or zoosexual zoophile, come on and join the growing pack!" To me this meant, 'we will force our beliefs down the throats everyone on our new site because we are the REAL zoophiles.' Your saying I can't love an animal and also have a fetish, it might not even be a fetish for the animal I love. That fetish might also push someone to explore themselves and others, so long as it's consensual, I don't see the problem.
So no personals to even have the chance of meeting anyone else out there, no porn (except when they arbitrarily say so) which means no way to show off your love if you were so inclined, no human on human porn at all (I agree with this one unless a fursuit or animal sex toy is involved. Basically unless you can involve something animal themed.), no pornagraphic images in PFP (Where else can they do this?).
Making broad generalizations about others could be the start of something with less then the purest of intentions. I bring that up because using words like "REAL ZOOS", "FETISHISTS", "BESTIALISTS", "KINKSTERS", and "ZOOSADISTS" in the way you used them comes off as painting EVERYONE else as the villian and yourself as the saviour that will bring us all back to the light. Give me a break! If you want the other website then fine, but don't go painting everyone else as the bad guys for not being the "REAL ZOOS" if we all don't join.
UR20Z
Dumpster Diver
Get over yourself, Karen.
VolkaSoyuza
Citizen of Zooville
I think people are getting mad over nothing, who cares that some zoophiles want a less sex-focused forum? there is more to being a zoophile than the obvious. sometimes its good to just make friends with common interests or to discuss experiences in a less sexual manner.
AriesAngyl
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Very well stated. I joined zoocadia not because I had any issue with anyone here at zooville or any problems with zooville, I just wanted a little different experience.
That being said, there is no reason both forums can’t exist side by side, have different flavors or discussion and for people like me to enjoy both.
I love my zooville and the many friends I have made over here. I also have had some very satisfying experiences at zoocadia and that is ok too.
Both forums are ok to exist side by side. If any of us doesn’t like one or the other, that is ok. We don’t have to post or read posts from there.
MashaSobaka
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
It's a free world, everyone makes the forum they want for a group, and every admin makes the rules they want. If you don't like it, don't register.
It's interesting that people in "stupid" Eastern Europe can understand this thing, but in the west somehow they can't, you all just hysterical all the time.
quasar
Tourist
lol it's hilarious to watch the zooier-than-thou types kick and scream when someone says the obvious.
it's never enough for them to love and be attracted to animals, you need to talk about your zoosexuality like it's a holy experience equivalent to the second coming of christ.