Are we the most persecuted minority?

[UniqueAmerican]

I create this post because I want to have the maturity to consider a broad range of perspectives in civil rights.

Does the notion that "zoophiles are the most discriminated minority", as a friend once said, hold legitimacy? What about individuals who are LGBT, Jewish, or African-American? Assume for the sake of argument most zoophiles are Caucasian.

Obviously given our current state of affairs, our situation is very dim. Furthermore, does anyone think that society can look past our deeply rooted anthropomorphization to accept zoosexuality as an orientation one day? Some surmise that being zoo is very different from simply being LGBT. Perhaps the idea of sexually and romantically loving an animal is too much for most people to ever understand; its issue is not patently human-centric.

 

[TheHydra]

Honestly if something does happen E.g Laws change to make it semi-legal E.g No rape or Harm caused or Full-legal it won't be for a long time unless some zoo's start their own nation. And no i don't think Zoo's or beast's are the most hated far from it most people at worst would beat you up or call you sick or preveted, On the other hand Pedaphiles get killed or forced into hiding out of fear of death. I feel people will become more open minded on the subject and who knows in the future we could figure out how to talk with all species and that would break down the whole no consent gap bs.

 

[Tgzoogirl]

Idk. People who are MAP's and people into family are probably equally persecuted in many ways. All 3 tend to be the 3 taboos most of this world is publically against.

Game of Thrones did lessen the stigma a tiny bit against incest considering its a major part of that world and it's a very popular fantasy series.

As for non sexual people, people who are neurodiverse are quite persecuted in many places.

 

[mavericksboy]

I don't feel discriminated against at all. I am not sure "discriminated" is the right word anyway. Honestly as a while male I am not sure what discrimination even feels like. I think a lot of people feel "discrimination" on several different levels.....obviously some more severe than others. My views on "civil rights" is probably different than most people's. People should be treated like human beings (I apologize to all of the aliens out there!) pure and simple. However, that really doesn't happen. People feel certain ways about skin color, ethnic background, sexual identity, etc... I have been fat my entire life....you don't think I know how people look at me and feel about me? It is my choice to either feel "hurt" or to just let it go. I have learned to let it go.... not that sometimes it doesn't still hurt.

Anyway....nuff said. Probably got myself into enough trouble anyway!

 

[caikgoch]

Game of Thrones did lessen the stigma a tiny bit against incest considering its a major part of that world and it's a very popular fantasy series.

GoT is a direct ripoff medieval European politics with a heavy spicing of fantasy. Why do you think European royalty is famous for being stupid, insane, and weak/sick? They "kept it in the family" to keep power concentrated in a small group. So incest is only taboo if you are poor.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Yes and no.

We have been targeted by some really vicious dumbass laws, and in some quarters of society where zoos are more abundant and welcomed by some, anti-zoo bullying can be equally abundant due to toxic purity politics by more parasitic individuals in those quarters of society.

Normal people will not really bully you, just as long as you wait out their (dumb) prejudices and get them to realize that they can't really wave away your existence with a couple of (flawed) syllogisms. Just speak your truth, and speak it repeatedly. "This is my wife" or "This is my husband." Be clear on the fact that you are not about to negotiate over that point-of-view. If they want to know what kind of person that you are, they may feel free to get to know you. If they ask reasonable questions like "How do you know your animal wants sex?" then answer perfectly honestly and straightwardly and based on your actual experiences: you know that a bitch in heat flags her tail or sometimes even attempts to masturbate herself on your leg. You know that a male dog mounts you. It constitutes unpardonable imbecility to interpret those gestures as anything besides a clearly communicated desire to fuck, and they can either accept that fact or not.

Sometimes, you will run into some wazzock--which is an aggravatingly ubiquitous cross, between the interesting but at heart shallow wiseacre and the worrisome yet ordinarily harmless pillock, known for wanting to most annoyingly demonstrate his self-proclaimed deep knowledge and insight based on weaving a seemingly endless stream of bullshit based on ill-informed assumptions, discredited junk science, and unbelievably vapid pop philosophy--that wants to try to wave away that which really ought to be obvious, uttering some vapid syllogism as if the obvious can be made to evaporate and vanish with a magical wave of his hand, and the best way to deal with them is to say something otherwise socially unacceptable about their ancestry and stop talking to them. Those kinds of wazzocks are genuinely as useless as the proverbial tits on a boar. Even if you could make allies out of them, everyone with any actual brains that knows them would regard this as something that counts against you. If you can manage to not trigger an autistic obsession in the motherfuckers, they will eventually find something else to spread bullshit about. A wazzock is as much of a waste of your time as humanly possible, and the world dearly wishes that they were as rare as they invariably think they are.

I have been asking all zoos to stop arguing with obvious sociopathic thugs. All that this does is produce a greater sense of "blood in the water" that thereby attracts more sociopathic thugs. We do not need any young zoos getting bullied to death or killed, on account of us acting like a prey animal around sick predatory punks. You don't argue with a bully. If you get a chance, you give him a bloody nose, but you don't ever argue with a bully. In people of their warped and deeply mentally ill mentality, all it does is light up their nucleus accumbens. Avoid interacting with them. They are dangerous. They have neither hearts to appeal to nor minds to reason with. The less you have to do with them, the better.

However, the laws against zoo sex are not only ignorant but barely enforceable, and if we can manage to not trigger any asinine witch-hunts, by sticking to safe diplomatic channels and patiently developing our existing social inroads, then we can eventually reach a point where it is not really more dramatic to say that you fuck your pets, in some quarters of society, than it is for a stoner to say that they smoke marijuana. We have a long way to go before we have achieved widespread legalization, but I am convinced that we can chart a safe path toward social emancipation.

There is a large gray area between widespread social acceptance and truly grave peril. The best way to stay within the less dark part of that gray area is to stick to associating with relatively normal people, not waste time on wazzocks, and at all costs avoid obvious sociopaths. You will learn as you get older to get a feel for what kinds of people you can safely talk with about this aspect of your identity, and there is really no substitute for life experience.

 

[Aluzky]

Does the notion that "zoophiles are the most discriminated minority", as a friend once said, hold legitimacy?

Pedosexuals are definitely more discriminated. So that statement does not hold legitimacy.

And yes, one day zoosexuality will be no different from homosexuality. Zoosexuality is just another sexual orientation that should be counted in the LGBTZQ+

Of course, it depends if zoosexuals stop doing nothing and decide to group and take action. Leaders are needed, educated zoosexuals (lawyers) are needed. To do the same that the LGBT movement did to fight for their rights.

 

[albaracoque]

Pedos and incest are more persecuted than zoo, even if incest is more natural that homosexuality

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Pedosexuals are definitely more discriminated. So that statement does not hold legitimacy.

And yes, one day zoosexuality will be no different from homosexuality. Zoosexuality is just another sexual orientation that should be counted in the LGBTZQ+

Of course, it depends if zoosexuals stop doing nothing and decide to group and take action. Leaders are needed, educated zoosexuals (lawyers) are needed. To do the same that the LGBT movement did to fight for their rights.

We have a highly educated lawyer, and think the zoos in Pennsylvania ought to try getting in touch with this guy, after his release.

DA drops charges alleging Pittsburgh lawyer had sex with dog

Animal cruelty charges were dropped against a Pittsburgh attorney who police had alleged was having sex with his dog. Defense lawyers told the Tribune-Review on Monday that Ivan Devoren, 62, of Highland Park, never had sex with his dog, which is why prosecutors dropped those charges. They said...

triblive.com

It's very hard to talk zoos into risking doing anything except "with blinds drawn and barn door closed" until they have found out, the way this guy did, that you can't really count on a witch-hunting mob to respect your privacy. A witch-hunting mob, pretty much by definition, does not respect you, and they will only ever bow to the stronger and more organized force.

It might be very hard to approach Mr. DeVoren about this, though, and it would take someone with better social skills than most zoos that are currently out.

Unfortunately, one of the difficult things about starting a movement like this one is that the first people to start bucking the system are people that have already had to learn how to deal with people being inclined to spit in their eye for dumb reasons, and sometimes, this is related to things that genuinely impair our ability to put on a good self-presentation to people that do not know us. For example, I was born with Tourettes, and I had to learn when I was only a child that what most people think of my intelligence or my capacity for reason or my morality is way off from the truth, but because of that, it is very hard for me to make a good self-presentation to others. I am comfortable dealing with ignoramuses that don't understand me right away because I kind of have lifelong experience at it.

If I approached this DeVoren guy, though, it would just confirm in his mind the myth that "other zoos are mentally ill" and therefore don't deserve his support or advice. I am probably more intelligent than most zoos, I probably have better morals than most zoos, and I probably have a considerably dryer lifestyle than most zoos. That's because I am, at heart, a goddamn square, and the fact that I was a gay guy and a zoo has just occasionally kept me from realizing it in the past. Someone that didn't know me, though, would assume that I was so strung out on drugs that I was twerking right in front of him. I am in my mid-thirties, and I know my limitations at this point in my life. I am a lot more suited for talking with highly informed people that understand that stuff like that is really superficial. Even educated people do not always fully understand that there is zero cognitive impairment associated with it.

I can guarantee, though, that before DeVoren got charged, he would have been just like the people on here that are sneering, "Why don't you idiots just keep your blinds drawn and your barn door closed?" and harassing and bullying people like me. He didn't have any reason to care about the rest of us. He was a rich lawyer and a widely admired philanthropist, and he had had pretty good luck with pursuing his "taboos" on the down-low, probably for a very long time. He probably was very surprised when his luck ran out and the witch-hunting mob caught up with him.

We would need one key individual that has a record of success at acquiring new allies, and other zoos in the area that wanted to start coordinating would have to be willing to step back and let that person work with DeVoren until progress had been made on getting DeVoren to recognize how many good people we have working on this cause.

I am watching the success of Zooier Than Thou, and I am seeing team players in action, there. Not all zoos are a fit for all jobs, not even all good zoos, but if imperfect people work together just right, they can produce a well-oiled machine.

This is something that could be put into motion, right now. There is a high concentration of zoos in that particular city. I am pretty sure that @TogglesHappyZoo and the people that work with him know a few. At minimum, they might be able to get this guy to help anonymously contribute to a second Legal Beagles episode and explain what legal arguments got him out of those charges, just so other zoos can know in case they ever need to talk to their own attorneys in exactly the same situation.

It is just some very delicate diplomatic maneuvering to get someone like DeVoren to cooperate. Many zoos absolutely despise other zoos due to their own negative run-ins, and chances are pretty square he wants most other zoos punted the moon more than the rest of human society do. Getting someone to recognize that people like us can be stronger together is a rare talent.

Someone really ought to talk with DeVoren about the possibility that his negative beliefs about his sexuality might have been an enabling factor in his drug problem. The same thing that drives gay men to shoot up on meth can affect other people that have negative views of their sexuality. People create a false boundary, in their minds, where "this is good behavior, and that is bad behavior," and when they cross over that false boundary, they can be at higher risk of engaging in behaviors that are genuinely bad for both them and their animals. They can sometimes even turn a drug into a sort of wrist bracelet, "I am on drugs, and I can't help myself," thereby easing their guilt over doing things they usually wouldn't let themselves do. That is not really okay because stimulant fueled sex (stimulants are the only drugs I am deeply against) can seriously injure anybody, including an animal, but internalized prejudice can turn into some seriously dysfunctional behaviors.

 

[ZTHorse]

The reason im here and wish to do all in my power to serve zoophile interests is that there isnt anything wrong with being a zoophile.

MAPs, necros and these other philias have decisive harm issues involved as well as ethical ones that are not the case with zoophilia.

Adult animals are capable of sex.
Adult animals know what sex is.
Adult animals can say no.
Adult animals are NOT children.
Adult animals are not harmed by sexual activity.

Zoophilia is a perfectly ethical orientation and should be accepted by protections of government like any other citizen.

We are wrongly persecuted. This is why we speak out so strongly against anti-zoos, we are on the right side of the debate.

 

[UniqueAmerican]

Pedosexuals are definitely more discriminated. So that statement does not hold legitimacy.

And yes, one day zoosexuality will be no different from homosexuality. Zoosexuality is just another sexual orientation that should be counted in the LGBTZQ+

Of course, it depends if zoosexuals stop doing nothing and decide to group and take action. Leaders are needed, educated zoosexuals (lawyers) are needed. To do the same that the LGBT movement did to fight for their rights.

I don't know what you're on, no offense, but there is absolutely no such thing as a "pedosexual". Pedophilia can never be supported or legitimized.
Also, I disagree with that approach. I don't believe zoophilia/zoosexuality is "just another sexual orientation". For me, especially being exclusive, that is a different philosophy from the LGBT. I will not support it bring included in "LGBTZQ+" Frankly, many of those people are very hypocritical. One activist calls being LGBT "The last great minority" Well I've got news for you, it's not; that distinction would go to zoos. Like a poster on Zooville observed, I also think LGBT is a "contrived political entity"

I don't hold anything against people who are LGBT, and I'm not attacking you personally, but you're views do not reflect my own.

 

[Aluzky]

I don't know what you're on, no offense, but there is absolutely no such thing as a "pedosexual"

I won't elaborate in public as I believe it is against the rules of the site to make any factual freedom of speech statement that can be understood as being in support of pedosexuality (the orientation, not the sex acts) even if that statesmen happens to be protected freedom of speech. What I will say is this analogy, remember, in 1900 homosexuality didn't "existed" as homosexuals back then were know as homophiles and they where know as mentally ill perverted individuals that raped and harmed humans. In the present there are still homophobes that say: There is not such a thing as homosexuality, homophilia can never be supported or legitimized. Several countries (77 or more) still jail gays for life or put them to death for the "crime" of doing gay sex. Do you see what I'm trying to point out?

Through human history, humans have not always been on the right side of morality and facts, slavery has been legal, women didn't have rights and where treated like slaved, homosexuals where treated like mentally ill harmful people. And in the present, there are still many groups of people that are misunderstood and discriminated, among them, the zoosexuals. So, keep an open mind that there may be other group of people (not necessarily the zoosexuals) that are still misunderstood and discriminated. Don't be too quick to judge others as evil, specially if you have not done 20 years of scientific research on the topic. Know your facts before judging.

I don't believe zoophilia/zoosexuality is "just another sexual orientation"

Do you believe earth is spherical and not flat? Do you believe in scientific facts that prove that earth is spherical? If so, why don't you believe in scientific facts that prove that zoosexuality is a sexual origination? You know there are 2 studies that supports the fact that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation? Do you know that zoosexuals share the same defining characteristic with homosexuality and heterosexuality? If homosexuals have the same defining characteristics as with heterosexuality making them a sexual orientation, why can't the same be true about zoosexuals if we have the same defining characteristics with heterosexuals?

Also, don't confuse people who have sex with animals or watch zooporn as always being a zoosexual. There are several kinds of allies that do sex with animals or watch zooporn but aren't zoosexuals. From bestialists, to people who get aroused by taboo sex, to people who only like to see zooporn because they like to see women being fuck by animals. When we talk about zoosexuals, we talk about ACTUAL zoosexuals and not about those allies who are not zoosexuals but share a few common interests. And FYI: Fighting for zoosexual rights will benefits not only zoosexuals but also all those allies will be indirectly benefited. So, if you are not a zoosexual but an ally, make sure to support the zoosexual right movement.

Anyways, It would be better if you could get your views to align with scientific facts instead of them being against them. If you can't do that, then what ever, I can't force you to believe in scientific facts if you don't wish to.

 

[Pillar]

The reason im here and wish to do all in my power to serve zoophile interests is that there isnt anything wrong with being a zoophile.

MAPs, necros and these other philias have decisive harm issues involved as well as ethical ones that are not the case with zoophilia.

Adult animals are capable of sex.
Adult animals know what sex is.
Adult animals can say no.
Adult animals are NOT children.
Adult animals are not harmed by sexual activity.

Zoophilia is a perfectly ethical orientation and should be accepted by protections of government like any other citizen.

We are wrongly persecuted. This is why we speak out so strongly against anti-zoos, we are on the right side of the debate.

What's MAPs?

 

[Aluzky]

What's MAPs?

Minor Attracted Person. Also know as a pedophile or pedosexual.

 

[420Fatty]

Minor Attracted Person. Also know as a pedophile or pedosexual.

That seems like a pointless acronym used to hide a perfectly good word.

 

[Aluzky]

That seems like a pointless acronym used to hide a perfectly good word.

They feel the word pedophile is way too tarnished and has too many bad connotations with rape/crime/abuse. Similar to how homophiles didn't wanted to use that word any more because of negative connotations and instead opted to call themselves gay or homosexuals.

IMO, they should go with the pedosexual word, but they probably think that this word would be a hard to swallow pill, so they are going with MAPs instead.

 

[Llandefie]

It sure as hell feels that way. One of the most oppressed groups, anyway.
The only saving grace is we can hide who we are, but that does open us up to scandal if the secret ever comes out.
Sometimes it's hard to go on knowing that everyone who seems to love you would turn on you in a flash if they found out who you are and what you've done. No amount of affection seems valid if they do it without knowing your secret.
And here everyone's so scared and angry - and some so shockingly speciesist - that I personally haven't found much comfort in the community. Just kinda on my own.

People make no attempt to understand us. Other animals are "less" than humans, and we're somehow lowering ourselves to their level when we mingle with them, and abusing them at the same time. It's contradictory and fucking terrifying. I don't know what to make of pedophilia, they do seem a lot like us, and the persecution they face seems equally outrageous. They're so demonised. We're so demonised. No matter how much love is in our hearts, we'll always be monsters.
What a fucking world.

 

[pferdefreund]

no

 

[Panda Chen]

And here everyone's so scared and angry - and some so shockingly speciesist - that I personally haven't found much comfort in the community. Just kinda on my own.

I am sorry you feel like you are on your own but I understand the feeling. Zoophiles are just human with all the human flaws. Equally capable of hate, envy and betrayal and pettiness.
There are some good ones out there though who's flaws are within a acceptable limit.

 

[Panda Chen]

Are zoophiles discriminated against. They can be. There certainly are a lot of laws prohibiting zoophilia.

I think it is difficult to say really. I think right now zoos are more ignored by most. They are not thought about but when they are it is very acceptable to hate them. I was in a conversation with a group of guys recently. They were talking about sexuality and such. One said that there are people who have sex with dogs and one of the others immediate response was "that is wrong" "those people should be shot".

So I guess the answer is yes zoos are discriminated against if they are known but most have done such a good job of hiding that they are not even seen to be discriminated towards.


I have seen some here promoting coming out and leading the fight for rights. But the problem is how many zoos are there? A few thousand, A few hundred. No one knows. If there is just few they will be easily suppressed, either jailed and or killed, and the rest of society will just move on with their day. A lot of why I think zoos don't come out is the lack of faith in humanity to do the right thing and to have kindness and empathy. I think zoos are much more likely to see what humanity does to animals and know that humanity will easily do that to it's own if they can classify them as a sub class. They have done it and will again.


On the pedophilia, Homosexual groups used the idea of being "born" how they are and cannot help being attracted to same genders. Some zoos subscribe to this too and having been one that tried to not be for a long time I can say that although I was able to add humans to my attraction list I was not able to undo the other animals. However with pedophilia I have unfortunately seen the affects of those acting on this particular attraction. I have had to try and help children understand and deal with what happened to them and try to have a decent life. The affects of a child being sexual usually lasts a lifetime. Children are not prepared nor mature, not physically nor mentally, for sex. So while maybe people who feel that way can not help feeling those attractions. The consequences to others of their actions are too great and falls in the same line as those who have the impulse to kill others. These are things you may feel but acting them out is not acceptable.

 

[Aluzky]

I have seen some here promoting coming out and leading the fight for rights. But the problem is how many zoos are there? A few thousand, A few hundred. No one knows.

Just in the furry community there are around 600,000 zoophiles. Not counting the other 30% of furries who claim to not being zoophiles but that jerk off to animal porn.

Kindsay study estimated around 12% of humans who did sexual acts with animals (this would be zoophiles + bestialists counted as a whole, and not counting those who wanted to do sex with animals but have not done it or those who keep it as a fantasy only for religious/moral reasons but would the act if they din't had those reasons)

For sure, zoophiles+bestialists are in the millions in US. In smaller countries they are in the thousands.

To put it in contrast, homosexuals are only 4% of the human population. Zoosexuals and bestialists combined are more than 10% of the human population. Sexual attraction to animals is way more common than homosexual attraction for humans.

However with pedophilia I have unfortunately seen the affects of those acting on this particular attraction.

I will make a tiny factual clarification.

Interesting factoid: Only like 5% of pedosexuals are responsible for assaulting children. The other 95% don't do crimes against children in their life time.

Studies find that majority of child sexual abuse is done by heterosexuals who are not pedophilic. Around 50% to 70% of child sexual abuse cases are not done by pedos. What studies do find is that the few pedos that do abuse children, they tend to have MANY MANY victims.

What I want to say is, blaming pedosexuals for all rape cases of children, is like blaming all zoosexuals for all animal rapes that are actually done by zoosadists. It is an ignorant assumption to do. Because most child rape cases are not done by actuaaal pedos. Just like majority of animal sexual abuse cases are not done by actual zoophiles.

 

[UniqueAmerican]

Just in the furry community there are around 600,000 zoophiles. Not counting the other 30% of furries who claim to not being zoophiles but that jerk off to animal porn.

Kindsay study estimated around 12% of humans who did sexual acts with animals (this would be zoophiles + bestialists counted as a whole, and not counting those who wanted to do sex with animals but have not done it or those who keep it as a fantasy only for religious/moral reasons but would the act if they din't had those reasons)

For sure, zoophiles+bestialists are in the millions in US. In smaller countries they are in the thousands.

To put it in contrast, homosexuals are only 4% of the human population. Zoosexuals and bestialists combined are more than 10% of the human population. Sexual attraction to animals is way more common than homosexual attraction for humans.

That characterization is utterly unacceptable. There is no way zoophiles are 10% of the population, let alone more common than the LGBT.
Authoritative studies have confirmed the LGBT community is at least 10% of the world population.

Call it intuition or whatever you wish, but I believe that zoophiles (not bestialists) account for at least .001 percent of the world population. At most, I'd say this number does not exceed .01%, possibly .1% but that is pushing it.
Mr. Kinsey's studies have been thoroughly debunked as pseudoscientific. He used a variety of illegitimate methods such as selection/confirmation bias, i.e. interviewing criminals found in bars, jails and other areas which would fit the stereotypical perception of a "zoophile". His studies are a poor excuse for reference's sake.

A great woman by the name of Hani Miletski conducted a groundbreaking foray into the zoo community in the 1990s. If I am not mistaken, she is pretty much the first person in history to legitimately investigate zoophilia, at least on a scientific and psychological basis. She estimated "zoosexuals" (she invented that term) would make up about 1% of the population, but admitted her methodology was still flawed. Nevertheless, I respect her enormously.

 

[Aluzky]

There is no way zoophiles are 10% of the population

Why is not possible? Just because you don't want to acknowledge it? Again, look at the scientific studies. FYI: That 10% is a low estimate. Also, keep in mind that by zoophile, we count bestialist, zoosexuals and furries who are sexually aroused by drawings, we count all those 3 as zoophiles and being 10% of the human population.

let alone more common than the LGBT.

Studies shows that LGBTQ+ members in total are around 5% of the human population.

Zoophiles still come up as a bigger than 5% percentage in zoophile studies.

Authoritative studies have confirmed the LGBT community is at least 10% of the world population.

Can I have a citation for that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States ←At least in US. The biggest numbers in in the 5%. Only one place has 8% (probably because of LGBT members moving there) same for San-Fransisco with a woping 12% LGBTQ pesence beause of them moving to that place. Can't find any evidence that 10% is the average population of LGBTQ+ world wide or US or europe wide. So, citation needed for your claims.

Call it intuition or whatever you wish, but I believe that zoophiles (not bestialists) account for at least .001 percent of the world population.

Actual studies have more weight that your personal intuition. FYI: .001 would make zoosexuals more rare than transsexuals and asexuals. And there are definetly, more zoosexuals than transsexuals or asexuals combined.

Mr. Kinsey's studies have been thoroughly debunked as pseudoscientific.

Again, citation needed. I have done plenty of research on that study and I have yet to see any scientific evidence debunking that study. FYI: There is a revised version from Kinsey study where biased samples and other problematic things got removed, the study still comes up with very similar numbers, meaning, that despite the removal of the "problematic samples" the study still gives the same results. So again, can you support your claim with citations that the revised version of the study has been debunked as pseudoscience?

He used a variety of illegitimate methods such as selection/confirmation bias, i.e. interviewing criminals found in bars, jails and other areas which would fit the stereotypical perception of a "zoophile". His studies are a poor excuse for reference's sake.

I need scientific citation as evidence, not your personal opinion.

A great woman by the name of Hani Miletski conducted a groundbreaking foray into the zoo community in the 1990s. If I am not mistaken, she is pretty much the first person in history to legitimately investigate zoophilia, at least on a scientific and psychological basis. She estimated "zoosexuals" (she invented that term) would make up about 1% of the population, but admitted her methodology was still flawed. Nevertheless, I respect her enormously.

The word zoosexual has been in us by the zoosexual community since the 1980s, Miletski didn't invented the word nor she was the first one to do a legitimate investigation on zoophilia or to use the word zoosexual.

 

[ZTHorse]

Why is not possible? Just because you don't want to acknowledge it? Again, look at the scientific studies. FYI: That 10% is a low estimate. Also, keep in mind that by zoophile, we count bestialist, zoosexuals and furries who are sexually aroused by drawings, we count all those 3 as zoophiles and being 10% of the human population.



Studies shows that LGBTQ+ members in total are around 5% of the human population.

Zoophiles still come up as a bigger than 5% percentage in zoophile studies.




Can I have a citation for that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States ←At least in US. The biggest numbers in in the 5%. Only one place has 8% (probably because of LGBT members moving there) same for San-Fransisco with a woping 12% LGBTQ pesence beause of them moving to that place. Can't find any evidence that 10% is the average population of LGBTQ+ world wide or US or europe wide. So, citation needed for your claims.




Actual studies have more weight that your personal intuition. FYI: .001 would make zoosexuals more rare than transsexuals and asexuals. And there are definetly, more zoosexuals than transsexuals or asexuals combined.




Again, citation needed. I have done plenty of research on that study and I have yet to see any scientific evidence debunking that study. FYI: There is a revised version from Kinsey study where biased samples and other problematic things got removed, the study still comes up with very similar numbers, meaning, that despite the removal of the "problematic samples" the study still gives the same results. So again, can you support your claim with citations that the revised version of the study has been debunked as pseudoscience?




I need scientific citation as evidence, not your personal opinion.



The word zoosexual has been in us by the zoosexual community since the 1980s, Miletski didn't invented the word nor she was NOT the first one to do legitimate investigation on zoophilia or to use the word zoosexual.

I believe zoosexuality might be / could be larger than LGBT because its possible to have traditional heterosexual relations. (barring some trans relationships) thus its very possible it could be higher.

 

[pferdefreund]

Ah, still delusional about that point.

Tell me: If there are more zoosexuals than the whole of LGBT - where are all of them? I for example have only once in my entire life met someone "by accident" who made a ping on my zoodar. That guy was undeniably into getting fucked by dogs, and he was oozing it.
So that is one.

I have meet many people who oozed being gay or lesbian.

WHERE ARE ALL OF THESE ZOOS?!?

Stop absolutely cherrypicking one potential source you found with a high estimate for Z and one with a low estimate for LGBT. All you do is you are showing that you can't handle statistics.

And once again - as in the other thread - it is blindingly obvious with horse-zoos. Horse-zoos are forced to keep their partners in riding stables and similar horse pension arrangements. They cannot hide a horse in their own house even. It is way too large for that.

If such a huge amount of the population would be horsezoos, these facilities would look way different. Because a huge amount of horsezoos would be clustering in these structures. You would walk in and the difference would knock you off your feet, IF IT EXISTED. For I have never even seen a picture of a (riding) stable obviously at least mildly occupied by horsezoos and their partners.

 

[d3bbievictor]

We don't even know if we are a minority, several times the majority have been cajoled into silence by the minority, through social obligation and legal pressure, a person will fight hard for their interests, than their rights, to speak for inter-species sex is to commit social and employment suicide, as once was votes for women, legal non-blood incest, gays, porn, masturbation, religion or lack there of, democracy.

Now it's fairly unlikely half the world is fucking animals, but it is more likely that a significant minority, ether is or doesn't give a shit.

We don't even know what the rate of zoos are, this is why we need to conduct polling.

That seems like a pointless acronym used to hide a perfectly good word.

Unfortunately pedo has be conflated with child rapist, which has a detrimental effect on the safety of our young people, if you treat someone like a criminal, there's no reason for them not to commit crimes.

Wanting to fuck children isn't a crime, the fact it disgusts us, is immaterial, it unlike child porn, or the act itself, having been cursed with that desire, causes no harm, yet it has seen us outlaw "child" porn, which does not involve children, or any people at all (digital/drawn), which according to sweden has a negative impact on this issue causing child sexual assaults to increase.

It sees us out cast law abiding individuals for expressing their desires verbally, and drive them toward criminality, to satisfy our hate boner for them, despite it doing more harm than good to children.

Paedophiles cannot be eliminated, for many it is not a choice, we have to find a way to support them to not hurt children.

 

[pferdefreund]

"We don't even know if we are a minority... "

I really give up in relation to the number question. Sadly with these statements, it is all too easy to conclude zoos are batshit insane idiot dimwits.

But hey, ok, on the other hand millions of people play the lottery every week despite exorbitant facts mounting against them.

 

[d3bbievictor]

The reason im here and wish to do all in my power to serve zoophile interests is that there isnt anything wrong with being a zoophile.

MAPs, necros and these other philias have decisive harm issues involved as well as ethical ones that are not the case with zoophilia.

Adult animals are capable of sex.
Adult animals know what sex is.
Adult animals can say no.
Adult animals are NOT children.
Adult animals are not harmed by sexual activity.

Zoophilia is a perfectly ethical orientation and should be accepted by protections of government like any other citizen.

We are wrongly persecuted. This is why we speak out so strongly against anti-zoos, we are on the right side of the debate.

Necros what harm? If they want to fuck rotting meat and the meat was okay with it when it wasn't meat, that's their business.

There are issues with zoophillia, fucking a gerbil is not okay, in general we treat animals appallingly in other aspects, but that doesn't mean all so is kosher.

"We don't even know if we are a minority... "

I really give up in relation to the number question. Sadly with these statements, it is all too easy to conclude zoos are batshit insane idiot dimwits.

But hey, ok, on the other hand millions of people play the lottery every week despite exorbitant facts mounting against them.

what facts? There has been no general survey, there is no evidence, zoosexual is not an option under surveys. you have provided no facts, just decent.

many muslim majority coutnies, may not be muslim majorites, to not be muslim can in some cases be a litteral death sentance.

If you think the fact you said something is going to make other people agree with you, then you, my friend are delusional.

 

[caikgoch]

And once again - as in the other thread - it is blindingly obvious with horse-zoos. Horse-zoos are forced to keep their partners in riding stables and similar horse pension arrangements. They cannot hide a horse in their own house even. It is way too large for that.

If such a huge amount of the population would be horsezoos, these facilities would look way different.

You've obviously never been to Texas. This is going on right now. There are neighborhoods based around everyone having horses with very large community arena and training facility and barndominium is a common choice for house design. Even more common are people like me that are technically subsistence farmers and share croppers. The most common lot size in most of Texas is 10 acres.

I think the root of the disagreement is screwed up definitions. Too many accept the porn pusher revision that made their wares kinda legal. The scientific definition does *NOT* include sexual preference. If you go by that definition about 20% of the population will be included. You doubt that? Do you know why FFA exists? One of the primary reasons is to teach kids to sell/eat animals that have become emotionally attached to.

That's why the word "zoosexual" was invented, to designate people that are both Zoo and sexually active with animals. The problem with "bestiality" is that includes too many BDSM fetish seekers that are emotionally the diametric opposite of zoophilia.

 

[Aluzky]

Tell me: If there are more zoosexuals than the whole of LGBT - where are all of them? I for example have only once in my entire life met someone "by accident" who made a ping on my zoodar. That guy was undeniably into getting fucked by dogs, and he was oozing it.
So that is one.

I have meet many people who oozed being gay or lesbian.

I have know several zoos in real life and I keep ruining into them on the bus or walking in the city. And that is only counting those who I now for sure that are zoo. Thing is, zoosexuals don't carry a sing that says "I'm zoosexual" nor they act "zoosexual" or exude a zoo vibe like a lesbian or gay can act in a way that is overly gay or overly lesbian, so, I'm sure I run into zoophiles all the time without knowing it.

WHERE ARE ALL OF THESE ZOOS?!?

They are out there. Have you try meeting zoos in your local area? And I don't mean zoos that are registered in a zooforum. I mean talking to people from your local area and asking them one by one oif they are a zoo. because many zoos don't even know they are zoo or don't know that forums exist. It is not till you talk to them about what a zoo is though normal chats, tinder, grinder, etc, that you realize that there are many zoos out there.

Stop absolutely cherrypicking one potential source you found with a high estimate for Z and one with a low estimate for LGBT. All you do is you are showing that you can't handle statistics.

I chose the highest LGBTQ+ estimation I could find. And zoophiles can be estimated to be as high as 15% of the human population. So, again, I chose a meager 10% which is a low estimation for zoophiles. I'm not cherry picking anything. If you have problems with the numbers I chose, then feel free to provide scientific sources that prove you are wrong and that I'm wrong.

If you can't provide scientific evidence that 5% if a cherry picked low number and that 10% is a cherry picked high number, then you are talking bullshit. Provide actual evidence or don't be a disturbance.

If such a huge amount of the population would be horsezoos, these facilities would look way different. Because a huge amount of horsezoos would be clustering in these structures. You would walk in and the difference would knock you off your feet, IF IT EXISTED. For I have never even seen a picture of a (riding) stable obviously at least mildly occupied by horsezoos and their partners.

Thing is, how can you tell a horse zoo from a non-horseszoo that loves horses? The irony is, 2 horse zoos could be friends in a stable with their mares and they won't know that they are both zoos. Also, I don't know what percentage of zoos are into horses (nor you provided any statistics) Also, is false to assume that every horse zoo owns a horse, most don't because they are expensive. So, there are many horse zoos that want horses but have none. Also, being a zoo does not mean that you must own animals or even act on it. People can be zoo and never act on it. Same way a gay who is a virgin is still a gay.