• Suddenly unable to log into your ZooVille account? This might be the reason why: CLICK HERE!

But... I'm not "broken"

B

BlueBeard

Guest
Just watched a troubling documentary on zoophilia. Still? In 2020, still? Real, professional, educated psychologists believing somewhere in your childhood development something went "wrong" that made you get all cross-wired? They must have cherry-picked their experts. Only one was objective. The others explained "paraphilia" and how "rare" zoophilia was... etc., etc, etc. In other words, if you're zoo, you ain't "normal."

So... I listened. I wasn't arguing, just listening.

1. Some are "zoo" because they lacked human touch, human love, as an infant or toddler. I shook my head. Tons of family, who loved the shit out of me. Constantly will cousins, uncles, aunts... That ain't "me."

2. Some are zoo because they were molested/raped/abused as a child, taking comfort in a trusting animal. Nope. Ain't me. We didn't have any animals for me go take comfort in. I mean, when I lived on the farm with my gramps... but pigs and cows? As a little kid? Nope. Wasn't really around them *that* close. For one, I was terrified of cows. Two, I didn't want to get anywhere near the pigpen. It was "icky." My uncles did all the work. I just played on the rope swing in the front elm, or investigated the grove. I don't remember taking comfort in animals.

3. Some "turn zoo" later in life, because of rejection (can't get a girlfriend/boyfriend, or get bullied or teased, or...). Nope. Not me. Always made friends easy. And as I got to "that" age, didn't have that much problem dating. I hung out with the neighbor girl next door, the two neighbor girls across the street... No problem. Not really all that sexualized. I mean, I was curious. But we listened to 45s in a playhouse, we jumped in piles of leaves... Nothing out of the ordinary, if ordinary's what you see on Mayberry RFD.

4. Some are zoo because they feel cheated by society, or marginalized somehow. But animals don't reject them.

Um, again. Didn't have many animals. Not really. A couple dogs for a short while -- and, yeah, sometimes....

Well, that's not true. But let me continue.

So... I"m listening for "numbers." Like, you know... Just what percentage of the population *is* zoo? (No one knows. All guestimations are almost immediately dismissed as just guesses. Kinsey's was the first to go. Discredited his methodology for collecting it.)

But... like... what percentage of zoos are rape/molestation victims? Because, in my way of thinking, that's true of EVERY sexual orientation. "You're 'promiscuous,' little girl, but that's because you were abused." (Not my wife. She's randy as hell. But she was never abused, and she wasn't even sexual until she was 14 or so. Daughter of a family psychologist. She just never was taught to be ashamed of sex. So... it's just another kind of social interaction for her).

And... like... what percentage of zoos are just hanging out in here because they like the "naughtiness" of it. They're just here to hang out in a kinky place? (Well... like ALL groups based on sexuality, there are people attracted to a counter-cultural subculture. But not all of us, right?)

... I kept waiting for them to get to "me."

C'mon. Help me out? How many of you, like me, have simply *always* been zoo? Nothing "happened" to you that you gravitated toward it. You just always were, you think. You didn't "turn to it" as an "escape." It's not a "coping mechanism." You're not a social reject. It's not because you just got to "bust a nut" and can't find a human. And you're not just zoo because it's "kinky" or you consider it a fetish. You're not a frustrated incel, not pissed off at society, and you're awed by and proud to be a human? Humans rock!

You're just zoo because you're ... zoo. Period. Not broken. Not damaged. Not "psycho."

Another way to ask this is to say ... you're zoo because you're not not zoo. You really don't fit in any of the "categories" established to explain zoo-ness away.

Anyone?

*edited to remove all the personal details which were, really, just in the way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wholeheartedly agreed.
I just found out I'm a zoo by the grace of the internet. It was a realization, not a transformation.

Also, I'm highly social, polyamorous, and my relationships are awesome.

I wonder how "my life is shit" and "lemme fuck some dogs" connect.... I don't see it
 
I'm convinced Discovery Channel animal documentaries made me zoo. I saw WAAAAY too many animals banging before I was even old enough to fully appreciate what banging was.
 
Brazoophile said:
That'd mean a loooooot of farm boys and girls must have zoo tendencies, then!
Click to expand...
I think that's pretty generally true actually. They've got the most access too. Had it been me dad who owned a horse farm and not my grandpa, I would have been making lots of barn visits in my teens.
 
JasonP88 said:
I think that's pretty generally true actually. They've got the most access too. Had it been me dad who owned a horse farm and not my grandpa, I would have been making lots of barn visits in my teens.
Click to expand...
Actually, I quite agree with you.
My view is that we are all open at first to any sexual stimuli, and society reprehends us when children, teaching us that "such and such are not to be done". Well, if you live in a place where you see that animals won't give you the same prohibitive bullshit, you kinda accept that as okay.
 
BlueBeard said:
Just watched a troubling documentary on zoophilia. Still? In 2020, still? Real, professional, educated psychologists believing somewhere in your childhood development something went "wrong" that made you get all cross-wired? They must have cherry-picked their experts. Only one was objective. The others explained "paraphilia" and how "rare" zoophilia was... etc., etc, etc. In other words, if you're zoo, you ain't "normal."

So... I listened. I wasn't arguing, just listening.

1. Some are "zoo" because they lacked human touch, human love, as an infant or toddler. I shook my head. Tons of family, who loved the shit out of me. Constantly will cousins, uncles, aunts... That ain't "me."

2. Some are zoo because they were molested/raped/abused as a child, taking comfort in a trusting animal. Nope. Ain't me. We didn't have any animals for me go take comfort in. I mean, when I lived on the farm with my gramps... but pigs and cows? As a little kid? Nope. Wasn't really around them *that* close. For one, I was terrified of cows. Two, I didn't want to get anywhere near the pigpen. It was "icky." My uncles did all the work. I just played on the rope swing in the front elm, or investigated the grove. I don't remember taking comfort in animals.

3. Some "turn zoo" later in life, because of rejection (can't get a girlfriend/boyfriend, or get bullied or teased, or...). Nope. Not me. Always made friends easy. And as I got to "that" age, didn't have that much problem dating. I hung out with the neighbor girl next door, the two neighbor girls across the street... No problem. Not really all that sexualized. I mean, I was curious. But we listened to 45s in a playhouse, we jumped in piles of leaves... Nothing out of the ordinary, if ordinary's what you see on Mayberry RFD.

4. Some are zoo because they feel cheated by society, or marginalized somehow. But animals don't reject them.

Um, again. Didn't have many animals. Not really. A couple dogs for a short while -- and, yeah, sometimes....

Well, that's not true. But let me continue.

So... I"m listening for "numbers." Like, you know... Just what percentage of the population *is* zoo? (No one knows. All guestimations are almost immediately dismissed as just guesses. Kinsey's was the first to go. Discredited his methodology for collecting it.)

But... like... what percentage of zoos are rape/molestation victims? Because, in my way of thinking, that's true of EVERY sexual orientation. "You're 'promiscuous,' little girl, but that's because you were abused." (Not my wife. She's randy as hell. But she was never abused, and she wasn't even sexual until she was 14 or so. Daughter of a family psychologist. She just never was taught to be ashamed of sex. So... it's just another kind of social interaction for her).

And... like... what percentage of zoos are just hanging out in here because they like the "naughtiness" of it. They're just here to hang out in a kinky place? (Well... like ALL groups based on sexuality, there are people attracted to a counter-cultural subculture. But not all of us, right?)

... I kept waiting for them to get to "me."

I was never abused. I was never without friends or family. I'm a sane, high functioning, social, contributing citizen who is well-respected in the community. I work with youth, I worked with the Church for most of my life. I have no trouble forming close, intimate relationships with other humans. I'm independent and stable. Good job.

But from the time I was barely more than a toddler, I have a special interest in animals and a special "ability" to form "relationships" with them. I learned right away to keep it secret. That not everyone "had this." I had this like, I don't know, not "telepathic" ability. But sort of like that.

In hindsight, I was showing signs of being "zoo" since I was about 6 years old. And there's no explanation for it. I just... was. It started with a picture book of animals. I remember that. A horse I kept coming back to. The picture.... How many kids owned the same book? And why was this happening to me?

I would find animals and bring them home. First day of school, I'd come home to learn my mother -- tired of having the animal around (I wasn't the best little master when it came to feeding pets or cleaning up after them) had taken them to the vet to be put down. That would kill my soul every time.

I remember we had a female beagle for a short time. She got kind of nippy, so protective Mom had Dad take her to a farm. But I remember one day studying her "parts" with my little sister, and realizing my sister was probably the "same." I learned gender distinctions that way. But... not really sexualized them. We just noted differences/similiarities. And it didn't involve either of us taking clothes off. I just asked her, "Is that like yours?" She shrugged. The end.

But there was a "mental connection" with the animals. I just "knew" what they were thinking, and they knew what I "thought at" them.

And I remember thinking that animals was pure, free from religion and law and ... if you just *watched* an animal, you could learn right from wrong.

I remember "experimenting" -- my sister, a neighbor boy, his dog -- in our garage. This time we were stripped naked, and we were learning whether sex were a natural, good thing... or as evil as some were saying. Dog that things were fine. We decided it was okay.

I just can't for the life of me figure out any way that I can be considered a "broken" person, or damaged person. I think I grew up perfectly normal. Just that, I don't believe penises and vaginas are any more sacred or any more evil than any other part of us. A dog licks my penis, why not? He licks his own penis and other dog penises and... that's just they way they do.

I have never felt "creepy" about being sexual with animals -- though I knew what others would think if I told them. And to this day, I have that strange "mental" connection. Not just emotional. And definitely not a sexual craving. It's an ability... I think, an ability... for limited communication that's a combination of body language, expression and empathy that just works. I don't think of myself in terms of being a "beast master." I think of it as being aware, of being in tune with... a different communication form than language or actual telepathy.

... C'mon. Help me out. How many of you have simply *always* been zoo? Nothing "happened" to you. You didn't "turn to it" as an "escape." It's not a "coping mechanism." And it's not a purely salacious thing. You're not just zoo because it's "kinky." You're zoo because you're ... zoo. Period. You're simply zoo. Another way to look at it maybe is that... you're zoo because you're not not zoo. Not a frustrated incel. Not a pissed off antisocial thing, with a hate on for humanity.

You really don't fit in any of the "categories" established to explain zoo-ness away.

Anyone?
Click to expand...
This is their feeble attempt at denying that zoophilia and bestiality can be AND are a part of human sexuality. (Possibly even normal sexuality as through curiosity and exploration!)

But their denial of it hides behind the facade of pseudoscience, because if they actually acknowledged that bestiality is just a part of sexuality itself their whole fucking argument falls apart. It gets exposed for the fraud that it is. And they can't have that.

Nor would their egos handle it. They'd sooner rationalize their viewpoints than realize that they are biased. (Because I am a "scientist" I am smarter than you AND it gives me the "credibility" to make others believe what I say as true!)
 
Pillar said:
This is their feeble attempt at denying that zoophilia and bestiality can be AND are a part of human sexuality. (Possibly even normal sexuality as through curiosity and exploration!)

But their denial of it hides behind the facade of pseudoscience, because if they actually acknowledged that bestiality is just a part of sexuality itself their whole fucking argument falls apart. It gets exposed for the fraud that it is. And they can't have that.

Nor would their egos handle it. They'd sooner rationalize their viewpoints than realize that they are biased. (Because I am a "scientist" I am smarter than you AND it gives me the "credibility" to make others believe what I say as true!)
Click to expand...
Oh boy, I have SO MUCH to say about how psychology as a study area is flawed as F, that I think it's better if I don't even start.

Doing hypnotherapy as a living made me meet too many 'scholars' that were eager to tell me all about how to do my job, and they were ALL misinformed. Also, my success rate and speed of treatment leaves them craaaaaaazy XD
 
I think the documentary you watched is full of anti-zoo bullshit, lies, and propaganda -- it's largely due to society's ignorance about zoosexuality -- most zoos hide and don't speak up, so the only ones who are heard are the anti-zoos and their bigoted agenda.

Zoo sex (and its associated sexuality) are not a "mental disorder", and it is not a sign that someone is "broken" in one way or another -- it's just a sexuality, just like heterosexuality or homosexuality. The only difference is that zoo sex (and its associated sexuality) are not recognized by society, instead being labelled with the stigma-associated label of "-philia".

So when people say that people are zoo because of some problem connecting with humans, or some trauma they suffered, that is bullshit. People are zoo the way people are gay -- it just is. Zoos don't need to be "corrected", and they ought to be able to live their lives as zoos.

What bothers me is that most people will watch that anti-zoo propaganda documentary and accept its findings as "fact". It's one of the reasons zoos somehow need to be heard.

As @Pillar said, these "psychologists" don't want to admit that being sexually attracted to animals is a normal part of human sexuality. They come up with conclusions based on their anti-zoo prejudices.
 
I'm pretty sure a lot of zoos didn't have terrible childhoods, but they still "like" animals. Hmm, human sexuality is one of those things that are hard to quantify. How do you even begin to understand the intricacies of it all?
 
BlueBeard said:
Just watched a troubling documentary on zoophilia. Still? In 2020, still? Real, professional, educated psychologists believing somewhere in your childhood development something went "wrong" that made you get all cross-wired? They must have cherry-picked their experts. Only one was objective. The others explained "paraphilia" and how "rare" zoophilia was... etc., etc, etc. In other words, if you're zoo, you ain't "normal."

So... I listened. I wasn't arguing, just listening.

1. Some are "zoo" because they lacked human touch, human love, as an infant or toddler. I shook my head. Tons of family, who loved the shit out of me. Constantly will cousins, uncles, aunts... That ain't "me."

2. Some are zoo because they were molested/raped/abused as a child, taking comfort in a trusting animal. Nope. Ain't me. We didn't have any animals for me go take comfort in. I mean, when I lived on the farm with my gramps... but pigs and cows? As a little kid? Nope. Wasn't really around them *that* close. For one, I was terrified of cows. Two, I didn't want to get anywhere near the pigpen. It was "icky." My uncles did all the work. I just played on the rope swing in the front elm, or investigated the grove. I don't remember taking comfort in animals.

3. Some "turn zoo" later in life, because of rejection (can't get a girlfriend/boyfriend, or get bullied or teased, or...). Nope. Not me. Always made friends easy. And as I got to "that" age, didn't have that much problem dating. I hung out with the neighbor girl next door, the two neighbor girls across the street... No problem. Not really all that sexualized. I mean, I was curious. But we listened to 45s in a playhouse, we jumped in piles of leaves... Nothing out of the ordinary, if ordinary's what you see on Mayberry RFD.

4. Some are zoo because they feel cheated by society, or marginalized somehow. But animals don't reject them.

Um, again. Didn't have many animals. Not really. A couple dogs for a short while -- and, yeah, sometimes....

Well, that's not true. But let me continue.

So... I"m listening for "numbers." Like, you know... Just what percentage of the population *is* zoo? (No one knows. All guestimations are almost immediately dismissed as just guesses. Kinsey's was the first to go. Discredited his methodology for collecting it.)

But... like... what percentage of zoos are rape/molestation victims? Because, in my way of thinking, that's true of EVERY sexual orientation. "You're 'promiscuous,' little girl, but that's because you were abused." (Not my wife. She's randy as hell. But she was never abused, and she wasn't even sexual until she was 14 or so. Daughter of a family psychologist. She just never was taught to be ashamed of sex. So... it's just another kind of social interaction for her).

And... like... what percentage of zoos are just hanging out in here because they like the "naughtiness" of it. They're just here to hang out in a kinky place? (Well... like ALL groups based on sexuality, there are people attracted to a counter-cultural subculture. But not all of us, right?)

... I kept waiting for them to get to "me."

I was never abused. I was never without friends or family. I'm a sane, high functioning, social, contributing citizen who is well-respected in the community. I work with youth, I worked with the Church for most of my life. I have no trouble forming close, intimate relationships with other humans. I'm independent and stable. Good job.

But from the time I was barely more than a toddler, I have a special interest in animals and a special "ability" to form "relationships" with them. I learned right away to keep it secret. That not everyone "had this." I had this like, I don't know, not "telepathic" ability. But sort of like that.

In hindsight, I was showing signs of being "zoo" since I was about 6 years old. And there's no explanation for it. I just... was. It started with a picture book of animals. I remember that. A horse I kept coming back to. The picture.... How many kids owned the same book? And why was this happening to me?

I would find animals and bring them home. First day of school, I'd come home to learn my mother -- tired of having the animal around (I wasn't the best little master when it came to feeding pets or cleaning up after them) had taken them to the vet to be put down. That would kill my soul every time.

I remember we had a female beagle for a short time. She got kind of nippy, so protective Mom had Dad take her to a farm. But I remember one day studying her "parts" with my little sister, and realizing my sister was probably the "same." I learned gender distinctions that way. But... not really sexualized them. We just noted differences/similiarities. And it didn't involve either of us taking clothes off. I just asked her, "Is that like yours?" She shrugged. The end.

But there was a "mental connection" with the animals. I just "knew" what they were thinking, and they knew what I "thought at" them.

And I remember thinking that animals was pure, free from religion and law and ... if you just *watched* an animal, you could learn right from wrong.

I remember "experimenting" -- my sister, a neighbor boy, his dog -- in our garage. This time we were stripped naked, and we were learning whether sex were a natural, good thing... or as evil as some were saying. Dog that things were fine. We decided it was okay.

I just can't for the life of me figure out any way that I can be considered a "broken" person, or damaged person. I think I grew up perfectly normal. Just that, I don't believe penises and vaginas are any more sacred or any more evil than any other part of us. A dog licks my penis, why not? He licks his own penis and other dog penises and... that's just they way they do.

I have never felt "creepy" about being sexual with animals -- though I knew what others would think if I told them. And to this day, I have that strange "mental" connection. Not just emotional. And definitely not a sexual craving. It's an ability... I think, an ability... for limited communication that's a combination of body language, expression and empathy that just works. I don't think of myself in terms of being a "beast master." I think of it as being aware, of being in tune with... a different communication form than language or actual telepathy.

... C'mon. Help me out. How many of you have simply *always* been zoo? Nothing "happened" to you. You didn't "turn to it" as an "escape." It's not a "coping mechanism." And it's not a purely salacious thing. You're not just zoo because it's "kinky." You're zoo because you're ... zoo. Period. You're simply zoo. Another way to look at it maybe is that... you're zoo because you're not not zoo. Not a frustrated incel. Not a pissed off antisocial thing, with a hate on for humanity.

You really don't fit in any of the "categories" established to explain zoo-ness away.

Anyone?
Click to expand...
I could edit in lots of friends and success professionally plus small not sexually possible dog while growing up and it would be me.
 
RotGerShep said:
I'm curious to know what percentage of the population has been or is sexually active with a non human animal and what percentage would like to be or likes zoo porn.
Click to expand...
Thanks to anti-bestiality laws no one would ever report that. Although most people probably won't openly talk about their sex lives though anyway.
 
I'd be interested in seeing that documentary. As that coincides with my beliefs about zoophilia (As seen from my lovely dumpster fire thread of course)

Remember my friends, self anecdotal reflection is not a good representation of a community as a whole
 
Pillar said:
Without a doubt. But no one can really say what those numbers are. All anyone could really do is guess.
Click to expand...

In terms of people voluntarily saying that they have sex with animals, the only way I could think of would be some kind of anonymous online poll.
 
Zoo50 said:
In terms of people voluntarily saying that they have sex with animals, the only way I could think of would be some kind of anonymous online poll.
Click to expand...
Which could have biased or inaccurate results. But that would be the only realistic way of getting replies.
 
Magazine surveys, online surveys... all basically useless from the get-go because they only represent a sample of those who *would* fill out the survey and send it in. They don't compel a representative sample.

So it is with zoophilia. The *only* surveys, studies, etc., ever done on zoo do *not* represent zoophilia, so much as they represent a small faction of zoos who get sampled: those who are seeking psychological help in the first place; those who participate in a survey; those who are political activists pushing the zoo agenda for acceptance.

All the happy, stable, well-adjusted, balanced, content-with-life zoos who just enjoy their private little lives ... none of those get consideration. And they don't *want* consideration. They just want to live out their happy little lives.

So what?

So you get, what I think are, hugely dangerous perceptions, for individuals and for society as a whole:
1. People blaming their life's problems on being zoo -- because all that's what they hear, being zoo causes zoophiles to have problems.
2. Zoo's turning suicidal or living with their depression, convinced that being zoo means they must be as fucked up as "all the other zoos."
3. And among non-zoo society, reinforcing the perception that "zoos are all really fucked up people."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BlueBeard said:
Magazine surveys, online surveys... all basically useless from the get-go because they only represent a sample of those who *would* fill out the survey and send it in. They don't compel a representative sample.

So it is with zoophilia. The *only* surveys, studies, etc., ever done on zoo do *not* represent zoophilia, so much as they represent a small faction of zoos who get sampled: those who are seeking psychological help in the first place; those who participate in a survey; those who are political activists pushing the zoo agenda for acceptance.

All the happy, stable, well-adjusted, balanced, content-with-life zoos who just enjoy their private little lives ... none of those get consideration. And they don't *want* consideration. They just want to live out their happy little lives.

So what?

So you get, what I think are, hugely dangerous perceptions, for individuals and for society as a whole:
1. People blaming their problems on being zoo -- because we're talk being zoo causes your problems.
2. People who *are* zoo turning suicidal or living with the depression, thinking because they are zoo, they must be really fucked up.
3. And among non-zoo society, the "validation" of a "zoos are all fucked up people" perception.
Click to expand...
And this only perpetuates and reinforces the problem.
 
Hani Melitzki's study was the closest thing to fairness. I remember when she first started it. Our underground Usenet group was notified by a zoo friend across the border in Canada, went by the name Stasya, that he'd vetted her. It was the "real deal," he said. We should feel no qualms in working with her. This was not another exploitive attempt to broad-brush us as "sick, deranged, defective" people. She was taking this seriously.

I really considered it, hard -- then declined and stepped far away. I even worried for him, believing he was being deceived and was in danger. He seemed so convinced, but... too much risk for me, no reason to risk it. I had found what I had longed for my whole life: a supportive community I could actually *talk* to, share experiences with. I'd had contacts that were online friends who got nuked for taking that bait, believing they were going to get fair treatment. If this, too, was a trap with hidden nuke, I didn't want any action *I* had taken, my connection to it, to put me, my family, my RL, F2F social connections and my community as a whole at ground zero. Becoming the media's salacious news piece for public enjoyment was our greatest nightmare.

It was a long, LONG time before we could see what she did with it. She had been fair! Made some of us wish we'd gotten in it, too, not that we saw it actually could be done so well. But even then, the numbers aren't representative even of our community, and there were other communities involved, too. Very few women among us "unveiled" to take part, and the sampling reveals few women. A woman dog-lover friend of mine (cyberfriend, but we did meet years later), absolutely saw no point in it.

And even in that refreshingly objective study, it's not a large enough sampling. It's really just a tiny peak at *some* zoos "out there." And it *does* contain people whose examples are "closer to" my zoophilic orientation. But you really can't draw that many generalizations from it. It's just a tiny step in the right direction.

Good start -- but we've got a long way to go.

The next might be some kind of study done in a community like this one. But again... it *only* would be sampling those zoos who want to be part of a zoo community. And by the looks of the active membership, kind of a young crowd.

I'm thinking a lot of zoophiles out there in the world are not part of a community, and just don't want to be. Me? I go for long, long periods... years... without social interaction with "zoo groups." Just one or two close friends.

It "bothers" me that I can't find "my kind" represented in numbers I believe exist for a couple reasons. The main one is that if society realized that there is a vast number of "just normal ol' zoo folks" living among them, it might greatly reduce the misguided malice or misguided pity they feel toward them, correct their mistaken notion that zoos in trouble have their zoophilia to blame. That would do much to stop the stigma of being zoo.

As for other zoos, themselves, the ones who are having problems, their zoophilia would stop distracting them from their real problems: "You're not fucked up because you have sex with animals. You're just fucked up. Go find out the real reason, so you can invest your energy toward self-improvement more productively."

There are other very positive implications... but it isn't likely to happen. I still have a family, a job, volunteer positions in the community --- my decision to participate in zoophile studies is never just my "own." It's at the very least, certainly, not a choice that should be made recklessly.

How many other zoos are in the same boat, I think we're just never going to know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BlueBeard said:
Hani Melitzki's study was the closest thing to fairness. I remember when she first started it. Our underground Usenet group was notified by a zoo friend across the border in Canada, went by the name Stasya, that he'd vetted her. It was the "real deal," he said. We should feel no qualms in working with her. This was not another exploitive attempt to broad-brush us as "sick, deranged, defective" people. She was taking this seriously.

I really considered it, hard -- then declined and stepped far away. I even worried for him, believing he was being deceived and was in danger. He seemed so convinced, but... too much risk for me, no reason to risk it. I had found what I had longed for my whole life: a supportive community I could actually *talk* to, share experiences with. I'd had contacts that were online friends who got nuked for taking that bait, believing they were going to get fair treatment. If this, too, was a trap with hidden nuke, I didn't want any action *I* had taken, my connection to it, to put me, my family, my RL, F2F social connections and my community as a whole at ground zero. Becoming the media's salacious news piece for public enjoyment was our greatest nightmare.

It was a long, LONG time before we could see what she did with it. She had been fair! Made some of us wish we'd gotten in it, too, not that we saw it actually could be done so well. But even then, the numbers aren't representative even of our community, and there were other communities involved, too. Very few women among us "unveiled" to take part, and the sampling reveals few women. A woman dog-lover friend of mine (cyberfriend, but we did meet years later), absolutely saw no point in it.

And even in that refreshingly objective study, it's not a large enough sampling. It's really just a tiny peak at *some* zoos "out there." And it *does* contain people whose examples are "closer to" my zoophilic orientation. But you really can't draw that many generalizations from it. It's just a tiny step in the right direction.

Good start -- but we've got a long way to go.

The next might be some kind of study done in a community like this one. But again... it *only* would be sampling those zoos who want to be part of a zoo community. And by the looks of the active membership, kind of a young crowd.

I'm thinking a lot of zoophiles out there in the world are not part of a community, and just don't want to be. Me? I go for long, long periods... years... without social interaction with "zoo groups." Just one or two close friends.

It "bothers" me that I can't find "my kind" represented in numbers I believe exist for a couple reasons. The main one is that if society realized that there is a vast number of "just normal ol' zoo folks" living among them, it might greatly reduce their malice and pity toward them, correct their mistaken notion that zoos in trouble have their zoophilia to blame.

And for other zoos, their zoophilia would stop distracting them from their real problems: "You're not fucked up because you have sex with animals. You're just fucked up. Go find out the real reason, so you can invest your energy toward self-improvement more productively."

There are other very positive implications... but it isn't likely to happen. I still have a family, a job, volunteer positions in the community --- my decision to participate in zoophile studies is never just my "own." It's at the very least, certainly, not a choice that should be made recklessly.

How many other zoos are in the same boat, I think we're just never going to know.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for the insight! I wish 10% of the members of this forum were as eloquent and considerate with their commentaries as you are.
 
Pillar said:
Thanks to anti-bestiality laws no one would ever report that. Although most people probably won't openly talk about their sex lives though anyway.
Click to expand...

There are very clever and yet simple ways to get quite reliable statistical results in surveys without anyone having to incriminate themselves. For example, ask people to secretly flip a coin and say "yes" when they have had sex with an animal and/or the coin shows heads, and "no" when they neither had sex with an animal nor heads in the coin toss. If someone says "yes", you can't know whether that person has had sex with an animal, but if you ask a thousand people and 700 say "yes", you can deduce that about 40 % percent of the people taking part in the survey have had sex with an animal. It's a sweet example for the power of math, I think.
 
Tailo said:
There are very clever and yet simple ways to get quite reliable statistical results in surveys without anyone having to incriminate themselves. For example, ask people to secretly flip a coin and say "yes" when they have had sex with an animal and/or the coin shows heads, and "no" when they neither had sex with an animal nor heads in the coin toss. If someone says "yes", you can't know whether that person has had sex with an animal, but if you ask a thousand people and 700 say "yes", you can deduce that about 40 % percent of the people taking part in the survey have had sex with an animal. It's a sweet example for the power of math, I think.
Click to expand...
Can surveys be anonymous? Like when they call you on the phone.
 
RotGerShep said:
Can surveys be anonymous? Like when they call you on the phone.
Click to expand...
Could be. But... still has the initial problem: Only represents those who *would* call. There's a TON of zoos, I reckon, who see no benefit to being "counted." They wouldn't answer.
 
RotGerShep said:
I wish they would do something. It's really heartbreaking having live and to see so many live in hiding.
Click to expand...
Yet... it has so little impact on *our* sex lives, my wife's and mine. We do what we do. Ain't no fed cameras watching us. No one comes in *our* bedroom. Makes little difference one way or the other to us. We don't "out" ourselves in ways that zoo-hostiles could be satisfied.

Who *needs* society to "approve" this? Seems to me, only those that want to flaunt it. It's the couple who have a falling out, and one reports the other. Or those who have a need to post it online.

We have threesomes, foursomes, group, and more -- and never invite attraction to it. We fuck dogs and other animals, so what. The general public doesn't need to know what we do behind closed doors.

So... who needs public approval? Remind me. Must be someone who needs permission to marry an animal or... fuck one in the street.

If it's about getting arrested for jumping fences? -- I'm behind that one. If you didn't get shot, I at least want your ass in jail for a long while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top