How long do you think that it will take before zoosexaulity starts to become as accepted as other sexualities?
- Thread starter vic21
- Start date
ADreamOfLiberty
ZooVille Philanthropist
Your enthusiasm is heartwarming, but I fear you're in for a disappointment. The only movement you can be referring to is making a lot of enemies and when it starts taking losses it's going to turn on whatever seems to make it weak. One of those enemies is myself.
Now that doesn't necessarily mean zoos won't come out smelling like a bunch of roses. As I have pointed out before sometimes you have some "big ask" mechanics going on. Dave Rubin is openly in a homosexual marriage with surrogate carried children on the way, not everybody in his political tribe is happy about it but they are nowhere near turning on him because they want to show that they can be tolerant so long as you aren't attacking their core values.
Even if the LGBT(Z) thing is beaten back we might still be left with decriminalization, which will certainly mark the start of the avalanche.
UR20Z
Dumpster Diver
I think you're smokin' something better than I can get my hands on. I figure we'll be accepted about three days after hell freezes over. Maybe a couple days longer than that.
Bloodwolf
Dumpster Diver
We’re not talking about people loving people. This has been mentioned time and time again.
vic21
Tourist
That is the movement I'm referring to, but the fact that it's making a lot of enemies doesn't bother me at all. It's making enemies, but any movement of this kind at this point in its development will make enemies in droves. It's taboo, people hate us, and if you're trying for a rights movement, that necessitates shoving something people hate in their faces and forcing them to not ignore it anymore. And that virtually prints enemies. It's whether it can get passed those enemies or not that is the question. I'm not really sure who'd be turned on by the LGBT(Z) movement, you either are a zoo or you're not. The reason I compare us to the initial homosexuality movement is that yeah, it's gonna be hard, we're gonna lose people, we're gonna get a lot of pushback, but thats why it's a 'fight for freedom' and not an 'apathetic wait for freedom'. And yeah, the movement might collapse, but the more people lose the mentality that 'it wont work so why bother', the sooner the next movement rises from its ashes. We need enthusiasm, and we need the courage to actually fight for ourselves because with a world that hates us nobody will do that for us and we will have to pay for our freedom in one way or another.
I think you're just pessimistic.
Yes, and I disagree with it time and time again. It doesn't make a difference. If the science is in our favor, and the arguments are as well, the only thing left is stigma ignorance, and taboo, and to break that requires a willingness to paint a target on your back and stop hiding. Nothing ever gets done by people who give up before they even start.
MachineFox
Citizen of Zooville
For my sanity I hope you're right, but I wouldn't underestimate the sheer amount of fuckin' stupid these generations are huffing.
We still live in a reality where flirting with a customer gets you in the papers:
I ordered a coffee at Starbucks and found a creepy secret note on the cup
A WOMAN who was left a creepy note on her Starbucks cup by a barista has admitted she doesn’t think she can return to the coffee shop. She took to TikTok to share a video after being given th…
www.thesun.co.uk
Assuming we don't slip right into full nanny state tyranny, because social media is basically already there. But yeah, zoosex might become legal in that hellworld, so who knows, take the victories where you can get them I guess? I've thrown my crystal ball straight into the garbage can a long time ago. Common sense doesn't apply when dealing with millions and billions of people.
About 15-18% but it's been a while since those stats have been last collected cause maybe it's not the kind of stat people want to brag about. And yea, looooooooooots of self-hating closeted zoos. Been there done that. And seen that quite a few times.
Yeah, I agree, if it does get accepted by some miracle the weird looks people give you when petting your doggo will eventually go away.
Nah, the solution is to push "most bestiality is not rape" through, not this silly distancing game. Cause like it or hate it, it's a word for a thing (putting the peepee into animal tailhole). Zoosexuality is just the general attraction (orientation if you will) I guess.
Bloodwolf
Dumpster Diver
That’s on you bub. You can drop some cash in the donations bucket and cross your fingers. It will always end the same. Like a cockbird on opening day in the brier field. As soon as this if it ever does get off the ground expect the pedos to fallow. They already hang around here.
ADreamOfLiberty
ZooVille Philanthropist
You saying that is the historical fallacy of predetermination.
Just because something happened a certain way does not mean it had to happen that way. Yet people have always, and still do look back at history and instead of looking for indicators of tipping points or fragile initial conditions pick some aspect and declare that made something inevitable.
It was declared that the american revolution was inevitable, because of the distance from the king they might say. In France it could never happen... but it did. What they were doing was picking a reason with little care for whether it was actually a determining factor.
You say "people loving people" this difference has no objective relevance. It's all the state attacking people for victimless crimes. That is what has objective relevance.
Apriori it is just as historically possible that heterosexual zoosexuality was decriminalized since the 60s while homosexuality remained illegal till 2022. After all we're not talking about the natural and tolerable penis in vagina.
The primary problem is that with two humans, one can go to the police if their partner is abusing them and/or raping them. This is not possible with a human/animal partnership. Just as they don't have a voice to confirm whether or not they actually DO want to have sex or not. (We can definitely infer as such from non-verbal consent. Which to us is pretty obvious.) Non-human animals do not have a voice to speak out against abuse and trauma. Animals don't have any direct rights in a court of law. Whereas a gay couple does.
It's absolutely easy to turn this "relationship" into a one-sided affair. Multiple porn videos are removed every day which demonstrates this fact. Not all sex with animals is a mutually enjoyable affair.
UR20Z
Dumpster Diver
Some claim so. But 30+ years of watching the various attempts at "getting zoo rights" has, to date, demonstrated that the only thing that happens is more and worse persecution. If that makes me a pessimist, then so be it. I look at it as being realistic. The hatred/disgust/revulsion at the mere THOUGHT of somebody having sex with an animal amongst the general populace is so deeply engrained that all that needs to be done is push the idea in front of "John Q. Public" to get the "pitchforks and torches" brigade into action. The alphabet-soup brigade is downright "normal" in comparison to us sick fucks that screw animals - at least in the minds of damn near every human on the planet.
Bloodwolf
Dumpster Diver
Your putting big historical issues up against us who are basically unknown outside of comical jokes involving people who rather ride sheep. Non of it is going to hold the stitch. As annoying as the LGBT can be, even their loud mouth don’t want us and their into some freaky shit.
ADreamOfLiberty
ZooVille Philanthropist
No, the movement I was talking about is the general sexual re-calibration that purportedly started with the homosexual demand for decriminalization but is now deep into a war on gender and prepubescent sex ed. They haven't even unequivocally included the Z, that might not happen especially if they start losing politically. That's what I mean by "turning on", they could play with including Z (as a few are now) but then see themselves be pushed back on all fronts and decide "whoa whoa we need to be more normal, get those dog fuckers out of here".
Don't get me wrong, it's not really one coherent movement in any way. Decriminalization of harmless interaction can be demanded on very broad liberal grounds. Enforced pronouns not so much.
... but people believe there is a continuity and a coherency that isn't there. If Z gets added our fate will rise and fall with that movement because there are not enough zoos to make a voting bloc. The only way our interests will ever matter is if somebody besides zoos gives a shit. There are multiple reasons to give a shit, and the only one the pride flag waving kinds care about is victim hood. The only reason libertarians would give a shit is because we're being attacked by the state despite not breaking the non-aggression principle. Traditional religious will only care when it becomes culturally impossible not to.
You say LGBT(Z) and seem to think that refers to a group of only zoos, that's not good enough to win. Homosexuals didn't win alone, they represented a maligned minority; someone to agitate over for the left, a tool and example for the left.
Zoos need to mean something to somebody or there will be no decriminalization. We can try, we should try; but we can't cause that to happen by our will alone.
100% agreement, if you bullshit you still won't convert the haters but you'll lose the rational ones. Bestiality = sex between humans and non-humans. Zoosexuals are the ones who are turned on by bestiality. The end, don't try to define away morality. Rape = bad, but it's still sex. Bestial rape = bad, but it's still bestiality.
No that isn't the primary problem. I've tested this, I've asked antis if they would tolerate bestiality if it was always recorded and reviewed and they still would not.
Furthermore a simple thought experiment in practical outcome proves this is meaningless: if the law can't catch bestiality in general (and it can't) then what possible increase in bestial rape could be expected with legalization? None. In fact a small reduction could be expected because every once in a while a bestial rapist would stand out against the others instead of it all being totally hidden and anonymous.
Is it a crime to go out to the woods and have sex with a human? No, yet out there you could rape a human, kill them, and you would get away with it far more often than doing the same in a crowded city!
The principle in place is very clear: innocent until proven guilty. Making a law banning a whole class of behavior because you have a problem with a subset of that behavior violates that principle.
and every day humans beat the shit out of their spouses and children, those spouses can file a police report but don't, still families aren't banned.
The best that anyone of us, including government, can do is to punish the evil when it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If you start punishing the non-evil you are evil.
What becomes a big historical issue is not predetermined.
I saw a Smithsonian exhibit of men wearing tighties. Cringe, yes. But real, and not because gay human sex is some pinnacle of morality. Just coincidence. The right cultural stimuli at the right time and their bulges become a moment of national pride and significance.
That could have been a Zeta paw in that window just as easily.
vic21
Tourist
Cash in donation buckets is about as effective as a fart is for riot control. And yeah, the pedos are following. Luckily most of the people I see are rejecting the pedos. Most of the support the movement is garnering, especially from my generation, comes from people listening to our arguments and agreeing with them, the arguments the diddlers make still suck, so they're not listening to them.
Yeah, all I'm really saying is the world is primed for change, not what that change will be. It could really just devolve straight down the shitter, but it just as easily could go the other way. A lot of what I'm seeing gives me a lot of hope that it'll go the other way, but as the world hangs on a knifes edge, all we can do is try to push for what we believe in as hard as we can to try and tip it in our favor.
Well yes and no. I agree that it is a term that is used interchangably to describe sex with animals, but so was the term sodomy used to describe all forms of anal sex. The reason we don't refer to anal sex as sodomy anymore is because sodomy is anal rape. Yes sodomy necissairly means anal sex in addition to rape, but anal sex doesn't necessarily mean rape. Bestiality necessarily means sex with animals, but the way the general public views it it also necessarily means rape, but the term zoosexuality necessitates sex with animals, but doesn't necessitate rape.
I've heard this before. This is just the he said she said rape case argument. We have that problem with humans too. You can only prove abuse you have evidence of. In the case of physical abuse towards both humans and animals, you have physical evidence of it and that's why usually when zoos get prosecuted its because they were also physically abusing the animal and someone saw the wounds. When it comes to exclusively sexual abuse if you don't have a rape kit or some other form of hard evidence like a video recording or witnesses, it's one persons word against another. Yes, the dog for instance doesn't even have a 'word', but neither does a human who was raped and doesn't remember it because they got cosby'd, or because they were otherwise pressured to not come forward, or even someone who does come forward anyways and doesnt get anywhere due to a lack of evidence.
Yes people can have abusive sexual relationships with animals, but people also have abusive sexual relationships with humans and get away with it for the same reasons as they get away with it with animals. Yeah, those videos are sick, and that's why we remove them. But by the mere fact that those videos are made in the first place, its obvious that legally there's no way to prevent incidents like that from happening at all. Just as there is no way to prevent the same kind of abuse taking place with humans. Those videos we remove are evidence that could then be used by a court to convict them of animal rape, if we instead replaced our overly generalizing laws with ones that specifically target animal rape, and make the distinction. Obviously the argument still stands that if they didn't record it, and they didn't injure the animal, they did it in private with no witnesses, they could have still raped the animal and nobody would ever know. But if you roofied a human and raped them in your basement, and didn't record and post it online for the world to say, the same situation potentially applies to that human and can manifest in more ways than just an inability to speak.
Basically my argument against that can be summarized as; People still do it even though its illegal, we only ever find out about them doing it because either a). they combined it with physical abuse, or b). they were dumb enough to record it and put it online. There's probably far, far more cases of animal rape, intentional and even potentially unintententional due to lack of education because of the social stigma surrounding the sexuality, that take place all the time that we'll never find out about our prosecute despite it being illegal. Just as its a known fact that there are staggering numbers of human rapes that go unreported and unpunished. The anti-bestiality laws we have are both ineffective at stopping the problem, and lump zoosexuals in unnecessarily.
And I'm saying that those 30+ years of people making attempts were not in vein, they were priming the world for the real push. The stage of normalization we're just now about to exit has been primarily about getting the words and concepts into peoples heads, starting the conversations so that the discussion becomes normalized bit by bit. Now that the mere discussion is being tolerated more and more, by more and more people, this is the time that we need to push hard and seize the opportunity by making those argments, making them loudly, and making them well. Otherwise we're letting that 30+ years of hard fought normalization and slowly but surely building momentum go to waste.
People would have said exactly the same things you are back when the lgbt movement started. The hatred of homosexuals was religiously engrained in much the same way, and lets not forget that it still is in much of the world and those people still exist. John Q Public brought out the pitchforks and torches for them too, and you know what happened, John Q Public turned out to be wrong. And while he's still pissed about that, its not as easy to bring out the pitchforks and torches now because the rational elements of society saw the error in their ways. I fail to see any difference between the zoosexuality movement and the lgbt movement in its early days. It was taboo for the same reasons, primarily religious, it was and in many places still is engrained to the same extent of societal hatred as zoosexuality is, the backlash was the same, and even the pessimism in our community draws parallels to them. There are millions upon millions of ignorant, hateful, zoophobes. But that doesn't mean opinions cannot be changed, and that pile of hate cant be chipped away at.
You also mentioned that lots of the alphabet crowd still ostracize us, and always screech about how 'we're not part of the lgbtq', the funny thing about those people that I've observed is that the more people compare the two, the more difficult of a time they have ignoring the increasingly obvious comparisons and connections between the zoosexual movement and the gay rights movment. They're having to do harder and harder mental gymnastics to continue justifying their hypocritical hatred of us. A good example of that is how they've resorted to lumping the diddlers in with us. That's part of the cope. This doesn't necessarily translate directly to conversion to our cause, but it is putting these people in the position where they have to face the fact that its simply hypocritical. And while many have been, and will continue to, double down on their hatred. The more the evidence and comparisons mount, the more people have to rethink their worldviews, and more people chose not to double down, the more pressure there is on those who chose to double down to rethink their viewpoints.
MachineFox
Citizen of Zooville
I dunno, gays did reclaim some words like queer, and even faggot isn't that much of an insult nowadays (if you have your f-word pass), so whether or not "bestiality" can be reclaimed is anyone's guess. I'm only saying it cause people keep tagging it in human x feral art all the time. If it's good enough for that, it's probably good enough. There's always "zoosex" as a backup option I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
MachineFox
Citizen of Zooville
If anything just for practical reasons, getting people to stop saying it might be a lost cause when so many zoophiles and furries use it all the time without the negative rape connotation.
Maybe we could use another word for it and avoid it for PR reasons, but if people actually follow through is a different story. My guess is people are lazy and won't. Especially in a *urp* "safe space", like here. I mean I think I'd have avoided it, if I thought it had really bad connotations.
vic21
Tourist
Well, that is true that we need non zoo allies. That's why I'm so hopeful for LGBT(Z), this is the source of both non zoo allies, as well as the movement to rally behind that we need. The push-back you're seeing with the people that want to 'get the dogfuckers out of here', is to be expected and something that we have fight back against, those people are the people who need convincing and are our main obstacle at this stage, they aren't the people who are giving me hope. We need to either show those people the errors in their thinking process in the case of non zoos trying to 'get rid of the dogfuckers', and in the case of zoos who are getting scared into that stance, we need to be supporting them and giving them the backup they need to have the balls to not backpedal on what they know is right. Just like the gays did.
We need to recreate the conditions that allowed for homosexuals to have success, and that means hard work and not getting scared off by the opposition, that's what they did, and that's what we'll do. And yes you are right, we don't really have much in the way of continuity or coherency, that again is one of the factors we need to work on in order to recreate those conditions for success.
As a side note, I don't agree that there are that few zoos in the world. We might not be a big subset of the population, or even as big as homosexuals for instance, but I'd hazard a guess that the numbers are not as low as they are commonly thought to be. Most of the studies that came up with those numbers were either small, doing a lot of extrapolation to guess at a number, and in my personal opinion probably biased against us. Remember, a tactic used by many homophobic societies, Chechen society is a good modern day example, is to simply deny the existence of homosexuals outright or severely under report their numbers. In Chechnya for instance, their leader claims that there are "No homosexuals in Chechnya.", a statement which is obviously false. I think that something of the same order is happening to us zoos, and they've just managed to convince us too.
That's absolutely true, and there's no reason that we can't do that too. But remember that it wasn't until quite recently actually that queer became an acceptable pass-free word to use in reference to lgbt people, and mainly it became that way because a blanket term became necessary with the extreme growth of the movement in the last decade or so. And faggot is still pretty firmly a pass-only term, and used in much the same fashion as the n-word, in an endearing sense amongst members of that community.
At the stage of evolution our movement is in, I think in the future it may be able to become something similar to at the very minimum faggot, but for now it would be wise to distance ourselves until that level of meta understanding of the term can become common knowledge. As it is now people, more specifically non/anti zoos, associate it with the rape meaning, and we need to distance ourselves from the rape meaning as much as possible, and later on we can bring it back in as a reclaimed word, but only after people understand the difference between zoosexuality and bestiality, and understand its status as a reclaimed word. Think about how queer started out, first it was a slur that everyone used against gays (the stage we're in now in regards to bestiality), then it became something politically incorrect for anyone to say after being recognized as a slur, and then now we've hit the point in evolution where it's been reintroduced as a reclaimed word that's okay for anyone to use in a non hateful context.
I don't really consider its use as a tag for feral artwork as good nor bad, its more a symptom of that being the commonly accepted term for it, and the fact that so many feral artists are closeted self hating zoos that actually believe the rape connotation of bestiality and are only okay with zoosex because in the form of artwork. I think that the tag will probably evolve to something different as time goes on.
Last edited:
UR20Z
Dumpster Diver
You claim it. Now PROVE it.
You truly ARE smoking better shit than I can get my hands on if you think that there's been even an iota of "normalization".
And I thought Reconscope was a hopeless pollyanna...
vic21
Tourist
Well, I'm not gonna go collect you anecdotal evidence of this, because most of my experiences with this have simply been in direct conversations with non-zoos, I completely disagree with your notion that there's been no normalization. More and more people that I talk to are now becoming open enough to at least hear the arguments with an open mind, that's normalization. Maybe your anecdotal experience is different, but that's mine.You claim it. Now PROVE it.
You truly ARE smoking better shit than I can get my hands on if you think that there's been even an iota of "normalization".
And I thought Reconscope was a hopeless pollyanna...
Shadow69
Citizen of Zooville
Well, I suppose there is never, after that there is acceptance of pedophilia,THEN there is zoosexuality
MachineFox
Citizen of Zooville
Speaking of that, minor pet peeve, if you ask people what queer means you'll get 10 different answers. Anything from neo-gender freakshow to "gay but political/activist". I give up. I don't know what it means. And people who say "LGBTQ" don't either.
Hmmm, I think I use faggot pretty much 99% of the time as a general insult, regardless of orientation. But don't worry, I've sucked dozens and dozens of dicks, my f-word pass is permanent.
Yeah ok, but good luck at getting ourselves to stop using it.
Also lol, e6 is literally pulling a "did you mean bestiality?" when I try to search for the alternate tags.
Probably not. I've seem many edit wars and people pulling entire galleries worth of stuff over things like tag-what-you-can-see vs author gender, so going in and telling them to change anything is pretty much a declaration of war. And the purists always win.
vic21
Tourist
Yeah, I dunno either. I first saw it show up when lgbt+ was also in running, and then it became lgbtq+. I just consider it to be interchangeable with the +, and that's how it's been explained to me so I just go with it.
Id say at least amongst the people I hang out with its probably 80% genuine insult, 10% joking insult, 10% more n-word like. I know a few people that get off big-time when people call them a fag, and label themselves as such because of that. Funny side note, I'm bisexual when it comes to feminine human men, but I'm straight as far as zoosexuality goes.
Yeah, but they also redirect zoophilia and I think zoosexuality to bestiality as well, on e6 the way they seem to like to handle tags is have one base tag and then a bunch of aliases that redirect to that base tag. The base tag for zoosexuality just happened to be bestiality to start with, but it redirects all other terms for it to that tag. It's definitely not gonna happen overnight, but the more people get the knowledge on the word the more people might ask for that to be changed. Also I wouldn't exactly use that site as a benchmark for behavior, dumb shit drama is pretty commonplace there.
MachineFox
Citizen of Zooville
Unless socjus commiefornia groomer trash throw a spanner in the works. They're trying. They really are.
And whoever wins we all lose.
vic21
Tourist
They're definitely trying, but I'm really skeptical that they'll even get as far as we have already. The difference is we have good arguments and scientific research coming up in our favor, and their arguments are trash and scientific research comes up consistently not in their favor. And I keep hammering on about it but at least in my generation amongst my friends and just people I interact with, we're seemingly really not buying it either. Some of us definitely are, but generally the ones I see that are convinced by the MAP shit are like 18 and disturbingly younger usually, which makes me think more misguided beliefs resultant from grooming than something they wont grow out of, hopefully.
Bloodwolf
Dumpster Diver
Where have we come thus far? I’m all ears and I mean hard studies on US soil as it would affect me personally. And non of that crap they had on here a while back that resembled a kids picture book
vic21
Tourist
I've seen that comic you're talking about, but not read it yet. But some of the studies I've read have come from here. I don't have the links right now, I need to find them again and put them in a list along with some well thought out arguments because I intend to put them to work on some other sites. But the ones I'm thinking of I read on the NCBI's site, some of them just focused on animal sexuality, and some focused on zoosexuality. Though I'm pretty sure most were studies done in countries where it was already more acceptable like germany anyways, so I don't think they'd sway you anyways.
MachineFox
Citizen of Zooville
We're officially at LTBTQIA+. Google's even auto-completing it in my native language.
I think they're pulling these straight from the alphabet soup.
I'm strictly gay when it comes to humans (even politically gay if you will, I simply refuse to sleep with women until legal paternal surrender aka "male abortion" becomes a human right, also cause it's less demanding, being with my bf is like just hanging out with my mates). And when it comes to zoo stuff, very bisexual.
They can have tag aliases I think but not for those two, since they have different numbers
E6 actually has less drama as far as furry sites go.
FagAffinity is run by retarded fat fuck extraordinaire Dragoneer and his bikelock-wielding commie lackeys who ban people for off-site infractions.
Pedobunny needs no further explaination.
SlowFurry is dead and/or full of elitist douchebag writefags, probably hasn't seen a painting submission in years.
Nobody cares about Weasyl, that's just people's backup gallery in case they get yeeted.
And I have accounts on all of those because I hate myself :3
Bloodwolf
Dumpster Diver
So essentially we have nothing? No dice my man. Sorry.
vic21
Tourist
I have no idea where they're getting them, they have a whole ass wiki now, I've leafed through it a bit and it didn't answer any questions lol. I just go with LGBT+ or LGBTQ and the +/q usually lets me not get yelled at.
I wonder why honestly, but it is interesting to note that there's more tagged feral than bestiality by a huge margin.
I think e6 is really less bad just because its pretty much kept to the comments sections, which i can ignore easily.
Like I said, I don't think you'd have been swayed either way since I'm pretty sure most of them were not done in the states anyways.
MachineFox
Citizen of Zooville
I go with "LGBT" at all times in serious conversation. "LGB" if I'm feeling edgy and want to trigger the libs.
Also I only use the old fashioned pride flag ?️?, not the new racially segregated flag, that thing's an abomination, also a visual metaphor for what's happening to us (gays started this and now are in a pincer movement by the new minority coalitions of the wokists).
Probably because of feral x feral and solo images. You can't really have bestiality without a human involved. And I assume the rest of the 180k humans are doing anthros, vs 60k ferals. Interesting ratio, almost lines up with the amount of zoos in the fandom.
I'm lucky I lost my login data and can't go and comment there (too lazy to register another account).
vic21
Tourist
Yeah, I've noticed that gays have been pushed to the sidelines a bit. I've even seen people claiming gays are sexist, or transphobic because they're not into trans men. I go with the classic flag too, mostly because nobody's ever gotten mad about it. I don't really get why people of color are part of the sexuality/sexual identity movement, not racist just doesn't make sense and seems tacked on.
Yeah that makes sense. Its funny that it kinda lines up. I think that might be due to like, layers of accepting you're a zoo. Because there's no reason someone who isn't at all into animals would be watching feral on feral porn, but maybe its like a way for them to keep telling themselves that they're not a zoo.
I got banned for getting mad in the comments at some guy who intentionally neglects to tag his loli gore as loli gore, because he gets off on that.