B
BlueBeard
Guest
I'm up late tonight, looking for distraction. But night, for me, also brings clarity of thought. And something that pissed me off *may* have helped me become more articulate about what it is. It's that concept that "zoo" is an "alternative" sexuality. It's "abnormal."
Fuck it is.
Watch:
Conflicted zoos, shamed zoos, guilt-ridden zoos are easy to find. This very forum abounds with them. They are the "low hanging fruit" (no pun) not only of society seeking to encounter them. They are the ones most easily found by psychologists, who use them to confirm their assumptions that zoos are "broken people" and need "fixing." Find out what caused them to be zoo, you'll know how to "treat them."
(*wags head)
*I* think the majority of zoos are rational, well-balanced, articulate, everyday working stiffs who aren't in forums like this. They're not *here*.
They're living the "dream," raising families, or not, but working hard, paying taxes, shooting pool, playing games online, kayaking on the lake.... They are happy and satisfied. No need for special social groups *focused* on their zoophilia. Some of that is, they know there are those who'd persecute them for it, but... they say, "Fuck it. So what?" -- They're happy!
The normal zoo is no more or less inclined to tell you about his or her sex life than a monogamous human couple is to tell you that they fucked in their bedroom when they woke up Sunday morning. It's like... why? It's nobody's business but their own.
The public pretends to be concerned about zoophiles, but starts by mistakenly summing us up as all abnormal, as outside the norm, and as most likely having bad childhoods. Surely we must have been sexually abused or emotionally neglected, and that's why we are unable to form sound and healthy human relationships. We resort to the safety of relationships with non-communicative (sic!) animals who can't refuse us or reject us.
Something "made us this way." And if they can just *discover* it, they can treat us. Because, our "interests" are abnormal.
Wait a minute. Our interests?
Who's doing the study of us? Why are the researchers interested at all? Is it BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT SEX? Is it because the researcher is interested in the topic?
Is it because the researcher knows that EVERYONE is interested in the topic and the work will get read???
If everyone is so interested in zoophilia that we "need" to see more studies, seems to me the interest is ... kind of universal. Then our interest isn't "abnormal," right? Some of us have done it. Some plan to. And the rest are all voyeurs sitting back and stroking to it, feigning morality and "taking the high road" by moaning "ewwww" instead of "ohhhhh" as they climax.
Tons of zoos aren't represented by a forum, though. They don't draw the attention of psychologists. They fly under the radar like my wife.
I like an online zoophile community. I "came out of hiding" because I thought "my kind of zoo" was under-represented. While I see a lot of zoos I like and follow -- I see a lot of others who make me hiss or do a palm-face. I tolerate them *here*, sure. But I don't want pre- or post-graduate researchers assuming the group they have the easiest access to is "it." It's "us."
My wife, for instance, doesn't see the need to be here (though she knows what I write and we talk about things I've read here). She isn't making this one thing a pivotal point of social interaction. She's not looking for affirmation. Doesn't need it. Doesn't need a lot of attention to make her feel more valued. Doesn't need a new political group to march to. Isn't going to lead the zoo parade down Main Street. And she really, REALLY doesn't need to find some anxious animal pimp to "give her more experience." She has plenty of experience. All she needs.
Web-wise, she's more interested in Facebooking about our grandchildren. And she likes crafts. She's always doing something artful. Zoophilia is neither here nor there. It just... is. It's part of her. It's part of us.
I'd say the "abnormal" people are the iconic couples of our country's Puritan ancestry, "normal" monogamous human-human couples. The ones who have "obligatory" sex. You know. Sunday morning "get-it-over-with" sex, so we can cross it off the weekly chore list.
Or birthday sex. (BORE-ing... and not in an enjoyably salacious way). It's routine after a while. Obligatory. Or eventually, non existent.
But what *could* sex be? (And it is this for many people. It's been this for eternity).
Nothing abnormal about it then. The *abnormal* sex life, it seems to me as I said, is the "obligatory" Saturday sex. Or birthday sex. The "ho hum," rinse, repeat sex. Or... NO SEX.
And "normal" sex is -- intimate or fun and playful or naughty or opportunistic.
In that sense? Zoo is more "normal" than most people's married sexuality.
I think the problem isn't being Zoo so much. It's our starting point, our concept of what sexuality is, or can be, or should be.
When we stop demonizing penises and vaginas and nudity.... Zoo will be neither here nor there. Sex itself will be regarded as just another way to interact with each other, whether same or other species.
Fuck it is.
Watch:
Conflicted zoos, shamed zoos, guilt-ridden zoos are easy to find. This very forum abounds with them. They are the "low hanging fruit" (no pun) not only of society seeking to encounter them. They are the ones most easily found by psychologists, who use them to confirm their assumptions that zoos are "broken people" and need "fixing." Find out what caused them to be zoo, you'll know how to "treat them."
(*wags head)
*I* think the majority of zoos are rational, well-balanced, articulate, everyday working stiffs who aren't in forums like this. They're not *here*.
They're living the "dream," raising families, or not, but working hard, paying taxes, shooting pool, playing games online, kayaking on the lake.... They are happy and satisfied. No need for special social groups *focused* on their zoophilia. Some of that is, they know there are those who'd persecute them for it, but... they say, "Fuck it. So what?" -- They're happy!
The normal zoo is no more or less inclined to tell you about his or her sex life than a monogamous human couple is to tell you that they fucked in their bedroom when they woke up Sunday morning. It's like... why? It's nobody's business but their own.
The public pretends to be concerned about zoophiles, but starts by mistakenly summing us up as all abnormal, as outside the norm, and as most likely having bad childhoods. Surely we must have been sexually abused or emotionally neglected, and that's why we are unable to form sound and healthy human relationships. We resort to the safety of relationships with non-communicative (sic!) animals who can't refuse us or reject us.
Something "made us this way." And if they can just *discover* it, they can treat us. Because, our "interests" are abnormal.
Wait a minute. Our interests?
Who's doing the study of us? Why are the researchers interested at all? Is it BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT SEX? Is it because the researcher is interested in the topic?
Is it because the researcher knows that EVERYONE is interested in the topic and the work will get read???
If everyone is so interested in zoophilia that we "need" to see more studies, seems to me the interest is ... kind of universal. Then our interest isn't "abnormal," right? Some of us have done it. Some plan to. And the rest are all voyeurs sitting back and stroking to it, feigning morality and "taking the high road" by moaning "ewwww" instead of "ohhhhh" as they climax.
Tons of zoos aren't represented by a forum, though. They don't draw the attention of psychologists. They fly under the radar like my wife.
I like an online zoophile community. I "came out of hiding" because I thought "my kind of zoo" was under-represented. While I see a lot of zoos I like and follow -- I see a lot of others who make me hiss or do a palm-face. I tolerate them *here*, sure. But I don't want pre- or post-graduate researchers assuming the group they have the easiest access to is "it." It's "us."
My wife, for instance, doesn't see the need to be here (though she knows what I write and we talk about things I've read here). She isn't making this one thing a pivotal point of social interaction. She's not looking for affirmation. Doesn't need it. Doesn't need a lot of attention to make her feel more valued. Doesn't need a new political group to march to. Isn't going to lead the zoo parade down Main Street. And she really, REALLY doesn't need to find some anxious animal pimp to "give her more experience." She has plenty of experience. All she needs.
Web-wise, she's more interested in Facebooking about our grandchildren. And she likes crafts. She's always doing something artful. Zoophilia is neither here nor there. It just... is. It's part of her. It's part of us.
I'd say the "abnormal" people are the iconic couples of our country's Puritan ancestry, "normal" monogamous human-human couples. The ones who have "obligatory" sex. You know. Sunday morning "get-it-over-with" sex, so we can cross it off the weekly chore list.
Or birthday sex. (BORE-ing... and not in an enjoyably salacious way). It's routine after a while. Obligatory. Or eventually, non existent.
But what *could* sex be? (And it is this for many people. It's been this for eternity).
- It could be the deepest way to physically express their complete acceptance and trust of the other. (Zoos do that, too).
- It could be done playfully. A chase around the bed. Rolling on the floor. On the kitchen counter. Or washing machine. Something spontaneous and fun instead of... watching Netflix. Again. (And Zoos do that, too, right?)
- Could be done as something naughty. Something where you might get caught. Masturbating each other or giving each other oral publicly because something triggered you and now you're so fucking horny you can't stop yourselves. (I've done that as a zoo. You? Do tell!)
- Opportunistically. "Quick -- while the kids are at their friends. Let's DO IT!" (Zoos? Yep.)
Nothing abnormal about it then. The *abnormal* sex life, it seems to me as I said, is the "obligatory" Saturday sex. Or birthday sex. The "ho hum," rinse, repeat sex. Or... NO SEX.
And "normal" sex is -- intimate or fun and playful or naughty or opportunistic.
In that sense? Zoo is more "normal" than most people's married sexuality.
I think the problem isn't being Zoo so much. It's our starting point, our concept of what sexuality is, or can be, or should be.
When we stop demonizing penises and vaginas and nudity.... Zoo will be neither here nor there. Sex itself will be regarded as just another way to interact with each other, whether same or other species.
Last edited by a moderator:
