I'd like to prefix this by saying I'm an exprenced though relatively young zoo, and though I'd love more then anything for zoos to be accepted on the level of the LGBTQ community I have some reasons that I believe will prevent general acceptance.
I'm looking for some responses so please give your opinions.
1. If zoos were accepted and publicly promoted in the same way the LGBTQ community was, I believe it would lead to fundamental problems. There is a proportion of people who abuse animals sexually and there is a proportion that would have sex with animals just because they are available (and in the future it's known to be acceptable), and would do so thinking of there own pleasure primarily.
The issue is in animals being unable to voice or really express if abuse is or has taken place. Even an experienced vet may not be able to pick up on any signs unless there is physical abuse visible.
This leads me to think society can't take that chance, tho many ppl may treat their animal parners with love and compassion, those who do not could not be allowed and if the zoo sexuality were promoted and endorsed it may very likely lead to an increase in animal abuse, without the animal being able to aptly tell anyone.
So overall I don't think zoophilia can be widely accepted on the levels of the LGBTQ, due to the bad apple percentage and animals inability to report on their abusers.
Change my mind?
Zoophilia tends to get more problematic the more it is driven underground. If anything, I WANT a young zoophile's friends, parents, neighbors, clergy, doctors, and other people in their lives helping act as watch-dogs. It's not about having liberty to do as we please: in a way, it's partly the opposite. It's inviting in oversight. It's really about protecting our safety and the safety of our animals, and while this includes keeping us safe from mentally unhinged vigilantes, do you really want a young zoophile with average intelligence or less doing this shit without someone there to point out if his dog is obviously stressed? Do you really want well-meaning but slightly dimwitted zoophiles to be doing this in secrecy without any oversight at all?
Insert a relatively educated friend into that person's life that can say, "Bro, your dog is gnawing her paws so bad they bleed, and that's like a girl cutting herself. When you see signs of stress like that, you should think about everything you are doing. What are you feeding her? What is the state of her bedding? Is her water dish clean? Have you even tried to flea-treat her? Is she getting taken outside often enough? Is she getting enough play? And by the way, what have you been doing with her in the bedroom?" That person knowing about the bedroom behavior could significantly improve the odds of the problem being successfully diagnosed. Maybe you could figure it out on your own, but "average intelligence" is relatively low wattage. That's why an extra set of eyes really makes this person's animal safer. I want this person's mom, dad, preacher, best friend, social worker, and teacher to know. I want to pack enough people around this person to make sure that nothing bad happens to either him or his animal.
I am perhaps the reigning monarch of citing the many similarities between us and the LGBT community, but I really think that we AND our animals benefit disproportionately from exposure. The differences, between us and other communities, make it more urgent for us to start coming out, not less.
In fact, I have even thought of the possibility that we could take a similar route to the transgender community and users of medicinal marijuana, which is to get legal immunity while visiting routinely with a professional sexologist that is experienced with zoophiles and provides both oversight and instruction on safety and care. It is one possible model that has not received very much attention in the zooey community, but it is a similar model to ones that have worked elsewhere in the past.
That model would work great in California: they visit psychiatric professionals there more often than they go to the bathroom, and if a group of sexologists there said "give these people legal immunity, so we can supervise them," I am pretty sure that their government would listen. I think all it would take would be getting a group of sexologists to recognize that they can actually do us and our animals a valuable service, and I think they could get the exception through the legislature in a matter of months.
I think that the zooey community has strong parallels and differences with other communities, but as a matter of fact, I think that we and our animals can actually benefit uniquely robustly from exposure. Exposure does not just protect us relatively morally well-adjusted zoos from persecution, but it also provides oversight to make sure that we get to define and direct the acceptable norms.
I want these people to be able to start fearlessly coming out because I actually care a rodent's rectum about the safety of themselves and their animals. I could selfishly do what I do behind blinded windows for my entire life, but I am not capable of that level of selfishness. Remember, Doug Spink was one of those zoophiles that fought against the toxic culture on BeastForum, and
@TogglesHappyZoo is a longtime animal rights activist. At heart, we are animal rights activists first, zoophiles second. Seeking exposure is not just about expanding our rights, but it's also about protecting the safety of zoophiles and their animals. We have seen how ugly the zooey community can get when it's been driven underground, and staying an underground community is clearly not working.
