Religion as a possible factor in underrepresentation of women in the zoo community

[ryirkil]

So I have read this post: /r/TrueOffMyChest/comments/kihn40/im_a_zoophile_and_i_dont_want_to_be_this_way and started wondering, especially after this sentence: "This is more common than people think, especially among Christian conservative women.". OP herself said she did go to one of our forums but logged off as soon as she read something "justifying her behavior". Most of people on English zoophile forums are from countries where some kind of Christianity is the most common religion. Christianity is based on the Bible which explicitly condemns bestiality. Usually people extend that to mere thinking about nonhumans while having sex or masturbating. That quickly causes religious zoos to think their attraction is wrong, trying to suppress it and avoiding any arguments that say otherwise, like the OP did. Therefore they would not stay here and we would not see them here. I have quickly checked and it appears women are more religious than men:

Infographic: Religion's global gender breakdown

This chart shows the percentage of men and women aged 20+ in major global religious groups.

www.statista.com

Christian women in the U.S. are more religious than their male counterparts

More than seven-in-ten U.S. Christian women say religion is very important in their lives, compared with 62% of the country’s Christian men.

www.pewresearch.org

so it matches the expectations. Considering how many of us are there, such difference can contain the whole community but it's extremely unlikely. If it really is a factor, it's probably not the only one. Just to be clear, I'm not stating anything. This is just a thought experiment, a research idea and a topic for eventual further discussion.

 

[Octavian]

I'd wager the vast majority of the male gender biases when it comes to engaging in bestiality is...well, the differences in the way the genders perceive sex. 60+ years ago, when the Kinsey studies took place, they estimated that 40-50% of males that lived near farms engaged in bestiality. Even in those much more religious times, many young men who had access to a willing partner, even if it was an animal, would take what they could get. In every study I have ever read, from the 50's until the present day, men drastically outnumber women when it comes to actually performing the act.

Women are just as (if not more likely) than men to fantasize about it though. Men are just more likely to follow through.

 

[HugDoggy]

So I have read this post: /r/TrueOffMyChest/comments/kihn40/im_a_zoophile_and_i_dont_want_to_be_this_way and started wondering, especially after this sentence: "This is more common than people think, especially among Christian conservative women.". OP herself said she did go to one of our forums but logged off as soon as she read something "justifying her behavior". Most of people on English zoophile forums are from countries where some kind of Christianity is the most common religion. Christianity is based on the Bible which explicitly condemns bestiality. Usually people extend that to mere thinking about nonhumans while having sex or masturbating. That quickly causes religious zoos to think their attraction is wrong, trying to suppress it and avoiding any arguments that say otherwise, like the OP did. Therefore they would not stay here and we would not see them here. I have quickly checked and it appears women are more religious than men:

Infographic: Religion's global gender breakdown

This chart shows the percentage of men and women aged 20+ in major global religious groups.

www.statista.com

Christian women in the U.S. are more religious than their male counterparts

More than seven-in-ten U.S. Christian women say religion is very important in their lives, compared with 62% of the country’s Christian men.

www.pewresearch.org

so it matches the expectations. Considering how many of us are there, such difference can contain the whole community but it's extremely unlikely. If it really is a factor, it's probably not the only one. Just to be clear, I'm not stating anything. This is just a thought experiment, a research idea and a topic for eventual further discussion.

I probably shouldn't be saying anything here without careful thought and choice of words, so take what ever follows with a grain of salt.

Firstly if we take Christianity and Islam (my appologies for not looking at other religions) and look at their main rules:
The Ten Commandments (there are that many sub groups of christianity but this is one version of the commandments)

I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt not have strange Gods before me
Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day
Honour thy father and thy mother
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods

The Five Pillars of Islam

Declaring that there is only one God, Allah, and that Muhammad is his messenger
Praying five times a day
Giving to charity
Making a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once during life
Fasting during the month of Ramadan every year

There is nothing there that says you should not let one of god's creature screw you. I know there are other references to sex with animals in the holy books, as there are also references to homosexuality, but apparently such things really were not important enough to make the top ten/five of stuff you shouldn't do.

I come from a Christian background and for me god is love and I can not see how loving and giving joy to one of god's creatures can possibly be wrong.

Interspecies behavior can be seen in many other species other than humans if you actually spend the time to look. I have a folder full of such things on my computer Dogs on cats, Goats on sheep, Horses on Cows, etc.

Sex is just friction how you apply it is up to you and as long as both parties aggree to the act whether by verbal or body language the shape your partner takes should matter not.

One thing we have to remember is that Holy books while supposed to represent the words of the god within that religion were written down my humans, and as such are up to interpretation at a number of points from when god spoke to the original scribe to the time the final current day human reads the words. Every time a book is converted to a different language or the wording update to reflect more current use of a particular word "trespasses" verses "sins" for example things can be altered ever so slightly. With enough of these changes over thousands of years, where the values of time each time the update occurred having the potential to effect the choice of wording it is easy to see how minor misunderstandings can sneak in and means we really have no way of knowing if sex with animals was as black and white an issue as is made out today.

For all we know, there may have been a problem with some STD spreading between ladies who shared the same donkey or whatever at the time and to try and discourage this activity it was made bad in gods eyes by the religious leaders of the time. The donkey getting the blame, as apposed to the understanding that human fluids or bacteria could be transferred via the animal, but not coming from the animal.

Well that's my two cents but I am no scholar or expert on such matters, these are just thoughts that fell out of my head and I typed them down, if you disagree with anything I said just pretend I never said it and move on.

Peace to you all.

 

[ryirkil]

There is nothing there that says you should not let one of god's creature screw you. I know there are other references to sex with animals in the holy books, as there are also references to homosexuality, but apparently such things really were not important enough to make the top ten/five of stuff you shouldn't do.

But they were important enough to give you a death sentence. Look up the first case in the USA, the punishment has been based on the Bible, Leviticus 20:15.

I come from a Christian background and for me god is love and I can not see how loving and giving joy to one of god's creatures can possibly be wrong.

Me neither but many concepts in that book don't make sense to me.

With enough of these changes over thousands of years, where the values of time each time the update occurred having the potential to effect the choice of wording it is easy to see how minor misunderstandings can sneak in and means we really have no way of knowing if sex with animals was as black and white an issue as is made out today.

"If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed."
How is it a minor misunderstanding? How could it ever have a completely different meaning?

Well that's my two cents but I am no scholar or expert on such matters, these are just thoughts that fell out of my head and I typed them down, if you disagree with anything I said just pretend I never said it and move on.

Peace to you all.

I totally agree about one thing: many Christians completely ignore or are not aware of those verses. And many others.

 

[ILoveZooGirlsXXX]

I would agree that religion is definitely a factor. Women have been told for centuries to not acknowledge their sexuality. The practice of female circumcision is horrible and an attempt to remove women from their own sexuality.
I think we will see more women take ownership of their sexuality and be more willing to feel good about their decisions regarding zoo, Like always the change starts with the younger ones, like I see happening now. The pushback will be men who feel threatened by this change, losing control as it were.

 

[Katelyn]

I'm not going to go deep into this topic due to being raised in a Catholic household but one of the reasons I even got into dog sex was rebellion AGAINST my religious parents.

 

[ILoveZooGirlsXXX]

I'm not going to go deep into this topic due to being raised in a Catholic household but one of the reasons I even got into dog sex was rebellion AGAINST my religious parents.

While rebellion may have been the catalyst, since you stayed I assume you had some feelings for dogs before that.
You seem to be comfortable with your decisions now, and can live the way you wish without feeling guilt or remorse.

As a parent myself, I find it hard to understand other parents demands that the kids follow some plan they have for them. They're individuals, not clones. I allowed my kids to make most of the decisions in their lives, and respected their views. The decisions they make and the consequences from that are things they have to live with, I'm just a guide to help them along the journey.

 

[HugDoggy]

But they were important enough to give you a death sentence. Look up the first case in the USA, the punishment has been based on the Bible, Leviticus 20:15.

Yep which of course if you follow that verse, it means you must break Number 5 of the Commandments "Thou shalt not kill"
as both the human and the animal are to be put to death.

"If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed."
How is it a minor misunderstanding? How could it ever have a completely different meaning?

Um, it couldn't be a minor misunderstanding you are correct. But what I was getting at is how do we know for sure that anything that was actually written in version 1.0 of the bible has the same meaning today as it did then given the number of times it has been rewritten over the years. In this particular case I admit it is unlikely the meaning would have changed greatly from the original and admit I did not search for the precise wording used in Leviticus before commenting. It all comes down to a matter of faith that the book has remained pure every time it was translated or revised.
Language does change over time though Take the french euphemism for an orgasm La Petite Mort refers to the little death but no one actually dies or even becomes sick.

I totally agree about one thing: many Christians completely ignore or are not aware of those verses. And many others.

Yes, in my case I was well aware of the Bible stating animal sexual contact was very bad and you should not do it, but I chose to ignore it and as such have not visited that part of the scripture in a very long time because it didn't fit with my out look on what god was to me. Perhaps that makes me no better than those that only preach fire and brimstone as they clearly ignore the parts they don't like in the Bible too. However the spreading of love is better in my opinion than the spreading of hate, so if I am wrong in this respect I don't want to be right.

 

[JazzyJerk]

Fuck religion. That is all.