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

Stop saying that sex with animals would be disgusting or bad (to fit in)

T

Tailo

Guest
I've seen a few users write that they say that sex with animals would be disgusting or bad when they are with their family or friends and the topic comes up. Stop it!
Stop lying. Stop supporting hate against us. Stop supporting hate against a part of your true self. Stop saddening and frightening those in your surrounding that may secretly have fantasies or relationships with animals.
 
nah, i'm gonna keep doing just that... i currently have 3 dogs and dread the thought of what might happen if i ever responded to any of my friends/family attempts at a zooey joke/conversation topic (they luckily don't come up often) with anything other than pretend shock/disgust.

i have literally nothing to gain while potentially risking everything if i stopped doing it.
 
i have literally nothing to gain while potentially risking everything if i stopped doing it.
Maybe not immediately and directly, but in the long run a more relaxed atmosphere in society concerning the topic may be beneficial for your mental health and the security of your dogs.

I also think that in case someone would find out about you for whatever reason, you would be in a better position if you had not agreed to anti-zoo sentiments before. For example, why should anyone trust you when you say that you love the dogs and that it was mutual, when you have just proven to be dishonest? Why should they not be disgusted by you, if you yourself have supported the idea that being shocked and disgusted is the appropriate reaction?

I don't mean to say that everyone ought to out themselves as zoo. Just don't fuel the opposition, please.
 
nah, i'm gonna keep doing just that... i currently have 3 dogs and dread the thought of what might happen if i ever responded to any of my friends/family attempts at a zooey joke/conversation topic (they luckily don't come up often) with anything other than pretend shock/disgust.

i have literally nothing to gain while potentially risking everything if i stopped doing it.
I have to agree with this.
 
In so doing, out yourself to family and friends. Certainly exposing yourself if you have any doggies or horses.
Tell ya what...you go first, give it just a little time and report back to us on how that's going for you.
I am in my mid to late thirties, have a dog and have never pretended to be disgusted or to be shocked by or to be against zoophilia. I've never had any problems due to that.

I'll just sit over here and hold onto my secret.
That's fine.
 
Luckily here it's too much of a taboo subject and most are too embarrassed to even bring it up. I've heard in other countries, it's brought up and joked about a lot. But if it does come up, I just play it off as I've heard of it, but didn't really think it was a thing. When I see people over react with disgust about zoo, I sometimes wonder what their hiding.
 
I am in my mid to late thirties, have a dog and have never pretended to be disgusted or to be shocked by or to be against zoophilia. I've never had any problems due to that.


That's fine.
My dear, keeping quiet in a discussion in a group is one thing. So, the group notices you haven't said anything and they turn to you for your heretofor unmentioned comments on the matter, and you say.........?
(Please know I'm not trying to give you hard time. I've just never seen this come up quite this way.)
 
Yeah, umm... I have let my mother know that I support zoophilic relationships when both parties appear to be consenting. That lead to a "...fun..." 1-2 hour drilling from her and my step father. They dismissed any arguments I had about the topic and would reply back with faulty anti-zoo rhetoric. Even though I said I wasn't a zoo to them, only that I had a friend who was, they questioned if I was actually a zoo myself for the next two years. She'd make jokes like "Have you found a girlfriend yet, preferably one that doesn't bark?" She had also questioned me several time afterwards if I had ever had sex with any animals. I told her no, but I could tell she had doubts about that.

My step father wanted very little to do with me for about a year until I learned how to "fix my moral compass."

Eventually they let the subject go, but all in all it was NOT WORTH IT. I would have been better off if I had just kept my mouth shut about the subject in the first place.
 
I've seen a few users write that they say that sex with animals would be disgusting or bad when they are with their family or friends and the topic comes up. Stop it!
Stop lying. Stop supporting hate against us. Stop supporting hate against a part of your true self. Stop saddening and frightening those in your surrounding that may secretly have fantasies or relationships with animals.
I'll keep a lid on my zoosexuality. I doubt my folks would do much if I was found out, but being in a small town of prudish old people can easily find it's way to the wrong person and my whole family can be taken in the blink of an eye. Too much to lose just to avoid pretending dry heaves for. Besides, who or what I'm in a relationship with isn't anyone's business, so a shrug or disapproving shake of my head will suffice when the topic comes up.
 
I don't wanna sound rude, but supporting it directly is like indirectly admitting that you are into it.
I usually answer with irony when the subject is brought into discussions (very rarely, I must say) but I'm not so stupid to support it so openly. It was already hard to convince my parents that I'm asexual (basically it's true... towards humans xD),so, by admitting that I have no problems with zoophiles would be a direct connection to my sexuality...
 
It's funny that most people seem to believe that you've either got to be disgusted or defend it to the death.
If someone makes some kind of comment, don't say anything, or roll your eyes. If they mention something to you directly, say something more truthful like, "Why are you talking about that?"
If they're asking you if you fuck dogs, you've already lost. It might be appropriate to respond with, "Whoa, where is that coming from?"

It's generally agreed that the topic is not brought up in polite society. You can agree with that sentiment instead of agreeing that zoophilia is gross and wrong.
 
Yeah, umm... I have let my mother know that I support zoophilic relationships when both parties appear to be consenting. That lead to a "...fun..." 1-2 hour drilling from her and my step father. They dismissed any arguments I had about the topic and would reply back with faulty anti-zoo rhetoric. Even though I said I wasn't a zoo to them, only that I had a friend who was, they questioned if I was actually a zoo myself for the next two years. She'd make jokes like "Have you found a girlfriend yet, preferably one that doesn't bark?" She had also questioned me several time afterwards if I had ever had sex with any animals. I told her no, but I could tell she had doubts about that.

My step father wanted very little to do with me for about a year until I learned how to "fix my moral compass."

Eventually they let the subject go, but all in all it was NOT WORTH IT. I would have been better off if I had just kept my mouth shut about the subject in the first place.
So sex with animals is disgusting, but eating'em is okay with them?
 
So sex with animals is disgusting, but eating'em is okay with them?
Yep, pretty much.

They used the same old arguments of:
1) Animals cannot consent.
2) Animals are not overly sexual creatures like humans.
3) They only have sex because of instincts, and humans that take advantage of these instincts are immoral.
4) Sex with dogs is physically harmful to them, just ask any veterinarian.
5) Sex with animals is always rape, no matter what.
6) Animals will always be mentally scared from sex is will become violent as a result.
7) You should always spay and neuter your animals because it's good for them, their health, and controlling the overwhelming pet population.
8) Teenagers can make themselves sexually attracted to anything, including a brick wall, if you tried hard enough. (That one was from my step father. *rolls eyes*)
9) Animals, such as dogs, have the max mental capacity of a 2 year old child.

I did what I thought was a pretty good job refuting these anti-zoo claims. Even my brother, who was present at the time, even said that their retorts to my retorts were more emotional than factual/logical. My brother is nowhere close to zoophilic either. I guess since I had an answer to all of these claims it looked very suspicious on my part. Even though I went with the "I'm a mega liberal" route. Basically stating that I will not judge anyone due to their race, religion, sexual identity, sexual orientation (including zoo), nor anyone else political affiliation. That wasn't convincing enough for them.
 
Whilst I don't act disgusted, I don't ever make any "anti-zoo" comments. If it ever comes up I just make a pretty neutral point.
It'd be hypocritical for me to be outright disgusted, but I don't want to publicly be pro-zoo to many people.

I figure the middle ground is best.

Exactly, I'm not a hypocritical, so I'm not going to start speaking against zoo, but I usually don't comment about it (against nor in favour), or if they do a zoo joke (which is very common here), I do as if I didn't listen to it or that I didn't get it.
 
This happens on occasion. Just a few weeks ago some WoW guild member said that his home city is so small that almost everybody knows each other, which turned out to be rather bad for some woman who filmed herself having sex with a dog, which leaked online. Usually I remain silent. If I need to say something, for example being asked about an opinion, I talk about specifics, like how filming oneself doing something society doesn't accept and then being careless with the video material is totally stupid. I miss the topic on purpose and comment on the unimportant, losely related specific instead.

If however I have to comment on the subject at hand, I do so, right to the point. I give those who want to know an abridged version of the facts as I see them:
"In this context, there are two types of people: Those who abuse animals and those who don't. I'm against the people who abuse animals and I always will be. I'm not against the latter. If anybody involved is wanting it and anybody involved is mature enough to know what they want and of sound mind, consenting to the action to take place, either by clear word or by participating and clear absence of refusal of the advances of the other party and nobody gets forced to anything and nobody gets hurt, then I don't object, no matter who or what is involved. If some involved party is coerced and forced to participate, might take physical or mental damage from it or is otherwise unwilling, then my tolerance ends. I despise people doing that (not only to animals, but in general) as much as the next person. But if that doesn't happen, who am I to judge?"

I usually end there, as I made clear that I'm totally against abuse. I know that outsiders can't or don't want to see the differences between an animal abuser and us, but to us the differences are clear. And that's why I make that my point. We don't want abuse. They don't want abuse. Nobody wants abuse. So we are on the same page. Of course, some people might want to argue, that all forms of sexual relationship with animals are abuse to them or something similar. To which I simply repeat, that if all parties are clearly willing and nobody can or will be hurt, that I won't object, as that would not be abuse. If they see it as abuse, then we have different definitions of abuse, but I already stated mine, so they have to come up with reasons why it would be abuse. So far nobody ever went that route before.

And even if that was supposed to happen, I can always play the breeding card. Some people might call it a "Whataboutism", but this can be deflected, because it's a related topic. Animals get forced to breed and nobody objects. Collecting semen and artificial insemination is okay, because it's for financial gain, but if somebody puts passion into similar activities, caring for the sexual wellbeing of the animal in the process, then suddenly it's bad? I then want to hear examples for why it is worse. If for example somebody who is jerking a stallion off is doing something worse to the stallion than somebody who is using the crumping method to collect semen from the stallion, I want to hear a reason for why this would be worse. It's basically the same action and it doesn't make any difference for the stallion. Just the motivation is different. So the true "bad" thing happens in the head. People are so indoctrinated that sex is something inherently abusive and bad that they can't accept that it can be something natural and harmless. They are used to turn a blind eye to activities they deem necessary, but are overly zealous in hunting down people who do pleasurable things for fun. And I make clear that I don't participate in the witch-hunt because I can differentiate between doing actual harm to an animal, which I despise, and just breaking a taboo, which I am indifferent to. And if I deem something bad, I'd have to deem any similar action bad, the cognitive dissonance based on the motivation of the person doing the deed is irrelevant. It's either harmful and therefore bad, or not. If someone decides to consider those actions harmful, then I encourage them to overthink their current livechoices, because they most likely then not have benefited from socially acceptable abuse for financial gain and if someone decides to consider it not harmful, then the actions of people enjoying doing it shouldn't be considered harmful either. Note, that I don't take any particular position here, I just try to establish a more consequential thoughtpattern. Or at least that's what I would do in this case.

Luckily this only ever happened on the web, I never had to get that deep into that topic iRL.

In RL the topic is usually over when I say, that I'm absolutely against abuse, no matter how it is called, while I'm indifferent to anything else, however it is called. People (at least the non-religious kind) are usually just interested in hearing, that you don't like abuse. If you agree to that, they usually won't go into any more detail. They might define abuse differently, but as long as they don't bring it up, you don't have to jump up to defend zoophilia with a flaming sword.
But if they bring it up, you have to always think about what's best for your pets and yourself as well as for your reputation. Don't try to defend a mental construct like the conception about what an animal-fucker is supposed to be agains an intolerant mob. You won't succeed and just put yourself in harms way. You don't have to play along either. Be indifferent. If someone makes a joke, you don't have to crack an even bigger one. You also don't have to remain silent either. React like you feel suits the situation best. If you didn't find the joke funny, a small courtesy laugh will do. Nobody blames you if the joke doesn't just straight hit your humor center.
It's only important to remember that there isn't just black and white. You don't have to publicly be pro or contra, you could always be indifferent instead. Not openly supporting a group doesn't mean you despise them. Sometimes you just have to get by somehow. And only, because you don't support a group in public, doesn't mean you hurt it or couldn't help it in different ways.

Don't beat yourself up to much about it.

Stay safe out there!
 
...I went with the "I'm a mega liberal" route.
Yeah, well, the entire conservative 'thing' is that they feel like liberalism is a slow slide to the worst of the worst. That's one of the reasons they're going gaga over all the child trafficking stories lately: they're pointing out to each-other how they were right, and we're reaching the liberal's logical conclusion.

So, like, it's not a super good defense if you're chatting with religious types.
 
Yeah, well, the entire conservative 'thing' is that they feel like liberalism is a slow slide to the worst of the worst. That's one of the reasons they're going gaga over all the child trafficking stories lately: they're pointing out to each-other how they were right, and we're reaching the liberal's logical conclusion.

So, like, it's not a super good defense if you're chatting with religious types.
While I do agree. My mother is an agnostic (atheistic leaning) individual. While my stepfather is an agnostic (religious leaning) individual. My mother is also pretty liberal like I am, but even the topic of zoophilia is too much for her to wrap her head around. My stepfather is pretty conservative though, however, primarily politically rather than socially.

In truth, I shouldn't have gone so balls to the wall in defending zoophilia to them, as conformation bias is a stubborn bitch to fight against. But I was young an naive at the time. I figured the notion of "acceptance for individual differences" would be enough......... umm, not quite! Lol
 
This happens on occasion. Just a few weeks ago some WoW guild member said that his home city is so small that almost everybody knows each other, which turned out to be rather bad for some woman who filmed herself having sex with a dog, which leaked online. Usually I remain silent. If I need to say something, for example being asked about an opinion, I talk about specifics, like how filming oneself doing something society doesn't accept and then being careless with the video material is totally stupid. I miss the topic on purpose and comment on the unimportant, losely related specific instead.

If however I have to comment on the subject at hand, I do so, right to the point. I give those who want to know an abridged version of the facts as I see them:
"In this context, there are two types of people: Those who abuse animals and those who don't. I'm against the people who abuse animals and I always will be. I'm not against the latter. If anybody involved is wanting it and anybody involved is mature enough to know what they want and of sound mind, consenting to the action to take place, either by clear word or by participating and clear absence of refusal of the advances of the other party and nobody gets forced to anything and nobody gets hurt, then I don't object, no matter who or what is involved. If some involved party is coerced and forced to participate, might take physical or mental damage from it or is otherwise unwilling, then my tolerance ends. I despise people doing that (not only to animals, but in general) as much as the next person. But if that doesn't happen, who am I to judge?"

I usually end there, as I made clear that I'm totally against abuse. I know that outsiders can't or don't want to see the differences between an animal abuser and us, but to us the differences are clear. And that's why I make that my point. We don't want abuse. They don't want abuse. Nobody wants abuse. So we are on the same page. Of course, some people might want to argue, that all forms of sexual relationship with animals are abuse to them or something similar. To which I simply repeat, that if all parties are clearly willing and nobody can or will be hurt, that I won't object, as that would not be abuse. If they see it as abuse, then we have different definitions of abuse, but I already stated mine, so they have to come up with reasons why it would be abuse. So far nobody ever went that route before.

And even if that was supposed to happen, I can always play the breeding card. Some people might call it a "Whataboutism", but this can be deflected, because it's a related topic. Animals get forced to breed and nobody objects. Collecting semen and artificial insemination is okay, because it's for financial gain, but if somebody puts passion into similar activities, caring for the sexual wellbeing of the animal in the process, then suddenly it's bad? I then want to hear examples for why it is worse. If for example somebody who is jerking a stallion off is doing something worse to the stallion than somebody who is using the crumping method to collect semen from the stallion, I want to hear a reason for why this would be worse. It's basically the same action and it doesn't make any difference for the stallion. Just the motivation is different. So the true "bad" thing happens in the head. People are so indoctrinated that sex is something inherently abusive and bad that they can't accept that it can be something natural and harmless. They are used to turn a blind eye to activities they deem necessary, but are overly zealous in hunting down people who do pleasurable things for fun. And I make clear that I don't participate in the witch-hunt because I can differentiate between doing actual harm to an animal, which I despise, and just breaking a taboo, which I am indifferent to. And if I deem something bad, I'd have to deem any similar action bad, the cognitive dissonance based on the motivation of the person doing the deed is irrelevant. It's either harmful and therefore bad, or not. If someone decides to consider those actions harmful, then I encourage them to overthink their current livechoices, because they most likely then not have benefited from socially acceptable abuse for financial gain and if someone decides to consider it not harmful, then the actions of people enjoying doing it shouldn't be considered harmful either. Note, that I don't take any particular position here, I just try to establish a more consequential thoughtpattern. Or at least that's what I would do in this case.

Luckily this only ever happened on the web, I never had to get that deep into that topic iRL.

In RL the topic is usually over when I say, that I'm absolutely against abuse, no matter how it is called, while I'm indifferent to anything else, however it is called. People (at least the non-religious kind) are usually just interested in hearing, that you don't like abuse. If you agree to that, they usually won't go into any more detail. They might define abuse differently, but as long as they don't bring it up, you don't have to jump up to defend zoophilia with a flaming sword.
But if they bring it up, you have to always think about what's best for your pets and yourself as well as for your reputation. Don't try to defend a mental construct like the conception about what an animal-fucker is supposed to be agains an intolerant mob. You won't succeed and just put yourself in harms way. You don't have to play along either. Be indifferent. If someone makes a joke, you don't have to crack an even bigger one. You also don't have to remain silent either. React like you feel suits the situation best. If you didn't find the joke funny, a small courtesy laugh will do. Nobody blames you if the joke doesn't just straight hit your humor center.
It's only important to remember that there isn't just black and white. You don't have to publicly be pro or contra, you could always be indifferent instead. Not openly supporting a group doesn't mean you despise them. Sometimes you just have to get by somehow. And only, because you don't support a group in public, doesn't mean you hurt it or couldn't help it in different ways.

Don't beat yourself up to much about it.

Stay safe out there!
Stop being so logical, God Dammit! Lol

Initially, I was going to skip reading this comment due to shier length and come back to it later. But I'm glad I took the handful of minutes to read it. You make a lot of good points. *round of applause!*
 
Stop being so logical, God Dammit! Lol

Sorry, can't help it. That's how I roll. ;)

Initially, I was going to skip reading this comment due to shier length and come back to it later. But I'm glad I took the handful of minutes to read it. You make a lot of good points. *round of applause!*

Thanks.

That said, of course people aren't all the same. People are subjective and individually different. The same arguments might not work for everyone, so every person has to know their limits, how much they would like to share with others. Better safe than sorry. Defending something unpopular can get one in hot waters. It's a risk nobody has to (or should) take, if they feel uncomfortable doing so. I just shared my own strategy, it might work in some situations, it won't work in others. That's why I feel it's important to mention that you shouldn't feel bad if you don't defend Zoophilia publicly. But you also don't need to join the witch-hunt to uphold the masquerade. That's the core of my point.
 
My dear, keeping quiet in a discussion in a group is one thing. So, the group notices you haven't said anything and they turn to you for your heretofor unmentioned comments on the matter, and you say.........?
I have actually never been asked about my opinion when I stayed quiet on the subject. But I like the replies other people such as @Schuppentier, @DogMichael and @CritterFunatic have given in this thread. Of course one should be authentic and not simply memorize someone else's reply that does not fit to one's own way of thinking, but maybe their experience and ideas to handle such situations can be an inspiration for other people anyway.

I have a few more ideas, but they are not tested in practice, and whether they apply depends on the context of course:
  • A generic reason not to be shocked like "I've heard/seen something like this so often over the years. It doesn't shock me anymore."
  • "There is worse." (Or in the UK ...) "At least it's not a dead pig's head."
  • "My dog tried to hump my leg a few times. I think he wouldn't mind." ... although this may be an invitation for further inquiry.
  • A change of perspective: "If I was a dog I'd also try to hump hot girls!" :)
 
I have actually never been asked about my opinion when I stayed quiet on the subject. But I like the replies other people such as @Schuppentier, @DogMichael and @CritterFunatic have given in this thread. Of course one should be authentic and not simply memorize someone else's reply that does not fit to one's own way of thinking, but maybe their experience and ideas to handle such situations can be an inspiration for other people anyway.

I have a few more ideas, but they are not tested in practice, and whether they apply depends on the context of course:
  • A generic reason not to be shocked like "I've heard/seen something like this so often over the years. It doesn't shock me anymore."
  • "There is worse." (Or in the UK ...) "At least it's not a dead pig's head."
  • "My dog tried to hump my leg a few times. I think he wouldn't mind." ... although this may be an invitation for further inquiry.
  • A change of perspective: "If I was a dog I'd also try to hump hot girls!" :)
I love all your answers! Thanks for your reply.
 
I don't feign disgust, but I do let the other person infer whatever they like from the awkward silence and incredulous stare I give them.
 
Back
Top