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

YouTubing zoophile-haters

@Tailo Thank you, and I also want to point out cultural inbreeding as being a problem.

If you look at HIV statistics, the cities in the USA (I don't know about Europe) that are surrounded by the most hostile anti-gay cultures tend to have the highest HIV statistics, and I think that what is going on is that gay people's separation from the rest of society has led to them developing a sort of cultural founders' effect, where they internalize toxic norms due to a lack of adequate feedback between themselves and the rest of society, with some exceptions like Las Vegas and Miami, which both have decadent cultures among all walks of life and not just gay people.

A cycle is created, in Southern US cities, where gay people do not want to open up to straight people (including family members), yet as a consequence, they internalize in-group norms that make it all the harder for them to fit in with straight people, which just entrenches the sense of separation.

In the case of zoos, I would point out the fence-hopping culture. While fence-hoppers and "owner-hoppers" might not be completely without any justification at all in saying, "it's not like it is right to keep them as slaves, they have their own minds," the problem with that reasoning is that, in almost every part of the world, we are living in a culture where people feel very strongly about what they perceive as their property, and whether any zoo likes it or not, that includes their animals. If the fence-hopper were to at least talk to a non-zoo furry that is not prone to hysterics (the ones that are, well, that is what a sawed-off shotgun is for), then eventually, the zoo in question would realize that, while it is often somewhat reasonable to get at least some furries to accept "My dog is my husband/wife," it is a little bit harder to get them to accept "I sucked my neighbor's dog" on top of that, upon which a furry will eventually tell them, "pull that on my dog, and I will literally, not even slightly exaggerating, blast your head off, get your own dog." It is a lot easier for the zoo in question to let go of behavioral norms than a deeply ingrained sexuality, so eventually, what is going to give way is behavioral norms.

This effect is not just restricted to gay people and zoos, either. In fact, studies have been done in the USA on segregation in cities, and the more segregated cities, in the USA, tend to have some of the worst problems with crime. What happens is a cultural contagion effect. Because African-Americans tend to be poorer--which any of us that should not be hauled onto a barge, chained together, and dumped into the Atlantic Basin are trying to fix--more of them are likely to resort to desperate behaviors. Without any more privileged comrades to refer to, their peers can develop a notion that it is normal behavior when really there is no reason why it ought to be regarded as such. The bad behaviors ultimately spread like the Bubonic Plague in the more segregated cities. In cities where there is less segregation, African-Americans (including poor ones) internalize behavioral norms that are more compatible with the rest of their culture, and rates of all possible types of crimes tend to be a lot lower.

Right there, we have the examples of LGBT and African-Americans as two different examples of how cultural inbreeding can be harmful to a minority group's chances of ever being accepted by the rest of society.

Now, what the Apostles of Cowardice want us to believe is that us zoos are so deeply unique and special that the same principles could never ever apply to us, even though the LGBT and the African-Americans are as different from each other, in terms of the nature of their differences, as humanly possible and yet still are affected by the same principles. The level of denial is on the level of outright delirium, and the rest of us ought to start harshly mocking the Apostles of Cowardice.

If you are a zoo, you ought to at least find an open-minded non-zooey furry that you can talk to. Even if you are highly intelligent and unlikely to do anything super stupid, it will help because the more ideas you can import from the rest of society and transmit to other zoos, the more you can hedge against cultural inbreeding. That includes people like you, @Tailo. The cultural inbreeding is a huge part of our problems.
 
I think that this story supports the point @SigmatoZeta was making. If zoos act secretive like psychopaths who mutilate and kill animals, it's easy for people to confuse them. It's easy to confuse gay people with child abusers if you know hardly anything about them except that they hide in the same dark corners.

Well, I think it's easier to compare people doing horrible things to animal genitalia with people who have sex with animals, than to compare people having sex with same gendered people with people who are attracted to children.

But I agree, this confusion is a sad reality and can cause horrible problems for people being found out. But I don't think that a crusade against "normies" might be the best course of action. The zoo community really doesn't need people to become martyrs for their agenda, most people would brush those up anyways.

Even though, I don't want to derail this thread (which was about haters on youtube) any further, I have to say that I think zoos should work together closer with scientific fields that may provide further ground for a more healthy conversation about animal sexuality.

One of the points would be to agree, that animals aren't mindless automatons, but do have conscious needs and wants. That wouldn't necessarily mean they could consent in any human capacity to actions, but it still would mean, that they have a clear concept of what they like and don't like and what they accept and don't accept.

A further point would be to point out, that animals not only have recreational non-procreational sex at times, they also masturbate and can actually enjoy sexual stimulation, be it from themself or from outside sources.
4663df0e7a5dc6167dd4fe988c44a180.jpg

It would also help to know all the common arguments against zoophilia to know how to counter them in public debates. It kind of surprises me, that wikipedia seems to actually have more pro- than contra-arguments listed on this subject, which is an interesting read for anyone who might want to debate people in public on the subject of zoophilia.

And some contra-arguments came right out of a religious "intelligent design" field, which can be discarded safely. The thought that human dignity would be undermined by sex with other species is laughable at best, even more so, when science indicates to us, that this might have actually created the modern human: "Furthermore, it is argued that hybridization was an essential driving force in the emergence of modern humans." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding_between_archaic_and_modern_humans

Debates based on facts might help, but still, only in environments, where people might listen to them. I still would strongly advice against trying to become a martyr in less tolerant societies. Public opinion is unlikely to change by some random coming-outs, but might be more likely to change if the outcome of a specific activity can be viewed and proven as positive or at least as not-negative.

Speak up against fence hopping then. Trespassing is wrong.

I do speak up against it as often as it is appropriate and yes it's a preventable crime and therefore bad, especially if it paints the community into a bad light, because of generalization.

I agree that this situation would be a bad time to start informing people about zoosexuality.

To be honest, there never seems to be a good time for it, I give you that. But I think the way we inform people about us needs training in media competency. It's like with the furries. They learned the lesson to not publicly speak on their behalf before thinking about the consequences of their statements being presented out of context. Zoos need to learn this lesson as well and act accordingly. To return to my previous example: Just calling into a call-in-show with a host who is clearly disapproving on the subject of zoosexuality is a fight against windmills. It won't change society and might just result in personal repercussions for the caller. There are more safe and clever ways to open a public dialogue.

The thing is, I don't disagree with the need of good representation and public discourse, I just disagree with the way people recklessly endanger their own safety and ruin their lifes by giving trolls on the web absolute power over them. Once they licked blood, they won't stop until their target is destroyed. Don't empower them by sharing stuff publicly that should remain private.

But I think you are again supporting @SigmatoZeta's point here. If decent zooey people are invisible, the trespassers getting caught on other people's property will be how people see zoos.

I think people will see zoos however they want anyway. There is a story floating around in my family, based on the story of some colleague of a relative of mine. Said colleague once encountered a woman in a park, in the bushes, skirt up, panties down around her ankles, and a dog all over her. That story usually triggers laughter (but not from me) and usually results in snarky but still demeaning remarks. I don't know how any of you would respond to that, but I usually deal with it this way: I think to myself that if the story was even true, that woman should have done this at home rather than in a public place. And I think about, how otherwise entirely "normal" people sometimes have sex in public for the thrill of getting caught. So when I am asked why I didn't laugh or what my view on this topic is, I say: "Well, that was quite stupid of her..." then I make a small pause for dramatic effect and then I add "...to do it somewhere where she could get caught in the act." Usually that's enough. People already accepted my disapproval and don't sweat the details. Usually. I've been asked one time what getting caught had anything to do with the despicable act. To which I returned the question what he meant. The relative started to talk about animal abuse and I stopped him right there. The dog was ON HER. Not the other way around. Clearly nobody abused the dog. The dog was on her because he wanted to be there. Nobody has forced him. And clearly she wanted him to be there as well, otherwise she wouldn't have kneeled before him with her panties down. No abuse there. So I don't care. Thats what I basically responded. And the topic ended there, kinda shifting into the realms of if she did it because the dog wanted it, she should just have visited the vet to get him fixed, to which I said nothing. I don't agree with amputations without valid medical reasoning behind it and clearly wanted to avoid that topic at all costs. So it ended there.

I think that was the best course of action I took there. I disagreed with the notion that the dog was abused and other than that, I wasn't interested in what the dog or the woman were doing there. I wouldn't have been interested in any other sexual scenario either, so why should I drag it on as if I had a strange obsession with animal sex? Even if I have. There is no need to tell anyone straight to their face. Especially conservative minded relatives. I also don't feel the need to fling my fetishes into anybodies face, unless it's a person I feel might share it with me. I think instead of exposing oneself it just helps to counter bad arguments by observational facts or challenging questions, like how can the dog in this scenario possibly been abused (apart from being a slave to his own hormones and lust)? People claiming he was should be able to answer this. If they can't, then they might start to overthink their position. I think that's the best effect one can strive for.

People just looking for a fuck in the zoo community are a reality just like heterosexuals and homosexuals looking for quick fucks. That's what the business model of many companies offering "dating" apps and websites is based on today. I think we should acknowledge that truth. By the way, I suspect that my dog would have liked casual sex, too. He wasn't shy to check whether bitches he just met would be receptive. He also tried with a few humans.

Sure. I just brought it up, because a common zoo argument is "But I LOVE my dog" or "I have a LOVING relationship with my animal, it's not just about sex!" or "People who just have sex with animals are bestialists, not true zoos." And this is just quite plain wrong and if I, as a zoo, can see this, then so can non-zoo-people. To them it feels like "love" is just a dummy argument, a shield, something people say just to appeal to non-zoos, but something that might very well be untrue. That's why I brought it up. If we want honest conversations with non-zoos, we should drop the act pretending it's all about love, when in reality lust is a big factor with just a little bit of affection sprinkled in here and there.

Everybody is free to speak up against casual sex, if he's inclined to do so. It's no reason for zoos to hide, though.

Oh, I'm absolutely NOT against casual sex. I'm just against the pretense that it plays just a minor role in the whole topic of zoophilia when in fact the opposite is quite true.

I don't think that someone else using similar arguments for something else we may not agree with invalidates the arguments per se.

Maybe not, but using arguments that can easily be disproven just hurt any cause they were supposed to serve.
 
Never really thought of outsiders looking in here and actively trying to ruin us. That's enough to make me consider removing my account.
 
@CritterFunatic

We do not discriminate against bestiality, here, but we regard it as non-trivially different from zoo.

There are practitioners of bestiality that would be offended if you suggested that they were in love with their animals, frankly because it is not true. To them, their dog or their horse is still just a pet to them, but they feel that animal sex can "spice up" their sex lives.

If the animal is not being hurt, I don't care, but it's not that I think that a practitioner of bestiality is inferior to me, as a zoo. They are just not the same thing, and they will never be the same thing. I have a problem with us being conflated simply because it is false.

Someone conflating us together is simply showing they know nothing about either of us. It is a very simple distinction.

@JasonP88

This is not a private forum. Everyone can see what you do here, including your mother, your boss, and everyone you know. All they have to do is search for information on either zoo or bestiality, and they will eventually find themselves right here, reading everything that you type as you post it.

You are accountable for what you post on here. There is not really a magic force-field around this site that only lets people through if they fuck their pets. This is not a "secret place" where you can "share your naughtiest taboos and secrets." It is a publicly viewable forum.
 
Well yes, obviously it's a public forum, (thought maybe it would be better if you at least had to be a member to view posts). I guess I just never considered that people would go out of their way to search it out and try to personally attack members.
 
@CritterFunatic

We do not discriminate against bestiality, here, but we regard it as non-trivially different from zoo.

There are practitioners of bestiality that would be offended if you suggested that they were in love with their animals, frankly because it is not true. To them, their dog or their horse is still just a pet to them, but they feel that animal sex can "spice up" their sex lives.

If the animal is not being hurt, I don't care, but it's not that I think that a practitioner of bestiality is inferior to me, as a zoo. They are just not the same thing, and they will never be the same thing. I have a problem with us being conflated simply because it is false.

Someone conflating us together is simply showing they know nothing about either of us. It is a very simple distinction.

True. But that's exactly the problem when it comes to the outside world. They don't know anything about us apart from the sex with animals part, so it's easy for them to conflate everything together. And it doesn't help if people want to spice things up with providing their own definitions of "zoophiles" and "bestialists", rejecting the already established ones, as it was discussed here: https://www.zooville.org/threads/difference-between-zoophilist-and-beastality.4221/

As long as individual members of the community think they can redefine words, we will always have the mess about being conflated together with similar but different groups.

Well yes, obviously it's a public forum, (thought maybe it would be better if you at least had to be a member to view posts). I guess I just never considered that people would go out of their way to search it out and try to personally attack members.

Usually people wouldn't go through so much trouble unless they want to troll a place or hunt a specific individual. Sadly stuff like that happens from time to time, so it's generally a safe thing to keep private information to yourself and only to share necessary details. If nobody could identify you from the stuff you post, you won't have anything to worry about. Except for your IP address, that's why some people use VPNs to connect to sites like these. Still, that's a danger that would lurk anywhere, not just here. Apart from that you should be safe as long as you keep your identity to yourself.
 
True. But that's exactly the problem when it comes to the outside world. They don't know anything about us apart from the sex with animals part, so it's easy for them to conflate everything together. And it doesn't help if people want to spice things up with providing their own definitions of "zoophiles" and "bestialists", rejecting the already established ones, as it was discussed here: https://www.zooville.org/threads/difference-between-zoophilist-and-beastality.4221/

As long as individual members of the community think they can redefine words, we will always have the mess about being conflated together with similar but different groups.



Usually people wouldn't go through so much trouble unless they want to troll a place or hunt a specific individual. Sadly stuff like that happens from time to time, so it's generally a safe thing to keep private information to yourself and only to share necessary details. If nobody could identify you from the stuff you post, you won't have anything to worry about. Except for your IP address, that's why some people use VPNs to connect to sites like these. Still, that's a danger that would lurk anywhere, not just here. Apart from that you should be safe as long as you keep your identity to yourself.
I should probably look into a VPN. I'm careful not to share TOO much, and technically I'm not even partaking in the activity, but you can never be too careful.
 
I should probably look into a VPN. I'm careful not to share TOO much, and technically I'm not even partaking in the activity, but you can never be too careful.
Try just getting out in the world and meeting people face-to-face. Most people, once you start getting to know them in person, are actually pretty charming.

People that are mooching off the government or the charity of others and spend their time bullying people on the Internet are too sorry and worthless to get out of their hermit caves for any reason whatsoever.

The pity is if we took away their hermit caves, they might actually be dangerous. Keep them fat and entertained, and the world will be safer.
 
True. But that's exactly the problem when it comes to the outside world. They don't know anything about us apart from the sex with animals part, so it's easy for them to conflate everything together. And it doesn't help if people want to spice things up with providing their own definitions of "zoophiles" and "bestialists", rejecting the already established ones, as it was discussed here: https://www.zooville.org/threads/difference-between-zoophilist-and-beastality.4221/

As long as individual members of the community think they can redefine words, we will always have the mess about being conflated together with similar but different groups.
Before, you didn't like the fact that we made any distinction at all, but now, you don't like the fact that our understanding of that distinction is imperfect.

As a general rule, bestiality is considered to be a fetish, rather than a sexual orientation. It does not mean that people that practice it are bad or mean to their animals. They could be ordinary pet owners, and their sexual escapades with their animals probably leads to their animals getting more attention than they otherwise would. In principle, I am not against it. I just hope they bother reading the how-to sections. Bestiality works out great if the person practicing it is also otherwise a mature, responsible, educated adult. It can work out badly if the person practicing it is not really all that responsible.

I actually see zoos as having a lot more emotional volatility because the problem and also the wonderful thing about them is that these are people that fall in love with their animals. Love is a strong primal emotion. It causes people to do irrational things. It is not really a more complex emotion, but I can tell you precisely what chemicals in your brain actually do it, both of them related to nitrous oxide: they are vasopressin and oxytocin.

Vasopressin's role in love is not as widely known as that of oxytocin, but it plays a role in long-term bonding. There is actually a receptor for it that is related to expressing generosity. The entire theme of men showing they love the people they desire by giving them flowers, chocolates, jewelry, and whatever else they think of really comes down to one receptor. It is AVPR1a. However, vasopressin also plays a role in whether or not we form monogamous romantic partnerships. Monogamy has been observed in non-humans. It is not a tradition. It is not moral oppression. It is not the mighty and powerful Patriarchy. It is a set of alleles for certain genes that affect the proliferation of vasopressin receptors. That is all it is.


It was, however, originally studied in voles.


Just like humans, the voles are highly variable. Oxytocin also has its own various alleles, but I think that it's overrated and gets too much attention like the bratty know-it-all that sits in the front of the classroom but apparently cares more about impressing the teacher than bringing new ideas to the discussion.

When we talk about bestiality v. zoo, we are trying to talk about is the fact that not everybody that fucks their pets develops those strong primal bonds with their animals. If you do not, then it will not even make all that much sense to you that some people do. You might even think they are slightly crazy, and you would be right: love is crazy, and that is actually the thing that we like about it.

The point is, if a practitioner of bestiality is otherwise an educated middle-class individual that bothers reading the how-to sections on this site and knows how to check for signs that their animals might be sick, then they are substantially less of a menace to society than someone that plays a viola for their hobby. It is tilting at windmills. Again, the only thing it means to their animals is that their animals still have their owners paying attention to them as adults, so their animals will probably get fed and watered more consistently and spend more time sleeping in acceptable accommodations for an animal and get checked for parasites more often. They could have just started taking their dogs to dog shows, but they decided they wanted to fuck their pets. It's a weird hobby, but that's okay. I read ancient Greek, and nobody is paying me to do it. I therefore have no room to talk about other people's weirdness.

On the other hand, zoos are actually a more serious concern. If I heard that a 19 year old were in love with his pet dog, then that is actually a volatile situation if that person is at risk of getting separated from the dog. Separating that person from his dog could have serious negative repercussions on both man and beast. The problem is that they are engaging in behaviors that are not only associated with sex, but they are also engaging in behaviors that are associated with deep emotional bonding, read: monogamy. It is probably good for the animal under conditions that there is relatively minimal chance of them being separated, but dogs (and also humans) can also mourn themselves to death if they are separated from other animals that they have deep sentimental attachments to.


If you look over these symptoms,
  • Withdrawal from people and other pets.
  • A lack of appetite.
  • Lethargic behavior and sleeping more than usual.
  • Unusually aggressive or destructive behaviors.
  • Inappropriate elimination within the home.
  • Calling out or vocalizing in an unusual way for the dog who has passed away.
  • Searching for the companion dog within the home and other places frequented by the other dog.
  • Becoming very clingy to the owner and following the owner around.
then you can see how a subsequent owner can assume that the dog was being treated badly, based on those symptoms. Subsequent owners, if they hear that the last owner had sex with their animal, if they had made up their minds that they were going to stay ignorant about that topic regardless of what new information they heard that said otherwise, they might assume that the past owner was just acting with a sense of absolute heartlessness. They might even choose to deal with the destructive behaviors of the animal by having the animal "put to sleep." That happens a lot to zoo dogs.

It is more urgent to stop zoo dogs from being separated from their owners, but the reason why is not that zoos are necessarily better pet parents. Just like a husband that really loves his wife can still be a loser, a zoo can also be an imbecile. The reason why is that it is more destructive to the animal's welfare, even if you literally don't care at all that the owner might have emotional problems as well, to separate the animal from their owner. The level of attachment that zoos inadvertently breed, between themselves and their animals, are so intense that it can be very bad for the animal to separate them. Even without that separation, it also makes the animal possessive and probably uncooperative with other humans.

They constitute two slightly different sets of issues. In the case of someone that intends to practice bestiality, what is really urgent is to make sure they read the how-to sections to make sure their animals do not get injured. As long as they do, their animals are probably going to just get more attention and care than usual, and that's the only difference it will most likely make to the animal. The human is going to see it as recreational sex, and the animal will probably not view it differently. It is urgent to make sure the information is there for them to see. In the case of zoos, there is a very different set of issues that are, while different, equally urgent.

Treating them as if they were the same is just stupid and displays a level of unpardonable ignorance. It's just conflating two different subjects, and that is why both parties, zoos and practitioners of bestiality, get so up-in-arms over being conflated together.
 
Try just getting out in the world and meeting people face-to-face. Most people, once you start getting to know them in person, are actually pretty charming.

People that are mooching off the government or the charity of others and spend their time bullying people on the Internet are too sorry and worthless to get out of their hermit caves for any reason whatsoever.

The pity is if we took away their hermit caves, they might actually be dangerous. Keep them fat and entertained, and the world will be safer.
I have plenty of friends in real life. Anyone ever tell you that you come off as unnecessarily abrasive?
 
Usually people wouldn't go through so much trouble unless they want to troll a place or hunt a specific individual. Sadly stuff like that happens from time to time, so it's generally a safe thing to keep private information to yourself and only to share necessary details. If nobody could identify you from the stuff you post, you won't have anything to worry about. Except for your IP address, that's why some people use VPNs to connect to sites like these. Still, that's a danger that would lurk anywhere, not just here. Apart from that you should be safe as long as you keep your identity to yourself.

I've got to say that there is more that we can be identified by than by the private information we choose to post and our IP addresses. Nobody participating here should have the false illusion that they can not be found out. However, visiting this site and posting here is legal in most places in the world which reduces the motivation and maybe even the legitimacy of identifying users by a lot.
 
I have plenty of friends in real life. Anyone ever tell you that you come off as unnecessarily abrasive?
I will tone it down. There is some bullshit I frankly get tired of. People think so often that the only alternative to bad policy is no policy at all, but that is just more bad policy. They think it is some kind of panacea to hush up every zoo that ever talks about activism at all, but it's fucking retarded. The gay community did the same stupid shit between the late 1920's and the 1950's, and they dug themselves deeper. They just went from being under moral repression and occasionally getting arrested if they slept with the wrong nobleman's son to becoming victims of nearly constant vigilante violence. The "head in the sand" policy just took them from being scandalous a la Oscar Wilde's generation to being victims of a violent witch-hunt. Doing the same ignorant shit is going to get us the same ignorant result, so I really do think we ought to take a cudgel to those that pretend otherwise. It is frustrating to me, as someone that is conversant in human history, to keep running into barely literate wazzocks that assume I am whistling out my butthole. Damn right, I am going to get abusive with them because they are fucking obnoxious. I am mean to them because they are worthless punks that narcissistically treat anyone that disagrees with them like garbage and then act butthurt when they find out that good sauce for the goose is good sauce for the gander. I know my goddamn history, and I know what I am goddamn talking about. If I were just gleefully spouting nonsense, here, then I would not be so frustrated. When you invest your heart and your soul and your sanity in trying to understand something intuitively, it is all the more tiresome if someone with almost no education thinks they are going to come set you straight with the expectation that you are a halfway retarded teenager on drugs. If I didn't care, I wouldn't want to strangle them.

As for what I meant to say to you, I don't mean just having friends IRL, but I mean having ones you can talk to about you being zooey. What happens to gay men is that they end up living a double life, and they can have selective amnesia when in "cruising mode" or in "pretending to be straight mode." You have seen evidence of the cruising, occasionally, in men's bathrooms. They are not just talking shit. They use a bathroom stall like it's Craigslist to get hookups, but the same people you are thinking are barely educated dopes when you are taking a dump might, in their alternate existence, be highly educated doctors and lawyers. In their heads, they diverge into two different directions starting when they are very young. They may as well be two different people. It is a real thing. It is the reason why we are so hot to get people to come out. It improves the health of the whole community. It is not a "gay thing," though, but it is a "human thing." If you are human, you work the same way. A different parallel is how if you do a job where you use a certain tool all day long, you cannot remember how to even turn it on if you ever need the same tool for a home repair. You separate different parts of your life, not because you are crazy but to avoid going crazy. That separation has uses that are valid, but it can also work against you.

I was not accusing you of being a shut-in. I was genuinely cranky, but I was not intent on being rude to you. I am sorry to you if I made any other impression.

When you come out to a non-zoo, though, you open yourself up to importing ideas that you are more likely to transmit to other zoos. It is a monkey reflex that you would still have if you were literally a genius. When you come out, you put yourself under pressure to fit in with your non-zoo friends. Intelligence or education do not affect this truism about your humanity.
 
Last edited:
@CritterFunatic

And you, sir, just might be splitting, in the psychological sense. You are so focused on how problematic ill-thought-out attempts at outreach are, you seem to have come down with an illusion that sticking your head in the sand is fucking brilliant. It is one of the things that get me ticked off at the Apostles of Cowardice. They have seen bad ideas blow up in the faces of the zooey community, and they think that hushing everyone up is going to fix everything. The toxic assholes are going to just dig us fucking deeper.

Splitting is a commonplace defense mechanism for people that are stressed, but when a person that is also a toxic asshole is doing it, I want to maul him with a hatchet, which is why I come across as frustrated.

I don't think you are toxic enough to qualify as an Apostle of Cowardice, but I need to talk with you about how we can avoid "leaping out of the frying pan and into the fire." I ask for your patience with me as I attempt to explain how to break out of such black-and-white thinking and start thinking a little bit more rationally. You can almost always break yourself out of black-and-white thinking by creating a bulleted list with at least three points and several sub-points. It is very simple. It helps you think more clearly and with less of a sense of panic.

Let me break this down for you more comprehensibly:

  • Bad ideas
    • Trying to reason with bullies that really just need either a bloody nose or a stout baseball bat to their kneecaps
    • Silencing people that probably would have opened up to their siblings, moms, dads, best friends, or drinking buddies by virtue of never thinking of doing otherwise, thereby driving the community further underground than ever and making sure that people only ever hear about us when drugged-up lunatics and retards show up in the news
    • Attempting to "debate" with intellectually dwarfed wazzocks that are incapable of understanding the concept of mutually agreed-upon premises and whom you know engage in other such malfeasance like moving of goalposts and pretending to have selective amnesia, I mean fucker, if you already know they are dishonest pieces of worthless shit, why ever trust them to be honest or straightforward about this? Who is the bigger fool: the fool or the fool that argues with him?
    • Arguing with hysterical impulsive buffoons
    • Making unnecessary enemies by badgering and harassing them about petty political differences
    • Being deliberately abusive, territorial, and hostile toward teenagers that are going through a phase of life where they just think it would be cool to see a girl getting fucked by a dog and thereby leaving them with a permanent grudge toward the zooey community; the dipshits on BeastForum did that shit, and it didn't just piss off members of the zooey community: it pissed off a lot of curious young people that now, as adults, have an axe to grind
    • Cohabitating with people that you know are cop-bait pedophiles while amassing a large quantity of bestiality pornography and engaging in obvious pet-hoarding behavior, so when the fucker finally actually rapes a child, your face and that of a child-molester can appear on the same television screen
    • Doing nothing
  • Good ideas
    • Talking to a trusted friend that has known you and trusted you for years
    • Being open in a small furry chat room, with about 12 people present at any given time, especially one where there are a couple of other open zoos present and a moderator/wizard/owner that is clearly longtime friends with some of them and not likely to discriminate against you unless you are just a straight-up asshole
    • Becoming friends with a young person who is obviously gifted, coming out to that person, being a supportive and helpful entity in that person's existence, and supporting him by providing moral support and small inexpensive "think nothing of it" favors all the way through law school because, someday, you might actually need a defense attorney that owes you a few favors
    • Being an unabashed pervert to a group of stoners that you play guitar with, whom you know have large amounts of illicit drugs in their possession and, between them, three back yards infested with marijuana, salvia divornum, and magic mushrooms growing out of piles of manure, whom you already know are perfectly conscious of how large of a difference there is between something being illegal and something being immoral
    • Trying to improve your relationships with non-zoos you know by being more tolerant about their own individual differences, including differences in their politics, interests, and religious beliefs
    • Treating curious non-zooey young people that visit Zooville with a sense of warmth, understanding, and hospitality, based on the realization that it is normal and healthy for an open-minded teenager to jerk off to any kind of weird porn whatsoever that has a pretty-looking member of the female sex in it
    • Sticking your own goddamn neck out to stand up for others that are being bullied for different reasons
  • Ideas that we might differ in our opinions about
    • Creating a YouTube show and persevering through the inevitable thumb-trolling by people that have not even bothered to listen to it on the hope of eventually getting good enough at creating a really great show that the people that love it will outnumber the people that are only really there to troll
    • Attempting to educate would-be debaters on what arguments actually work
    • Having open-ended discussions among zoos about how we ought to define the words in our vocabularies
    • Being willing to participate in established talk shows run by open-minded non-zoos in the hope that they won't also bring on-board a hostile and vitriolic anti-zoo troll that is followed by an entire sub-subculture of fanatically worshipful toxic intestinal parasites that really are so useless to society that they think that an alcoholic shock jock is going to make an otherwise nerdy subculture come across as cool, and I think that trying another talk show interview someday still might be a good idea if the zoo that is doing it reads the fine print going in and knows that the terms of the interview might actually be fair and based on mutual trust
    • Attempting to get enough wealthy donors organized to pay the salary due to a nonprofit staff attorney, so zoos that have been accused of a crime will have an attorney they can call that does almost nothing in the world except defend zoos in court
Going from one bad idea to another bad idea is never really a good idea.
Shoot for the good ideas: accept no substitute.
 
Last edited:
What? He gets a post credit for that?

Can we switch to more weighted post-value system?

(... Yes, I understand I'll have to give most of mine back, too.) :)
 
Never really thought of outsiders looking in here and actively trying to ruin us. That's enough to make me consider removing my account.
Yeah, that's what was eating at me. It's why I removed profile information, went back and deleted some posts with TMI (made it easier to identify me, where I lived, my family), even took down my avatar. Believe it or not, the little cartoon avatar was "identifying."

Thought about deleting my account. But no. I think -- despite my grouchy mood sometimes, and drunk-posting now and then -- I *do* have something to contribute to the community. I do have some people I'm exchanging emails with, younger zoos, zoos just now old enough to join -- who have questions, who need someone to trust, and who need help seeing and stepping around the mines in the minefield.

I am older, stable, and most of the time, pretty calm and approachable. I represent just one of the "ways" humans are zoo, but I am "a" way. I offer something. I'm not looking to hook up. I have no ambition to exploit anyone. I don't want to see some newb's nudie photos; I'm not sending any. I only want to dialog, be part of the conversation, contribute from my "perspective," which is my own but is similar enough in some ways that this or that zoo will say, "You're like me. I feel better knowing that I'm not alone."

If I delete my profile... that little part of the community is gone. The little part that is "me."

I want to continue contributing the uniqueness of me to this place, a safe harbor for all of us on the "spectrum of zoo sexuality."

And you? You have that very same thing to contribute here as well -- the uniqueness of you, how *you* do zoo. (There's a frickin' Dr. Seuss poem in there, I just KNOW it ... but I can't let that distract me right now. Come back to that later. :) )

YOU are a valuable contribution, and we all appreciate (and personally know) the risk associated with that, appreciate that while wary of the risk, you're taking it.

Promise you this, if you'll promise it back: If I see something you post might come back at you, might give zoo-hunters a way to target you, I'll email you about the concern. You can take it for what it's worth. Just sort of a doublecheck. And... you'll do that for me, too?

It's not a total safeguard. And I wouldn't want it to seem too chicken-shit or Chicken Little, too alarmist. But just a friendly, "Hey. Was wondering. Does that post response you made make you unnecessarily vulnerable?

Just an idea, keep you in your comfort zone, risking no more than you find acceptable. Each of us draws the line at a different point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bad things. And that is a valid point. You see how long it took to get to our level of understanding and empathy for something we now consider quite normal. Sex with animals is something that will take a lot of time to get generally accepted as well, if it happens at all. The topic of sex with animals is still a way harder bit to swallow than the topic of sex between same gendered people.



Kinda. Of course the absence of acceptance feels the same for people whos lifestyle will be rejected. Still, there are reasons for some of those rejections and I for one can't close my eyes in front of them anymore, pretending that they don't exist because they might hurt "my cause". And I think those reasons need to be addressed before any kind of social movement could intend to ever take off.

One of the reasons is people fear the unknown, the incomprehensible and the uncomfortable. People with exotic fetishes or sexual orientations might trigger this fear. And sometimes even for good reason.

There was a person in my city more than a decade ago who apparently had fun torturing and mutilating genitals of horses. They would just enter fields and pastures in the evening and stab mares into the vagina or stab stallions into the testicles and the sheath. How they were able to do that without creating too much noise and getting caught nobody knew. Usually the animals were found dead the other morning. That raised a fear for many animal owners that their animal might be the next. So they invested into better surveillance equipment. I can't remember if they ever found that person or not. And it doesn't matter for this story, because another point becomes important: paranoia.

People were quite paranoid for a long while and when no more stabbings happened people became calmer again. Still, anyone found trespassing made it to the news, because they could be sadist or another one like them. And even to this day the paranoia is there.

One or two years ago an old man around his 70s made it into the papers. He was found in a stable fucking a horse. According to the news the mare was diagnosed with some nasty disease of her vagina and her uterus which was blamed on the old guy fucking the horse. I highly doubt that the infection had something to do with him fucking the animal, but still, people were outraged and quick to judge that the man was simply senile and needed to live under constant surveillance.

Now, as a layman, try to argue with the public that you think that the infection had nothing to do with him, if it was even real. Now try to argue that sex with animals is an unalienable human right and that the man did nothing wrong, even if he was trespassing. Try to argue that apart from the trespassing anything that happened was okay and no, you don't just say that because you are biased in any way, believing that sex with animals should be publicly recognized as something "normal".

Of course I feel with the man, but only because of his sexual interest in animals, not because of him trespassing.

And yet, people, even in this forum, ask what we all think about "fencehopping" as if anything good might result from that. The old man did just that, fencehopping, and by getting caught, again, made it way more difficult to argue in benefit of sexuality with animals.

As long as people see fencehopping as a trivial offense, nothing good will come from it. Exposure to a community supporting this line of thinking will destroy any endeavor to appeal to the society.

And that's just one point. How about another one? How about people looking for a quick fuck? Zoos are all about feelings and romantically inclined relationships, calling "bestiality" a term coined by the porn industry, while in reality people use communities as ours regularly just to get into contact with likeminded people to find a quick fuck, no emotions attached.

Last but not least I read the same argument about an unpopular paraphilia that is comparable with the fight of the LGBT community for their rights. He also challenged contemporary social norms arguing that ancient greece saw the whole situation differently than todays society and argued that this was proof of shifting morals and if they shift in one way, they might shift into the opposite direction as well. He was certain that exposure to his cause would work in his favor. So far it seems that some people here seem to think exactly the same about zoophilia. Now let's tell you what this was about: That one argument came from a pedophile at the inkbunny art gallery. He argued in absolutely the same way about his agenda. He was even that certain that his cause was just, that he changed his name into "pedophile" something something. I predict he won't stay long on that platform the way he cried for attention. Oh, he also said he didn't care anymore what others think, oddly enough he still loved to argue with critics of his view, coming up with many flawed arguments for his cause.

Then I see zoos arguing in absolutely the same way about zoophilia, but openly shunning pedophilia, thinking that this was even below them, although the pedophile from inkbunny made the same basic arguments about his paraphilia as the zoos do.

For me this was one of many eye opening moments showing me how easy it is to argue for a cause that you believe in as opposed to arguing in a way outsiders might actually understand. Even if stances like "I don't care anymore what others think" come into the mix.

This just shows people are stuck in a specific way to think, stubborn, unwilling to challenge their own views and coming up with valid reasons why their style of life is not harmful to the public. And then people are surprised if the public hunts them down, unable to understand where their opinions actually come from. I think the worst is comparing zoophilia with the LGBT community and their fights, as their struggles might seem familiar, but are entirely different ones.

Zoophilia came from an entirely different direction and zoophiles (me included) will have a very hard time to convince the public of anything when we are blind to the flaws in our own ranks we so easily just seem to overlook and accept.

I agree with you on many points you make, especially with us not associating with the LGBTQ+ crowd as they have their own clout of negativity associated with them, we also have a step above them when it comes to political affiliation as the LGBTQ+ movement has been historically consistently left, while zoophilia doesn't really have a political position. Yes, it stands to reason to think that it is a progressive and left one, but that's not how the public perceives it, and it should remain this way. But hear me out, your way of looking at the stuff with such pessimism is not contributing in any shape or form to our advancement. We should absolutely eliminate support for those who mistreat or use animals without their owner's permission. But at the end of the day we can't really police what individuals, unrelated or not, are up to. That's the law's job in my opinion. However It falls upon us to promote change in the legal definition of animal cruelty and prove zoophilia's legitimacy as a theoretical concept. The fact that there are some bad zoophiles is connected to the fact that there are bad people in general, of all walks of life.
 
Nothing new under the sun OP, haters gonna hate, welcome to the real world. This in time will get worse. I'd suggest stop seeing such videos unless you want to get seriously depressed. Just stay safe and keep up your anonymity routines in any forums or similar places of this nature
 
Back
Top