Jump to content
Zoo Community Forum & Zoo Writers’ Guild

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Suppress Sexual Urges?

    Damn... I wouldn't describe these feelings as frustrating though, just demeaning and guilt ridden
  3. Today
  4. While I was browsing youtube, I found this video, made by the Y-collective and Manuel Möglich, the creator of the "Wild Germany" series of documentaries that deals with taboo topics and people living on the edge of society. Once again, the "zoophile" is probably a member of ZETA....funny though that I was struggling with myself a couple of years ago to contact Manuel Möglich when the Wild Germany series aired... Here´s the link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLy3KEzN9Ao I will provide a translation for the non-German speakers as soon as I find the time to do so, hopefully within the next 48 hours. Just one tiny "preview" of the quality of Mr Mask Man´s statements: In the video, he says he became aware of his "zoophilia" when he was taking riding lessons. He says he had brushed a mare, his schooling horse, down in front of the box when the mare suddenly "fell in love with him, taking the first step herself"...what, as he says, resulted in this mare voluntarily walking backwards into her box, shoving her ass into his face...as a riding professional, I can tell this is such a blatant lie, horses NEVER walk backwards voluntarily, not even when they´re in heat. Especially telling is that he, our Mr Mask Man, seems to have magically teleported into the mare´s box...so, once again, this guy´s fantasy (I bet he can´t even sit correctly on any horse) is presented as fact. Edit: Neither the Shortlink nor the full link seem to work, so I´m afraid you have to search youtube yourselves. Use the search terms Y-Kollektiv and Zoophilie and you´ll find the vid. When I provide the translation, I´ll try again to include a properly working link here...
  5. Going to post a story I guess.

     

    Not sure which yet.

  6. Suppress Sexual Urges?

    I'd probably get so pent up, I'd shoot up a school or something. (READ: I WOULD NOT DO THAT, it was to emphasize frustration.)
  7. Shrek porn xD

    I agree, although it looks weirder to me in retrospect...
  8. Shrek porn xD

    They call it: 'Backing dat ass up', I believe.
  9. https://www.zoox18.com

    I just created an account and started adding friends, wasn't hard. I guess I should have mentioned the chicken content. It's easily avoided.
  10. Ruffy (pre-2001 to 2017)

    The picture was taken in 2014-15. Ruffy, or Ruff was my first dog, and interestingly enough... the first time I committed a Zoo act (masturbation). It was before I even knew what sex was, so I won't count it as a relationship; He wasn't that kind of dog in manner or behavior. We got him from a co-worker of my father's in 2001 (he was a young adult at the time), she had found him wandering on a busy street. No collar, unneutered and covered in ticks. My dad took him home and we had him up until this year, when he couldn't function without help any longer (He was incredibly old for a mid-sized dog.) He was went (euthanized) quietly, and I'll always cherish the years I had him. He was happy, and I'm happy to have contributed to giving him a great life.
  11. Yesterday
  12. "Is acceptance possible?" thread

    OK, it'll piss folks off, but I'm temporarily locking this thread while (and until I have time to) I review multiple comments for violations of a certain rule. I'm sorry, but this may take a day or so to do. I have other responsibilities that take precedence over this forum, and this thread has generated several complaints. A quick review seems to show justification for them. The topic will be unlocked after review. sw
  13. Fly control for pastures by Steve Mihok

    I use avispray with pyrethrins kills the buggers dead one spray and they all disapear
  14. "Is acceptance possible?" thread

    @Vermillion I feel sorry that you've never been able to feel love; it really is a beautiful feeling, your missing out on OK before I continue I will say that I am a zoophile/zoosexual, I love animals and also have sexual attractions to them.. As for the "morality" of "zoos" I have to say this; it's gonna stir up the pot; maybe even piss certain people off; but it needs to be said though; here we go.. The idea that people who have sex with animals without romantic attachment are somehow a lesser person; or morally wrong is a flawed way of thinking; let me ask these questions.. Do these "beasties" cause harm to an animal buy not falling in romantic love with them?? Why are people comparing human views of relationships to animals?? Does the animal care about monagomus relationships or have a human way of thinking about relationships?? Do animals relate sexual feelings to love???? Have you not ever had sex for the fun of it without any attachments??? How can we expect to gain acceptance if we can't even accept the other majority of us that has sex with animals? A majority which isn't really much different from us... Another question; does a "beastie" having consenual sex cause harm to an animal??? In order for something to be "morally wrong" shouldn't it entitle being harmful?? Implying human idealism on an animal is the whole issue here; they are not human; You really think that lack of romantic feelings would stop an animal from Mating and enjoy the experience?? Now don't get me wrong I believe animals do love; but they do not love in the same way we do.. and they do not relate sex with love; or have a monagomus way of loving.. Yes your animal may show romantic love towards you but do you think they would stay faithful if the neighbors horse/dog went into heat down the road??? No because animals act out of instinct and opportunistict behaviors; a trait which was lost in humans along the way; and if someone does posses these traits and has sex without a connection it's considered "morally wrong" no it's flawed morality; it's ego at its finest; it's somehow I'm better than you even though our sexuality is the same..
  15. "Is acceptance possible?" thread

    OK, first off all. I'm not a beastie. In fact, I'm not active at all. Secondly, I have no interesst in discussing further with you. Your attitude simply sucks. Go preaching your stuff, I and propably many others, really don't care anymore... I'm just going to ignore you for now on.
  16. "Is acceptance possible?" thread

    Isn´t it marvelous how all you super duper extra "tolerant" folks in reality want to shape reality (including my replies) into a user friendly cloud castle....if all of you are sooo super interested in discussing zoophilia and everything involved, how it comes you bail out just because someone isn´t using that twitteresque slogan spouting? Is reading a larger text such a nuisance? To people who already sit in front of their computer all day? Really? I WISH I had that vast archive of text you guys have today when I was realising my orientation in the 80´s....I won´t change my writing style...and if my texts are "too long and inconvenient" for you to read, you really should ask yourself whether you REALLY are interested in discussing a COMPLEX topic that cannot be summarised in a few sentences. ON that "oh so mean comments" issue: As I said , you don´t seem to fully understand how the internet works. It is NATURAL that those who are the most uncivilised will always be the loudest. Whoever assumes that people don´t act differently in the internet than they would in the real world should consider a long time going offline and reconnecting with the real world out there, you know, that world that doesn´t have commentary sections...*sigh* Anonymity is a huge factor in those comment sections are a huge factor...and say, haven´t you heard about trolling? Regarding the husband-hetero predator issue, haven´t you read what I wrote? No, it´s not solely about quantity, it´s about intent and attitude. And if you don´t believe me, just go ask a faithful husband whether he identifies with the selfish bloke frantically trying to hook up with his "prey" every weekend in bars and discotheques... Your entire point you´re trying to make here is flawed, this never was about heterosexuality, "zoosexuality" or any other word that only describes the preferred sex act. Rapists are also heterosexual (and every other -sexual), you know..."it´s more a matter of being a good or bad person"...Bingo! That´s where MORALS and ETHICS come in.YOu know these morals and ethics you´ve tried to dismiss earlier...and exactly that is why bestiality and zoophilia are different. "I don´t believe in love..." Oooh, you poor guy. You´re missing out on the greatest feeling you can ever have. Isn´t it a sad life when all sex is just sex? No other meaning than any other body function? Intercourse basically being the same as taking a dump....it´s so sad to hear you´re emotionally disabled, man. Well, following your perspective here, I assume that masturbation is the same as having intercourse, right? I mean, it´s both just friction and relief of sexual tension....but why is everybody chasing the more "uncomfortable" option then, the option that demands interpersonal communication? Why is everybody preferring real sex over spanking the monkey then? Honestly, you´re like an amputee who says "arms are just a construct of society" right now. Because you can´t feel anything more than attraction, then love is not existent, did I get this right? The consumeristic approach...it´s there , so let´s consume...funny how you are blind for the fact that your attitude also is no more than a social construct, a different one to the predominant, but still nothing more than a construct. You don´t have to teach me on the etymologic origins of the z-word here, I learned ancient Greek in school and know that philia doesn´t translate to "has sex/wants sex". And when did "sexualist" (what´s that, btw???) John Money live? To my knowledge, the origins of the z-word can be traced back to Richard von Krafft-Ebing, a German-Austrian psychologist living at the end of the 19th century. HIs definition does not match exactly our definition of the z-word today, but to my knowledge, he was the first one to use the z-word in a scientific publication. No, it isn´t just a matter of what you´re sticking your dick into. And calling oneself a friend of animals is derogatory now? In which world? Should I tell you what I think of your perspective? You are just infuriated that the "cool kids", the ones with the fancy z-word don´t let you enter their club. And when "zoophile" really is a derogatory term, then why is everyone, even the worst animal fucker, so enthusiastic about misusing that derogatory z-word to define himself then? Why is the only term the beasties have come up with also using the "zoo-" prefix then? Say, could it have something to do with having a massive inferiority complex? "Zoosexuality" is a relatively new word and its creation to me is nothing more than "You say I am not a zoo? I´ll make my own z-word then....with black jack and hookers!" Zoophiles are the only ones to reject a part of their own subgroup? Are you fucking kidding me? Talk to a few death metal fanatics and ask them what they think of a Metallica fan. Ask a few anarchistic communists what they think of state communism like the Soviet Union had. Ask ANY subgroup of people and I´m pretty sure you won´t have to dig long to find out what they reject in their own subgroup. Ask Hip Hoppers what they think of trap. Coming to your "...but in the end, it doesn´t matter because it hasn´t changed public perception" bit...man, are you really that delusional? I just wrote in my previous post that it actually DID matter, at least in my case...and in some other cases involving my friends, too. That´s basically like saying "stealing an apple is theft, robbing a bank is theft also, so it doesn´t matter"...it DOES matter how much you stretch society´s tolerance! Funny that you accuse zoophiles of anthropomorpising their animals, ´cause I do that also. Many are just fooling themselves about being someone who "really understands his animal" despite all evidence saying otherwise...and some are even so blinded, they actually think that fucking an animal magically grants them speaking and understanding animal language. So, no objection here, except your bland generalisation. On the "mare urine" issue: if you need devices, incentives or other means of coercion, then it is, as you wrote , MANIPULATION of the animal. So it is absolutely right to say this only has very little to do with consent. YOu are also very wrong on your statement that horses perceive their world through their nostrils, they are more "eye creatures" than "nose creatures"...also, are you aware than in a natural herd, one stallion keeps his harem and fends off any "contender", even his own colts when they reach sexual maturity? Sure, not monogamy per se (greek: monos = single , hae gamé = wife), but a mare only has one sex parter (monoandry, freom the greek monos and Hó ándros = man, husband) . For a mare, monogamy (as this word is commonly used for a realtionship exclusively between two individuals regardless of the sexes involved) is in fact the natural relationship. A mare won´t be covered by multiple stallions, so your statement is pratially right, but more wrong than right anyway. "If I want to debate love, then I´ll go to a philosophical forum"...you really think there are distinctive and fixed separations? Isn´t that a bit childish, especially when you take into account how massively we zoos depend on the emotional side of our sexuality as a means to define us? If you go to zoo forums, you basically are entering philosophical forums and complain about "all this philosophy " around you. You´re jumping into water and complain about getting wet. There surely is no philosophy behind sticking your dick in an animal, but for us zoophiles, our orientation IS more than just that, it IS a matter of philosophical discoure. ON your last two paragraphs: No, the fencehoppers and animal porn enthusiasts make way more headlines than those few animal sex advocates. To my knowledge, that Pinyan guy never was a "zoo advocate" and Spink only turned into a public mouthpiece for "zoophilia" when his sorry ass got dragged in front of a court...at least 90% of all headlines involving bestiality cases are about fencehoppers and caught animal porn producers. The ban is predominantly meant as a deterrence , the scene of "amateur animal prostitution" indeed has grown, there´s a vast industry that exploits the animals to make money with their porn now, it is organised and it is rather infantile to assume that zoophilia, among all other legal and illegal sexualities, is the only one to not have people who sell their animals to any customer if he can pay the price. In fact, it´s mostly the oh so superior bestialists who seem not to be able to do their "thing" without others "helping them fuck their animals"...contrary to your views, the meetup sections are filled up to the brim with people offering and/or searching for "fuckable animals", what gives a rather reliant insight on the true nature of all those "zoophiles" out there. Finally, if what you wrote here is actually what you really think, just let me tell you that I as a zoophile, we zoophiles can actually see what you bestialists are about,´cause we zoos are also attracted to animals in a sexual way...but what you are blind for, what you beasties can´t see is what we zoos see in our animal parters/companions. In this case, we zoos see more than you beasties. Just think about that for a while before you compare us zoos to beasties again.
  17. "Is acceptance possible?" thread

    Like other already commented: You should compress your statements in less words. Nobody likes to read textwalls in a forum, really. I don't talk about fencehopping reports, or reports about zoo brothels or something. I talk about reports where zoophilia is mentioned in the most basic way, like: "There are people who loving and having sex with animals." Comment: Kill them, kill them all......!!! Here's "Zoo", the documentary. Enjoy the comments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE5xqhjDtIM This one is really great: it's about this forum and it's subreddit ban thread: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/r-zoophilia.33072/page-5 Yeah, the walls have ears. To what will the caring husband hefty disagree? My statement is, that the predator is exactly as heterosexual as the caring husband. The husband would never disagree the other one beeing "more" heterosexual. It's simply not a matter of quantities. The difference here is, that my example is based on mainstream sexuality, where noone would care for something like the "true way of beeing heterosexual". You can be a frigid monk, a wild nymphomaniac, a monogamic husband or whatever and that's what the society judges, based on ethics and zeitgeist. It's more a matter of beeing a good or bad person (or something in the middle). But that's not the case with zoophilia who knows only right or bad. I don't believe in "love" either, not to animals, not to humans. Maybe I'm a sociopath who isn't capable of love, but I think the philosophical term "love" is just a cultural construct of recent western civilisation, in reality nothing more than intense sympathy. I don't need to be in love with someone to find her attractive. But that doesn't mean my sexuality is inferiour to someone who is in deep love. Those are two very different things and I think, the search for the illusion of perfect love and the stress it brings is one of our main problems and the reason why so many marriages fail. just hundred years ago the people had nearly always arranged marriages and the human species didn't died out... The philia in zoophilia doesn't mean love, by the way (sexual love is eros). It means platonic friendship or attraction. So it's a bad term anyway, invented by sexualist John Money to find a more neutral name for sexual perversion. It should be called zoosexual, but it isn't because the term sexual is only used for sexualities not deemed pathological by the psychatrists (based on the zeitgeist). So zoophiles using a degrading term anyway. Bestiality is exactly the same, based on the real meaning, how John Money defined it. If you're getting horny by sticking your cock inside an animal, you're zoophile. See, nothing has meaning, all is a matter of perspective and totally relative. And of all subcultures who base their group identity on their sexuality, zoophiles are to only one who reject a part of their community, that isn't in absolute love to their partners. I understand the reason in context of the overlaying pressure of society and the basic consense problem of zoophilia. But at the end, it simply doesn't matter, because that didn't change the public perception either. I believe that this behaviour is mainly a type of self-deception of many zoophiles, like " Yeah, I having sex with animals, but at least I love them and I'm not beeing one of those damn beasties who give us a bad name.", driven by the social mainstream. And very often it goes into quasi-religous debates. Sometimes I don't know if those self proclaimed super zoophiles really understand their animals? They tend to highly anthropomorphise them. In another forum I read a topic of, how to get a stallion to mount someone. One stated, she should use urine of a mare in heat. Another one got angry and stated that would be betraying the horse, the stallion should mount her all by himself or it wouln't be true consent. Horse's sexual perception is based on olfaction. That would be like forbid a woman wearing lingerie or a perfume to not manipulate the natural attraction of the partner. Also monogamy isn't a part of neither horse, nor dog behaviour. So it makes only sense on a human perspective. And this is how half of the topics usually go... and why I don't post in most zooforums. If I want to have a debate about the meaning of love all the time, I go into a philosophical forum. By the way. I'm on your side, when it comes to the low profile matter. But it's often not the fencejumpers and beasties who are responsible for media attention, but the self-proclaimed civil right movement leaders, who want to lobby for zoophilia. The politicians claim, that the ban is because of the allegedly growing animal prostitution in the internet, but I don't belive that. I think they really want to draw a line to prevent the zoophiles in getting a foot into the door through all that gender diversity movement stuff at the moment. I've never saw the supposed large portions of organised animal sharing in forums. And the dark net presence of bestiality is totaly overrated.
  18. "Is acceptance possible?" thread

    Do you really think that comments under articles about fencehoppers and youtube videos will be balanced, well thought through and rational? You don´t seem to know the internet, mate...;) The one point these replies yelling for castration, gas chambers etc. is actually illustrating is that emotions will always outweigh reason and zoophilia/bestiality indeed has a traumatising potential for a certain percentage of folks. People aren´t robots , they´re irrational and emotional beings, egocentrical beings, greedy beings that don´t give a fuck for others as long as their needs are met...that´s why no one is going vegan, that´s why people buy cheap shit that has been manufactured under inhumane circumstances. That´s why people still buy a new smartphone each time a new one is released although they all know how many victims the coltane mining in Africa is producing. Of course it´s bigoted, but humans are that way...and nothing will change that. Regarding your bold statement that there´s no difference between a hetero predator visiting a brothel 5 times a day and a loving and caring husband, I guess the latter one will heftily disagree. We´re not only judged by what we do, we´re also judged by what we DON´T do. YOu actually can do "the same thing" yet you´re not the same...if I fill up my car with gas, no one will bat an eye...but if I would fill you up with gas so I can set you on fire, I have basically done the same thing, haven´t I? You miss out on motivation/intent and a couple of other meta issues here...the guy fucking his way through the brothel is solely interested in himself while the caring and loving husband (if he is a genuine one and not one of those many who cheat secretly) has actually invested something in his relationship, he is committed to it and not egotistically "consuming" sexuality. There IS a difference between zoophilia and bestiality, you can "commit" bestiality without even the slightest concern for the animal you´re having sex with, but that is pretty hard to do if you are a genuine zoo and emotionally "invested"/"committed". Yes, this is a question of morality, but morality is one huge element of being human. Don´t you understand that tolerance is dependent on relatability? The more you are off the "normal" folks with your personal morals, the tiniier the chance of actual support will get. Talk to "normals" and ask them whether they are less terrified with a guy like me who will never ever touch another person´s animal "that way"...or someone who obviously gives a flying fuck, does every animal just for his sexual gratification and knows no limits, neither in numbers nor in practices. WHo will be less of a potential danger to your animal standing in your garden/at your pasture? That´s like showing some outsider the worst gay darkroom orgy and acting surprised when this outsider quickly turns into an utterly disgusted person. You have to understand that it´s not your lax morals it depends on, but the morals of the "normals"....and I´ve been told by many people that "if you would be one of those sexual pervos who fuck anything that walks, in any situation and without any care for the animal, I´d call the police immediately"...I´m not bullshitting you on this. Those outsiders I met were all okay with me because they have seen their own morals in me...and most of them don´t consider fucking without having actual feelings for your partner as legit or morally tolerable, despite of the crap the "sex lib" folks never stop to spout. Your "you won´t be able to erase those people in the contact sections" almost made me laugh...hell, why IS there a "contact section"? Don´t erase the poster, erase the possibility to post, erase the animal sex supermarket blackboard. It´s like saying "we can´t erase murderers, so we don´t give a fuck about them and let them do their thing"... you´re wrong about that "sacred sexuality" thing too, man. In zoophilia, ANIMALS are involved and thus, there are certain ethical norms and rules. When these rules are violated, we have to protect these norms. It´s not about feeling superior to anyone, it´s about ethical standards and NOT treating animals like live sex toys. It´s like saying the loving and caring husband wants to protect his "sacred sexuality" when he tries to distance himself from an egotistical asshat roaming through the pubs and brothels for a quick and easy fuck. It´s about a certain form of respect for our partners...that most often is missing in those beasties entirely. "Why should society accept zoophiles when zoophiles don´t accept beasties?" Well, because society accepts loving and caring husbands and rejects brothel customers. Because society accepts eating meals in healthy portions, but rejects obese folks who oder the entire McD menu card twice. Because society accepts the occasional weed smoker, but rejects the 24/7 permanent stoner. Because society accepts drinking one or two beers, but rejects binge drinking. Because society accepts moderacy, but rejects excessiveness. I lived for more than 22 years with my mare in a public boarding stable, with lots of other folks around. And one key point why I never had to face any consequences for my zoophilia although I practically was doing it right in front of those outsiders´ eyes was because I kept it moderate and people saw how my mare benefitted from the relationship with me. I still remember a Dutch girl´s mother approaching me while I was brushing down my mare outside, asking me frankly " Is she the love of your life?" I was so surprised that I accidentally told the truth and said yes...she just nodded and from that point, she was on my side. Can you imagine what would have happened with a reply like that of a BF user named Welshpony who said that , although he apparently has his own horse, he will "travel Europe for any good fuck"? Do you really think this does not make a certain difference in a normal person´s perception? If you apply for a job, will it be more likely that you´re hired when you show the best possible picture of you, with clean clothes, sober and focused? Or do you think another applicant with shit stains on his trousers, half of his breakfast clinging inside his unshaved beard, stinking like an entire armada of skunks and drunk as fuck has the same chances? And by the way, let me just play the devil´s advocate here and perpetuate your way of reasoning: Why should society accept zoophiles and bestialists if zoophiles and bestialists don´t accept animal sadists? Why should society accept zoophiles and bestialists when zoos and beasties don´t accept paedophiles and necrophiles? See? It´s kinda a reverse Pandora´s box argument you´re making here...just because I am a zoophiles, that does in no way mean that I have to accept every other twisted bullshit. And by the way, much of that conflict between zoos and besties is owed to the fact that everyone portrays himself with the z-word regardless of what he is actually doing with and feeling for his animals. In all these years I am active in the online community now, I only came across maybe 3 - 5 people who frankly said they consider themselves bestialists...one of those would be a BF user, a girl named Silkythighs.....and you know what? She is shitting on everyone who claims to be in real love with an animal, she even told us zoos we should go and see a shrink because "you cannot love an animal". This is not about feeling superior to the beasties, this is about what is in our hearts, not the itching in our crotches....
  19. Last week
  20. Start a pro-zoo blog?

    Caikgoch, I´ve been telling all those "zoo advocates" that it´s not "zoo rights" they´re "fighting for", but privileges...from the latin "privis lege" what translates to "personal law". Fine that you get this right, but for each one realising that, there are dozens or even hundereds of morons who still fool themselves with this stupid sloganesque "zoo rights". Regarding your demands, you already have that absolute right to pursue your life in any way you want...nothing to fight for here. The actual dissent is the part with the "...as long as I neither harm nor endanger anyone." You (and many other zoos) tend to define harm and danger completely different than those lawmakers. If there is a way to find another, less draconian way to deal with the phenomenon of zoophilia/bestiality, then it´s via scientific studies that redefine what harms and/or endangers an animal...and I´m not talking about compendia of anecdotal and unverified "experiences" like those from Miletski and Beetz, but real verifiable data. Consent isn´t a red herring, it is a key element to tolerance for zoophilia. Well, I know what you´re trying to say, but the old "you cannot rape animals because they would attack you if you rape them" is so immensely flawed...if we transfer this attitude towards humans, we´d get "it´s only rape if the victim is physically defending itself". This would leave out the power imbalance that exists in almost all human-animal relationships entirely...I´ve seen way too many apathetic animals who just let the "zoo" have his way with them..not exactly what you could call "mutual love", eh? I also don´t know how a self proclaimed zoophile can actually see his animals as property ´cause they aren´t. Legally, they are indeed classified as quasi-property, but if they would actually be considered as property, why are there animal welfare laws then, but no silicone dick replica laws that regulate what you can and cannot do with your wobble wangs? Could it be that you´re missing out on a major and essential point here? You´re massively oversimplifying here...it is absolutely just to regulate property issues with property laws, but animals are more than property, they live and feel...and that´s exactly why your battle plan , as elaborate and cunning you like to see it, fails even before it is brought up. Animal ownership indeed falls under property laws, but their lives and their wellbeing does not... "The legal, moral and logical way is to punish the harm strongly when it occurs and ignore the rest" Sooo...and how does an abused animal call the police? How can an animal get away from its owner if this owner is actually harming it if the owner pays extra attention to hide his animal from the eyes of others? Isn´t that an issue for you or do you dismiss these cases as "collateral damage" and the animals have to stand back in favour of "zoo rights"/ your pursuit of happiness? I really wonder because that u/fuzzyfurry / Axyz guy or whatever he calls himself at the moment actually said that to me when we were discussing this issue. Your stud is not solely your business, it´s your government´s business as well if you are treating him bad...and that isn´t such a clear and infallible "No" as you like to portray it. How do you know you´re not influencing your animal in a bad way with your conduct? You have nothing more than your own view to back you up, not one study and the vast majority of scientists says the exact opposite. Plus, it´s that exact argument all those paedophiles usually pull out "...but,but the kid likes it! And don´t tell me otherwise!" Without any regulation and everyone being his own "government" that has the say, life would quickly devolve into utter chaos. I still stand by my point, we need zoophilia to be regulated by a neutral institution, turning the fox into the hen house keeper (and that is exactly what you propose here) has already proven to be completely wrong and impractical...it´s like giving the heroin junkie the keys to the opioid vault. Without an authority that can intervene whenever it is necessary to do so in order to protect animals from harm, we will never gain enough traction in society, we will never gain any trust from Joe Average. If there´s just one animal that suffers from "zoophilia", it is legal, moral and logic to keep it banned...
  21. Start a pro-zoo blog?

    I don't disagree with you, but you're referring to a Right I already enjoy. No-one in fact does prevent me in any way, shape or form from making love to my "property" in the privacy of our own home/ barn/ farm etc. Were I trying to do so with anothers' property or on anothers' property or on shared property without permission of the other party, I would indeed be causing harm and should be made to pay. Nor is anyone discriminating against me for being "Zoo" because it's no ones business if I am or not. I fail yet to see the need or appeal in being "Openly" anything, especially "Openly Zoophilic". Nothing would change in a positive way by my being so in my opinion. Perhaps if I were also Gay I'd understand it differently, but I don't run through the streets yelling "I'm Hetero!" either, so why do so shouting "I'm Zoo" ? sw
  22. Start a pro-zoo blog?

    I've answered but it's an unpopular answer. Simply put, there is no such thing as "Zoo Rights", or "Gay Rights", or "Black Rights", or any other kind of right given to a group, race, religion or whatever. No person or government can give a right or take it away. If they could grant or revoke it, it would be a privilege. What the Constitution of the US has recognized and the Supreme Court of the US has reinforced is that there are Human Rights. Period. Lawrence v Texas simply said that being gay wasn't a sufficient reason to deny anyone a human right that they already had. And right there is where we are being screwed. I don't have (or want) an inalienable right to fuck my horse or any other animal. What I do have is an absolute right to pursue my life in any direction that I choose as long as I neither harm nor endanger any one. And that is all that I want. That's why consent is a red herring. My conduct with my property is measured against the standard of unnecessary pain and nothing else. If my horse isn't suffering from sex (a rather unlikely scenario for a stud), it's no one's business but mine. And no one has any business restraining me from an act that may or may not cause a future harm. The legal, moral, and logical way is to punish the harm strongly when it occurs and ignore the rest.
  23. "Is acceptance possible?" thread

    Right very valid point; you don't see us judging animals for being lustful..
  24. "Is acceptance possible?" thread

    Yeah. Also it's a very anthrocentric point of view. I mean, technically every donkey jack, who's simple goal in life is to mount any jeanny who crosses his territory, would qualify for beeing a "beastie". Well, let's hope donkeys never learn how to use Tinder.
  25. "Is acceptance possible?" thread

    Exactly; you hit the head of the nail there; alot of zoophile's are under the delusion that they are perfect and "true" zoos; when in all reality anyone that has had sex with an animal has Atleast done it for fun or lust at one point in there life; they can deny that simple fact but everyone possesses the ability to lust; in fact that is the beginning of love, you can't fall in love without lust at first..
  26. "Is acceptance possible?" thread

    I don't think so. For most people, this is primary a matter of morality. Look at the comment sections of bestiality topics in main stream media sites. People asking for death penalty and castration, exactly like for pedophilia topics. Would they really care about animals at the same emotional base, the whole nation would turn vegetarian. You underastimate the power of ethical tabus. People die because of different ethics and believes. it's all the same. Caring about animals is in most cases just a lip service. People care for their personal moral save space. By the way. I don't say that's generally a bad thing. We all need a common ethical ground to live in a diverse society. The borders simply have to be somewhere. I don't believe a society without a common ground will survive on the long run and will turn into bloodshed sooner or later. By the way (to get a bit of coal into the fire), there is no difference between bestiality and zoophilia, as there is no sexual difference between a heterosexual predator, having sex with 5 prostitutes a day and a loving heterosexual husband who would never betray his wife. You may judge the predator moraly, but he's still heterosexual and I found the exclusive strategy of the zoophile internet scene always to be quite bigot and pathetic. As if there would be the chance of moral acceptance, if they exclude people who are having sex just for fun. The majority simply doesn't care if there is a difference, neither will you ever be able to erase people in the contact sections asking for a dog to fuck. Those people are part of any space with the slightest sexual topic. In most cases they deserve a ban for bad online behaviour, but only the zoophile scene labels those guys with a special term to protect their sacred sexual identity. So, why should society accept zoophiles, if zoophiles can't even accept "beasties"? That's the power of moral believes. They are as strong as religions.
  27. "Is acceptance possible?" thread

    "These laws...". Yeah, because everything has only one sole purpose and has to be seen in exactly this way...*sigh* Can´t you understand that you´re more wrong than right with your bold statement that "it all revolves around morality"? For SOME people, banning bestiality acts (not zoophilia!) actually is a question of morality, but for MANY others, it´s more about animal wellbeing and protection from unhinged sex drive of some "zoos". I´d appreciate it if you´d find a way out of your SJW bubble and treat issues not like they are isolated from reality for once... "Laws which ban..." Sorry, but ridiculous and also self victimisation...not a single zoo gets punished by the mere existence of a law. It takes stupidity to get drawn in front of a court to actually be punished...and the data is backing me up on this...or can you mention even ONE incident where a "zoo" has been punished who wasn´t at least partially to blame by uploading porn, handing out personal data, participating in "zoo sex rings", etc...to my knowledge, those among us who abstain from stupidity and stick to just living their lives with their animal partners while keeping their mouths shut never have faced any punishment. You always leave out this tiny, but very important detail...cognitive dissonance or just evil intent from an "activist" who wants to shape the entire world after his own needs so he can switch off his brain completely? "Acceptance by public..." Yeah, and acceptance by the public in the case of speeding would mean that no one who´s driving a car has to think about other cars, pedestrians and cyclists anymore...wouldn´t that be wonderful if you just can drive by a kindergarten with 110 mph? Oooh, that would be tha bomb! Who cares for the ones run over by me? Life is good when it entirely revolves around my needs. Speeding limits are fascism! Let´s all fight these laws only protecting the fake ass "morality" of "My freedom ends where the freedom of others starts"... Joke aside, you sport such a onesided and self absorbed perspective it actually makes me cringe. With no words you address possible victims if "that unjust law" gets repealed...who´s gonna protect the animals from the "zoos" , then? Or are the animals nothing more than an *accessoire* for you? Animals who suffer from a "zoo relationship" aren´t folklore from the antis, they are real. Their suffering is real. You don´t have to physically hurt an animal to make it suffer and the "harm principle" only seems to apply to you when visual physical injuries are involved. This stupid "No blood, no rape, no harm" attitude is counterproductive and only aggravates the notion of us zoos as mindless, egotistic perverts whose sexual gratification is the first and foremost concern. What we really need is a neutral corrective and regulations that would exclude ANY harm, physical AND psychological harm. Just repealing the "anti zoo" laws would hand out wildcards to almost anyone out there to participate in the "animal fuck circus", regardless of what this person is, knows and intents. If there is a chance to "sell" zoophilia to Joe Average, then it surely won´t be achieved by demands of total and unregulated "zoo freedom"...simply because "zoo freedom" would quickly devolve into "bestialist freedom", the freedom for anyone to fuck any animal. And Joe Average doesn´t like the idea of his animals being "loved" by some random self proclaimed "zoo" just because Joe likes to keep his animal outside. Joe also doesn´t like to empower a community that mainly seems to be after unlimited animal porn, frequently shows its idea of "love" via "I really wanna fuck an animal, who lets me fuck his?" requests and generally seem much more interested in their own sexual gratification , they even cheer to blatantly abusive animal porn videos. Not to mention the unsolved issues of consent and power imbalance in "zoo" relations...and the fact that this stupid "zoo freedom" attitude not only got us nowhere in the past 2 decades, but actually has played a large role in the current wave of "zoophilia bans". This whole debate ires and infuriates me for so long now that I´m really considering a Vlog to share my views on this whole crap. Maybe such people like you will get it when I can explain it better and don´t have these limitations that usually come from being forced to type. But somehow I have the notion that all explaining won´t be able to rip blockheads like you out of their SJW filter bubble...if you accidentally come across a video with a guy explaining zoophilia and why zoo isn´t the next gay to you in a horse mask, chances are high it´s me.
  28. Knowing when they are coming into heat

    I've never paid attention to it; now that you mentioned it I will the next time I'm around a female I'm heat.. with my girls I've owned in the past I could always tell they were close to heat by a change in their behavior..
  1. Load more activity
×