Jump to content
Zoo Community Forum & Zoo Writers’ Guild


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


egoldstein last won the day on December 14

egoldstein had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

37 Excellent

About egoldstein

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. Several of the zoonoses on the list shouldn't be there, IMO. While they are indeed zoonoses, only the first 3 are sexual, the rest are just typical zoonoses one can get from drinking improperly filtered water. I think the folks of Milwuakee WI, Flint MI, and many other places, would be surprised to discover that cryptosporidium was a disease assosciated with bestiality.
  2. Dreams of an Animal

    Yeah, for as much as the suck really, really sucks, it doesn't negate the, hopefully far more numerous, good and content times, at least not for me. Also, you're not alone.
  3. Social Anxiety and Zoophilia

    Sorry Cynolove. It's an interesting question. This is all anecdotal, but I've always felt an attraction/affinity for non-humans. Interestingly, after I came to terms with it, I talked about it with several members of my family, with whom I was close, and got varied results from them. My brother, always a pussy hound, had never even *considered* that such was possible, yet we were raised in the same environment (mostly, there's always some differences even with twins, which we are not). A discussion with one of my aunts yielded her talking about trying it a few times, mostly handjobs to the dog, but a few explorations further in too. She was OK with it, but greatly preferered other humans. I have an uncle who admitted some interest, but no admission of action; it's an open question still I suppose. Growing up I had no exposure to it that I am aware of, yet I can recall being around 7 and having sexual/love thoughts and feelings about animals. So it seems to me plausible that innate feelings could lead some of us toward a non-human as a partner, naturally. I mentioned briefly earlier my thoughts about a genetic link.; I want to be clear here that this is pure speculation. Among the many hereditary features of domestication, part of it is being able to mate in the presence of another species and to an extent, to consider that other species as a member of the species unit (herd/pack/flock/pod/etc). We don't often think of ourselves as being a domesticated species, but we exhibit a large number of features of domestication ourselves and I've speculated that perhaps in some of us, the varied ability to empathize with non-humans, to see them as potential members of our troop, and to see them as potential mates,, could possibly be a stronger than typical expression of it. Something to think about. Edit: On the flipside, I think I could argue that it could be, at least in part, a combination of memes and positive reinforcement from the pleasure of sex.
  4. Dreams of an Animal

    They're as common in my dreams as anything else, which seems logical considering they're an integral part of every day life for me.
  5. Social Anxiety and Zoophilia

    Quite the contrary, it's an example from my own life. I noticed a tiny bump in my first bitch and fretted about what to do, whether it was anything to really worry about, and how I could manage to get my vet to find it. It took a lot of time and repeated visits to get the vet to do a thorough examination to find it, but by then it was much worse. I find it interesting that your best defense of these laws is to point out that they're so easy for you to avoid, that you couldn't possibly ever get caught, or that the penalties for you aren't very severe. If you were to attempt to answer some of the questions posed, you would know that I addressed this specifically. I'll reitterate it again. I do not suppport your "free zoophilia" idea, never have and have pointed this out to you on several occasions. Had you read my earlier replies, you'd know that I even addressed the point about abuse. You have the annoying tendency to ignore everything said and instead just beatup a strawman you dragged in. Ok, since you appear to have difficulty with this, let me see if I can explain it in a manner which you can understand. If a law is created which focuses on a sexual action and is applied *no matter if there is harm or not*, then that law is about controlling sexual expression and not about animal welfare, since it doesn't matter if the animal is harmed or not. Maybe things work differently in Germany, but pretty much everywhere else this would be an extension of the old sodomy laws. In this case, why does sex even matter? You accept there's no harm from it, but yet you continue focusing on the sex instead of neglect and abuse. In this one example you destroy your own position. I think in such a case we should do exactly the same as in any other case, that it should be examined not from a sexual angle but from a neglect/abuse angle. What if in your example, the person doesn't ever have sex with the animal, is the neglect suddenly A-OK because at least they aren't fucking it? That's the whole point, your focus on sex narrows your view so that you don't even see any other abuse. Saying it does not make it true, I have yet to see any evidence that this is based on anything *BUT* your own ego. And in this entire thread, you're the only one who's even hinted at the idea of "free zoophilia", whatever that means. Here's a hint, when you resort to arguing against something nobody else in the conversation has even said, chances are you're fighting a strawman. If you go through this thread and see, you'll find that you've been asked several direct questions by myself and others. Why is it you've not attempted responding to those, but instead keep up with your strawman attacks? Is it because deep down you know your argument is flawed but your ego just can't accept it? Again, the only one constantly nagging about "zoo freedom" has been you. So you're saying it's A-OK for an action which you accept as non harmful to be illegal because some people who engage in that action commit some other, unrelated crime of abuse? Furthermore, you accept that abuse happens even when sex isn't involved, but that abuse doesn't matter because those people aren't engaging in the action you accept as non-harmful? All of this just to try and stop some people from engaging in an action which you accept as non-harmful. Did you even think about this before you started typing? Here's a clue, focus on harm and you get those comitting abuse while not harassing those not comitting abuse. Focusing on sex instead of abuse makes it clear that your issue isn't about abuse, you've already demonstrated you don't really care about abuse, but rather you're offended about the sex. Your last sentence here makes that 100% clear, you're railing against people who you think are "adventurous and irresponsible" who you think might "give zoophilia a try", no concern there about abuse whatsoever.
  6. Social Anxiety and Zoophilia

    If someone happens to trespass and observe you, you would stand to lose everything and spend several years in prison for doing something where there is no harm. If your mare had an accident which required immediate veterinary care, you risk being discovered and again, losing everything and your freedom for....wait for it....doing the right thing and putting your mare's health above all else. What happens when you discover a lump in your mare's vagina which if dealt with early wouldn't be a problem, but if left until a vet could readily find it would be catastrophic, how do you explain to the vet that it's there without again, risking everything? Why should society tolerate laws which are discriminatory and unjust? If the intent is to prevent harm, shouldn't the laws focus on actual harm? The priniples which have guided most modern governments state these types of laws shouldn't exist, but yet they persist. Worse still when these laws are pushed as animal welfare laws because in almost every case they don't improve animal welfare in the slightest, but only serve to resurrect old sodomy laws. You think I hadn't considered that? Again, that's evidence that it's more visible, but not evidence that it's on the rise. In 1953 there were absolutely zero "hookup posts" on bestiality sites, does that mean bestiality didn't exist before the internet? Don't mistake anecdote for evidence. To make an analogy, I hang out on some machinist forums. I see a lot of people looking for equipment so they too can start making things out of metal. Does that mean machining is on the rise, or that it might seem that way because of selection bias?
  7. Social Anxiety and Zoophilia

    I agree it's quite unfortunate, in most cases I think the laws have very little to do with animal welfare and more about trying to abuse anyone who differs from the norm and gets caught, but that's a whole other topic. No harm, no foul. I've heard (and even thought much the same myself, about myself), but it's as easy for me to be a "normal heterosexual male" as it is for a typical heterosexual male to be me. I experimented a lot when I was younger, I know women and men aren't for me; I know because I tried. I can make friends with people, I can care about people as I've got some good friends whom I cherish dearly, but I don't form romantic bonds with humans and never really have. I can and do with some non-humans I've spent a lot of time over the years thinking about why I am this way and I've not come up with a compelling answer yet. Dunno, the sexual dynamics of autistism could make for an interesting research project for someone. Weren't you just promoting a zoophile registry in another thread? Seems pretty far from abandoning the idea to me. Given the views and opinion you seem to have about zoos, I admit sometimes I worry that much of your "all zoos are abusers" could be projection, I sincerely hope it is not. My sample size isn't especially large, but of the dozen or zoos I've met, most have been good people who take at least as good care of their wards than I see among the pet owning "normal people" I know, typically the care is much greater. Are there some who are as you describe? Of course there are, same as there are abusive husbands or wives; that they exist doesn't mean they're the standard. Where's the evidence that it's becoming more popular? More visible, certainly as the internet has done for everything, but all that I've read suggests a slight decrease, primarily attributed to fewer people living in close proximity of domesticated animals. I don't think it comes as a surprise to any of us that in the percent of humans willling to have sex with a non-human, the majority will be motivated by their own desires. I suspect you'd find about the same ratio of self-interest among the general populace in their given sexualities. I'm dubious of free-will, so choice seems an awkward explanation. I think we get here from different influences and circumstances; I don't disregard a possible genetic link (it's long winded), but I'm open to the possibility. When behavior can be designed, shaped, and molded by external events, can the resulting actions really be called choice? I agree with you, the cause is far less mportant, but I admit I do wonder at times. I don't think I'll ever figure out why I am this way, but I do think it's important to examine my motivations and actions. I don't think you're weird, perhaps the socially awkward are more likely to interact on the internet than the socially adept causing an overrepresentation online? Very well said.
  8. Does anyone remember "asshairs"?

    And the non-human who are harmed by non-zoos *also CAN'T just walk the next local police station and demand protection from their abuser* The difference is that I'm not focusing on sex, I'm focusing on harm and abuse; you however, focus your entire idea on sex instead of harm. If you were pushing for actual animal protection I'd be in support, but you don't appear to care about anything except who's fucking who. And once again, you show an ability to disregard what was said and offer up your usual trawman argument. I'll reitterate it again, the bulk of the abuse to non-humans isn't from zoophiles, it's from the vast majority of non-zoophiles, but you don't seem to care about that abuse and seem to focus purely on zoophiles because you seem to think everyone is a horrible abuser (except of course you). Sure, just pass over all the direct questions and slide by without actually addressing any of the criticism. I'm not in the least surprised though, it's your modus operandi . Please cite for me where I'm promoting this "free zoophilia". You routinely use this defense even after having me explain to you on numerous occasions that I do not support such. As I asked earlier, exactly how are we to do this moderation? If we decide you are an abuser, how do we exclude you in such a manner that the general public will recognize? They will continue to see every abuse that has a sexual nature as being representitive of zoos as a whole. Well your idea was actually experimented with a few times in history, mostly when a socially reviled group gets singled out and abused by the government. I would expect a German to have a better understanding of how such things go wrong, but alas, the old saying about those who cannot remember history likely applies. WTF? Where have I ever said that? I have said many times I'm not interested in "zoo victory", my interest is in working for impartial laws based on limiting actual harm to human or non-human. That a person might have sex with a non-human is unimportant. That they love the non-human or merely lust for it is unimportant. It is harm that is important, whether it comes from sexual assault or non-sexual assault. As did I, I found the community just as the mess was starting to unfold. I had little personal dealings with it as I was still quite new then, but I did get hit with some of the fallout. Indeed. What's your usual comment about measuring the health and lifespan of the non-humans whom zoos maintain? I'm tempted to paraphrase, but my attempts repeatedly fall short.
  9. Does anyone remember "asshairs"?

    Ah the good old days and all the fun that entailed, that was such a shitstorm. Anytime someone suggests I'm just a bit too paranoid (I probably am), I think about those events. Are you promoting that ridicuouls zoophile registration idea again? How many times must it be pointed out to you that your idea is so fatally flawed as to be absurd? I do hope you are as I do enjoy dismantling the poor logic and resoning inherent in it. Correction, that's a flaw inherent in keeping domesticated animals. It's not an inherently sexual thing, unless you're actually suggesting that all sexual contact with non-human animals is the primary source for the vast majority of harm to non-humans. As with any group of people grouped purely by who they have sex with, there's *always* going to be some real unpleasant people in the overlap. Some people, surprise, suprise, get off on harm, be it to another human or a non-human, I don't think anyone is surprised by that, but I can't think of a single community I've been part of where that kind of thing would even be tolerated, much less accepted. Do places that tolerate that exist? Probably, but that's as relevant to zoophilia as rape, pedo, or snuff sites are to the average heterosexual male. Most rapes are comitted by heterosexual males, should we form a registry for heterosexual males? One is as absurd as the other, for exactly the same reason. Well that idea has been repeatedly shown to be a terrible idea, probably not the worst, but certainly nothing I would expect from anyone who'd given any thought to it would consider. It's nothing more than an attempt to harass people based on sexuality and nothing more. If it were about protecting non-human animals, you'd be pushing for better animal protection laws, perhaps pushing for routine chcks by vets for health and welfare issues so that abuse from whatever source could perhaps be addressed instead of dragging government into the lives and bedrooms of people. An invasion based, not on past abuse, not on the likelihood of future abuse, but purely on sexuality, because you apparently believe that all sexual contact with non-humans is inherrently harmful. I could respect that position, except that you don't seem to care about abuse from any other source, which unfortunately accounts to the vast majority of harm, because you want to focus on a teeny-tiny percent of the population who are very likely providing a much greater level of care to their wards than the general population does. Your usual description of what is tolerated or what you routinely suggest is normal is very far from what I've seen in the communities I have participated in, perhaps you assosciate with some less desireable people or maybe you are projecting your own thoughts, I do not know. Who, in their right mind would identify themselves to such a registry? What color should the patch be? I think Yellow and Pink are already taken. Really? I seem to recall you just posting that you want a registry of zoophiles. How exactly are we to separate ourselves from these abusive people? I've asked you this at least a dozen times, but you've never explained it. If a group of us decided that you were one of "them", how are we to exclude you? Who decides what's tolerated? How does one enforce this? Perhaps most importantly is explaining how a registry is going to validate it for the general population, they already think it's gross and abusive no matter the details, what makes you think they're going to see your group as A-OK good guys? No, what led to ASAIRS was Randy being an asshat and deciding to go on a rampage trying to out any zoo he could, regardless of his knowing anything about them other than that they identify as zoo. From what I observed of the events, he wasn't motivated by anything more than spite to get back at the entire community for being rejected. He tried to get the HSUS involved, but I think their interest only went so far as trying to use it to get donation money. I don't know how truthful his autobiography was, but it didn't paint a very pretty picture of the man. I sincerely hope he's overcome whatever issues he had, I hope him health and happiness, far, far away. It had a lot of influence on my extended hiatus.
  10. California legalized prostitution of minors

    You obviously don't watch Family Guy....
  11. Rodents ?

    Thanks for posting, some pretty interesting pictures.
  12. Hello!

    Hello and welcome.
  13. Daddy gets visitation rights!

    Adorable buggers, makes me miss having a bunch of pups around, but I just don't have the time for it right now.
  14. Look what the dog dragged in..

    Heya Ren, not seen you outside of the talkers in some time; glad to see you here.
  15. Penis size debate

    Personally, I'd like a smaller penis, but I would agree that there's some selection pressure for a large penis. Dawkins discusses possilbe selection pressures on human penis size, as well as the evolved lack of an os penis in humans, in "The Selfish Gene" (second edition preferred, as it contains more discussion on the topic) In a discussion about how the lack of an os penis (baculum/pizzle) could lead to the penis becoming a diagnostic of health in a male he states, "It is not implausible that, with natural selection refining their diagnostic skills, females could glean all sorts of clues about a male's health from the bearing of his penis."