Jump to content
Zoo Community Forum & Zoo Writers’ Guild


Featured Author/ Artist
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Vermilion last won the day on January 7

Vermilion had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

72 Excellent

About Vermilion

  • Rank
    High Poster
  1. Count To One Million

  2. Forum suggestions

    I wouldn't turn the general topic forum into a subforum. General topic is in general somewhat of a main hub of a forum and the most active part of it. Also why's the general non-zoo topic a subforum of the zoophilia forum?
  3. Forum suggestions

    If you're going to the portal page, there are boxes at the right side ("Recent Status updates" is the upper most one). I don't know the Xenforo software, but it should be possible to insert a box with the latest polls. Nope, I used "the" forum, because I already suggested the creation of it in one of the previous lines. I'm just very pragmatic. I simply don't see a point in categories and subforums that don't get used. I would delete anything with zero posts and merge anything with single digit post counts into more general subforums. I'm a forum admin myself, and I know people tend to abandon forums because of suboptimised structures. They are spoiled by more modern and bland forms of social networking, Facebook, What's App n' stuff. The worst thing is, that they mostly don't even give feedback about the things that bugger them.
  4. Forum suggestions

    Am I the only one who thinks the forum is a bit too inflated, when it comes to its subforums? A lot of the categories seem unnecessary and should be merged together because a smaller, more compact and clear forum indicates more activity. In it's current state it's quite a mess to find interesting threads. The current organisation reflects more a 10000+ user forum. Here are a couple of suggestions: A "Polls" section makes no sense. Polls should be included in their thematic threads. Maybe a sidebox where the latest poll will be displayed would be a good idea. "New Laws" is unnecessary. Instead a single thread should work. "non original works and writings" should be moved into the writers guild section and away from the basic zoo discussion stuff." "Essays on Ethics and Morality" should be deleted. Way to intellectual and uninviting. Works better in a single thread if interest exists. "Public Service & Volunteering" dead = delete "Members Hobbies" merge with general discussion move the photograpy subfolders into a general image forum move whole mating section into the general image forum move "rainbow ridge" into zoophilia or general discussion sections and mege it into a single subforum. "animal husbandry" same as above Delete the featured authors/artist sections and merge them into the normal writers guild. Simply makes no sense in such a forum to give a few guys their own subforums. A normal thread per person is enough. Also I need no whole section for myself. Delete all biography subforums. Most people wouldn't give too much information away, especially not in a zoophilia forum. I wouldn't even in a safe for work forum. it's dead and will be dead forever. Zoo Writers guild and Artist Board seems ok. Historical record section needs to be highly compressed. A single subforum in the general zoophilia section should be enough. Also, like Ulrich already suggested: A chatbox is essential novadays.
  5. Rate The Song Above You

    Most basic forum game. Just rate the song above you 1-10. Here's something for the start:
  6. "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.
  7. "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.
  8. "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.
  9. "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.
  10. Quotes with zoo references

    Yeah, but that bondage thing brings it a little too much into the obscure.
  11. Quotes with zoo references

    Don't know, but I think with Brazilians it's a cultural thing. As I know, there is no law to force condoms in porn, but still 80% of all brazilian porn is done with condoms. I don't think it has anything to do regarding especially to bestiality. Condoms seem to be just far more accepted in Brazil than anywhere else. "Most humans wearing condoms in bestiality videos don´t wear them because they are afraid to create a chimera, they are wearing condoms because they think animals are filthy and disgusting." A bit hyperbolic I think... Someone who believes animals are filthy and disgusting wouldn't try to have sex with them. Also lets not forget that there IS the risk in getting a nasty zoonosis, especially in tropical regions.
  12. Zootoons and other

    Here's an Oglaf classic:
  13. Penis size debate

    You could break the thread appart and put the posts into a new one. As I said, I don't really speak about a practical base, or that having a 15 Inch penis is great or something. I say it matters in a social and cultural context in a similiar way, that makes most woman prefer having large breasts. In fact, the question why humans have such large cocks (and by large I mean normal in human context) really is debated in social and biologic science.
  14. Penis size debate

    @30-30 You missing the point here. You are an individuum, but we as a species are hardcoded that dicksize matters, this is why we have grown such huge penises compared to other apes. Even an average middle european dick is gigantic compared to the 3cm cocks of gorillas and orang utans. It's a natural part of our social behaviour. It has nothing to do with logic, a fetish, ability to satisfy the partner or whatever, it's simply instinct and selective procreation. It matters, this is why we have 15-16 cm cocks and not 3cm or 10cm pencildicks like our ancestors. Large dick means power and dominance. No large dick? Here take that sports car or a neat little .50 desert eagle to stick it in your pants. Look, a little test: A wizard appears and tells you: Choose an organ of yours, I will double it in size by magic.Which part of your body would you choose? The Nose, a kidney? I bet 99% of all people will choose their penises. There is no "ongoing pornographisation". We as humans are one of the sexual most active species of the world, one of the few who use sex as a part of their communication, only beaten by bonobos. Beeing "dauergeil" is the core of our true nature. Religion, virtue and morality are just social shackles. Abandon these is no degeneration it's going back to the normal state. Humping as many woman as possible and dominating our rivals. We are the most aggressive species of apes, the apex pretator of this planet. Our lust, hunger and thirst for blood tamed by a thin shroud called civilization. "PS: You know that this South Park snippet you quoted makes FUN of obsession with dick sizes?Not exactly the best source to try and back up your claims here... " (the quoting system sucks) Yeah, off course, but it's the truth that makes it satire. In the same episode they come to the conclusion, that there is no solution for this, but to change the definition of the average dick size, so that noone is left behind. Compared to you I simply don't try to satisfy the stereotype of the humorless and always serious german. I've got the youtube comment section for these needs.