+- Zoo Community & Writer's Guild (https://zoowg.org)
+-- Forum: Zoophilia discussions (https://zoowg.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: General Zoo discourse (https://zoowg.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=42)
+--- Thread: 'Small' vs. 'Big' Zoo communities: and the Great Porn Debate... (/showthread.php?tid=373)
'Small' vs. 'Big' Zoo communities: and the Great Porn Debate... - WinterGreenWolf - 11-10-2018
So, I've noticed the forum has quieted a bit, a few of our more 'controversial threads' (including my own) have settled and people are relaxing again. I figured I'd add some more things I've observed and sort of 'found out' about the communities, their sizes and the ties to porn and Bestiality versus just being Zoo-centered.
These are merely my observations and opinions of course, also I do have a question or two I want to pose. To the young and old, novice and experienced among us: just keep your answers as civil as possible please. My other thread garnered a little more heat than I thought it would and I have a feeling this one may as well simply due to the topic, but I wanted to put it out there anyways.
Okay, having been a member of BeastForum (before I should have been, heh heh heh... ) since around fifteen years ago: It was a small-ish place at the time, not a lot of Ads, and generally friendly. They did allow 'porn sharing' and discussion on meetups. This wasn't as dangerous at the time because the 'moral highgrounders', 'SJWs', "PETAs' and what have you hadn't wormed their way in to every corner of the clear net yet: 'Mr. Hands' hadn't happened yet and governments didn't see us as such a problem really.
They had the slogan (and still do) of 'The World's Largest Beastiality Board', as they grew (and I as a person did as well, learning the difference between sex and abuse, etc.. I'll also note I never posted and merely lurked due to self-confidence issues, being underage, and the various struggles I had with accepting my Zoophilia) I noticed them becoming less friendly, only really interested in the 'hot porn' or 'good poundings' a member would get or give to their companion. Other fetish Ads also started to appear among the pages of the site: also just so you know I didn't make this thread to bash BF (they deserve it now, but I'll get to that later and I don't want to do that here as it's not the place...).
They went under the guise of 'Zoophilia' a lot by saying that animals were their companions first, and sexual partners after, but the forum didn't reflect this. Though a lot of useful information still exists there and there -are- 'True Zoos' there (if you can call that a definition... I would, as being a Zoophile to me means valuing your non-human partner as much, or close to as much as you would a human one.. Again, not the thread to argue that in). they are few and far between.
The threads and sections that get the most comments and submissions are the porn sections, movie swap areas: and surprisingly the meetup areas. I haven't 'popped in' in a couple months but that was the trend.
The admin and staff became less friendly as download 'credits' and their paysites (GayBeast, PetSex, and BarnLove) emerged as well: a disagreement risked your IP and site info being forwarded to Law Enforcement and you being Doxed... Not a good place to be. Question their ethics on animal care and you're out, put forth a radical idea on some ways to get Zoos a better image, still out. Try and 'Fight for Zoo Rights': well you may be their next hero, no doubt because of fighting for the anti-beast law reversal (in the U.S. That is), there were several threads on the anti-beast laws once they started being passed.
Now we come to this forum, I've lurked here since around July or so this year: no meetup posts, no porn, and 'Genital and Mating' photos and videos are 'untouched' no humans involved type thing. As well as very clear admin discretion on what they see as abuse: and reserving the right to remove it and ban offending troublemakers.
This place is quiet, but seems to be a good meeting place for ideas and idealists on the subject of Zoophilia, as well as the ethics and treatment of both your fellow zoo and your partner, along with possibly being a decent resource for the discovering, 'new' zoos.
The Subreddit had a lot of these qualities as well: but social pressure and their rules changes obviously collapsed the community there due to a sub ban.
So now to the questions.
Do you think the size of a lot of the 'Zoo communities' at least loosely ties to the amount, or allowance of 'Beast Porn'?
- Me: Yes, of all the 'clear new communities' places like BeastForum are not only large but have shifted to porn site status as well as stealing members' content for their own gains. They also have endorsement by places like Dildo and Bondage gear producers and porn distributers The members can't even really speak up on stolen content or harassment to anyone either for fear of being 'outed' (though, that's more their own stupidity at play here in a lot of cases...).
Second question:
Do you think communities, even ones like this, should allow Beast Porn with human involvement (Intercourse, masturbation, oral, etc.. vs. just genitalia and mating)?
- Me: NO, but with two caveats: the reason it shouldn't be a part of the community directly is A) it can attract some pretty bad attention and nefarious individuals and B) places like this forum, I feel: are for expression, common ground, sharing your life (if you wish) and love with those of common interest. Forums like this one give us a place to be ourselves on our own little 'web corner' without being driven out by a mob or just outright fucked with by trolls like Mister Metokur, 4Channers, or Kiwi Farms and crew.
Now for my caveats...
-One: A secondary site possibly in the deep web for those who love the camera wouldn't be an all-out bad idea, of course your identity is your own risk you take when making this sort of content. Also as animals don't have the same sense of imagining as a Human, don't use the same abstractions nor have the same moral or overall social framework I don't see the videos or pictures as flat-out exploitation of a non-human lover: to them it's no different, sex is just sex period: biological drive and all. Note that I'm *not* saying they can't love, or don't really enjoy with the right partner, I'm just saying I doubt a camera is going to make that Mare say 'Ew, no I'm not raising my tail!' or the horny stud dog go 'Nope, not gettin' it up with that phone on me!' sort of thing.
-Two, and the most important: it's impractical as well but you'd need almost a -constant- watch and even team of staff to watch for, take down, and ban material that could be classified as abuse (forceful restraint of an animal, an animal in obvious duress or distress, large objects and non-sexual objects being used, etc...), as well as punishing the users responsible for such content. This would be very difficult but would be the only way *I* could see an 'ethical zoo site': it's also the reason I don't believe it should be a part of a forum / board / communication medium in and of itself and should be more independently-ran. Also, I do occasionally view beast content: I'm very picky about what I view and anything that even looks suspicious I don't watch, not to mention I stay away from the BF-Ran sites and a lot of the larger 'collections' online, and in the deep web. I don't really see a 'Beastie' site I could -ever- support as none are really trustworthy: it's merely an occasional guilty pleasure, especially tne 'Men and Male Canines' type videos for me.
Just my two-cents worth, curious as to others' thoughts on this one.
'Small' vs. 'Big' Zoo communities: and the Great Porn Debate... - silverwolf1 - 11-10-2018
We had a human/ animal porn section here, with very strict rules. It went largely unused after a few months and I removed it. There is a kind of a "sister" forum to ours that shares porn that actively removes abuse. It remains a small forum though free and easy to join.
Though I do think porn is related to the numbers in a forums membership, it has nothing to do with zoophilia, or bestiality really. It's voyeurism that gives BF it's numbers, and the need to see women subjugated and humiliated, nothing more. The number of members there for anything else is slight in comparison. There was indeed a time it was different, but they went where the money took them.
That's the only real difference between large and small "zoo" "communities" in my opinion. The larger they are, the more likely they are a commercial operation, producing porn or products (dildos etc.) with a forum as a courtesy of advertising or form of acquisition as in BF's case.
When a service is provided, the included forum will be large. We provide no service, thus a small forum. We get the cream though.
sw
'Small' vs. 'Big' Zoo communities: and the Great Porn Debate... - heavyhorse - 11-10-2018
Quote:
2 hours ago, silverwolf1 said:
Though I do think porn is related to the numbers in a forums membership, it has nothing to do with zoophilia, or bestiality really. It's voyeurism that gives BF it's numbers, and the need to see women subjugated and humiliated, nothing more. The number of members there for anything else is slight in comparison. There was indeed a time it was different, but they went where the money took them.
That's the only real difference between large and small "zoo" "communities" in my opinion. The larger they are, the more likely they are a commercial operation, producing porn or products (dildos etc.) with a forum as a courtesy of advertising or form of acquisition as in BF's case.
sw
Spot on. I've even seen posts specifically stating "I only come here to see women degraded". Knowing this, that's what industrial porn sites are designed to do. "Follow the Money".
'Small' vs. 'Big' Zoo communities: and the Great Porn Debate... - 30-30 - 11-10-2018
"...governments didn´t see us as such a problem..." That´s right, but misses out on one important aspect our community still has problems to accept: "We" only became a problem for society because of "forums" such as BF and others. "Mr Hands" occurred in 2005 if I´m not mistaken...the very same year BF came to (commercial) life. And the first new law against bestiality was installed. Coincidence? Or just the logical consequence of a foreseeable chain of societal action-reaction loops? I wonder how the "Mr Hands" incident would have went if there wouldn´t have been easily available sources of so called "zoophiles" on BF and other boards inevitably implying a horrible picture of an "internet sex cult" detached from any morale and ethics. Maybe legislation would have been different without the online evidence of literally masses of "zoos" populating BF and other forums...not Mr Hands as a singular incident made us into the public threat that needed laws, but what those lawmakers and their aides pulled out of the internet...the picture of this "totally free and happy animal fucker online family" may have been the real starter for the anti "zoo" law tsunami, not a single incident that may have been discarded as too unimportant for the efforts it takes to make a law without the "backdrop" of an online animal fucker community, especially BF.
What brings me to my second topic:
you wrote that you don´t see animal porn as a problem because "animals don´t care" about being filmed. Exactly this kind of attitude is what I find hard to understand. Maybe I should specify it more, so here we go...it doesn´t matter if the "animal cares" or not, it´s about what picture the one filming and publishing porn is sending out. You simply cannot expect anyone to believe our zoo credo of "partnership as equals" when you mistake indifference and apathy for consent. Animals can understand and consent to the immediate act itself, but when you film it, all boxes on my abuse list get checked immediately. Don´t get me wrong, if anyone feels urged to film his "animal encounters", I´m cool with it. What makes it unbearable from a zoo perspective is publishing it, throwing something you insist on being ultimately important and loved into a massive pit of vultures to feast on...with benefits for you, be it money (some regular "contributors" of BF get paid for their shit, for example), "download credits" or simple "street cred" in the forum. Society already has large problems with the consent issue when it comes to the act itself, animal porn adds a vast array of problems, some even more severe and untackleable than the "core problem" itself.Animal porn and zoophilia don´t mix well...and will never.
I very much appreciate that this forum has dropped the porn section. What zoophilia really needs is more forums without porn, not more with it. Animal porn and fencehopping defines our public image a thousand times more than all genuine zoo websites combined. Our struggle might have been more successful if we as a community only could stop to constantly shoot ourselves in the foot...
'Small' vs. 'Big' Zoo communities: and the Great Porn Debate... - 30-30 - 11-10-2018
Quote:
3 hours ago, silverwolf1 said:
We had a human/ animal porn section here, with very strict rules. It went largely unused after a few months and I removed it. There is a kind of a "sister" forum to ours that shares porn that actively removes abuse. It remains a small forum though free and easy to join.
Though I do think porn is related to the numbers in a forums membership, it has nothing to do with zoophilia, or bestiality really. It's voyeurism that gives BF it's numbers, and the need to see women subjugated and humiliated, nothing more. The number of members there for anything else is slight in comparison. There was indeed a time it was different, but they went where the money took them.
That's the only real difference between large and small "zoo" "communities" in my opinion. The larger they are, the more likely they are a commercial operation, producing porn or products (dildos etc.) with a forum as a courtesy of advertising or form of acquisition as in BF's case.
When a service is provided, the included forum will be large. We provide no service, thus a small forum. We get the cream though.
sw
Agreed. Monetarisation of our orientation broke our necks and the damage will take centuries to be undone.
'Small' vs. 'Big' Zoo communities: and the Great Porn Debate... - covfefelake - 11-10-2018
Quote:
4 hours ago, 30-30 said:
And the first new law against bestiality was installed.
Washingtons bestiality law was far from the first, according to Rannoch's research on the issue and discussions with a certain undesirable here (Randy Pepe, I think?) as far back as 2001.
Actually nearly a 1/3rd of state laws preceded that one, if he's right. Wikipedia does seem to support the claim, vaguely.
'Small' vs. 'Big' Zoo communities: and the Great Porn Debate... - covfefelake - 11-10-2018
Quote:
4 hours ago, 30-30 said:
Agreed. Monetarisation of our orientation broke our necks and the damage will take centuries to be undone.
Honestly, I don't know that porn had anything to do with my initial kneejerk reaction when I first thought of bestiality. I'd never seen it or come across it afterall. If it wasn't for Rannoch, I'd still probably have a hard time believing you were anything but a bunch of perverted rapists.
...Actually, I'll be frank. Given some of the dialog here, I'm not sure some of you aren't. But I give the benefit of the doubt... or try.
'Small' vs. 'Big' Zoo communities: and the Great Porn Debate... - WinterGreenWolf - 11-11-2018
Quote:
17 hours ago, silverwolf1 said:
Though I do think porn is related to the numbers in a forums membership, it has nothing to do with zoophilia, or bestiality really. It's voyeurism that gives BF it's numbers, and the need to see women subjugated and humiliated, nothing more. The number of members there for anything else is slight in comparison. There was indeed a time it was different, but they went where the money took them.
Fair point SW: I hadn't thought on that really. But the more I sort of 'remember' the change and even having checked the forum today on my old-arse account, you're right.
Quote:
17 hours ago, silverwolf1 said:
That's the only real difference between large and small "zoo" "communities" in my opinion. The larger they are, the more likely they are a commercial operation, producing porn or products (dildos etc.) with a forum as a courtesy of advertising or form of acquisition as in BF's case.
When a service is provided, the included forum will be large. We provide no service, thus a small forum. We get the cream though.
Oh we get the 'cream' alright.. Ugh, I'll show myself out now.... [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/tongue.png[/img]/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" title=":P" width="20" />
I do agree about the acquisition of material as well: along with the fact that they really do seem like a piggy-back for another service. I can honestly say too, this feels like the first true place I've 'felt at home' online for quite some time: some place I can be myself and be largely carefree. This is what I apprecaite about places like this too, no 'service' offered: just a small group of like people who can talk about things in their lives that could possibly have them arrested for even mentioning elsewhere.
Quote:
14 hours ago, 30-30 said:
I very much appreciate that this forum has dropped the porn section. What zoophilia really needs is more forums without porn, not more with it. Animal porn and fencehopping defines our public image a thousand times more than all genuine zoo websites combined. Our struggle might have been more successful if we as a community only could stop to constantly shoot ourselves in the foot...
You know what, for all your harsh critiques, for all the arguments I've seen you in: and me myself even being a bit sharp-tongued with you in my other thread, I couldn't agree with you more 30-30. Especially when it comes to porn-centric forums like BF, and all the old websites like PetLust.
To answer a bit of your points about porn and filming it, that was more aimed at the internal ethics of the community itself, not towards the social outside. Also, it isn't so much that 'the animal doesn't care', more like the animal doesn't perceive the situation the same ways enough to really care or draw the same sort of human-specific reactions to said situation. Doesn't mean they're dumb (not at -all-), doesn't mean they're instinctual beasts with no thoughts. Just means things are different to them and to us.
Quote:
14 hours ago, 30-30 said:
Agreed. Monetarisation of our orientation broke our necks and the damage will take centuries to be undone.
This, not to mention a lack of research. Which, due to the 'shock' of Mr.Hands, monetary gain from 'Zoo Porn' and the fact that thoes things have led to laws: making it nearly impossible for amnesty *towards* research cases are passed or are passing at an alarming rate now. You can't opt-in to a study by a psychologist or veterinary without risk of jail, pills, therapy, or all three plus your animal lover being put down. It's going to take ages to heal the damage and corruption that's been caused both internal and from the outside.
Call me stupidly optimistic, but I think we -do- have a chance at it, it's just going to have to be careful and gradual.
Quote:
9 hours ago, covfefelake said:
Washingtons bestiality law was far from the first, according to Rannoch's research on the issue and discussions with a certain undesirable here (Randy Pepe, I think?) as far back as 2001.
Actually nearly a 1/3rd of state laws preceded that one, if he's right. Wikipedia does seem to support the claim, vaguely.
My bad, poor choice of words on my part. It -was- one of the first major 'Think of the children!' moves against bestiality though from my knowledge. It passed in record time and without any harm found to the animal at all: don't q uote one-hundred-percent, but I believe that's how it went down.
Quote:
9 hours ago, covfefelake said:
onestly, I don't know that porn had anything to do with my initial kneejerk reaction when I first thought of bestiality. I'd never seen it or come across it afterall. If it wasn't for Rannoch, I'd still probably have a hard time believing you were anything but a bunch of perverted rapists.
...Actually, I'll be frank. Given some of the dialog here, I'm not sure some of you aren't. But I give the benefit of the doubt... or try.
I can see that, though I think a lot of it is merely an 'ick', a weak form of 'social indoctrination' if you will. You've always been told 'Animals don't feel pleasure, it's just procreation!', and 'Eeek! Disease!'. I'm not saying some of these aren't at least a little warranted, but also if you think about it: the shit people do to even their own pets rules consent out as an argument.
It's also important to note that there -are- a lot of really, REALLY shitty people callimg themselves Zoophiles. Some of these fine folks' I've heard myself say shit like 'I wanna have a whole house full of huskies to fuck! So murry, I'd do cunny and bottom both! Even make them gag on me!'. I shit you not, I actually heard someone say that in a Furry chat of all places: guy claimed to be a Zoo, even had pics of himself sucking off his -neighbors- dog, not even his own animal! He was asked to dogsit and by and large was making porn pics behind the person's back.
So yeah, though it's not always deserved and I apprecaite the chance you've given us, I can still understand -some- of your sentiment, but you did the right thing IMHO and asked, talked and gave your opinion instead of picking up a torch, pitchfork and bucket of tar.
'Small' vs. 'Big' Zoo communities: and the Great Porn Debate... - 30-30 - 11-11-2018
Quote:
11 hours ago, covfefelake said:
Washingtons bestiality law was far from the first, according to Rannoch's research on the issue and discussions with a certain undesirable here (Randy Pepe, I think?) as far back as 2001.
Actually nearly a 1/3rd of state laws preceded that one, if he's right. Wikipedia does seem to support the claim, vaguely.
That´s why I wrote "NEW law". Sure, even before the Washington incident from 2005 there was legislation prohibiting sexual contact between bipeds and quadrupeds, but the recent wave of worldwide prohibition of "zoophilia" has its origins in Mr Pinyan´s little "mishap". This incident was the trigger for legislators, it was the first publicly known "big case"; if you ask a random Joe Average, chances are high he doesn´t know anything about zoophilia and bestiality, but he surely knows about "Mr Hands".
You´re right, before "Mr Hands" roughly 1/3rd of US states had laws against "zoophilia", but compare it to the recent status quo AMH (after Mr Hands), with only a few states lacking an "anti zoophilia" law. In Europe, it isn´t much different. Silke Lautenschläger, the former Hessian minister for environment and initiator of the German "anti zoophilia" law, explicitly referred to Mr Hands and the general public picture our community sends when she said "What once was a relatively harmless issue ,with only a few isolated individuals involved in it, has become a real threat for society. Zoophilia today isn´t "the strange but harmless loner living with his animal" anymore, it has mutated into an online sex cult with strong links to the international illegal porn mafia."
And I do share the very same notion when I compare my early years in the "zoo community" to the recent status. It all has become more aggressive and violent, more cultist and detached from society, the infamous filter bubble effect especially showing in "zoophilia boards" like BF. To be honest here, I wasn´t surprised by the huge wave of "zoophilia prohibition" that started a couple of years ago, I´ve seen things going down the gutter long before BF and Mr Hands. A forum that only relies to lip service when it comes to concerns about animal welfare and a community of Washingtonian "zoos" that conjure a picture that is summarised best in the VICE article about MR Hands (" It seems as if these "zoophiles" are nothing more than a bunch of degenerated worshippers of huge dicks...") really isn´t the best foundation to build your public image onto, so nobody should be surprised by the repercussions we all have witnessed in recent years. And nobody in our community seems to realise that it´s exactly this kind of schism between our boldly claimed ideals and actual conduct of "zoophiles" totally negating any ideal that makes us untrustworthy in the eyes of society. Our priorities have been lost , they were sacrificed on the altar of selfish greed, of social dynamics within the "community" , of smug self entitlement regardless of ethics and morale. Me, myself and I, those three are the first ones that come into my mind when I´m thinking about the "zoo community" and what the majority really has in mind. Shrillness and excess. We really cannot blame society for anything here, we literally forced the reaction ourselves. Or does anyone really think all those legislators were eager to deal with "animal fuckery" and looking forward to research it? Usually, it´s always better to leave the normals alone with this, they don´t want to hear about it at all and identify any situation that forces them to deal with it as an attack, so nobody really should be surprised how things went since we added the "zoo activists" to the already devastating public image we had. We literally dug our own graves and now we blame everyone else but ourselves for the status quo...at least, that´s my take on it as a member of the online "zoo" community since the beginning of the nineties.
'Small' vs. 'Big' Zoo communities: and the Great Porn Debate... - 30-30 - 11-11-2018
WGW, about the porn issue, my point still stands. It´s not important whether or not the animal is harmed or whatever, it´s solely about what image someone who publishes animal porn is handing out to the public. You cannot claim deep and genuine love for your animal, but then you pour your little wank flix into the trough of the international wanking community. It´s about the human and the morals , not about the animal and possible negative consequences...although the consequences shouldn´t be neglected. I know of a couple of cases where the animal´s fur pattern has led to identification of the animal and , of course, its owner. I don´t know how you see it, but I have massive problems believing that it´s "true love" for the animal when you not only display that massive anthropocentrism (in the end, it´s the human who decides whether or not the "exciting new clip" gets uploaded), but also are indifferent about increasing the risk of exposal. And all of that just for "fame" in the "community", a possible few coins more in your pocket while the runners of BF allegedly sit on their platinum toilets, wiping their asses with 100 dollar bills and "download credits".Those who "sell" their love aren´t in love. That´s what I wanted to say.