Quote:
2 hours ago, 30-30 said:
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.
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.
