12-17-2017, 04:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-20-2017, 09:12 PM by silverwolf1.)
.
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.
