08-22-2018, 05:50 AM
Battlecrops, is this really a "misrepresentation" of "zoophilia" when BF is quoted in studies? Just look at the user numbers, zoowg has about 300 members, BF roughly 1.6 million...and even when you know that BF never deletes accounts to keep the numbers high for the sake of maintaining/increasing market relevance/revenue, those BF style "zoophiles" are the majority and we, those who strive to "commit" zoophilia in the most ethical ways possible, are the fuckin´ minority. And allow me to repeat myself, we and our inexplicable tendency to "tolerate" the shit out of every other "zoo" are what is to blame for recoining the z-word into a bland synonym for bestiality. Originally, the z-word was introduced to separate the "real zoophiles" from those BF style "zoos"...by bending and widening each and every rule, the opposite of what this word was inteded to achieve has become reality and now, zoophilia basically means the same as bestiality. In this context it´s not exactly wrong to use BF as a cornucopious source for "quotes from zoophiles"...in fact I am pretty convinced the BF style "zoos" are much more representative of what has become of the original idea behind the z-word than any user in here. Misunderstood "tolerance" (read: indifference) is what led to this situation in which quoting from BF to show "zoophilia" thoughts and mindsets is absolutely justified. You all have been fooled by the "sex lib" folks and have rejected Kassandras like me, calling them "intolerant haters" ...now the effects of not listening to us are here and in my humble opinion hard to reverse. Just think about it: a little less sheepish "tolerance" and we could have avoided this by establishing the z-word the way it was meant to be.
