11-11-2018, 08:42 AM
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.
