11-17-2018, 07:04 AM
Quote:
4 hours ago, Resident Hyaena said:
Could you maybe clarify or elaborate upon that?
RM, I'm -terribly- sorry. I didn't mean for that to sound like I was saying you were a problem: It was late and my grammar was terrible that night. What I was referring to was that acting on your attraction sexually towards Avians wasn't really a straight forward possibility. That was in reference to 30-30 saying you had to 'have experience' to be a Zoo. What I was saying was that for some attractions (Birds, Fish / sharks, Reptiles..) it's virtually impossible. Either due to risk of injury to the animal, or a difficulty of meeting the animal you're attracted to. Which of course was brought up in our discussion of what 'makes a zoo' well, a zoophile: the whole reality vs. fantasy, online vs. Real Life sort of thing.
Quote:
4 hours ago, covfefelake said:
When you face social venom of this extent, the law will never be a "paper tiger." The risk of an outing developing legal consqequences is real, and the fact is, humans are notoriously noisy about their love lives. If you aren't, then YOU are the exception, not the rule.
The thing you have to understand, as 30-30 said, and I discovered after digging a little deeper once one of our conversations concluded above is: a -lot- of the venom was brought upon us, *by* us! People like Ken Pinyin for example: he wasn't 'in love' with horses, he didn't do it for the stud's pleasure, he did it to 'feel', he was a masochist. I can confirm this after reading some of the older BF threads and some more articles on the subject. I do disagree with a lot of the legislation, and I hate that it's so 'blanketed', there's not even a litmus test required for abuse, but again the 'majority' of our 'community' being stupid has played a role.
Especially with paperclip and panic laws that went into effect after Ken died. I wish we could do a more 'case by case' basis on Bestiality: I really do, but it won't happen for a *long* time, reason: people debate logic until blue, morals (which are subjective), ethics (which are a little more objective but can be biased based on perspective), and 'consent' (which is bullshit if you look at typical 'animal ownership').
No one though, and I mean hardly -NO ONE- asks us about emotion. How does your partner make you feel, what would you do without him / her? Do you feel any attraction towards your own species? I can answer all three. First, like I was on top of the world, always had a smile on my face and was always happy, especially when I could give that big black-and-tan beau of mine a big ol' hug.
When I lost him the world went dark for a few days, I was shattered like a dropped glass, even getting out of bed was hard for me after he passed. Lastly, no, no attraction at all towards humans in a romantic, deeply emotional or physical way.
As stated too, I've been on several dates, talked to a few groups of people, tried local events and even been in a couple relationships: none worked out for me, at all.
Quote:
3 hours ago, 30-30 said:
Christian Taliban
Don't forget Catholic, everything is evil! Including our bodies! Ugh, what a joke...
The US is a bit worse because even speaking of your 'love' on video could be enough to get you 'looked into', however if you're still smart and don't have 10 GB of video of you going down on fido you're probably alright...
Society needs time, as I've said before and we have to be careful. Also, as you've said 30-30: when I told you of me and my lover, emotions play a big role. Tell people how you feel when you can trust them enough, my friend accepted me without issue: hell most all of them have and have actually asked me questions on the matter I've never expected.
Questions like relation to intelligence, how do I keep my mind active in what would seem like a 'hollow' relationship to them, etc..
I've also done some serious thinking, something I thought was missing just popped back in to my head after all these years. The big difference between being a beastie and a zoo: the emotions involved, as simple as that.
As much as I kind of wand to give some of the ZETA fellows the 'brass balls award': the big question still stands, do they just want free-dog-fucking rights? Or are ones like Burdinski really passionate about Joey (his Husky 'lover' at the time of his 'interview')? Does Kiok really care about his GSD or just want a right to fuck and post pics?
I'm sure 30-30 probably knows a bit more than I do on that front as I can't read / speak German, and I have no US group for frame of reference. US folks are a little more nuts and I have a feeling even mention of a group like ZV would cause riots, house raids and pant-less lynchings in the streets.. Okay, maybe a bit over-exaggerated on that one: but not by much I have a feeling.
Especially in an area like mine where it's rural and still pretty heavily religious. We're supposed to be 'tough guys who like beer, pussy, titties and shotguns', not guys who enjoy mutual pleasure with a male dog... [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/tongue.png[/img]/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" title=":P" width="20" />
Just a quick P.S. too: I won't be commenting or interjecting on anything to do with Rannoch, I didn't know the fellow well enough nor the situations past well enough to stick my muzzle where it doesn't belong.
