Quote:
5 hours ago, Cynolove693 said:
but what happens with those few zoosadist out there? You know the ones that actually abuse animals, With sex laws gone it's basically an encouragement for the sadists to hurt animals more; ever think of that?
There are already laws which punish zoosadism (and animal cruelty in general), so laws specifically banning sex with animals aren't needed. A zoosadist would be punished under that kind of law. Laws banning sex with animals are about "morality", and not really about protecting animals. If animal protection were an issue, then, for example, hunting would've been banned by now.
Quote:
On 3/3/2018 at 8:30 AM, silverwolf1 said:
"We" also popularized the act of having sex with animals in my opinion. I believe at least half of those in the community today would not have taken the step into zoophilia/ bestiality were it not for our little 'club'.
I respectfully disagree with this part of the comment.
I can personally speak to there being active zoos long before the internet even existed. And I really doubt that Google widely post(ed) Beastforum hits to random searches; people had to enter it in "Search". Or that Beastforum (which I mention because it's the most visible, not because I like or endorse it) made anyone that wasn't "beastcurious" before they went there decide to jump their animal. Every comment I've seen regarding the subject has been more along the lines of "I'm so glad to find this place existed; I thought I was alone". I've never seen one that said: "I never thought about it before, but now I want to fuck an animal".
I personally suspect that witnessing animal sexuality made more zoos than anything else did.
Can anyone please explain why sometimes there's an "Edit" button and sometimes not? Is there any discernible pattern or is it just random distribution?
Quote:
9 hours ago, heavyhorse said:
I respectfully disagree with this part of the comment.
I can personally speak to there being active zoos long before the internet even existed. And I really doubt that Google widely post(ed) Beastforum hits to random searches; people had to enter it in "Search". Or that Beastforum (which I mention because it's the most visible, not because I like or endorse it) made anyone that wasn't "beastcurious" before they went there decide to jump their animal. Every comment I've seen regarding the subject has been more along the lines of "I'm so glad to find this place existed; I thought I was alone". I've never seen one that said: "I never thought about it before, but now I want to fuck an animal".
I personally suspect that witnessing animal sexuality made more zoos than anything else did.
About the "beastcurious" thing: First of all, don´t you think the exposure to animal pornography that today can be easily accessed with a few clicks is actually creating a whole lot of these "beastcurious" folks? And what about all those simple taboo- and thrillseekers, porn addicts that don´t get "the job done" anymore by more "normal" porn (usual drug addiction symptoms of frequency, dosage and potency increase over time, inevitably leading to one or more of the three major taboos that still exist: necro, paedo and beast). What about the huge part of our scene that abuses intercourse with animals as part of their s/m practices? ("My master ordered me to get fucked by doggie!")...look, since the internet became more publicly accepted towards the end of the 90s, the so called zoo community lost its homogenity and became more and more heterogenic, motives to engage in, associate with and participate in the "zoo community" immensely diversified, compared to how homogenic that all was in the beginning of "online zoophilia". "Beastcurious" practically means nothing....especially not if you look into Beastforum´s user count and how many of these users actually are longtime interested in this...most of the roughly around 1.5 mil BF users seem to have only a temporary interest in this. Without such prominent starting points like BF, effortlessly providing the "beastcurious" with their daily "fix", a whole lot of adventurous folks would never ever even think twice about animal sex. You have to realise there´s folks out there just stumbling into our community by accident and without any intend to ever become active themselves. Estimations are that roughly 70 - 80 % of those "online zoos" won´t ever become active with an animal their entire life. Few "doers", lots of leeches trying to get their kicks and reassurance of their phantasies.
I really don´t know why many people cannot draw the right conclusions here : as our visibility rose due to growing "zoo forums" like BF, attention of the authorities also increased. I can only repeat what I have written so often now....Silke Lautenschläger, the official that first brought "zoophilia" into the consciousness of German legislators (result: in july 2013, "zoophilia" was banned in Germany), has said herself that "zoo" online forums like BF and the picture those give about "zoophilia" played a major role in outlawing interspecies sex acts.She said "What once was a relatively tolerable (!) and rare practice of but a few , has become a serious issue today, with everything that makes government intervention necessary: obvious linking with the international porn mafia, a steadily increasing subtone of violence and plain egotism in handling animals, animal prostitution as a practice becoming more and more common and obligatory among those in the BF filter bubble ( "Sharing is caring!" ) and all the other negative direct effects connecting a bunch of limitless pervos mutually reassuring each other of their "chivalrous motives" and simultaneously denying any form of criticism not fitting into their "echo chamber think" will inevitably lead to. Our entire community lacks one ultimately important feature, and it lacks this right from the moment when animal porn became widespread and accessible : a corrective. Our public image is down the drains forever and a large part in shaping and forming this unfavorable image the online presence of "zoos" created and still create. Literally no one is aware that each and every one of us is some kind of an ambassador for zoophilia and every single action, every single word is watched and listened to closely by the outsiders. For many "zoos", zoophilia is a playground without rules, where "anything goes" and no one of your comrades shall ever criticise you for anything or he´s a "zoophobe" and a "hater".
Even those who discovered BF already "beastcurious" still can become a victim of this mutual confirmation filter bubble and can be encouraged to "give it a try" by the general forum dogma of uploading / "contributing" selfmade porn as an entry ticket to the "real inner circle"...actually, there was a couple on BF that was influenced by this forum´s general unwritten rules to upload own "material" and promptly got caught and exposed. Those two probably would never had the courage to actually do "doggie stuff" if BF never existed....in my dialogue with them via PMs, I never caught the notion that any of those two was actually interested in animals the way a real zoophile should be...they both came across as the typical, sexually bored, but damn average couple of "normies" just searching for something to spice up their sex life. If I´m informed correctly, both are sitting in jail now...while the owners of BF still make bucks, lots of bucks with their "shared" vid. The couple breathes steel bar filtered air while BF´s profiteurs sit on their golden toilet, wiping their asses after taking a dump with 100 dollar bills.
If you research a bit, you simply cannot deny that it all became pretty fucked up and a lot of that fuckedupness is contributed by forums like BF. A lot of the usual accusations zoos face can be tracked back to animal porn and the picture it paints of "zoophilia", quite some of the flack zoos are facing also stems from the mindless usage of the z-word for nearly everyone whose crotch itched in the presence of an animal. Compared to the 80s, the media landscape and its habits definitively changed , became more hysterical and sensationalistic, but that does not fully explain the massive wave of new laws against "zoophilia" that are installed almost globally these days. A large part of that we, the community, caused ourselves by unforesightful attitudes and behaviour. By our denial regarding the grey and black spots of "zoophilia", by denial of a necessary division between beasties and zoos, by apologetic reflexes whenever some "zoo" makes another spicy headline in the news. Overall, I see the "guilt distribution" like this: 10% are society´s fault for not having an open discussion about zoophilia with us, without prejudice, 40 % are contributed by our own stubbornness , idiocy and ineptness to find compromises between society and zoos (The famous "all or nothing" attitude prohibiting us to opt for multiple small steps towards a betterment ) and the general gullibility/filter bubble mentality so sadly common among our community (The "trench fight mentality": Zoos are inherently good, but totally misunderstood snowflakes, society is nothing but a hateful mass of know nothings instead of an open approach that aims towards acquiring small liberties for zoos for the price of a general moderation of our community) and finally, 50% are contributed by the public image sites like BF and the animal porn that´s featured on it and elsewhere give. So remember, half of the law putting additional stress on zoos is owed to how we as a community have failed in being our own corrective. We allow BF uncontradicted to advertise their bullshit as "zoo" , we are blinded by our self chosen misunderstood "tolerance" dogma keeping us from shaping and forming an ethical profile that is easier to "sell" to the public than that we have now.
Anyway: the first step towards change in society MUST be changing ourselves and our community. We MUST adapt and actualise our antiquated views...and we finally MUST admit our own fuckups and mistakes. Without realising our own mistakes and perpetuating our common "Everybody else is to blame but us", we will be stuck in the downward spiral of anti "zoo" laws forever, with no chance to change a single detail about it. I´d even say that if we don´t update ourselves, things will become even worse...just banning animal sex isn´t the end of the story, folks....there´s a whole lot of even more severe stuff that could be done, such as actively pursuing us, even such small and rather inactive forums like this here.IP tracking, sting operations becoming common practice of the authorities etc. pp. There are lots of "zoos" insisting on this dumb "we´re a persecuted minority" schtick...well, let me rip the veil from your eyes with a quote from a famous song... "You ain´t seen nothing yet....nanana,baby, you ain´t seen nothing yet..."
Quote:
12 hours ago, heavyhorse said:
Can anyone please explain why sometimes there's an "Edit" button and sometimes not? Is there any discernible pattern or is it just random distribution?
Should be there on all posts for a certain time. I'll look into it.
sw
03-18-2018, 01:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2018, 01:17 PM by heavyhorse.)
Quote:
Quote
30-30
:
Yeah, I agree with you about the exhibitionists fucking things up for all of us. And how many times I've seen people say "I don't care about animals, I just want to see women degraded" on some boards, which is a whole other, widespread, fetish that certainly doesn't help our position, more BDSM-related than zoo. And the whole in-your-face "Animal sex should be legal" crowd creating a public spectacle makes it way worse. I'm sure they are modeling after the Gay Rights movement and their long road to success, but first, they would have to basically lose every organized religion on the planet and the politicians that supine themselves at their feet, and even if it were to happen, look how long Gay Rights took. None of us would ever live to see it, I don't care how young you are.
Short version: Keep your head down. Inside behind locked doors. Don't get stupid and create a public spectacle (Re: Mr. Hands, Zoo the Movie). Have a legit explanation for your animals (farm, sell a litter of puppies, etc).
But my original point is, I don't think that the publicity "made" more zoos now than there were back in the day. That's kind of like the argument that gay teachers or scout leaders will "make my kid gay".
Quote:
14 minutes ago, silverwolf1 said:
Should be there on all posts for a certain time. I'll look into it.
sw
It's for a certain time? OK, it's probably working properly then. But thank you.
Ahem...regarding that " make more people gay" thing...I´m in my mid 40s and have witnessed some of my classmates literally testing out homosexuality, fiercely insisting on "being a homosexual their entire lifes" , but a few years later, they didn´t want to talk about "that phase" of their lives anymore...living in a "normal" heterosexual partnership. Humans, especially the kind of them growing up in a turbocapitalistic society that falsely promotes consumerism as an "adventure" ("Try out our new brand and experience a whole new level of life!") ...what your supermarket has to offer will be tested out, predominantly by those who are lost and falsely think they can find themselves through consuming, belonging to a certain group etc.
The same applies here...zoophilia often is promoted as a "lifestyle choice" which is a pretty gross slap in the face of any real zoo btw. "Taste the new flavour and experience a new life!" A lot of folks are indeed lured into "zoophilia" by these advertising mechanisms simply because they desperately want to escape their boring capitalist drone lives and basically would accept and prefer anything over their everyday "normal" lives....and many of our internet "zoo" representation sites largely consist of such consumerists falling for the "Try it and your life will be exciting and new!" ad meme. If it´s on offer, capitalistic drones will consume it....contrary to the famous "cogito, ergo sum", in our society we have a "consumo, ergo sum" today. Sites like BF actually prey on those, it´s the focus group for BF and usually those who will even pay for "new" animal porn (hell, it´s like with all porn...in-out-in-out...what the f is "new" here?).
One thing you have to realise, one thing even ZETA, the retard "zoo" organisation from Germany admits on their homepage: animal porn is mainly produced for the "normal", bored, thrillseeking, taboobreaking persons searching for a novelty, the new and unusual kick...and not for zoophiles. Sites like BF are heavily based on porn and porn alone, the pseudo discussion board is seldom used by the "normals" the ZETA quote is referring to...at minimum, those normals use it to ask about download problems and how to load more porn quicker. And in excatly this way, we as zoos are badly respresented, hell, we´re not even the main target group for BF as users and usually, real zoos are driven off BF by the sheer and blatant self centeredness of the so called "zoos" of BF. It isn´t surprising to me that, with BF as the "zoo" page with by far the highest user count of 1.5 mil, society simply cannot think differently of us zoos once a peek into the EATZP (Epicenter of Anti True Zoo Propaganda) has been done. Our inactiveness regarding that only adds to the negative reception we zoos have in society.
We´re all often so busy with words like "orientation" and such , many simply forget that there are people out there who DON`T have an orientation and are what Freud called "polymorphous perverts" (greek: poly = many, hae morphae = the form) ; especially in our era of "the great porn experiment" , granting everyone the possibility to see more naked people , sex acts and perversions in an hour of surfing the net than our grandfathers had in their entire lives combined, this polymorphous perversion seems to be the new "chic" among the "sexually progressive". I grew up without the net, I had to struggle through my puberty , finding out I definitely wasn´t "normal", alone, I had no "support" from websites and it took me roughly 5 years after I had my first sexual experience with a mare before I even knew that animal porn existed, let alone seen a flic. Today, you hardly find others who weren´t influenced by "online zoophilia" a.k.a. animal porn and echo chamber forums...and maybe that´s why I´m so different in my personality and my views from many others. I had to go through the process alone, all by myself, no "sex supermarket" online where I could get new ideas on what I could "test out" for a couple of months. And one thing I know for sure...after sites like BF emerged, the numbers of "zoos" exponentially rose. These porn distribution sites do contribute a lot when it comes to the sheer numbers of "zoos", they also have perfected baiting people into this , giving them their kicks without initiating, even discouraging self reflection.
I´m not saying that the early days were all cosy and sugarcoated, we also had fuckheads like Svadilfari who insisted on him being a "110 % bona fide zoo" despite just being a friggin´ fencehopper who met with a bunch of other retards to fuck random cows and other lifestock "available" on Sweden´s pastures. But these sites like BF and the indifference many real zoos display towards this horrible commercialisation of our orientation plays an important role in explaining the status quo of zoophilia today. I agree, the numbers of actual , genuine and real zoos kept quite steady, but we were flooded with legions of people who did not qualify for carrying the z-word in the slightest, flooded to an extend when we, the real ones practically were marginalised and now legitimately are a minority IN OUR OWN MINORITY group. We were annexed.
And all the problems with society we experience now basically originate in this annexion by the "unworthy"...without the massive fuss sites like BF are creating by their "visibility", I´d lean out of the window and say that we would be still at the status qou of 1995 , law wise. Not one government would have touched this repulsive topic on their own, if it weren´t for the irresponsible actions, the general animal-hostile subtone, the self centeredness of consumerism etc. our recent "architecture" of our zoo online presence lacking any ethics and morals, our abstinence from adressing the grey and black areas of "zoophilia"...all of that drew in a lot of tryouts and people searching for a group they can be someone in instead of being a faceless nobody in normal life...a playground to play on as you like. That´s why is is like it is today and that´s why sites like BF actually create "new" "zoos"...once you let the masses in, ideas, ethics and morals are the first sacrifices made on the altar of consumer convenience. Why am I so sure about this? Because I actually have witnessed some German TV shows specialised in sex topics aired at prime time bringing up zoophilia, such as the weeklies "Liebe Sünde" and "Wa(h)re Liebe"... and even Arabella Kiesbauer, once a famous talk show host, roughly comparable to Jerry Springer dealt with zoophilia...without any public outrage. Before the 2000 animal porn craze, before the masses came in and took our own grounds. Things have changed...and our community and its exaggerated permissiveness in the name of misunderstood "tolerance" played a major role in this.
And BTW, the notion that "we allow" BF to do or say -anything- representative of zoo, fails to realize that they are a porn aristocracy. Google the parent outfit, they have different sites for a dozen fetishes, completely unrelated to animals. Admin#1 even professes to never having been with an animal. It's the family business. There's a core of family admin; they specifically say "this is not a democracy"; members that dare to hint even privately about differing opinions are banned and variously sanctioned (they are adamant about tracking members). So "allowing" or "not allowing" the largest and most visible animal sex board to define public opinion is not an option.
Presumably, in this case, it could be argued that additional law in the countries they shuttle BF to, to the extent that they were shut down, would actually advance the legitimate zoo cause.
Silverwolf: Please feel free to edit or delete after folks have a chance to read, if you think mentioning of BF will adversely affect this board. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/ph34r.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=":ph34r:" width="20" />
Thx.
Quote:
On 3/18/2018 at 11:38 AM, heavyhorse said:
And BTW, the notion that "we allow" BF to do or say -anything- representative of zoo, fails to realize that they are a porn aristocracy. Google the parent outfit, they have different sites for a dozen fetishes, completely unrelated to animals. Admin#1 even professes to never having been with an animal. It's the family business. There's a core of family admin; they specifically say "this is not a democracy"; members that dare to hint even privately about differing opinions are banned and variously sanctioned (they are adamant about tracking members). So "allowing" or "not allowing" the largest and most visible animal sex board to define public opinion is not an option.
Presumably, in this case, it could be argued that additional law in the countries they shuttle BF to, to the extent that they were shut down, would actually advance the legitimate zoo cause.
Silverwolf: Please feel free to edit or delete after folks have a chance to read, if you think mentioning of BF will adversely affect this board. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/ph34r.png[/img]/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" title=":ph34r:" width="20" />
Thx.
It's been mentioned many times before, and will be again. No worries.
BTW, no forum is a democracy, including this one, but you're quite right about any "squeaky wheel" being banned there.
sw
|
