04-09-2018, 06:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-09-2018, 06:36 PM by AmoreBestia.)
Quote:
1 hour ago, heavyhorse said:
The problem is that there is no "Right" in the public perception. Sex with animals = felony conviction. You can try to "feather" it all you want, this= bad; this= good, but there is no finessing it to the extent that it won't be a public spectacle. The entire concept of sex with animals is a public spectacle. You can argue about deep, heartfelt undivided love all you want, the public sees "Animal fucker!!!" The media will be unforgiving, the legislature will take it as sign that they haven't made enough laws, the animals will be executed, and the person making the argument will be run to ground and prosecuted. There is no good outcome to a public service campaign.
Honestly, I disagree. It didn't take much sleuthing to find a balanced interview by a major publisher. The interviewee's responses weren't necessarily perfect, but better than alot of what I've seen too. There are honest and reasonable journalists out there, that just want people to know the truth of the struggle, and people willing to listen.
In the comments, there was a number of zoophiles, pro zoos, and antis feuding, naturally(the latter often not bothering to read the interview), but also comments like this one here:
"This article surprisingly opened my eyes to how quickly we are to judge others as though we're somehow superior or know better.
<p style="color:#000000;font-size:15px;padding:0px;text-align:left;">
I'm a Christian Libertarian-Conservative; I tend to fall to the right of Rush Limbaugh. Had I not read this entire piece, I'd be very quick to call you-something. The interviewer did an outstanding job opening up your truth. I applaud you both. It takes bravery to share something that most simply knee-jerk an ugly opinion about.
<p style="color:#000000;font-size:15px;padding:0px;text-align:left;">
While I can't say I understand your feelings for your mare, I sympathize with the life you're compelled to live in secret. It's very sad.
<p style="color:#000000;font-size:15px;padding:0px;text-align:left;">
Thank you for sharing your world up to most of us whom only came here to be outraged and judge you. Our honest truth is that most of it is feigned outrage to feel better about our own lives. It's easy to claim righteousness and find humor when judging something society has deemed taboo. But again- that's easy- not intellectually honest. Your openness and truthfulness has softened at least one hard heart.
<p style="color:#000000;font-size:15px;padding:0px;text-align:left;">
May life bring you continued happiness"
<p style="color:#000000;font-size:15px;padding:0px;text-align:left;">
And there are no doubt others like them that reacted the same way without commenting, and perhaps others more that were persuaded by their response to the interview. That's not to say garnering media support or fairness isn't an uphill battle, but it can happen and there are agents in the media eager to approach the issue fairly.
I wonder if you guys even realise how much your views are entrenched in this "either- or" narrative. How little imagination you have for a middle ground position. How quickly all our ideals become mere lip service in blind obedience to tribalistic instincts. "Us versus them" mentality.
Yes, a certain percentage of society will never be convinced of the harmlessness of moderate zoophilia. But those people with already firm negative beliefs isn´t what we should be aiming at as it´s per se in total vain. We should aim at the group of moderates in society, the majority who´s not engaged in anti zoo groups, never been exposed to zoophilia and bestiality before. We should make sure we offer the best image to them if you ask me. Being around horses taught me that a "heads through the wall" attitude won´t get you anywhere and only builds up more and more resistance. So why use that stubbornness approach here? Why not trying to understand society in what it is doing instead of playing partisan "blame games" and find new approaches that work better for us? Why this clinging to an approach that already has been proven to fail and led to lots of new laws worldwide?
Why not use smarts? We could swallow down our "zoo pride" for a moment and admit that our problem first and foremost is a communication problem. One of the aspects of that problem is: we don´t live up to our principles. We preach water when we´re attacked, but drink wine ourselves. All we say is considered a lie from perverted individuals only searching for a halfways decent semi rational justification for the simple reason we as a community just talk the talk, but don´t walk the walk. We say "exploiting animals is abhorrent", but many of us seem to be either very fond of animal fuck films or otherwise not recognising animal porn as another form of animal exploitation. The animal has nothing from being turned into a "film star" (and miss me with excuses like "but the profit from my homemade AP feeds the animals"; if you need shooting porn to provide for your animals, you shouldn´t have animals at all...) and it heavily increases the chances of identification by such things as fur pattern, environmental landmarks, faces etc....what probably will lead to incarceration of the porn makers, but almost surely to the death of the animal involved. NO normal person wants to adopt the seized animal of a beasty/zoo. Why are we so accusing society of animal exploitation in all the varying segments of the market, but are totally okay when animals are exploited by our own kind?
Just think of Aluzky for a minute...that very vocal guy jumping from comment section to comment section,spreading "zoo illumination" everywhere. Even his stubborn way of "exchanging" "rational" arguments shows how much even rather unimportant factors can heavily influence perception of us as an entire group. Now add how he was perceived when it came out that he´s preaching his "I have respect for the animals because I´m totally a ZUUUH!", but offers a dog walking service solely for getting access to dog...desppite already having a dog of his own. It´s not solely about the message, the messenger also plays a role. The catholic dogma, a rather irrational convolute of rules and don´ts, is harder to sell with a Borgia like pope than with a pope like Francis who actually walks like he talks. Why would anyone expect this to be different in our case? Stringency and honesty even when it hurts our own cause is missing. Instead, this tribalism making any compromises with society impossible is prevailing. And most of us who are following that "heads through the walls" approach are completely clueless about the growing antipathy of society towards us because of that attitude of total confrontation. The more partisan one side gets, the more the other side will also become partisan.
So, what are the alternatives here? Going on like we´ve done in the last decades, getting the same result of toal failure in every aspect? Or will we finally admit that it´s not only society´s fault, 110%? And use our wits to offer some real alternatives? I´m not insisting on my proposed model of zoophilia under supervision, but please miss me with just another attempt to offer a poorly disguised "total legalisation of Zoophilia is it!" solution. We need to adress the issues without any bias and with a healthy portion of scepticism towards our own excuses, explanations and justifications. We shouldn´t shy away from our own community´s taboos, in fact taking good care of those grey areas is a precondition that must be met even before we can expect any relevant and meaningful debates with the outside...well, with the moderate ones who haven´t already stumbled across our "public image desasters" and animal porn or are rational enough not to take the first perception of our scene as the final verdict. Just standing on your position, expecting the other to move first before you even think of moveing the tiniest little bit yourself isn´t gonna win you much sympathies and is perceived as unwillingness to compromise , not ready to give in order to get. Egocentric. Not trustworthy. Compulsive liar or victim of his filter bubble mentality. It´s not even to be called a stalemate. IN an era of reemerging conservatism, is opting for the most sexually permissive idea of "let´s make fucking animals legal for everyone!" actually a good choice? Or shouldn´t we adapt our expectations according to the changing zeitgeist pendulum swinging back towards a more conservative view of sexuality originating in the massive overstressing of the average person with all kinds of fancy new subcultures trying to force the public into not only tolerance, but full forced acceptance and perceived goal of privilege, not equality. The sexual revolution, like any other revolution, will eat its kids, folks. That´s what´s happening right now...and you really want total freedom and no interference in sex with animals? Living beings that don´t have the option to flee from abusive "zoophilia", dependent on the willingness for constant self reflection of the "zoo" involved. They can´t walk into a police station and call you a rapist themselves, you know...this " I fuck animals and therefor cannot be wrong" attitude is so toxic for our community. We all are sometimes victims of our own selective perception and are just a bit too convinced of this "zoos can´t do wrong" narrative for my tastes. It honestly looks like two equally extreme fronts battle for dominance here, our side being not a bit better, more rational or responsibly acting as our opponents. Either - or, you remember? Total opposition towards zoophilia on one and total unlimited , unhinged access to fuck animals for everyone on the other side, no ground in between. Does anyone actually believe cotinuing radicalisation will lead elsewhere but towards total obliteration of the ones who are outnumbered by millions and outgunned by large? With that stubbornness, you guys truly brought us into one of those "either - or" situations you seem to love so much...but it´s sadly not about "legal zoophilia" and "totally legal zoophilia", but about either learning to adapt or total failure, over and over again until governments around the world really had it with us animal fuckers and actually begin real oppression. SO, what will it be?
Quote:
1 hour ago, heavyhorse said:
The problem is that there is no "Right" in the public perception. Sex with animals = felony conviction. You can try to "feather" it all you want, this= bad; this= good, but there is no finessing it to the extent that it won't be a public spectacle. The entire concept of sex with animals is a public spectacle. You can argue about deep, heartfelt undivided love all you want, the public sees "Animal fucker!!!" The media will be unforgiving, the legislature will take it as sign that they haven't made enough laws, the animals will be executed, and the person making the argument will be run to ground and prosecuted. There is no good outcome to a public service campaign.
That´s just not an adaequate description of the real situation,HH. Yeah, there are quite some of those people you describe, but there are also lots of people without any preconception of zoophilia simply because they never were confronted with it and never would have gotten the idea by themselves. Sure, everyone has a certain gut feeling when another one tries to tell him about his deep sexual and emotional love of an animal, but most people simply are rather undecided in a certain sense. Biased, most often towards the "eeewwww!sick!" side, but not inapproachable for discourse. I´ve had more contacts with people who turned out to be at least tolerant (in the true meaning of this word as "I absolutely don´t like what you´re doing, but you both seem to be a happy couple and I see no reason to interfere although I still have my doubts about you") than with people radically and categorically opposed to zoophilia in every way. Of course I´m talking from a Germany centered perspective and cannot know how the atmosphere is overseas, but the propagated "overwhelming majority of people are completely zoo anti" narrative just doesn´t match up with reality over here. I´ve had some rational discussions about zoophilia with the outside. I had my talks with rather doubtful friends making some of the points I usually bring up when criticising the current state of our community. I haven´t pulled those points out of my ass, you know. The media is not half as "unforgiving" as you try to sell it here, over the time, alot of decent and neutrality focused articles have emerged. Of course you won´t find those in the yellow press and on clickbait sites pushing sensationalistic news for clicks, but if you dig deeper, there are a lot of rather forgiving articles out there. So please don´t paint that picture of us as a repressed minority on an almost holocaustian level again. Most of these "us versus them" feelings are hardly more than self hypnosis to fit into a victim role for various reasons. And actually it´s this stubborn fight for totally unregulated zoophilia that largely contributes to the government further focusing its attention on our scene. "Look, Bob, those animal fuckers we just outlawed now demand total laissez faire now! I guess we haven´t made our point clear enough already..." - "Yeah, Frank, they apparently want more..."
You want to be trusted with your animals by society? Why don´t you put in the least little amount of trust in society yourselves? Why is it alway that others owe YOU things first, but you don´t feel any obligation to give back the favour? Only good communication with the outside offering real alternatives to the either - or binary thinking will lead to changes. I´m not saying anyone should go and molest random people with his orientation, I´m also not saying that improvements will come by a fingersnip..it still will be a real struggle. But at least the chances of succeeding aren´t glued to the point of absolute zero anymore that way.
It´s not as desperate as it looks for us...but the main factor is us, not society and ramming our narrative down random people´s throats at all costs.
While I disagree with 30-30s tangents he does make thee solitary good point that letting your enemies handle introductions isn't in anyone's best interest.
Are you trying to make my point for me?
There have been favorable interviews, well received by some, as stated above.
Yet the legal climate and public opinion have never been less in our favor.
Almost like, you know, the more public exposure, the worse it gets.
What is it they say about repeating the same thing, hoping for different results?
Quote:
2 hours ago, heavyhorse said:
Are you trying to make my point for me?
Well...maybe. Spring just started and I´m literally sitting every second on my tractor preparing the greenland when I´m not with my horses. I´ve had a total combined 5 hours of sleep in the last two days and so, my cognitive abilities are a bit decreasing due to lack of sleep.
Quote:
1 hour ago, 30-30 said:
Well...maybe. Spring just started and I´m literally sitting every second on my tractor preparing the greenland when I´m not with my horses. I´ve had a total combined 5 hours of sleep in the last two days and so, my cognitive abilities are a bit decreasing due to lack of sleep.
I can totally understand this. Lambs being born in the midst of "the winter that never ends" at this end. I wish you success.
Quote:
5 hours ago, heavyhorse said:
Are you trying to make my point for me?
There have been favorable interviews, well received by some, as stated above.
Yet the legal climate and public opinion have never been less in our favor.
Almost like, you know, the more public exposure, the worse it gets.
What is it they say about repeating the same thing, hoping for different results?
Or favorable media content, while present in a good capacity, is too rare to overcome the effects of an inflated negative media presence. The correlation could go either way.
There was a time when I believed that writing such as my own & a few other "zoo" authors, introduced to the mainstream, would effect a more positive attitude toward zoophilia. I even went so far as to release some stories under a pseudonym to see how it would be received. Though sex was minor or non-existent in these stories, all discussions these stories started with "normals" turned to that, in the main voyeuristic type queries and rude 'farmboy' jokes. I compared the same stories released to the zoo community, and received about the same results.This is the reason I write so little now, but my point here is that we cannot expect reasonable results in publicly discussing zoophilia when we are still not at a level where we can privately discuss it in a mature manner. What I see in this thread has been the best so far just on whether to discuss it.
I don't believe public discourse to be impossible, but I feel changing of hearts and minds needs to be taken very slowly, and to begin in entertainment as well as politic, or even before it. I still believe the key belongs in the zoophilic authors & artists creating work appealing to the common man, and even that may be a long road.
Just my thoughts.
sw
By no means did I mean to imply I would be a good enough writer to do this, it would take a very carefully-considered approach beyond what I think any of us could do alone, but that making no attempt was worthless considering its pretty well guaranteed that without a controlled message, there's going to be an uncontrolled one and that will definitely not favor us.
|
