/zoo/ - Zoophilia

>>1142

I don't own a female dog and I am also interested in sharing with someone.

Fuck you, if you have to be a zoo an animal should be a lover, not a sex toy.

>>5295

truth

>>5295

thank you mr. hypocrite, your opinion is very important to us

>>5308

thank you mr. bestialist, your opinion is very important to us

>>5331

Funny. I'm into zoo porn, but I've never had sex with an animal and don't really want to. You, from what i gathered, have regular sex with yours.

And you call ME bestialist?

Think about it.

>>5344

i see we have an obvious troll

>>5295

Not everybody subscribes to that bullshit. You can rationalize that it's okay for you to fuck your own dog, but nobody else can fuck your dog because that would instantly degrade your dog to sex toy status?

Give your dog a little more credit.

>>5295

It would make her a slut, so, basically a living sex toy.

>>5429

Way to degrade sluts

>>5430

>>>/tumblr/

>>5431

oh NOW we're referencing tumblr

lol

>>5430

>implying sluts deserve respect

kek.

I have no respect for pieces of shit that share animals. The only people who do that are the hardcore animal rapists, such as dog69er and others like him.

And when I mean hardcore animal rape I mean raping tied and bound male animals, branding while fully awake for sadistic pleasure, tying rubber bands around their balls until they go purple from blood loss, hitting, spanking, etc, etc etc.

If you are interested in sharing, you better get used to the drug and animal rape scene. Otherwise, you're better off getting your own animal to love and care for. People who share are lower than scum and should be executed.

>>5295

Agree, thank god some zoosexuals are still out there. Fuck bestialists.

>>5446

Right but you're still making a strawman.

There's nothing inherently morally wrong about sharing animals, the same way there isn't about having sex with them.

It IS likely true that practically speaking the scene that shares animals loosely is more likely sport abuse, or rather neglect, from predictable sociology. But to turn that into "all people who share animals are dog69ers" reflects more on you than anything.

>>5450

>Right but you're still making a strawman.

it's not, in fact, a strawman.

you are incredibly naive.

>>5451

I have trouble believing anyone who honestly writes >>5446 has had many zoo friends or spent time actually talking to zoos. Because if you did you would see a good number of zoos have in fact shared animals that are nowhere near the dog69er picture that's being painted.

long post incoming!

>>5446

<joke>sharing is caring</joke> just like >>5450 said, you make a logical fallacy although like >>5451 said its not a strawman its a syllogistic association fallacy

to say that >"all people who share animals are dog69ers".

>>5446 complains about sharing, yet advises to basically exchange units of currency in order to obtain property (getting your "own" dog / "owning" a dog)... fail

it is also fallacious (syllogistic association fallacy) to equate drugs and rape. you support doing animals but not doing plants/minerals? sure the s(ex) gets turned into s(moke) but my question/argument is still valid oh and no one deserves to get executed mr. or mrs. rightwing extremist.

>>5447

thruth. although you are confusing bestiality with zoosadism. fuck zoosadist, tolerate (but dont encourage/support) bestialists, respect and support zoophiles.

like >>5450 says. there is nothing 'inherently' wrong with sharing. and while no one should be encouraged to share, it does not degrade to slut status AT ALL.

animals mate with several pack/herd/pride members. and while only the "owners" are considered the alfas, other humanimals arn't exactly off limits. its the

pimping out thats the issue. meaning people who are actively seeking out to share. not some people who are friends and are not bothered that their parter

might occasionally mate with someone else. besides, shouldn't your partner get to have a choice whom they want to mate with? i thought zoos are all about consent?

what if s/he consents to another wo/man? are you then "forcing" your archaic patriarchical based marital ideals upon them? eg she only has the right to love me an me alone? and while i still don't encourage sharing, the real issue is not knowing who you can trust. and by that im not even worried that its a LEA trap or whatever,

but from the "owners" perspective. how can i trust anyone to not hurt/harm my loved one? THAT should be the question.

>>5447

fuck bestialist? see >>>/zoo/res/49.html#5394 (mare thread) for the definition of bestiality.

>>5295

you dont support sharing. i get that. but if sharing is bad because it degrades, then what are you doing here?

isn't using animals for pron/getting off then also lowering the 'partner' that is being 'used' to create the material?

this is in fact "virtual sharing", which may or may not qualify as discrimination by objectification. so arguing that IRL sharing is bad, yet

virtual sharing is somehow ok is pretty hypocritical

the amateur erotic material can be defended. hey, we are in love and like to tape it. but creating this content for financial gain? even if the sex is consentual...

on the other hand, supposing that a nonhuman could understand the implications of pimping or pron, i sincirely doubt that animals would care.

so this isn't directly negative for the animal, it does however, reveal the 'zoos' state of mind who requests such things.

by far a more ethical dillemma is 'obtaing' an animal. how does a truzoo / nonbeast go about in finding a suitable partner?

the first time is usually out of the zoos control. eg the zoo didn't cause the conditions that are required.

meaning it was a family pet or neighnbors mare, where the zoo had no control over in assuring the 'availability' of a partner.

but what about later in life? a zoo must then go out and buy a partner. and even if anything that happens does so consentually,

the situation is still forced by selection. so zoos try to make arguments about morality and romance and love, yet select an animal that

they then (make themselves???) fall in love with. its not like with humans, where you can meet by coincidence and THEN fall in love. its a truzoos moral dillemma

which means they (hopefully) constantly question themselves if this is really 'love'. if you are causing the conditions in your environment to change,

then in a way this if a form or force as you are branding the newly accquired pet to (hopefully) become a partner.

and what if you had selected another dog at the pet store/pound? would you still 'love' them the same way?

besides if you have the drive to share, its simply telling us that you are horny and dont have a way to get off.

also zoos don't "own" their any animals. they "live" with them.

>>5452

exactly

>>5452

while >>5446 is exaggerating by saying they're all. i've dug and been around enough to be almost certain that a majority AT LEAST are like that.

again. you are naive.

me >>5455 again in response to >>5458

yes, i have been doing some research myself and sadly there are indeed many people who don't treat animals with respect.

and yes, some of them are indeed self-labled zoos. but please, lets not confuse bestiality with zoophilia.

>again. you are naive.

i'm not the same poster as >>5450 / >>5451 (this is probably you since you used the word "again"). so if anything i would "also" be naive. which isn't correct.

and if so, would you care to specify what i have said that would make me naive?

>>5458

What part of "a good number of zoos" is naive? "a good number of zoos" physically exist, they're easily found, and they're what prove wrong the claim that "all of them are dog69ers". Nothing more, nothing less.

>>5461

yeah... but all >>5452 claimed was that there are "a good number" of zoos that share but don't rape. still don't get what this has got anything to do with naivity!

>>5455

>although you are confusing bestiality with zoosadism. fuck zoosadist, tolerate (but dont encourage/support) bestialists, respect and support zoophiles.

I don't even categorize. The line between "bestialist" and "zoophile" blurs and shifts the longer you look into the details of someone's life and depending on the aspect you look at and it becomes futile exercise. And company comes down to the individual.

---

RE: naivety, I don't even deny abuse is rampant. It is, it'll always be, and it naturally will correlate more to some mindsets than others looking at population level, because people. I'm just dumbstruck at the polarizing to extremes and pigeonholing that goes on in these talks.

>>5463

well the definitions are all pretty clear cut.

>I don't even categorize. The line between "bestialist" and "zoophile" blurs and shifts

its important to categorize. this is how we define, understand and relate to the world

it might not be ok to go out and label a certain individual as say a "fag" but fact is within sexuality

there is a category that we define as homosexuality. the line get blurred? never. rape is always rape and consent is always consent. to blurr the terms or even equate the two is oxymoronic.

i think what you mean is that a zoosadist might on occasion not rape their partner but actually have consentual sex. but its the times where that does not happen which define them as sadists. and it might also

be true that a true zoo may have (accidentally) raped an animals before because they did not understand (at the time) how to read the cues. or what ever. another option is that people do change. someone who started out as a rapist/thieve/etc can change for the better. just like someone who was a zoophile might

at some point in their life realize that zoosadism turns them on and from then on become one.

either way, the definitions don't change. people do.

and words change too. although their definitions don't

no matter what string of letters refers to sex with animals, it always remains the same definition.

years ago SWA was called sodomy, then bestiality, now zoosexuality, etc.

the very nature of the debate if humanity should accept zoomanity is polarizing. nothing can be done about that. just like the debates about adoption, abortion, gay marriage, legalizing weed, etc are what is polarizing society. its not pidgeonholing if the definitions are clear cut and based on objective facts.

this is also probably the wrong place with the wrong audience. but that doesn't chagne the facts that someon needs to have "these talks"

what did you expect would happen after someone started a pet sharing thread?

at least they are not hijacking another thread dedicated to those who just want content

>>5465

That's all completely inane. First of all I don't refer to zoosadism. Second, no, pigeonholing people between those two categories they will at different aspects logically belong to but very unclearly due many confounding factors serves zero purpose to me, and arguably for a good part of zoo issues, in fact detrimental. I'm out of time for this nonsense.

Does nobody else think the word "sharing" is already a part of the problem? Doesn't that make it sound like you're sharing an inanimate object like "I'm sharing my computer with my friend" or something like that?

In theory I don't have objections to get together with someone you trust and know for a fact is not going to force or coerce animals to have sex - and then allow for sex to take place. But the point is: Only when the animal is the final authority who makes the call whether sex is happening or not. For me the important part is to respect animals as individuals who have the control over their own sexuality.

Now advertising an animal to strangers on the internet like a sexual object, that is sorely lacking this kind of respect. Even more so if it is for profit.

>>5467

how was that insane? the problem is that society pidgeonholes all of zoo

related stuff into the same box. so in terms of public perception the zoo comunity must pidgeonhole the differences into the appropriate categories FOR the public., and thus it does serve a purpose. perhaps not a great one (seeking acceptance). and yeah, if the regular public sees the usual zoo drama, then that would indeed be detrimental. thanks for your time though. i have to go as well. later.

>>5468

bingo

if my dog naturally wants to fuck someone else, that's fine.

but essentially prostituting him/her out on the internet would be disgusting.

>>5468

English language is kinda strange in this aspect so don't pay attention to that kind of things.

possessive andjectives and absolute possessive pronouns

do not distinguish beween a 'person' or and object. the problem with

our current use of the language is that it gets deeply rooted in our psychology.

whats worse is the disrespective usage of 'it'. and if our children grow up

thinking and refering to animals as 'its' but humans never as 'it' we get

a self-enforcing mindset that animals are lower, or can be possessed, dont have a soul,

can't have emotions, are not sentient, can be slaughtered without have to feel as bad as if you

killed a human, etc

"Pet Sharing thread" sounds so much better than "Talk with other Zoophiles in order to arrange a completely platonic meetup in order to determine if an animal in the possession of one or more parties is interested in consensual sexual contact with an unfamiliar person thread."

I also don't see why it's such a big deal. I don't think anybody went into this thread with the intent to find someone willing to pass around their dog like a fuck-sock, so why is everybody all of a sudden comparing consensual pet sharing to zoosadism?

>>5513

how about "(zoo) double dating" or "(zoo) threesome meetup" or "(zoo) swingers"? etc...

>so why is everybody all of a sudden comparing consensual pet sharing to zoosadism?

nobody was comparing the two. if i understood correctly then they were saying its bestiality