Zoophilia and Pedophilia

This is another topic I touched on in another post, a long time ago, but given the amount of discussion I've had on it recently I feel I ought to talk more about it.

Almost invariably, like some sort of sexual Godwin's Law, when debating with someone about the morality of zoosexuality my opponent will claim that zooerasty (or "be(a)stiality" as it is far more often termed, which as far as I'm concerned is like calling anal sex "assrape") is just the same as pederasty because animals, like children, have no concept of sex and are too uneducated to appropriately respond to it.

There are many arguments against this.  Most shouldn't be necessary: any ethologist, comparative psychologist, or animal breeder will know from study or observation that animals frequently proposition others for sex, have sex, react favourably towards sex, and eventually come back again for more sex.  Sex can even be used as a reward stimulus in Pavlovian conditioning.  Humans too.  And anyone with any knowledge of natural selection would surmise that if every animal on the planet apart from humans was not capable of showing sexual readiness, propositioning others for sex, and enjoying sex, then biodiversity would be very slim indeed.  And this enjoyment of sex is definitely not limited to same-species intercourse.

But let's assume correctly that these assertions are not enough for many people, who believe that the reason children should not have sex with adults, and therefore the reason animals should not have sex with humans, is because children do not have the mental capacity to understand it.  This is true, but what these individuals do not realize is that this truth does not extend to mature animals, and that this fact is readily observable.  The easiest way to find the onset of sexual interest is to examine sex hormone levels.  These hormones are necessary not just directly to the sex drive but also to the development of various somatic and neurological structures.  We can actually see a child's brain readying itself for sexual intercourse, and this does not take place until puberty.  The same goes for any mammal, and the chemicals (mainly estrogen and testosterone) and brain structures (especially the hypothalamus and other subcortical structures in the forebrain, such as the pituitary gland, nucleus accumbens, and caudate nucleus) involved are universal, with only slight changes to relevant structures and none suggesting any human exceptionalism.



There have been organizations of pedophiles who have suggested otherwise.  Perhaps most famous is the Party for Neighbourly Love, Freedom, and Diversity (Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit) in the Netherlands, in existence from 2006-2010.  It advocated initially for a drastic reduction of age-of-consent and eventually its elimination, and it and other organizations have released pamphlets, for adults and children, with the suggestion that pre-pubescent youth can desire and even frequently proposition adults for sex.  Is this any different from what zoosexuals say about animals?

I would naturally argue that it is.  Active pedophiles tend to view entirely innocuous gestures as sexual proposition: an eight-year-old girl does a headstand and inadvertently shows her panties, or a six-year-old boy urinates at a campground, unaware or uncaring of his visibility.  Children themselves, of course, don't respond sexually when they see one another's undergarments, and even were adults to perform them, these gestures would never be recognized as sexual overtures.  The assumption would then have to be that not only are children capable of making such overtures, but have a far more complex social and sexual mind than do their post-pubescent counterparts that belies the fact that they may not get why peeing in public should be embarrassing.

It is sometimes suggested that prepubescent children masturbate or even engage in sexual conduct with one another, but this is a misrepresentation: while children may touch themselves, or touch one another in what is called "sex play" by developmental psychologists, these never result in orgasm, nor do they ever result in consistent sexual attention.  It is best regarded as exploratory, in the same fashion that a seven-year-old child who plays around with the terminal of a Linux box is not intending to learn to superdo his way into becoming a hacking sensation.  He's just curious about what's going on.

Animals are entirely different: the signals they give off, whether they be humping, displaying of genitalia, or other relevant actions, are unmistakably sexual in nature and could not conceivably be perceived to mean anything else.  As expected, animals respond sexually to one another when presented with these signals.  And unlike children, and like adult humans, they seem to benefit from consensual sexual intercourse physically and psychologically, whether their partner is of their own species or not.  It should be noted that there are many long-term physical and psychological consequences for victims of child sex abuse; indeed, the majority of individuals diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder are victims of child sex abuse.

Finally, there is the question of authority.  This, I think, is best answered with observation and common sense: while a child, even if he or she really does not want to do something, such as going to school, washing the dishes, or eating their broccoli, they will usually do so when told to by an adult, especially one with authority, such as a parent or a teacher.  This is because we as humans have a very developed social intelligence; we have language, we have culture as a result, and we have very complex social norms that often even supercede basic needs and conditioning: that child will eat his broccoli even if it makes him vomit later, because his mother told him to.

Anyone with an animal, on the other hand, even an animal traditionally regarded as very loyal, like a dog, will know that there are many things they will simply not do without a fight no matter how much they seem to dote on you otherwise.  Whether it be going to the vet, going outside when it's cold out, or swallowing a pill, their resistance is clear even if they eventually give in.  With animals such as cats or horses, this resistance is even more clear, and more likely to result in injury to your person.  While there may be a social hierarchy in the mind of your animal, then, the importance of that power you have over them is not nearly as important as their basic needs to not be ill, not be cold, or indeed, not be used or abused sexually.  Any animal, particularly a female, will make it incredibly clear that she is not in the mood for sexual intercourse, regardless of how much she loves you: as an adult, she knows what it is, and knows that now is not the time, and that knowledge is more important than any thought that you might take away her walk privileges.

Which brings up the notion that an animal will jump to these conclusions in the first place: we don't tend to punish our animals for resisting when we want them to go outside, or take a pill.  We just make them go outside, or take the pill.  This is of course different for children: "If you don't stop whining and eat your greens, you won't have TV for a week," isn't that uncommon of a statement.  Children are trained early on to do everything their parents, and other authority figures, want, for fear of punishment.  We are far more lenient on our animals, so why should an animal ever even imagine that should they not consent to sex with us that something bad will happen?  If anything, this is much more likely to happen with our (adult!) human partners, who have been educated socially to believe that sex is necessary for a stable relationship.  To imagine that animals have any such concept is, frankly, to afford them some very hefty intuition about how our modern human culture is organized.  This is not to say that we do not have some level of control over the lives of our animals, and therefore responsibility particularly to take care of them and to ensure they act appropriately in the public space, it is not to all the same extents as children with developing biology and views of the world.

That's the end of my argument.  This took a lot of time out of a day that maybe should have been focused on something that will be productive in my career or for my family, given the time of year (Happy Holidays, zetas & friends!) but given the discussion that has been happening recently, I really felt I needed to update the blog again.

I would just like to finish on one note: despite the abuse and lunacy propagated by the most visible of pedophiles, I believe the average pedophile is someone to be pitied.  The PNVD actually advocated for a ban of zooerasty in the Netherlands, interestingly enough, all the while proclaiming that they should be allowed to have sex with prepubescent children; however, the large majority of pedophiles are not only fully aware that pederasty is grievous abuse, but are indeed terrified and often traumatized by the idea that they may someday lose control and be perpetrators of such abuse.  They have nowhere to turn in our current social system, and even mental health professionals that are willing and capable of assisting pedophiles are few and far between.  So while it has nothing at all to do with zoosexuality, I would like to appeal to the readers of this blog to empathize more with those sad individuals who are cursed with a sexual attraction to prepubescent youth.  It is only through this empathy, and the resulting support, that these individuals can be helped, and thus child sex abuse prevented for the future.  Thank you.

ZETA Responds to Anti-Zoosexuality Law

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/germany-plans-to-outlaw-sex-with-animals-a-869402.html

Many of you may be familiar with the law that is being tossed around German parliament at the moment, intending to re-criminalize sex with animals.  I personally know little about what is going on there, which I suppose helps anyone intent on discovering who I am as they now know that I am either not German or else I am very sneaky.

In any case, though, while this news is absolutely terrible for any zoos in Germany -- and really, eventually, all of Europe -- it does come with a hefty silver lining: zoo rights group ZETA is showing its face and opposing the movement.

A month or two prior to today, I had contact with a member of ZETA via email.  We had an excellent discussion about some sensitive topics, and particularly how best to achieve greater tolerance from the public.  Now, I am thrilled to hear that, at least to some extent, they are putting themselves into action when they are most needed.

Unfortunately, it seems sometimes their message is being taken the wrong way by people.  This article spends much of its time relating the group to people running sex farms and painting their dogs' claws with nail polish.  Another logical fallacy comes in when they quote a vet who notes that it is abusive for dogs to have sex outside of their heat cycles, purely because they are heat cycles (to which we, as enlightened individuals, respond, "So women can only have sex for a few days per month?")

So it seems there is a ways to go: what needs to be done is for a solid line to be drawn.  We can't be viewed as people who just think sex with animals is great and let's all be free and use the critters however we please.  We need to let the public know that we hate sex farms and abusers, if anything, even more than they do.  A common enemy is the best way to forge an alliance; the public just needs to be shown that this enemy exists, and it's not us.

I also think that more than one person -- as it is now -- need to get their face out there.  Write to news stations or to relevant politicians who are likely to be sympathetic.  Tell people your story.  It's mentioned again and again in these articles just how common zoosexuality is, but it's also implied again and again that all or almost all of these individuals are delusional and selfish animal abusers.  People don't go looking for the truth in this incredibly taboo area; they want to stay as far from it as possible and continue hating it, so we really do need to get up in their faces ourselves at this crucial time.

ZETA's website.

Dec 9, 2012: A fantastic interview by Mr Kiok.

A Tale of Forbidden Love

This video, with a whopping ~1,000 views, has got a bit of attention within the zoo community.  So in an effort to break semi-permanently from my hiatus, I am going to talk about it.

A brief synopsis: A man, in a voice-over, talks about his romantic love for his dog, who looks to be a golden lab for you canine aficionados out there.  It's all very sweet, quite melancholy with a bit of humour to it, and though the kissing scene has been noted even by several dog lovers I know/read as really weird and awkward, its heart seems to be in the right place as this couple reclines in simple enjoyment of their secret romance.  In the end, though, come the police and misguided animal welfare activists to take away the pooch, before a woman walking her dog proclaims the man a "dog fucker" followed by a cut to the credits.  The film isn't long, though, so I still recommend you watch it so you can understand what I'm about to say about it.

I know I'm kind of an inflammatory guy; my harsh remarks against COMING SOON (which, by the way, does turn out to be a total hoax; the website for EFA was built after the video and the organization itself does not exist originally, so there) got me my first external links.  But I'm not going to completely tear apart Forbidden Love.  It does paint a picture of a scene not significantly departed from reality.  It shows a mutual, loving relationship that, if a little, almost imperceptibly strange sometimes, seems legitimate enough.  Most importantly, it depicts a story of romance that is inherently tragic right from the beginning: something that is misunderstood, forcibly covert, and inevitably doomed, and tries to tug at the heartstrings of the viewers and gain their sympathy.  Overall, for the majority of the film, it at least resembles a piece I might show a visually-oriented and empathetic person who is critical of zoophilia.

But then there is the ending.  The ending that makes you realize that this is not a film made to actually break new barriers, or challenge mindsets or educate or whatever the above might imply.  It was made entirely for the sake of art, and in this case, the genre is a very dry and hollow comedy that adores its own internal irony: after all the amour, the suspense, the pleading and the heartbreak, there comes an old lady scowling and accusing with the utmost exaggerated blatancy, "Dog fucker!" while her tiny puppy hides behind her legs, and the credits roll to a strange peppy tune.  The intent is to make fun of the rest of the film, and to make fun of the audience in doing so: to say, "Hey, you weren't just feeling sorry for an animal abuser, were you?  Sick!" To emphasize this profanity, there are the variety of archaic images depicting zooerasty flashing on the screen as the credits roll, which nearly everyone expressing themselves in the comments noticed.  As far as the irony goes, I feel that it for the most part went over the heads of the audience, although a few do catch it and even the publisher on YouTube (who was not involved in the creation of the film) places it in the category of "Comedy".

So personally, I feel that this video is not the big break that some have seen it as.  Yes, it puts zoophilia on the table, but at its core, even if it goes unnoticed, it still approaches it in the same way it always is: as the butt of a joke.  Between that and documentaries with nothing but lies, or the wrong sorts of people represented, we have a long way to go before zoos are ever given anything that can be called a fair chance in mass media.  But that's just my opinion.

The Importance of Telling

Sometimes, in my posts in the past, I've liked to note first of all who is the target audience of that particular post.  This one is for zoos; this one, for people wondering what's up with this crazy blog; this one, for animal lovers of all sexualities, etc.  This particular post does have a target audience, but to be perfectly honest I'm not entirely sure who makes it up: zoophiles, most definitely, but also members of other alternative sexualities and related phenomena, be they growing in social acceptability, ie homosexuality, transgender, or not so much, such as necrophilia or potentially even pedophilia if one can relate to what's said here.  The extent to which the advice in this post should be taken will vary depending on what group the reader falls into, so I'll just say this: the more taboo your sexuality, paraphilia, gender affiliation, etc. is, the more careful you should be.  I'll be speaking from the perspective of a zoosexual, obviously, which I would incidentally rate just behind pedophilia in terms of how much the general population wants to lynch you.

A little background first: a number of conversations I've had online in the last few months since I've really got my face out there have involved the idea of people knowing.  And, more often, the idea of people knowing and being OK with it.  This often takes the form of, "I really wish I could find even one other zoophile in my area so I wouldn't feel so alone." For the sake of trying not to imply a limitation here to zoophiles only, though, I'll call this "one other" the sympathetic deviant.

Rarely, though, do these lamentations of zoophiles take the form of, "I wish I could find a non-zoo who would still be my friend and be OK with my sexuality." This, I think, is because, to many, the idea of finding such a person, let alone within one's own group of friends, seems ridiculous.  On knotty.me (I sure talk about that place a lot, don't I?) I mentioned something along those lines and the first response I got was that such people are just so very rare that it's downright dangerous to hope for one.

However, the need to find a sympathetic deviant seems to be synonymous with the need to find someone who just understands.  The need for support.  I say this for two reasons: firstly, in my own experience, having non-members who are OK with your membership is more grounding and heartening than is having members.  Secondly, the drive to find fellow members in other groups seems to often be for the sake of a community of practice, which may include support but is usually preoccupied with the focal point of the practice: in this case, sex.  This is just my pulling things out of what I've seen and nothing else, but though I've heard of zoos getting support from non-zoos, I never hear of zoos supporting zoos in the real world.  For forming communities beyond the internet, we're too rare, too closeted, and too often confused with bestialists who are, put bluntly, too crazy to care about social implications.

Perhaps more importantly, though, one major common thing about sexuality and gender, beyond the taboo often against even the slightest deviation from the norm, is that people tend to hold it as a very crucial thing to their own identity in western culture, which most of us have a drive to express in a fashion that is at least in part public.  Today, sex is everywhere, and so is sexual self-assignment: I'm straight, I'm gay, I'm bi; I identify as masculine, I identify as female, I identify as something in between or nothing at all; I like a little light bondage, I'm a romantic, I'm attracted to these sorts of people... these are at least frequent topics of conversation and at most, things that people feel are very important for others to know when they are interacting with them.  In context, this means that we can make as many new sympathetic deviant friends as we like, but the fact that our current, and likely future, close friends are not aware of who we feel we are often bothers us.  We notice our discomfort with our friends who do not understand and, not recognizing the nuances discussed, simply say, "I need to find someone who understands," and because it seems so terrifying to even hint to our best friend that we deviate so strongly from this monolithic norm, that becomes, "I need to find someone else who will understand," to which the most obvious solution is a sympathetic deviant.

If we recognize this trap as one we have fallen into, though, it becomes clear that rather than searching vainly for this sympathetic deviant, we need to find a way to solve this problem of our oblivious current social group.  People who recognize this, at least implicitly, often fall into the second, much steeper trap of just standing up one day and going, "I have X taboo sexual orientation and if you don't like it well you were never my friend anyway," or something that leads to a similar conclusion.  This is bad for two reasons.  Well, probably more than two reasons, but two reasons we're interested in: first, not all our friends are really close friends to whom we are more important than taboo.  Chances are, particularly if we have a large and open social group, most members are too unattached and frankly too dense to do the right thing for you.  Secondly, there is something of an art to breaking something to someone, and it always amazes me how few people seem to understand this.

So here, on a very basic level, is our solution: Firstly, you actually only need to tell your very closest, most indispensable friend that you have known for years and with whom you would trust your life.  If they know, and even better if they are willing to discuss it, it won't matter that no one else does.  For many people, only one root is needed for that feeling of stability; just having that person with you when the rest of the group starts making jokes unknowingly targeting your proclivities will give a great deal of solace.  Secondly, we need to learn how to tell someone the untellable.

Chances are, if they are a very close friend, they will already have an idea.  I once told someone after five years of kinship, as a younger fellow and still trembling from the stress of doing so, and the response I got was, "Er, yeah?  I kind of figured that out, like, ages ago.  Up for a game?" So rather than actually telling someone, you may just need to hint it strongly.  The issue, in my mind, that people have with just standing up and saying something very taboo is that it seems like the speaker is not even particularly aware of the nature of the taboo: that the point is, you don't treat it the same way you treat, "I kissed Jenny Jenkins on the Twelfth of November" or, "I had HPV last year". These things are taboo, sure, but they can be discussed without people being disgusted, at least not in the long-term.  So instead (and again, I will speak from a zoo's perspective) you might talk about in context how gorgeous X animal is, or make known your views on animal rights and welfare, or make jokes that, should the person know about your sexuality, would seem self-mocking.  Whatever fits your personality.

Whether the hinting works or not, it's important that before you get to the point where you are both on the same level of understanding that your confidant understands just how much trust you are placing in them.  Make sure they know they can't tell another soul.  Really, this is serious, I need to get this off my chest and you're the only one I can turn to.  If you don't think you can make that promise, I understand.  That sort of thing.  You can't just spring this on someone: you have to give them the option of saying that this might be too heavy for them and just backing off.

Finally, you want to reassure your friend that you're still the same person.  You don't fit all those horrible stereotypes and ideas people may have of individuals of your tastes or orientation.  In the specific case of zoophilia: You're not interested in Jason's dog, you don't go romping around in fields at night chasing sheep; you're just living with this attraction, coming to terms with it and taking it a day at a time.  You might be thinking, "Well, what happens if he asks me about my own animals?" and though it may seem counter-intuitive, if you are active with them, and your friend knows them, sees how well you treat them, etc. you should say so.  If this individual is worth your trust, they will realize that although they may have thought of sex with animals as animal abuse, it's pretty clear that you're not abusive.  And reiterate that: say something like, "We're both happy; it's on his/her dime; he/she means the world to me, etc." You need to be truthful, and you need your friend to understand from the very day they first hear the word you've been dreading come out of your mouth.

In closing, I'd like to just once again state that this is dangerous, particularly if your proclivity is active and not entirely legal in your region.  You shouldn't be telling anyone that you don't trust completely.  We zoos, at least, though, are very empathetic people, and I think it would be reaching only in the slightest amount to say that we often have a sense for who is trustworthy and who is not.  And taking that step towards bringing your very best friend into your world can not only get you that support and grounding that you've been looking for, but also really solidify your friendship.  You might find that they start telling you things about their life that they never tell anyone else.  You'll be able to talk about anything without boundaries.  Friends like these are not found, they're made, and in that process of development there will always be some pain and sacrifice.  That's how life works.  It's how anything grows.  And you may find, as I did, that individuals who will not only listen but support you are not really so rare after all.

Good luck to you and yours.


Also, landmark: 10 000 hits!  Despite my absence, the average daily views of this blog has continued to increase.

Cambridge: Animals as Conscious as Humans

I'm about a month late to the show; summer is the season of the slowest transmission of academic information for reasons that are probably obvious, but:

"...the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."

Link.

What else is there really to say but, "It's about damn time"?  This is less of a scientific breakthrough and more of a political one: the stuff brought up in this conference has been basic knowledge for quite a long time.  That's a good thing: it means that it's actually going to get around to public knowledge rather than get holed up in some journal somewhere that no layman will ever hear of let alone read - especially since Stephen Hawking attended the signing, and it was also featured on 60 Minutes.

So, it's a little early now, but what can we expect to get from this?  First of all, probably a slower rate of advancement in neuroscience and medicine in general.  This sounds like a bad thing, and it may be, but it will be as a result of more stringent regulations on animal testing.

Then again, it may also more strongly suggest that animal testing is more valid, meaning you will get the same level of advancement for fewer tests.  Wherever you go there are always people saying that you can't go off of just a few animal trials because animals aren't the same as humans.  This is obviously still true, but when it comes to psych and some areas of neurosci that don't explicitly involve the neocortex, we may start being able to get more for less.

Most importantly, we'll get public acknowledgment of the worth of animals as individuals.  It's unfortunate how many people you can come across today who don't believe animals really have thoughts and feelings; these tend to be people who either were never close at all to their pets or didn't have pets at all, in my experience, which is a growing percentage of the population with continued urbanization.

As I noted before, this conference is geared primarily as a social and philosophical change rather than a scientific one, so this, I think, is where we'll start to see the most change.  It will come slowly, and perhaps I'm jumping the gun just a little here, but I would hazard that the global and inevitably successful anti-anthrocentrist movement has already begun.  As it progresses, we'll see not only changes in the way people see animals, but the way we see the natural world at large: suddenly our non-human neighbors become far more important, and conservation becomes an issue.  Environmental decline could slow as a result.  Social things too, of course: with the acknowledgment of animal consciousness, animal intelligence is only a couple steps away, and with that the rights of zoophiles.

All this from one conference?  No.  But it's a start.  I like to be optimistic, because in my experience if you publicly assume that something is going to happen, people around you believe so as well and change their behaviour accordingly, so as far as I'm concerned this is just a big step towards all of these big transformations of society and academia.  Spread the word; save the world.

I don't know when my next post will be, but the moral of the story is that if you have some news or something otherwise fascinating for me to write about, I will drop everything to do so.  Good work, "lovingpegasister".

Man vs. Wild?

I just finished watching a program that contained a refuge for ex-domesticated 'wild' animals.  Three people were in an enclosure feeding the inhabitants.  The narrator was going on about how quickly these animals can move and how the individuals needed to be constantly aware of where each animal was and be prepared to react.

The enclosure was home to four bobcat kittens.  They were about the size of your housecat and with the temperament of your typical semi-domestic apprehensive kitty.

This annoyed me, hopefully for obvious reasons.  As far as I know, there has never even been a bobcat attack on a human being in the wild.  Even in captivity I've never heard of a bobcat trying to eat a person, and sure as hell never a kitten.  But here are these so-called professionals tip-toeing around these babies as though they were afraid of waking up fully grown lions.

The same people go on to say that the most tragic thing about the refuge is that all the animals were once kept as pets.  I can agree with this to some extent, but to me, it's equally tragic that you, dear hostess, seem so fond of drawing such stark lines: if it's wild, it must be wild, and it's therefore so much more dangerous than anything manmade.

That's when the real problem arises.  We have such a divide from nature, and these folks see themselves as naturalists when all they are actually doing is pushing our species further and further away from considering itself a part of the natural world, and therefore devaluing what we see as the natural world - or in this case, perpetuating fear of it.  No one considers that puppy and kitty are descendants of wolves and wildcats that were adopted thousands of years ago by loons like me.

The tragedy expressed should be that there are people in the world who think it's perfectly OK to keep a leopard in their basement, or a hippo in their backyard.  Unlike our nomadic ancestors, we do not always have the luxury of space and ready-made habitat for our wild animal companions.  According to this show host, I imagine, this marks an impossibility, but clearly it is not: some of us do in fact have large tracts of property where certain animals that require a lot of land can be kept.  Some of us have the inclination to devote great amounts of time and money to those animals.

We see examples of this in the media, and it's not even hard to meet such people online: those who give their animals a lot of space, care for them, and have a very happy and healthy critter who adores them.  Smartly, these individuals do not tend to call their animals "pets" and advise others that just because they are doing it doesn't mean any joe can fork over a couple thousand dollars and stick a wolf in his living room.

Does it remain a bad thing simply because, as this hostess put it, it is "unnatural"?  As prone as I am to falling back to it, we know that this is a logical fallacy, so let's examine it more closely.  The main issue seems to be that there are a lot of people out there who are complete imbeciles and either don't know or don't care to know how to take care of a non-domesticated animal.  They are the problem.  Suppose the individual in question does know and happily applies their knowledge.  The animal is as happy and healthy as their domesticated counterparts, and likely much more so than their wild counterparts: we know that, while many animals are not naturally social, just from experience that even they do much better when they do have some mode of socialization.  Speaking with someone who raises leopards, he said to me that it is actually better to have two rather than one for just this reason.  They will also be more healthy, since they have a regular source of food, hopefully still of exercise (again, this comes down to knowing how to care for the animal), and have someone to care for them if they fall ill.

So if anything, there is an upside to these few individuals existing who have the capacity, both in terms of property and finances and in knowledge, as well as in inclination, to care for non-domestic animals: the animals are safer, better cared for, and happy.  The humans... well, we get one of the few life-lines we have to the natural world: something that says hey, wait a minute, just because it hasn't been hacked together using opposable thumbs doesn't mean it is strange and dangerous and must be avoided at all costs.  There are things we can learn from them, things we can learn about them in order to not only gain a better understanding of the animal but also of ourselves: where we come from, and where we fit in.  There is so much ignorance out there: I have even met a veterinarian that believes most mammals do not have a clitoris, because clearly God made man and gave him sexual pleasure, but not to other animals - process of sexual differentiation from clitoris to penis be damned. (Don't ask how we got to that conversation; it's not what you think.) And now I have come across someone who runs an animal refuge who thinks bobcat kittens are highly dangerous.  Let's get off of our high horse, people, and out from under our bedsheets and strive instead for a little more understanding here, shall we?

Operation Outrage: Beastiality

[title sic]

So, what's going on?  Well, it seems Anonymous has turned their innocuous gaze towards the zoophilic community.  Now, for the sake of this article, we're going to ignore the fact that Anonymous has never done anything of note in its entire existence, and employs nothing but DDOS attacks, which if you didn't know is the most ham-fisted form of messing with a website there is.  It's not even hacking.  A while back they attempted to bring down all child pornographers on the Hidden Web, which turned out to be great to eat popcorn to.  We'll also ignore that it's not even a coherent organization and by definition anyone can by Anonymous.  Finally, we'll ignore that they'll likely bounce off this topic like a fox on a trampoline.

This supposed assault on zoo porn sites was brought to my attention by another zoophile, and they, and of course most others, were very quick to say that this is a problem and we all must be even more careful than before, or at least pointing out that this probably won't be a big deal and, again, Anonymous are about as effective as... well, I already used up my simile for the day, but you know what I mean.

I had a slightly different immediate reaction: while of course I didn't like the fact that yet another high-profile group is badmouthing zoosexuals, a few things made me think more positively about this.  And the first one doesn't even require Anon to do anything: the very first line, "We recently have come to realize that bestiality is a rising problem in the world right now. It is controversial and by god, a rising act." This means, if nothing else, that people are getting out there, not just on porn sites as those have existed for ages, but on forums and places that Anon "members" actually frequent and saying, "Look, here I am." That means you get reactions like this, but also some reactions by people who might be more inclined to use logic when approached with something new.

This is reinforced by the second thing: the poster of this Pastebin document did not use the word "zoophilia" or derivatives once.  They're also only attacking those sites where there is porn, which also happen to be the sites that are home to a ton of bestialists rather than zoophiles.  The only community site they are attacking is Beastforum which, in my opinion, could probably use an attack from someone more competent than Anon.

Given this, and also given the fact that they have a lot of sites that they plan on bringin' down - a lot more than I even knew existed - suggesting that at least some of their human spider-bots might themselves have a little more experience than they let on to their bestialist-hating buddies, I think this is far from the most disturbing news for zoophiles, and may even lead to some good things.  Even better things if Anonymous magically acquires talent.

I'm still on the fence: I could be wrong and they would target this blog if they thought it had porn on it, despite all of the things it says that would agree with their anti-animal abuse message, but you know what?  Just to stir the pot, I'm going to say that, Anon's history aside, they have my support here.  Go get 'em, guys.

Female Zoos and Sample Bias

Nearly every article, academic or not, that I find on "zoophilia" or "bestiality" (because they're the same thing, right?) is quick to point out that sex with animals seems to be an almost entirely male phenomenon.

I know for a fact that a number of people reading this article will be raising their eyebrows, shaking their heads, and/or scowling, at least mentally.  The reason for this is often that they themselves are women.

So what's the deal?  Are these ladies outliers, little statistical blips in otherwise solid data?  Or is there something more?

In my personal experience - which cannot be used in research - female zoos are actually just as common as male zoos.  The trick to discovering this is to go on communities that are not specifically for zoophiles.  In being briefly open about my sexuality on a large online community, I received a lot of messages from people, many of which said, "Me too!" Roughly half of these individuals out of several dozen were female.  This in itself is bizarre, because in that community, only about a third of all users - zoosexual or not - were female.  This isn't the most scientific of ways of gathering data, but if we were to take it seriously, it would indicate that the majority of zoosexual individuals are female.

Let's look at another pseudo-statistic: On knotty.me, a non-pornographic forum I advertised a few weeks ago, at least two (possibly more) of the ten most active members are female.  So, fewer ladies, but still more than people tend to think exist.  We're getting closer to the source of the difference.

The simple fact is that not only do men tend to be on online communities more often than women, as evidenced by any "What is your gender?" poll you can find on an online forum, and not counting things like Facebook which are more gender-neutral, but they also tend to be far more often on online communities geared towards sexuality.  Men are more commonly visual sexual beings: we are more than twice as likely as women to view pornography on a regular basis, and so are probably more than twice as likely to find online communities and resources related to sexual activity.  These two facts are almost certainly responsible for a strong skew towards men in any study on paraphilias that use the internet as a source of participants, which is almost all of them.  It's very difficult to put an ad out on the street for pedophiles to call you or walk into your office, or approach random individuals in a shopping mall with clipboard in hand and the question, "Have you ever given your dog a blow job?" You get the idea.

And from that idea we get the other source of participants in studies on paraphilias, and the other bias: prisons.  One of the most commonly cited studies concerning zooerasty is a case study on a sex offender who also happened to rape animals.  People had no problem taking this to mean that it may be common for zooerasty to predict [other forms of] criminality.  The bias here is obvious, but prisons continue to be used as easy ways to get sample populations for studies on deviant behaviours of all kinds, and for one reason or another, prisons are primarily inhabited by men.  Just like with criminal pedophiles, despite the fact that women may make up a significant portion of sex offenders with a history of zooerasty, they are typically ignored by the academic community.

Once again, it always comes down to thinking about what you read.  Wonder about how the author got his or her information.  Look for similar conclusions reached in separate studies.  That goes for what you see here, too: I don't do professional research in this area because I'm aware that I have a very strong bias.

And for those lady animal lovers here: don't worry, you're not alone.  We have actually known this for a long time: in one study, out of 190 sexual fantasies of different women, 23 involved explicitly zooerotic activity. (Friday, 1973) Stay true to yourself.

For those who want more proof, there is actually a fellow zoo in the blogosphere who is female.  She's linked to ZP, so I'll link back to her here.  She does a bunch of stuff there and is quite a bit more personal and sexual than I am here, but if you're looking for other perspectives (or are into that sort of thing :P ) give Lexxi Stray a look.


Oh, and because these landmarks are important to me if to no one else: we just hit 5 000, er, hits.  It's to the point where I'm not even sure where they're coming from now, which is kind of too bad because I find that fascinating.  Oh well.  A big thanks once again to the readers, and especially the sharers!

The Anthrosexual Questionnaire

I came across again a piece titled, "The Language of Sex: The Heterosexual Questionnaire" by one M. Rochlin.  It made me giggle, so I thought I would adapt some of it for use here, as well as add a few of my own things.  1-18 are from the original questionnaire, which was obviously meant to highlight heterosexism, turning on their head a lot of questions that, at the time, were being asked of and about homosexuals.  Please note that, although it may seem like it sometimes on this blog, I'm not trying to pick on or appropriate the LGBT movement; I simply admire their ability to make an entire culture stop and think for a moment about their ideals pertaining to sexual morality.  I am also not trying to "convert" anyone to exclusive zoosexuality.  I do not even believe this is possible, nor, in our current cultural climate, is it particularly desirable.  I simply hope that you find this list entertaining and perhaps a little thought-provoking.

1. What do you think caused you to be attracted to men and/or women?
2. When and how did you decide you were only attracted to humans?
3. Is it possible that your anthrosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?
4. Is it possible that your anthrosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of animals?
5. Is it possible that all you need is a good non-human lover?
6. If you've never slept with an animal, how do you know you won't prefer that?
7. Why do you insist on flaunting your sexual attraction to humans?  Can't you just be who you are and keep it quiet?
8. Why do anthrosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?
9. Why do anthrosexuals feel compelled to force others into their own lifestyle?
10. Nearly all child molestors are primarily anthrosexual.  Do you believe it's safe to expose children to anthrosexual people?
11. Men and women think very differently.  Can a hetero-anthrosexual relationship really work?
12. With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling.  Why are there so few stable relationships among anthrosexuals?
13. Disease transmission from animals to humans due to sexual activity is much lower than that between humans, due to the lack of cross-species STIs.  Is it really safe for someone to maintain an anthrosexual lifestyle and run the risk of disease and pregnancy?
14. How can you become a whole person if you limit yourself to compulsive, exclusive anthrosexuality?
15. Considering the menace of overpopulation, how could the human race survive if everyone were anthrosexual?
16. Could you trust an anthrosexual therapist to be objective?  Don't you feel he/she might be inclined to influence you in the direction of his/her own leanings?
17. Have you looked into methods, such as aversion therapy, that can be used to cure your anthrosexuality?
18. Do anthrosexuals hate animals?  Is that why they are anthrosexual?
19. How can you be certain that your human partner is consenting to sexual intercourse?
20. Humans fake enjoyment of sex with great frequency: 60% of women and 25% of men state that they have faked orgasm.  How likely do you feel it is that your human partner is not getting anything from your sexual relationship?
21. Are you attracted to humans because animals do not find you attractive?
22. If your partner does not explicitly say, "Yes, I want to have sex," it is rape.  Do you consider yourself a rapist?
23. Some people are, let's face it, pretty stupid.  Do you believe it would be wrong for you to have sex with an intellectually inferior individual?
24. With rape being this common in the human world -  one in four women are raped at least once in their lifetimes (Greenberg, Bruess, Haffner, 2000) - is it fair to say that humans do not have a real idea of sexual consent?
25. Do you think that, during a woman's "time of the month," she is capable of giving proper consent?
26. You can injure your human partner during sex: roughly one third of American adults being injured during intercourse every year (according to medical insurance companies).  Is having sex safe for both you and your partner?
27. Power differences are commonly large between human partners: many marriages include only one spouse who works to keep food on the table.  Is it wrong for such a couple to have sex with this power difference?
28. Humans are notoriously unconcerned about nature.  Don't you think it's better to become more intimate with the non-human world?
29. In South Carolina and Michigan, oral sex, even between heterosexual married couples, was illegal prior to 2003.  Do you feel that couples who practiced oral sex in these states prior to 2003 were perverts or criminals?
30. Anthrosexual intercourse is disgusting.  Why would you ever want to do it in the first place?

knotty.me

Over the last month, a new zoo community has sprung up that's quite different from the rest I've seen.  It is in its infancy, but I'm writing this post hoping that it continues on the distinguished road that has presented itself before it.  You can consider this a hearty recommendation.

A little while ago, I tore apart the zoo community, mostly that of Beastforum.  A little while before that, I also tore into EFA.  These communities, which have been prevalent at one point or another, have incurred my wrath for two separate reasons.  Beastforum is a junction of pornography and abusers.  EFA has done all the wrong things in trying to accomplish its mission to achieve zoo rights.  Both communities, along with the admittedly better ZoophilesForum and every other zoophilic community out there that I have seen, are also victims to the internet imbecile, who is shockingly common and makes that guy you heard rambling about grocery stores and government conspiracies on public transit seem calm and enlightened.

On the other hand, knotty.me is a new and small community so far entirely made up of insightful and romantic zoophiles, despite its name (which was chosen because it originally was going to be a porn site, but things changed and it was realized that there is a high demand for a site that is explicitly non-explicit).  I've barely even seen a typo there, let alone a statement that makes me want to throttle someone.  Porn is without exception outlawed; if it's something someone might conceivably masturbate to, you won't find it here.  Instead, you will find discussions on animals, support, news, and places to exchange experiences and advice regarding being an individual in one of the world's most despised minority groups.  Not to mention that the people there are genuinely friendly and supportive.  It's young yet, but in the month since its formation, and with nearly 100 registered users (and a high of 20 on at one time) there has yet to be anything even reminiscent of online drama.  And should there ever be, I feel the administrator is quite adept at managing not only the forum's software, data, and your privacy which is stringently kept, but also the community aspect of the forum.

So, if you're one of the many who have been groaning at the fact that everywhere you go on the internet that advertises itself as a 'zoophilic' community is full of idiots and genitals, and you would give anything for some pleasant, clean, and intelligent conversation with some friendly fellow zoos - or maybe you're reading this and just wondering if there are zoophiles out there besides me who are funny, clever, and incredibly handsome - you should definitely give knotty.me a look.  And maybe, if the forum continues to thrive, we'll eventually get that much-needed name-change.

http://forum.knotty.me

The Mish Posish

This post will contain some naughty pictures of animals.  It's nothing worse than you would see on a PG-rated production on the Discovery Channel, but if you're particularly sensitive on account of being on this blog, I totally understand.  If it makes you feel better, I find primates icky.

---

There's something I heard, again, a while ago that I kind of want to talk about now.  The first time I heard it, it was from a primatologist, and this statement is part of the reason I sometimes have difficulties with primatologists.  I have also seen it quoted online, though, in the years since bonobos became the animal of the day. (Now it's the honey badger.) The statement is, roughly, this: Bonobos are more sexually/interpersonally evolved than other animals on account of the fact that they have sex while facing each other.

Bonobos have only been identified as a species for a little over half a century or so, depending on who you ask.  They have only been intensely researched for a few decades.  Zoologists and comparative psychologists were of course astounded by the unique behaviour of the species: in contrast to their close chimpanzee relatives, they are quite nonviolent, females hold a lot of power, and they have lots and lots of crazy sex.  They have sex for many reasons: they have sex to calm everyone down, to build relations, or even to exchange favors.  They have sex with the opposite sex; they have sex with the same sex.  They have sex with their juveniles.  And, what was for some reason astonishing to researchers, they have sex in the missionary position.

The reason given was that because they are having intercourse face-on, it must add to the idea that sex in bonobos, like in humans and unlike in nearly every other animal, must play a very important social role and may even suggest a loving context.  After all, the face is the main outlet of emotion in primates, and we are a highly visual taxonomic order.  I say they are fascinated, "for some reason," though, because of this

this

and even this

Ignoring the fact that I probably have far too many pictures of lions at quick access, most ethologists would tell you that there isn't a whole lot going on between a male and female lion when they're doing their thing up to fifteen times a day.  Lions are also not terribly visual: they rely mostly on smell, like most mammals.  So what exactly is the deal here?

Well, as for why animals do it... we're not entirely sure.  Quite possibly, as it is with humans and weird positions, it's just a cool thing to do.  As for why some don't, though, or don't that often, it comes down to anatomy: if you've ever looked at a dog on his or her back, they're not quite as, erm, accessible as is a human on his or her back.  Any effort to make them more so would likely lead to at least some discomfort, particularly if you are a quadruped, with a quadrupedal spinal structure: you would need to have your entire body on top, pressing all the limbs that normally want to stick up back down, and things get way more complicated than is generally worth it.  In addition, a female is more prone on her back, and unable to escape.  A little more controversial, perhaps, but when you consider that rape seems much more common among apes, including humans, than quadrupeds, it may be that the missionary position developed to keep females safe and males "productive" among those species were rape is more frequent.

In any case, some primates in particular seem to have evolved towards the missionary position.  The spines of Old World apes are more erect.  Our limbs are very flexible.  Apart from humans, there is no animal that better exemplifies these crucial qualities than the bonobo.

On a side-note, and as an excuse for one more picture, have you ever wondered why human women have much larger breasts for their size than those of any other mammal?  It's not because of milk production: breast size has no impact on that.  It's not a conspiracy orchestrated by Playboy, either. (Or is it?) It's because they make a pretty great cushion in the missionary position, just as big butts do so in "doggy-style". (see Desmond Morris, The Naked Ape, 1967) And bonobos look to be heading in that direction.

So, is there something special about the missionary position?  Quite honestly, not one bit.  It's a side-effect of the anatomy that evolution has given us, and bonobos just happen to be on a similar pathway.  Sorry, bonobo fans.

Zoo Rights

I look around that freaky part of the internet that is filled with zoosexuals and I see a whole lot of two things: firstly, the idiots/rapists/holy-shit-crazy people that I've already torn into quite enough for one month; secondly, people who have quietly accepted who they are but are saddened by the social stigma and fear they know they must live with until they die.  I recently had a chat with one such individual, and though this week I was going to do a quick silly post, that will be put on the back-burner so that I can whisper into the ears of all the rest of you dejected zoos.  I'm going to tell you why we are the next sex rights revolution.

This isn't because of crap like COMING SOON or predictions by Bill O'Reilly, although we should certainly be inspired by the success of the LGBT and other sex rights movements.  It's because, quite simply, we are right.

And people are starting to know that we're right: today, we in the western world are encouraged to question absolutely everything.  It started with creationism, branched off into religion as a whole, later into ethnocentrism and sexism, and finally into sex: we've questioned whether it really is wrong for a woman to be lustful and kinky, or for a man to love another man, and we are so used to questioning such things by now that we are beginning to be able to question whether it really is wrong for a human to fall in love with an animal, and to express that love physically.  If you don't believe me, check my last blog post, in which Peter Singer, who is among other things a supporter of zoo rights, was given a very prestigious award by the nation of Australia.

And it only takes a quick trip around the smarter places of the internet, and a good head on your shoulders yourself so that you can support a brief argument (or links to this blog ;) ) to find that when people are made to think about these things, the forward-thinking of them, which are a surprising amount, are quick to reach the conclusion that zoophilic intercourse is no more wrong than anything they might consider doing themselves.  The days in which we could fall back to religious arguments and knee-jerk reactions and have it work in science and politics are quickly leaving us here in the first world.

We have a leg-up, too, on the LGBT movement as it first started: it wasn't until 1974, after a lot of pressure from rights groups, that homosexuality was no longer regarded by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental disorder.  With the release of the DSM IV in 1994, though, zoophilia (as it is called there) and other paraphilias (barring some exceptions) are only regarded as mental disorders if they cause significant distress or inhibition of daily functioning to the individual.  As such, few zoos, despite their fear of social stigma, fit this disorder, and zoophilia is a rare diagnosis.  The most that could be done is to have the name changed to fit the nomenclature we have established, and to have it include an addition to make it similar to the diagnosis of Sadism, in that it may also be considered pathological if it includes harm to another.  At the moment, zoophilia is only listed in Paraphilias Not Otherwise Specified.  The Word Health Association's ICD-10 has a similar thing going on, so the insanity argument is already null and void.

So what needs to be done for this push for acceptance?  It will of course be difficult and take a long time: although zooerasty is legal in many places, it is not widely accepted anywhere.  It therefore is not legislation that we need to be pushing for, but for a change in people's  collective mindset.  It involves getting allies: people who sympathize with and understand us, even if they are not zoophilic themselves.  If you're zoo, it involves coming out, where it is safe; at the moment, the only people who often come out are the ones you don't want to be associated with: these people who don't have the brains to fear society.  We need to mediate that fear, though, even if it's only on the internet, and get out and talk to people about our orientation.  Not getting up in people's faces, but should the topic come up, or should the opportunity to arise, we must become educators.  We must be well-armed with information and we must not back down from a debate.  You have the resources.

I also feel that women who typically orient towards male animals are crucial here.  The big argument against us is that animals cannot possibly consent to human intercourse.  We of course have all sorts of data and observation that is contrary, but unfortunately, with few if any scientific studies on this and no terribly good way to show people, it remains the largest argument against us.  The sad fact is that most people are unable to read animal body language, and will invent scenarios in which what they expect to happen is happening.  You can't exactly show them pornography (and if you can, please don't), but what about your own life?  Most people have great difficulty with the idea of a female raping a male, and even more if the male is an animal, due to anatomical reasons.  It's important, though, when your arguments involve explicit content, that you know how to sound professional, and know when to stop creeping out your opponent.  Keep it short and to the point.

Here is what I think: Telling the world that, contrary to popular belief, zoos exist outside of the realms of animated comedies, they love their animals, and that the time has come for them to get the facts and seriously think about them - this will be the heart of any movement towards acceptance.  If you're zoo, so long as you're safe and smart, you need not be afraid any longer.  Your coming freedom from the hatred of society rests on you, and it rests on us working as one entity.  Here's to a liberated future.

Congratulating Peter Singer

This post is to congratulate Peter Singer on receiving the honour of Companion of the Order of Australia.  The man is a controversial fellow, but is something of a hero of mine who has spoken some difficult truths that have had people throwing things at him on multiple occasions.  He is a radical when the need to be a radical is there, and is moderate when one should be moderate, fighting for sustainability, animal welfare, and human rights.




Relevantly to this blog, he is also an ally of the zoophilic community.  He has spoken up for the legalization of zoophilic (but not zoosadistic) sexual interactions and has been the author of several articles supporting us, including the famous Heavy Petting.

I wish I could say I've met the man, or that I knew more about him so that this could be a more lengthy blog post, but I do not, and do not wish to make a fool of myself by pretending I do.  I do however feel it necessary to spend a week celebrating this man's recent achievement, which I feel is, if not a small and silent victory for zoos, a large victory for animal welfare.

So, regardless on your opinions of his ideas on the ethics of abortion, euthanasia, etc., I feel it's impossible to deny that he is an admirable fellow for exploring so calmly and intelligently such controversial issues, and I believe it would be a fine thing to raise our collective glasses in his honour.

Training, Not

Quite a while ago, I believe when I was ranting about the online zoo community, I mentioned training in zooerasty: specifically, that it shouldn't be done.  This is kind of a controversial thing, too.  Controversial, I mean, even for zoophilia itself.  So, once again, I apologize to my non-zoophilic readership, however few you may be at this point: judging by this blog's statistics, you're all a load of perverts anyway. ;)

So, training.  First, let's define it: training is using Pavlovian or operant conditioning to get an animal to have sex with you.  That is, rewarding the animal (ie with food) for participating, or punishing them in some way for not.  Let me make it clear that, say, showing your dog how it's done, or sort of "warming" your horse up over time is not training.  Animals do that to each other.  Humans do that to each other.  We don't really talk about it, because we don't want sex to seem so mechanical, and we certainly don't want to look like we're 'bad' at it, so we pretend it's an entirely natural thing which we just 'get'.

And we do, to a great extent.  So do most if not all sexual animals; certainly all the animals a human could ever have a mutual sexual relationship with, in any case.  That's part of the point here: animals do not need specific training to have sex, let alone to enjoy it.  If they are not enjoying it, it does not mean you need to train them to enjoy it, it means you are doing something very wrong.

I'll give an example: I read a lot of people talking about putting tasty things on their genitalia so that their animal (usually a dog) will lick them.  I don't have an enormous problem with this: particularly compared to other methods of training I read about, it's certainly not harmful.  The human is getting a lickjob and the pooch is getting a snack, and that's fine and dandy.  The problem comes up when people call this zoophilia. As I noted last month, zoophilia is romantic: there is primary interest in the desires of your partner, and in mutuality.  In the case of this training, the mutuality is limited: one is getting sexual pleasure, the other is not; the latter may only be faintly aware that sexual pleasure is at all being had.  The use of this method of training, therefore, along with all the others that are more explicit and intensive, are a form of bestiality.



Let's talk more about the peanut butter-licking.  The people advising other people on it are doing so as an answer to the question, "How do I get my dog to blow me/eat me out?" What is not acknowledged is that for dogs, even more so than it is for people, licking another's genitalia in a sexual context, usually before or after sex, is entirely natural.  It is a response to sexual stimulation, generally olfactory but also tactile.  This means that if the individuals in question were simply willing to put in the time to get to know their dog and establish an understanding sexual relationship with them, they would achieve the same result without any smeared substances.

From here, it doesn't take long to look at the other ways people get their unwilling animals to have sex with them.  Animals get sex.  They probably get it more than a lot of people do, and are more than happy to oblige someone whom they trust and makes them feel good.  Why, then, do we have people who will in the same breath talk about how they got their bitch to 'take it' and then call themselves zoophilic?  This is sheer bestiality, and is part of the reason zoosexuality is looked down upon so heavily: it's assumed, because these people are too stupid, heartless, or lazy to have a real mutual sexual relationship with an animal, that a real mutual sexual relationship with an animal is not possible.

So how do you do it, then?  By utilizing the empathetic skills you must have if you are zoophilic.  Know your partner.  Understand their body language.  When they say, "No," understand that it does in fact mean no, and oblige.  Experiment a little, but don't overdo it.  Most importantly, love them; if you do that, just like in anthrosexual relationships, everything else will come with time.

Also, in the last couple posts, this blog has doubled its view count.  This is in large part on account of Reddit (hello, Redditors!) but also because of a few links here and there that I know of on Facebook, MSN, forums and the like.  So a big thank-you to everyone who's helped spread this around!

Loke - Vargaflicka

"Wolf's Girl" by Loke (translated from Swedish)

The girl met the wolf in the forest

And the wolf said, I would have you

And the girl refused and hesitated

But as she took heart, she said

Then let me be loyal to you

And never want to have anyone else

And the wolf smiled, and care he took

And said that a wolf’s love is true

A warm hand for cold promises

I will make you mine

Feel your heart sting, you wolf's girl

I wonder what the lass has in mind

A warm hand for cold promises

The girl took in her hand

Hear the wolves howl in winter-cold

I will make you mine

And the wolf took his lass on his back

And the trees flashed by

When the wolf left and called out

Through the dark forest in wolf’s fury

And over moss and over clearings

They traveled like a bitter wind

And lovingly the lass combed his fur

And kissed gently the beast’s cheek

Home to the wolf’s den

They returned in an instant

And the lass played and caressed the wolf

He was always so fine and tender with his teeth and claws

And under the amber full moon

They danced with one another

And the lass’s resting hand burned the wolf

And their wolf-hearts burned and melted together

A warm hand for cold promises

Yes, I will make you mine

Feel your heart sting, you wolf's girl

I wonder what the lass has in mind

A warm hand for cold promises

The girl took in her hand

Hear the wolves howl in the winter cold

I will make you mine

And the spring came to the wolf-forest

Together they went out hunting

As the summer passed

And by the girl’s side

He said he remained faithful

But for the girl now the time has come

No longer did her heart burn

And the dawn broke and the girl fled

To find another man

But that bid soon did the wolf discover

And so weeping he ran out

And over mountains, through bone and marrow

Could men hear the wolf’s broken heart howling

And the lass’s new man rode

To ride off at full gallop

But trusting to the horse’s canter

He had no chance

The man fell prey to the wolf

A warm hand for a cold promise

I will make you mine

Feel your heart sting, you wolf's girl

I wonder what the lass has in mind

A warm hand for a cold promise

The girl took in her hand

Hear the wolves howl in winter cold

I will make you mine

But the girl knew that wolves feared the fire

So she set fire to the entire town

Her village in the fire she cleansed

And the men fled

While the flames rose higher into the sky

But she saw that the wolf never ran

Together they went up in the lighthouse

In each other’s arms in a fire so warm

The wolf and maid had their final tryst

In the flames of the red glow

At once they burned together

From the kiss of the flames everything fell silent

But the silence proclaimed that the wolf’s love is true

Together they had to face death

Together did they burn

And in the torment of the heat and the blazing fire

The two found each other again at last

A warm hand for a cold promise

I will make you mine

Feel your heart sting, you wolf's girl

I wonder what the lass has in mind

A warm hand for a cold promise

The girl took in her hand

Hear the wolves howl in winter cold

I will make you

I will make you

I will make you mine

The Furry Spectrum

This post is on a question that I get asked a lot.  Not via this blog, but other places, even places that don't know I am a zoo.  The question is: "are you a furry?" So yes, this post will be going a bit into what "furry" has come to mean, how it might or might not relate to zoophilia, and what this relation means in the grand scheme of things.

First of all, to answer that question is always tough for me; my response is generally along the lines of, "Kinda." I like furry art, certainly.  I'll confess I like furry porn.  I like animal fiction, and I've seen The Lion King many dozens of times.  Nala is a total hottie.  If this is all there is to furridom - a proclivity, a paraphilia, whatever - then most certainly I am, and I don't know a lot of zoos who aren't furries in this sense, particularly if we're counting "ferals" (that is, non-anthropomorphic anthropomorphic characters [?]).

On the other hand, I have little to nothing to do with the furry community, don't fursuit or anything like that, don't fancy myself anything other than a simple human, and quite honestly, a lot of self-professed furries would or do hate my guts.  To them, furry is more than just a weird interest in anthro and animal fiction, and I wouldn't count, particularly since people like me make them look bad.  And I can sympathize with this.

I'm not going to claim to be able to draw a line between these two parts of the furry fandom.  Whether I'm a furry or not will continue to be up to judges other than myself.  What I am going to do is draw a line between furry as a paraphilia and zoophilia.  Right after I erect these sandbags around my dwelling.

Alright, so, here's the thing: ever since Kinsey (1948) we have had the idea that sexuality, at least homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality, are not exclusive categories but are instead along a spectrum.  Later on, this became a series of two axes, which is now widely accepted:



For those who are unfamiliar, what this means is that everyone in the world fits somewhere on this graph: if they are further towards the top-right of the graph, they are more homosexual, and more highly sexual (towards hypersexuality) than the norm (on Y) and bisexuality (on X); if they are towards the bottom-left, they are more heterosexual and asexual (demisexual).  It should be noted that placement on this graph should be considered more diamond-like than square-like, as it is impossible to be 100% asexual and hetero/homosexual, and it is impossible to be 100% sexual (hypersexual) without being bisexual.

Now, it has been suggested, albeit sheepishly, that there may be more to this graph.  A hell of a lot more, to put it bluntly: there may be dozens more axes that can be placed here.  Unfortunately, there just isn't that much interest in research in this area, and no one cares to fund it, so you won't find it in your textbooks anytime soon.  These spectra range in all sorts of paraphilias: sadism-masochism, chronophilias (pedophilia to gerontophilia), anthrophilia-zoophilia, necrophilia-vitophilia(?), and whatever else.

You may think, after considering how generally well Kinsey has been accepted, especially given the time since the bulk of his research was conducted, that this would be a no-brainer.  There are, however, problems with these becoming widely accepted.  The first problem is that, as I mentioned, very little research has been done to support or fail to support such a paradigm shift, and there is no drive to conduct any.  Even pedophilia, which once might have got some interest from legal establishments, is actually quite well-controlled these days, and convicted pedos have some of the lowest recidivism rates of sex offenders.  The second problem is that the current versions of both the DSM and the ICD, which are the two manuals used most commonly by psychologists in making proper diagnoses, really like their categories, and all sexual disorders listed are categorical: that is, you can't be kind of a masochist, according to the APA and WHO.  Thirdly, society doesn't like these people; most of us don't like the idea that we all fit onto a pedophilic spectrum, a necrophilic spectrum, and whatever else.  It's not very scientific, but popular opinion has a much greater effect on the social sciences than we like to admit.

Now that I've finished that little rant, what exactly did it have to do with furries?  As the title implies, it is my personal belief that the furry fandom is on that theoretical anthrophilia-zoophilia spectrum, based on the fact that zoophilia is much more prevalent among furries (Evans, 2008), that I have met few if any zoos out of the many who are not at least mildly interested in some aspects of the furry fandom, and that if you brave it and actually look at furry communities and art, you can literally see that sliding scale.  This is not to say that all furries are secretly zoo.  In fact, it means quite the opposite: although a fair number of furries self-identify as zoos, if we consider that sexuality is incredibly difficult if not impossible to change, based on the fact that there is no 'cure' for homosexuality, pedophilia, etc., you can actually be quite sure that if someone is into furry porn but doesn't have any such interest in real animals, that they are not going to somehow progress into zoosexuality: they already have their place on the spectrum, and they are going to stay there, given that sexuality tends to crystallize by one's mid-twenties.  In short, if we accept that there is such a spectrum, we no longer feel the need to pigeon-hole people into one thing or another, or to make assumptions about someone fitting into some imaginary category simply because they're close.

If we extrapolate here to other sexualities, such as pedophilia, this can have some interesting implications, even affecting national legislation.  Lolicon - that is, children or childlike individuals portrayed sexually in drawings or animations - has come under a lot of fire in the last few years, with people being arrested for creating, distributing, or possessing it.  The idea is that people who view lolicon may eventually "graduate" to child sex abuse, either because they must already be pedophiles if they are viewing lolicon, or because the lolicon itself may make them become pedophilic.  If we consider that lolicon may be to pedophilia as furry may be to zoophilia, some research (already backed by the fact that there are a great many people who enjoy lolicon but are not pedophiles, evidenced by the success of certain television shows that would not exist if they only appealed to the ~3% of the population who are pedophilic) would end the equation of loli fans and pedophiles, and thus the fear and criminalization.

Something to think about.


By the way, over the last week, this blog hit 1,000 views.  Let's celebrate by getting 1,000 more, hm?  Whether you think this blog is insightful or disgusting, entertaining or insulting, don't be afraid to share it; no one will think less of you if you do. ;)