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.

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!

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

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.

The Zoo Community

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.