Raising, or creating, the ethical bar for zoophilia

Wolf2

Zooville Settler
I’m sure most of us are aware, lately in modern society, that sexual misconduct is increasingly frowned upon and prosecuted. Getting consent, behaving properly, not forcing oneself on others, and so forth, and yet at the same time loosening views on things like prostitution, emphasis on women’s rights, and so forth.

In some ways it’s a vicious quagmire of changing sexual mores, and zoophilia has gotten caught in the crosshairs. To an extent at least - mostly it is the animal rights groups that have rallied against zoophilia. People don’t have a comparison ruler, and if they here “sex” and “animals” in the same breath, they’re immediately repulsed. It doesn’t help that the majority of zoo porn shows people immediately engaged in the sexual act itself, often with little regard for the animal. Later discovering that video like where women are sucking a horse cock for 2 hours straight and the horse is actually drugged doesn’t help. That makes even me dislike zoophilia.

In short, we have to establish ethical boundaries for zoophilic acts. And then we the zoophile community need to enforce those ethics on ourself. Why? Because it’s the only way we are going to survive. We have to modernize, we have to be able to defend ourselves logically. The laws are coming for us and are becoming increasingly draconian, across America especially but also across the world.

I commend our current admin on banning obviously abusive videos like where the stallion is screwing that poor female dog right in the vagina. There’s no conceivable way that that wasn’t causing substantial damage, and it was even admitted that the dog died shortly eventually from a genital infection.

As someone who genuinely loves animals, such things cause me great pain. First because it’s abusive. Second because if anyone sees that, they assume I’m part of that crowd. And to be perfectly blunt, not very many porn consuming zoos are going to say anything about it.

Frankly that needs to change. There are lots of instances where these bestial activities are not defensible. Dog dildoing, for example, where a woman in a video grabs the dog’s penis and thrusts it into herself for an hour straight. Not ok! Looks painful, stupid, and no way a well trained dog will say no to it. Consent not present!

These and many other situations need to be closely examined. And we may not even want to defend the porn at all. It could disappear, what we actually need is the right to love the animals we love. We need to defend first the right to be zoosexual. Then we can defend porn - hopefully only types were consent is pretty obvious and no harm is being done. Screwing a pooch while she pees - bad.

Why? Because like I said. They’re coming for you eventually whether you like it or not. And you’re sitting here, fapping away happily while your rights are being removed to the point where you’ll be able to thrown in jail just for thinking about animals sexually.

Time to take the fight to them.
 
Thank you for your concerns. Yes, we have to hold a standard to what is acceptable zoosexual practices. Defining these as a community should happen and thats what this place is for.

If it does become a non-crime, it will be us who define what those ethical practices should be. So we need to define a code of conduct based on our centuries of combined zoo experience per species.

1. Each species has its own methods of mating signals and should be define accordingly.

2. Practices should be defined with a no harm principle.

3. Consent, should be defined by an animals concept or level of consent and shouldnt be raised to a human level of consent.

4. Our ethical considerations should be easily understood to the point where sex education books or publications can promote this truthful information for any interested party.

Atleast this is where our conversations should begin. So let it begin.
 
I wholeheartedly agree there is a necessity of boundaries. However, I simply see no way to enforce them.

Neither you, or I, or anyone else for that matter is gunna be able to make the abusive cunts stop. Sure, if I come across one I can bash their head in, but even a drastic measure like that might stop one of them but far from all of them thus making it a wasted effort

The problem goes deeper than that though. Most people who condemn zoophilia, willing to say 99% of them, have never in their life seen a video, be it immoral zoo sadism stuff or a human and an animal being legitimately affectionate. They dont need to have witnessed it or have a grasp of what's even involved to find it repulsive as most people see humans as something different to an animal. Its rooted in religion, how we were "created in the likeness of god". They may not even be religious and theres still a good chance they got that complex telling them that somehow, they're better than them.

Logic wont work on them. Try reasoning with logic in a courthouse and they will put you in an asylum.

I envy those who try for their massive balls and confidence, but I myself will continue to shut up about my love life in front of non zoos and not upload porn in order not to incriminate myself hoping that one day theres actually a way for everyone to see zoophiles and zoosadists as two different groups.
 
I’m not a watcher of zoo porn but from the little I have seen of commercial stuff is that none. Of it seems natural
dogs been held while dildoing etc but I don’t suppose it’s going to get boycotted or banned anytime soon
 
In my opinion our treatment of animals should not depend on how society views us. Therefore I'd like to propose to forget about society for a moment and just focus on whom it concerns: the animals and us. What do we owe our animals and what do we owe ourselves?
 
Thank you for your concerns. Yes, we have to hold a standard to what is acceptable zoosexual practices. Defining these as a community should happen and thats what this place is for.

If it does become a non-crime, it will be us who define what those ethical practices should be. So we need to define a code of conduct based on our centuries of combined zoo experience per species.

1. Each species has its own methods of mating signals and should be define accordingly.

2. Practices should be defined with a no harm principle.

3. Consent, should be defined by an animals concept or level of consent and shouldnt be raised to a human level of consent.

4. Our ethical considerations should be easily understood to the point where sex education books or publications can promote this truthful information for any interested party.

Atleast this is where our conversations should begin. So let it begin.

From the meat-eating/vegetarian polls and discussion we already know that a majority of zoos is not willing to grant domesticated animals a right to live. Therefore, general no-harm and consent principles do not seem to be capable of winning a majority here.

Limited no-harm and consent principles may still get a majority support. The limitation could be something along the line of (1) "consent and no harm during sex, but otherwise not required" or along the line of (2) "consent and no harm to my animal, but not required for other animals" or (3) something else I haven't thought of.

Personally, I find option (1) ridiculous, but I am open to be convinced otherwise by arguments. I think (2) can be easier justified, and I'd offer some input there if this is something you are interested in.

As a side note, I do not think that what's ethically right or wrong has anything to do with a majority decision. But a majority can agree to observe certain ethical standards. Such standards can also be enforced for example on a website like this, e.g. by weaving them into terms of service. They would have more of a legal character then.
 
it is encouraging to me to see that there are people in this community who are concerned with the wellbeing of the animals. I still grapple with the morality of zoophilia because there are so many instances of people simply using their pets like objects for their own pleasure. I've had an encounter, myself, that sort of rubbed me the wrong way because it felt like we were using the dogs for our own pleasure without regard to their wishes. A dog owner invited me to play with his dogs and when they were more interested in being affectionate and playing then in having sex with me, the owner got frustrated and yelled at them, which really troubled me and made me decide not to return. Since then, I've shied away from exploring this. Anyway, I take some comfort in knowing there are people who do care about things like consent with the animals.
 
From the meat-eating/vegetarian polls and discussion we already know that a majority of zoos is not willing to grant domesticated animals a right to live. Therefore, general no-harm and consent principles do not seem to be capable of winning a majority here.

Limited no-harm and consent principles may still get a majority support. The limitation could be something along the line of (1) "consent and no harm during sex, but otherwise not required" or along the line of (2) "consent and no harm to my animal, but not required for other animals" or (3) something else I haven't thought of.

Personally, I find option (1) ridiculous, but I am open to be convinced otherwise by arguments. I think (2) can be easier justified, and I'd offer some input there if this is something you are interested in.

As a side note, I do not think that what's ethically right or wrong has anything to do with a majority decision. But a majority can agree to observe certain ethical standards. Such standards can also be enforced for example on a website like this, e.g. by weaving them into terms of service. They would have more of a legal character then.


I do wish more zoos would give consideration to vegan ethics. There is no justification for harming animals for food, clothing, entertainment, and so on. They are sentient beings that want to live, just like we are. I would think that zoos could understand this idea better than most people.
 
I hope you realize there is animal porn on this forum. Men with animals, women with animals, Art depicting people with animals. Geez, there is even a bestiality as fetish section. You also realize, I hope. That a lot of members here eat meat, despite your moral outrage against it. So maybe you should start a campaign to get the admin to take down all that offensive, immoral, and unethical discussions off the board. Make this a place for respectable true zoo's only. That would at least be a start, don't you think.
 
I hope you realize there is animal porn on this forum. Men with animals, women with animals, Art depicting people with animals. Geez, there is even a bestiality as fetish section. You also realize, I hope. That a lot of members here eat meat, despite your moral outrage against it. So maybe you should start a campaign to get the admin to take down all that offensive, immoral, and unethical discussions off the board. Make this a place for respectable true zoo's only. That would at least be a start, don't you think.

I get that you’re probably not going to be interested in hearing any ethical arguments, but I’ll give it a shot. There is still lots of porn out there that shows situations that probably shouldn’t have happened. Penetrative sex with female dogs, for instance, is very easy to do wrong. We aren’t even sure if female dogs enjoy the stimulation or if they are responding instinctually or what, there’s no studies on it. It’s not something anyone wants to study.

So it’s like once some people are zoos, all the ethics go out the window. That shouldn’t be the case. We need to create a reasonable standard for zoophilic interactions so people can honestly say, hey, I have sex with my animal, we like it, they aren't hurt or restrained, its okay.
 
I do at least look at most of the zoo porn that gets posted here. I'm not a real porn watcher of any kind of porn but I view a lot of the posts here and I always look to see if there is something new that I might want to try. I agree with the member above about dog dildoging - it's so stupid I think. I've never even tried that and although I know they can have their dicks backwards from what I have viewed it just doesn't seem like they enjoy it that way. Even sucking on my dogs will often cause them to growl and that leads me to think that they are ok with having sex but would prefer just the sex part.
I think this forum guards against any type of animal abuse very well and it makes me happy because I wouldn't want to be here if they didn't.
 
I get that you’re probably not going to be interested in hearing any ethical arguments, but I’ll give it a shot. There is still lots of porn out there that shows situations that probably shouldn’t have happened. Penetrative sex with female dogs, for instance, is very easy to do wrong. We aren’t even sure if female dogs enjoy the stimulation or if they are responding instinctually or what, there’s no studies on it. It’s not something anyone wants to study.

So it’s like once some people are zoos, all the ethics go out the window. That shouldn’t be the case. We need to create a reasonable standard for zoophilic interactions so people can honestly say, hey, I have sex with my animal, we like it, they aren't hurt or restrained, its okay.

I agree! So get rid of all the porn on the board, better safe than sorry. Zoo porn just gives zoo's a bad name any way right. So why tolerate it?
 
I agree! So get rid of all the porn on the board, better safe than sorry. Zoo porn just gives zoo's a bad name any way right. So why tolerate it?

Well to be perfectly honest a zoophilia board devoid of zoo porn would probably be a good option. In fact, as a public front, it would be preferable. BeastForum caused an immense amount of damage to the zoophilia community because of its emphasis on porn, porn, and more porn. If anyone looks up to see what zoophile do, they found that. Lawmakers found that site, and made stricter and stricter laws. There is no one protecting or defending zoophiles from a higher seeming ethical standard. There is no public front.
 
Well to be perfectly honest a zoophilia board devoid of zoo porn would probably be a good option. In fact, as a public front, it would be preferable. BeastForum caused an immense amount of damage to the zoophilia community because of its emphasis on porn, porn, and more porn. If anyone looks up to see what zoophile do, they found that. Lawmakers found that site, and made stricter and stricter laws. There is no one protecting or defending zoophiles from a higher seeming ethical standard. There is no public front.

BF hurt zoophilia because it was BF. Abusive content, hyper monetization for profit, and aggressive anti-free speech policys lead it down that path.

Zoo writers guild is a non-porn site.

Also the porn sections are not viewable by the general public, only registered members. Also the articles and blog tabs are non-pornographic and strictly for the general public to understand zoophilia.
 
When we assume the role of owner or at least caretaker of animals, we take on responsibility for their safety, comfort, peace and security ... with a bit of adventure once in a while.
 
Well to be perfectly honest a zoophilia board devoid of zoo porn would probably be a good option. In fact, as a public front, it would be preferable. BeastForum caused an immense amount of damage to the zoophilia community because of its emphasis on porn, porn, and more porn. If anyone looks up to see what zoophile do, they found that. Lawmakers found that site, and made stricter and stricter laws. There is no one protecting or defending zoophiles from a higher seeming ethical standard. There is no public front.

It's been done and I'm saddened to report that forums without porn have greatly reduced traffic and participation. There were a few I can think of which I was very happy with, but they suffered stagnation. The only moderately successful example I can think of was the r/zoophilia sub on reddit before the purge. I don't have anything against porn, but it doesn't paint a flattering picture and it brings with it some unsavory people.

It is very difficult policing a community such as this; we are very diverse. Among other problems I have seen in the past include social cliques where the members aren't any better, and sometimes significantly worse, than those they are attempting to shepherd.

I try to just be a good example and be helpful. It's easy to look down on someone who's behaving in an undesirable way, but that's really when a good example is most needed; then I only have to try and overcome my own tendencies and be that better person and good example.
 
I refuse to be vegan.

yeah, most people do, without any real reason. Most people don't want to change something as simple as choosing non-dairy milks, eating beans, nuts, grains, and tofu instead of meat, and wearing synthetic materials instead of the skin of an animal. The real reason is that it's easier to stick with the status quo and continue doing what you and everyone else has been doing for years. But zoos don't go with the status quo in one area when it comes to animals, so it makes sense to me that we should also buck the status quo when it comes to something that makes as much sense as avoiding, wherever possible and practicable, the unnecessary exploitation of animals for food, clothing, medical research, or entertainment.
 
Nope, I have enough health problems to be taking meat out of my diet. Maybe if I were healthier, I would consider it.
 
So, daring to be shallow in a serious, well stated topic that makes sense... I like the porn.
Specifically, I like the homemade stuff that comes from actual forum members. I've done a little sharing in forums over the years, which I guess makes me a bit of a digital voyeur/exhibitionist myself. I will say it's usually only enjoyable for me if the non-human participant is clearly enjoying it, or doesn't seem to care one way or the other (but obviously in no distress).
I have always looked to forums for porn over porn sites. I can see how - in the eyes of anti-zoos - the inclusion of porn could be viewed as discreditable for a zoophilia community seeking legitimacy. However, there are innumerable forums and sites out there where people view and share their own homemade porn pictures and videos with each other, or do it live on-cam.
Do I have a strong case for the porn? Probably not. Nothing more than "I like it", and hope to have the opportunity to contribute again someday.
 
Last edited:
Nope, I have enough health problems to be taking meat out of my diet. Maybe if I were healthier, I would consider it.

What health problems do you have? A whole-food plant-based diet is the only diet shown to reverse heart disease and there is a mountain of research showing that an adequately planned vegan diet has the lowest all-cause mortality of any diet. Yes, if you simply eat what you eat now but minus the meat, likely you would have some issues. But if you ate a diet free of animal products with a variety of plants like whole grains, green leafy vegetables, potatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, you would certainly see your health improve. I am a competitive athlete and I have significantly improved my performance and muscle gains while eating this way. It is a total myth that we need animal products to be healthy. In fact, they typically high in saturated fat, trans fats, and cholesterol, which have been shown to have a causal relationship with heart disease. Ditch the animal products if you care about your health, the environment, and especially the animals that suffer needlessly so we can have bacon and cheeseburgers.
 
I would like to put out information that taking on ownership is for the long haul. I've seen SO many cases when someone gets a cute fluffy little kitten or puppy but the fun rubs off when the animal matures.Then it is somehow handed off to someone else, or just abandoned.
 
How did this turn into a vegan debate?

Yes I think a sort of...code of ethics need to be instilled into the community. And even define what consent means to us. Is consent an animal putting up with sex? Or does it have to show signs that it's enjoying itself and is not trying to leave you (lets face it, most dogs in videos if given the option, would leave the situation)
 
If we're talking about ethics in regards to animals, it's only natural that veganism would come into play. It's a bit strange to advocate for the ethical treatment of animals when it comes to having sex with them but not in regards to killing them unnecessarily, don't you think?

In regards to consent, I believe this means that they are a willing participant. Not just that they tolerate what we do to them. Yeah, in the majority of videos it's pretty clear that the animals aren't really willing participants, but just submitting to what their owner wants of them. That shouldn't sit well with anyone that is concerned with the wellbeing of animals.
 
yeah, most people do, without any real reason. Most people don't want to change something as simple as choosing non-dairy milks, eating beans, nuts, grains, and tofu instead of meat, and wearing synthetic materials instead of the skin of an animal. The real reason is that it's easier to stick with the status quo and continue doing what you and everyone else has been doing for years. But zoos don't go with the status quo in one area when it comes to animals, so it makes sense to me that we should also buck the status quo when it comes to something that makes as much sense as avoiding, wherever possible and practicable, the unnecessary exploitation of animals for food, clothing, medical research, or entertainment.

I agree. People ought to stop eating animal-based meat because it is unethical, immoral, bad for animals, bad for one's health, and bad for the environment. A being's life, such as the life of a cow, is more important than how something "tastes". Animals such as cows and pigs have a right to live (just like humans and dogs), and that means that they should not be killed.

The arguments meat-eaters use to defend their meat-eating just aren't good.
 
I agree. People ought to stop eating animal-based meat because it is unethical, immoral, bad for animals, bad for one's health, and bad for the environment. A being's life, such as the life of a cow, is more important than how something "tastes". Animals such as cows and pigs have a right to live (just like humans and dogs), and that means that they should not be killed.

The arguments meat-eaters use to defend their meat-eating just aren't good.

I have a freezer full of deer meat that says otherwise :)
 
I agree with @Aisha_Clan_Clan, animals being killed and exploited is the elephant in the room when ethics in relation to animals are discussed. Failing to at least acknowledge the elephant would mean that we haven't seriously thought about the topic.

The good news for die-hard meat-eating zoos is that large parts of society are also meat-eating. They do not expect zoos to stop eating meat. If the goal is to convince them that zoos are great persons who would never harm an animal, you can do so with a chicken wing hanging out of your mouth. Society has very inconsistent positions towards the treatment of animals. And they expect nothing more from us than to be just like that. The easiest way to please the majority of society is by stopping to fuck animals. Do that and they'll accept us as genuine animal lovers. But that's not an option we are looking for, is it? Instead, you can try to convince them that you are very considerate during sex by setting up rules that clearly promote consensus and safety. So you are just like them then—except for fucking animals, but doing that in an acceptable way. Convincing society like this is harder, but it may work in the end. It's probably the most realistic path. Just note that we are talking about how to please society now with a nice treatment of animals during sex being a positive side-effect. It's alright to do this. I just couldn't pretend that this is a serious attempt at putting animals' interests first or a thorough ethical discussion.

Decades ago zoos have set up the ZETA principles—I think that's how they were called in English. If you want it easy, look them up and just amend them with some specific explanations for our beloved animal species. These rules already have some authority by tradition. People like that, old rules that stand the test of time.
 
Call me when you fully understand the concept "prey species".

Yeah, many people will agree that it is your natural right as an omnivore to eat animals that you can prey on. People tend to feel like that. And even more people will agree that it is a crime against nature to have sex with these animals. So be aware that alluding to a natural order of things backfires when one discusses fucking members of a different species.

I'd say that it is not an ethical argument in either case. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem . The fact that some animals are preyed on does not imply that you ought to do so, or that it is morally right to do so. The facts that sex in these species has the function of procreation and that you, as a human, cannot procreate with animals of a different species do not imply that you ought not have sex with them or that it is morally wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top