AppleDash
Citizen of Zooville
On this forum, zoo-exclusivity and ZGTOW are currently placed together under the same banner, but perhaps it is time to ask ourselves whether that is correct. Why? Firstly, zoo-exclusivity covers those who for whatever reason only have nonhuman romantic/sexual partners. Secondly, as an offshoot of MGTOW, ZGTOW ignores female zoo-exclusives. Thirdly, the motives of these two groups couldn’t be more different. Zoo-exclusives feel more at ease, and more involved in sexual and romantic relations with their animal partners, whereas ZGTOW condemn humans – and then mainly the female half of humanity – for being out there to get you. They regard women as some malevolent genius that is hell-bent on destroying masculinity.
Sure, if you come out of a damaging relation with another human – or you are still trying to get out of one – it is not surprising that your own experiences colour your judgement. I have been in a relation with another human, and to cut a long story short, it didn’t turn out well. We wanted different things out of it, and in the end decided to part. Following this relationship and subsequent soul-searching, I found out over the years that I am zoo-exclusive. In my case, that means that romantically and sexually, I am attracted to animals and not to people.
Nevertheless, having had bad experiences with people, and being zoo-exclusive does not mean that you detest all of humanity for a secret ploy to make your life miserable. Being zoo-exclusive does not automatically mean that you hate women. It is laughable but also worrying to see how forum members use the freedom of speech here for spewing their hatred. Laughable because the idea that the whole world – or at least one gender – is out there to get you reveals a very egocentric view on the world, which would be funny if it wasn’t that pathetic. Whatever makes you feel important, right?
It is worrying though as well, and for several reasons. Like I mentioned elsewhere on this forum, those who claim to be zoo-exclusive should ask themselves what their main drive is. Does your claim on the label of zoo-exclusivity have its foundation in a hatred towards humans, or in a love for animals simply because you experience them to be better partner than humans? In other words, do you base your sexual identity primarily on hatred or not? And if you do base it on hatred, if you simply end up with animals because you cannot stand people, should this be named ‘zoo-exclusive’ or something else, like ‘anything-but-humans-ism’?
Recently there has been a suggestion of introducing recovering incels to this forum so they can discover true joy, as if becoming zoo-exclusive is something you can decide one day when you wake up as new flavour of the month. It doesn’t work that way. And why do those incels want to claim they’re zoo-exclusive, and not e.g. homosexual? Suggesting that zoo-exclusivity and ZGTOW are interchangeable makes as much sense as suggesting that the clergy is a branch of MGTOW since the monks never have sex with women. To the outside world it might seem like that, but the differences can be found in motivations: incels and monks have different reasons for not having sex.
Pondering over terminology might be a trivial thing to do, but for the acceptance of zoo-exclusives –within zoosexual communities, but hopefully one day as well as outside – this terminology matters. When we say the word ‘zoo-exclusive’, there are two associations we can evoke. On the one hand there is the zoo-exclusive who found his/her love with his/her animal partner, and who doesn’t get the same romance, emotions, and sex from humans. On the other hand, there is the angry individual who allows (usually his) bad experiences with human partners to colour his view of humanity, a hate-driven emotion that uses animals to shape their revenge on society.
This forum prides itself in advocating freedom of speech, and I support that. However, what often is forgotten is that liberty comes with responsibility. My freedom ends where your freedom starts. With the demise of BF and ZF, this forum is one of a very few (if not the only one) surviving online forum on the matter of zoosexuality. The way in which different strings of zoosexuality are portrayed here will reverberate outside the walls of the forum too. Outside this forum, we are already regarded as perverted freaks. However, if zoo-exclusives here allow their banner to be hijacked by incels, the world outside this forum have even more ammunition to justify this blanket prohibition on human-nonhuman sexual relations we see now. After all, why would you allow a (self-)hating group of violent men with several mass murders under the collar even an inch more leeway? And while we’re at it, how many zoo-exclusives have committed mass murder because they think society is out there to get them and to ban them from having sex? Allowing incels to spread their toxic rhetoric in the name of free speech is one thing, but with it comes the responsibility for every member of this forum to ensure that the poisonous incel rhetoric doesn’t soil the concept of zoo-exclusivity.
So, what to do then?
I don’t call for a ban on incels joining this forum, but it would be wrong if those incels hijack the terminology of zoo-exclusivity because their motivations make the difference between zoo-exclusives and incels as binary as between day and night. As suggested by other forum members, it is paramount that we have different subforums for zoo-exclusives and for ZGTOW. At least that way we maintain the freedom of speech on this forum while at the same time it is clear to everybody that there are different foundations of motivations and attitudes for zoo-exclusives and ZGTOW
In conclusion, we use our freedom of speech here to justify our relations, which the outside world generally considers as abusive and perverse. At the same time, as successor of BF and ZF, this forum is one of the last voices for zoosexuality online, and that comes with a certain responsibility. Putting incels/ZGTOW and zoo-exclusivity forward as two sides of the same coin is wrong because 1) incels/ZGTOW and zoo-exclusives have different motivations to pursue sex with animals, and 2) it would undermine even further the slim chance we have that the world outside this forum will change their views on us.
The question thus for this forum is whether we will stand by as zoo-exclusivity and ZGTOW/incels are conflated. What association with the terminology of zoo-exclusivity do we want to advocate, one born out of love for nonhuman partners, or one born out of hatred against women? If it is the first, then it’s time for those who come here with their own version of MGTOW to come up with a new terminology. If it is the latter, then zoosexual communities – and especially those who are zoo-exclusive out of love – need to assess urgently whether they mind their label of zoo-exclusivity being hijacked by extremists, and what that will accomplish for loving zoo-exclusives’ reputation, not just within and beyond zoosexual communities.
Sure, if you come out of a damaging relation with another human – or you are still trying to get out of one – it is not surprising that your own experiences colour your judgement. I have been in a relation with another human, and to cut a long story short, it didn’t turn out well. We wanted different things out of it, and in the end decided to part. Following this relationship and subsequent soul-searching, I found out over the years that I am zoo-exclusive. In my case, that means that romantically and sexually, I am attracted to animals and not to people.
Nevertheless, having had bad experiences with people, and being zoo-exclusive does not mean that you detest all of humanity for a secret ploy to make your life miserable. Being zoo-exclusive does not automatically mean that you hate women. It is laughable but also worrying to see how forum members use the freedom of speech here for spewing their hatred. Laughable because the idea that the whole world – or at least one gender – is out there to get you reveals a very egocentric view on the world, which would be funny if it wasn’t that pathetic. Whatever makes you feel important, right?
It is worrying though as well, and for several reasons. Like I mentioned elsewhere on this forum, those who claim to be zoo-exclusive should ask themselves what their main drive is. Does your claim on the label of zoo-exclusivity have its foundation in a hatred towards humans, or in a love for animals simply because you experience them to be better partner than humans? In other words, do you base your sexual identity primarily on hatred or not? And if you do base it on hatred, if you simply end up with animals because you cannot stand people, should this be named ‘zoo-exclusive’ or something else, like ‘anything-but-humans-ism’?
Recently there has been a suggestion of introducing recovering incels to this forum so they can discover true joy, as if becoming zoo-exclusive is something you can decide one day when you wake up as new flavour of the month. It doesn’t work that way. And why do those incels want to claim they’re zoo-exclusive, and not e.g. homosexual? Suggesting that zoo-exclusivity and ZGTOW are interchangeable makes as much sense as suggesting that the clergy is a branch of MGTOW since the monks never have sex with women. To the outside world it might seem like that, but the differences can be found in motivations: incels and monks have different reasons for not having sex.
Pondering over terminology might be a trivial thing to do, but for the acceptance of zoo-exclusives –within zoosexual communities, but hopefully one day as well as outside – this terminology matters. When we say the word ‘zoo-exclusive’, there are two associations we can evoke. On the one hand there is the zoo-exclusive who found his/her love with his/her animal partner, and who doesn’t get the same romance, emotions, and sex from humans. On the other hand, there is the angry individual who allows (usually his) bad experiences with human partners to colour his view of humanity, a hate-driven emotion that uses animals to shape their revenge on society.
This forum prides itself in advocating freedom of speech, and I support that. However, what often is forgotten is that liberty comes with responsibility. My freedom ends where your freedom starts. With the demise of BF and ZF, this forum is one of a very few (if not the only one) surviving online forum on the matter of zoosexuality. The way in which different strings of zoosexuality are portrayed here will reverberate outside the walls of the forum too. Outside this forum, we are already regarded as perverted freaks. However, if zoo-exclusives here allow their banner to be hijacked by incels, the world outside this forum have even more ammunition to justify this blanket prohibition on human-nonhuman sexual relations we see now. After all, why would you allow a (self-)hating group of violent men with several mass murders under the collar even an inch more leeway? And while we’re at it, how many zoo-exclusives have committed mass murder because they think society is out there to get them and to ban them from having sex? Allowing incels to spread their toxic rhetoric in the name of free speech is one thing, but with it comes the responsibility for every member of this forum to ensure that the poisonous incel rhetoric doesn’t soil the concept of zoo-exclusivity.
So, what to do then?
I don’t call for a ban on incels joining this forum, but it would be wrong if those incels hijack the terminology of zoo-exclusivity because their motivations make the difference between zoo-exclusives and incels as binary as between day and night. As suggested by other forum members, it is paramount that we have different subforums for zoo-exclusives and for ZGTOW. At least that way we maintain the freedom of speech on this forum while at the same time it is clear to everybody that there are different foundations of motivations and attitudes for zoo-exclusives and ZGTOW
In conclusion, we use our freedom of speech here to justify our relations, which the outside world generally considers as abusive and perverse. At the same time, as successor of BF and ZF, this forum is one of the last voices for zoosexuality online, and that comes with a certain responsibility. Putting incels/ZGTOW and zoo-exclusivity forward as two sides of the same coin is wrong because 1) incels/ZGTOW and zoo-exclusives have different motivations to pursue sex with animals, and 2) it would undermine even further the slim chance we have that the world outside this forum will change their views on us.
The question thus for this forum is whether we will stand by as zoo-exclusivity and ZGTOW/incels are conflated. What association with the terminology of zoo-exclusivity do we want to advocate, one born out of love for nonhuman partners, or one born out of hatred against women? If it is the first, then it’s time for those who come here with their own version of MGTOW to come up with a new terminology. If it is the latter, then zoosexual communities – and especially those who are zoo-exclusive out of love – need to assess urgently whether they mind their label of zoo-exclusivity being hijacked by extremists, and what that will accomplish for loving zoo-exclusives’ reputation, not just within and beyond zoosexual communities.