Zeta Principle as Community Standard (Education Without Promotion)

[Kharrs]

I know that I am new to the forum, but looking around, what better place than here to discuss ethics and morality.
It seems to me that just as an unexamined life isn't worth living., an unexamined community isn't worth having.

The concept of community has always sparked debate. How do we define who we are, who are the "others," who is included or excluded.
Do we refer to community by proximity? (Ethical, geographic, electronic, interest.)

I've found the Zeta Principles to be a useful tool in helping conceptualize what a zoo community could and should be. (Ref: Zeta-Verein)

Presumably, we want to maintain a sustainable, defendable and positive course as "we" navigate society at large. Surely a zoo community that promoted harmful acts or demonstrably "evil" behavior would not be able to get any traction whether it be social (zoos connecting with zoos), psychological (studies and scientific opinion of zoos), legal (bestiality laws) or societal (zoos as viewed by the public). Granted, you could ask a dozen members of any zoo forum what goals they might entertain for a "zoo community" and you'd get a dozen different answers, but the larger point, I would argue, stands: the Zeta Principles do provide a useful framework for testing the behavior of individuals and communities engaged with love and sexual acts with animals.

One such principal I have always taken to heart that I'd like to discuss here:

Teach those who seek knowledge about zoophilia and bestiality without promoting it.

So why would we want to answer questions as a community to those seeking information on zoophilia and bestiality?

1. The emotional (social, personal, mourning) and physical risks (allergies, disease, anatomy and physical preparation) associated with zoophilia are not immediately apparent to the uninitiated. It's important to give people a chance to understand them and ways to mitigate them before they jump off the deep end.
2. There is a need for credible sources to provide accurate information and battle misinformation (concerning issues of safety, history and ethical behavior)
3. There are destructive elements within the "zoo online sphere of influence" which love to pray upon those who don't know any better (talking about a push to provide content, join destructive groups or take unnecessary risks)

Why would we not promote it?

1. It's risky, unless one proceeds carefully, there could be unforeseen consequences for both human and animal. These risks are simply not worth an action just to satisfy a simple curiosity or passing interest. (You can't go back once you have taken the plunge.)
2. Another issue with promotion of bestiality would include the very real possibility of the proliferation of animal pornography and exploitation. It simply should not be common.
3. Bringing an animal partner into your life will forever change it. You'll be limited on what jobs you can take, how much you can travel, what social circles you travel, not to mention how expensive it is to adequately care for them. It's a huge responsibility.

It would seem, if we wish to present ourselves as a community with moral standards, providing accurate educational resources without actually promoting the act should be a good place to start.

What are your thoughts, do you think this axiom provides a good framework?

 

[temporaryacc]

why does there need to be a zoo community that upholds rules? Believe it or not, censorship doesn’t get rid of the bad guy.

Expecting people with only 1 trait in common to agree on a philosophy is idealistic at best and naive at worst.

If you tried to compare some of the people here the only thing in common would be animal sex.

These random principles mean nothing to I’d say around 90% of the users here. And to expect them to follow them is … unrealistic.

Oh and this is a zoophilia and bestiality forum lol

Read more here, you’ll find guides, people upholding consent, health information, and zoophiles and bestiality participants. But a lot of the people I consider decent would still probably disagree with the philosophy.

 

[Ruben]

First things first: What are the Zeta Principles? They are this:

1. Bestow upon animals the same kindness one would wish bestowed upon oneself.
2. Consider the well being of an animal companion as important as ones own.
3. Place the animals will and well being ahead of ones desires for sexual gratification.
4. Teach those who seek knowledge about bestiality and zoophilia without promoting it.
5. Discourage the practice of bestiality in the presence of fetish seekers.
6. Censure sexual exploitation of animals for the purpose of financial gain.
7. Censure those who practice and promote animal sexual abuse.

They do not stem from the German Zeta-Verein, but were published under the name "Zoosexuals for the Ethical Treatment of Animals". Here is a source: https://web.archive.org/web/20010126203900/http://www.freespeech.org/vivarium/zeta/index.html Z.E.T.A. was very likely the work of one man, even if it sounds a lot like a group.

 

[Ruben]

Presumably, we want to maintain a sustainable, defendable and positive course as "we" navigate society at large. Surely a zoo community that promoted harmful acts or demonstrably "evil" behavior would not be able to get any traction whether it be social (zoos connecting with zoos), psychological (studies and scientific opinion of zoos), legal (bestiality laws) or societal (zoos as viewed by the public).

You presume too much. Most people here do not want to gain any public traction and their idea of navigating society is to keep the profile as low as possible while keeping some ties among like-minded individuals.

Yet, the forum has anti-abuse rules in place.

Granted, you could ask a dozen members of any zoo forum what goals they might entertain for a "zoo community" and you'd get a dozen different answers, but the larger point, I would argue, stands: the Zeta Principles do provide a useful framework for testing the behavior of individuals and communities engaged with love and sexual acts with animals.

How do you argue that?

While I consider the principles to be rather well chosen and both worth a read and consideration, I've always struggled with the lack of a philosophical foundation for them. When I came in contact with them – they appear to have been much more popular among zoos in Germany than in the English speaking world in the past – it felt like they came from a stone tablet that had fallen from the heavens. Nobody really knew their source or was willing to share it and hardly anybody could argue well why one should adopt these principles, except that they felt very much like they were good rules to adopt. And they appeared to be, as you say, useful. Useful for giving zoos guidance who struggled with being deemed immoral by society for example, who were looking for orientation beyond the codes of conduct that they had been taught in early life, but which were in conflict with their feelings for animals. But also useful for communicating a certain positive image to the outside world.

But the principles aren't very popular nowadays.
Why is that?
Maybe it's because the why has never really been explained well. Maybe because the principles are too far off from reality. Maybe because zoosexuality is about ones personal orientation and relationship with one's partner and that is something that develops intuitively without an imminent need for a written set of rules? Maybe because zoos simply aren't a movement or a community who need to agree on such a standard?

One such principal I have always taken to heart that I'd like to discuss here:

Teach those who seek knowledge about zoophilia and bestiality without promoting it.

So why would we want to answer questions as a community to those seeking information on zoophilia and bestiality?

1. The emotional (social, personal, mourning) and physical risks (allergies, disease, anatomy and physical preparation) associated with zoophilia are not immediately apparent to the uninitiated. It's important to give people a chance to understand them and ways to mitigate them before they jump off the deep end.
2. There is a need for credible sources to provide accurate information and battle misinformation (concerning issues of safety, history and ethical behavior)
3. There are destructive elements within the "zoo online sphere of influence" which love to pray upon those who don't know any better (talking about a push to provide content, join destructive groups or take unnecessary risks)

Providing factual information and help to understand it to those who are interested increases the chance that their decisions related to the topic will be well-informed and valid in general. Fact-based, reasonable decisions tend to work out better in reality than those based on false ideas.

Why would we not promote it?

1. It's risky, unless one proceeds carefully, there could be unforeseen consequences for both human and animal. These risks are simply not worth an action just to satisfy a simple curiosity or passing interest. (You can't go back once you have taken the plunge.)
2. Another issue with promotion of bestiality would include the very real possibility of the proliferation of animal pornography and exploitation. It simply should not be common.
3. Bringing an animal partner into your life will forever change it. You'll be limited on what jobs you can take, how much you can travel, what social circles you travel, not to mention how expensive it is to adequately care for them. It's a huge responsibility.

By the way, I don't know why anyone would promote any particular kind of sexual behavior ... besides maybe some masturbation (particularly in absence of a partner), if that is beneficial for one's physical or mental health. But I lack the medical qualification to give such advice.

Sex isn't a fad, but rather an expression of one's intrinsic instincts, desires and nature.
It isn't a mass-produced product to be sold.

What are your thoughts, do you think this axiom provides a good framework?

The point is too specific to count as a framework in my book and it isn't really an axiom either when you can and did argue so much for it.

 

[nekdoneco123]

are you trying a different angle or are there really two ppl who can't spell "principle" despite copy pasting it in the same text?


also, this is as much of a "community" as ppl who like the same brand of tea are. i like the principles and adhere to them, but there's nowhere to apply them besides on myself.

 

[Kharrs]

are you trying a different angle or are there really two ppl who can't spell "principle" despite copy pasting it in the same text?


also, this is as much of a "community" as ppl who like the same brand of tea are. i like the principles and adhere to them, but there's nowhere to apply them besides on myself.

If drinking that brand of tea could have real life dangerous consequences to the tea being drunk, I'd agree.

But we are talking about a group of people who are engaging in sexual activities that carry with them physical risks. An activity that could easily venture into exploitation, coercion and rape if not performed with care. I would think it'd be important to be a part of a "tea drinking" community that promoted "drinking tea" responsibly, Do you not agree?

 

[Kharrs]

You presume too much. Most people here do not want to gain any public traction and their idea of navigating society is to keep the profile as low as possible while keeping some ties among like-minded individuals.

Yet, the forum has anti-abuse rules in place.


How do you argue that?

While I consider the principles to be rather well chosen and both worth a read and consideration, I've always struggled with the lack of a philosophical foundation for them. When I came in contact with them – they appear to have been much more popular among zoos in Germany than in the English speaking world in the past – it felt like they came from a stone tablet that had fallen from the heavens. Nobody really knew their source or was willing to share it and hardly anybody could argue well why one should adopt these principles, except that they felt very much like they were good rules to adopt. And they appeared to be, as you say, useful. Useful for giving zoos guidance who struggled with being deemed immoral by society for example, who were looking for orientation beyond the codes of conduct that they had been taught in early life, but which were in conflict with their feelings for animals. But also useful for communicating a certain positive image to the outside world.

But the principles aren't very popular nowadays.
Why is that?
Maybe it's because the why has never really been explained well. Maybe because the principles are too far off from reality. Maybe because zoosexuality is about ones personal orientation and relationship with one's partner and that is something that develops intuitively without an imminent need for a written set of rules? Maybe because zoos simply aren't a movement or a community who need to agree on such a standard?


Providing factual information and help to understand it to those who are interested increases the chance that their decisions related to the topic will be well-informed and valid in general. Fact-based, reasonable decisions tend to work out better in reality than those based on false ideas.


By the way, I don't know why anyone would promote any particular kind of sexual behavior ... besides maybe some masturbation (particularly in absence of a partner), if that is beneficial for one's physical or mental health. But I lack the medical qualification to give such advice.

Sex isn't a fad, but rather an expression of one's intrinsic instincts, desires and nature.
It isn't a mass-produced product to be sold.


The point is too specific to count as a framework in my book and it isn't really an axiom either when you can and did argue so much for it.

Re: Public Traction

Whether or not you like it, we are in the public eye. The erosion of privacy and the push for sensationalism do not support sticking your head into the sand. Not only that, the practice of zoophilia is not kind to the uninitiated. Those first exploring their orientation or attractions are very much at risk of serious missteps. Is it not important to impart a path or an ethical principle (I spelled it right this time.)

Re: Philosophical Foundation

I'm shocked you cannot fathom the philosophical foundation for many of the principles. What role does an animal's lack of understanding of risk and context play in them? What role does the power differential and risk of exploitation and rape play in their foundation? I believe they can and should be applied wherever and whenever they can be applied. You say this forum has anti-abuse rules in place. What is the philosophical foundation for the anti-baiting and anti-restraining policy? It appears to come from the robbing of an animal's agency. This is yet another foundation for many of the ZPs.

Re: Popularity

You say the ZPs aren't popular today because perhaps they haven't been explained adequately, zoos lack cohesion and zoosexuality is personal. 1. Why not take a widely used platform and actually adequately explain them to a wide audience
2. There are pockets of cohesion within online communities and local cliques, why don't we collectively take responsibility for promoting ethical behavior?
3. Zoosexuality on an emotional level is, I agree deeply rooted in a personal journey. When it comes to the animals themselves, and the sexual interaction with them, does one's personal emotional journey negate an animal's: agency, risky of exploitation, physical/emotional risks of sex. If not, then the principles still apply, if yes, then why is this so?

How would you propose to encourage moral sexual engagement with animals? What axiom(s) would you consider using?

 

[Kharrs]

why does there need to be a zoo community that upholds rules? Believe it or not, censorship doesn’t get rid of the bad guy.

Expecting people with only 1 trait in common to agree on a philosophy is idealistic at best and naive at worst.

If you tried to compare some of the people here the only thing in common would be animal sex.

These random principles mean nothing to I’d say around 90% of the users here. And to expect them to follow them is … unrealistic.

Oh and this is a zoophilia and bestiality forum lol

Read more here, you’ll find guides, people upholding consent, health information, and zoophiles and bestiality participants. But a lot of the people I consider decent would still probably disagree with the philosophy.

Why? Because animals cannot speak for themselves. The risks are inherent in the activity. You may not be able to censor the bad guy, but you can influence the new and curious away from their influence. You can provide an atmosphere where fetishists/abusers have to hide and operate out of view.

I would hope that animal care is a common trait among those here. Are you thinking that people who use animals just for sex without care should be welcome here or in any venue?

Zoophilia and Bestiality both refer to animal human sexual interaction. -pretty redundant. Does practicing bestiality preclude one from following basic principles of animal care and ethical behavior?

How would you promote ethical human/animal sexual interaction, considering the risks to both participants?

 

[temporaryacc]

Why? Because animals cannot speak for themselves. The risks are inherent in the activity. You may not be able to censor the bad guy, but you can influence the new and curious away from their influence. You can provide an atmosphere where fetishists/abusers have to hide and operate out of view.

I would hope that animal care is a common trait among those here. Are you thinking that people who use animals just for sex without care should be welcome here or in any venue?

Zoophilia and Bestiality both refer to animal human sexual interaction. -pretty redundant. Does practicing bestiality preclude one from following basic principles of animal care and ethical behavior?

How would you promote ethical human/animal sexual interaction, considering the risks to both participants?

There is ways to spread knowledge sans subscribing to a philosophy, personally I have a deep hatred towards philosophies and ideologies…

Lots of people (myself included) do not agree with this philosophy yet are against abuse…. I don’t subscribe to this zeta nonesense… but I still spend time reporting porn from the F/M dog section.

I would say i have a general disgust (hatred) of fetishists, my dumpster fire posts reflect that… but I understand they will exist, and they can be taught safe ethical practices. Your philosophy wants to censor beastialists, instead of educate them. They are gonna pursue their interests anyways, why not knock some sense into them before they do it?

I’m sorry if this message is snarky. There weren’t enough m&ms in my trailmix.

 

[Ruben]

Re: Public Traction

Whether or not you like it, we are in the public eye. The erosion of privacy and the push for sensationalism do not support sticking your head into the sand.

I agree with you, but it's still true that most people here prefer to stick their head in the sand.

Re: Philosophical Foundation

I'm shocked you cannot fathom the philosophical foundation for many of the principles.

That's lame.

Re: Popularity

You say the ZPs aren't popular today because perhaps they haven't been explained adequately, zoos lack cohesion and zoosexuality is personal. 1. Why not take a widely used platform and actually adequately explain them to a wide audience

I think it would be nice to give adequate explanations.

But do you think that "I'm shocked you cannot fathom it yourself" is an adequate answer when you get asked "How do you argue that?" Or that answering a question with questions instead of an explanation is?

2. There are pockets of cohesion within online communities and local cliques, why don't we collectively take responsibility for promoting ethical behavior?

Mostly because we aren't really a collective. But a share of people here contributes to promoting ethical behavior based on their personal knowledge and convictions on the one hand and the rules of Zooville on the other hand.

How would you propose to encourage moral sexual engagement with animals? What axiom(s) would you consider using?

Let's stay on topic.

 

[Kharrs]

There is ways to spread knowledge sans subscribing to a philosophy, personally I have a deep hatred towards philosophies and ideologies…

Lots of people (myself included) do not agree with this philosophy yet are against abuse…. I don’t subscribe to this zeta nonesense… but I still spend time reporting porn from the F/M dog section.

I would say i have a general disgust (hatred) of fetishists, my dumpster fire posts reflect that… but I understand they will exist, and they can be taught safe ethical practices. Your philosophy wants to censor beastialists, instead of educate them. They are gonna pursue their interests anyways, why not knock some sense into them before they do it?

I’m sorry if this message is snarky. There weren’t enough m&ms in my trailmix.

What are your fundamental problems with the zeta principles? What problem do you have with philosophy in general? Action without thought is precisely what leads people ever deeper into darkness.

I'm not sure where I stated censorship of bestialists. I think you misunderstand the idea of holding people accountable for neglect and abuse. Something you already do. I'm not certain I understand your issue.

 

[Kharrs]

I agree with you, but it's still true that most people here prefer to stick their head in the sand.


That's lame.


I think it would be nice to give adequate explanations.

But do you think that "I'm shocked you cannot fathom it yourself" is an adequate answer when you get asked "How do you argue that?" Or that answering a question with questions instead of an explanation is?


Mostly because we aren't really a collective. But a share of people here contributes to promoting ethical behavior based on their personal knowledge and convictions on the one hand and the rules of Zooville on the other hand.


Let's stay on topic.

Principled community standards is the topic, asking what your axioms for promoting ethical sexual engagement of animals is precisely the topic.

My shock was that you could not fathom the philosophical foundation of the ZPs. I then said " What role does an animal's lack of understanding of risk and context play in them? What role does the power differential and risk of exploitation and rape play in their foundation? I believe they can and should be applied wherever and whenever they can be applied. You say this forum has anti-abuse rules in place. What is the philosophical foundation for the anti-baiting and anti-restraining policy? It appears to come from the robbing of an animal's agency." I asked questions to see if you would engage in figuring out what these foundations might be.

This is one step toward answering "How do you argue that [the zeta principles are a good touchstone for ethical human animal sexual interaction]"

Why is this? Because, if at the root of those principles you see considerations of agency, care and well-being of the animal partner (physically and emotionally), then you are a long way in understanding how that person or community treats risk and animal agency.

It seems like sticking our collective head in the sand seems a sure-fire way to allow another "community" of zoosadists to thrive and destroy everything they touch.

 

[Kharrs]

I agree with you, but it's still true that most people here prefer to stick their head in the sand.


That's lame.


I think it would be nice to give adequate explanations.

But do you think that "I'm shocked you cannot fathom it yourself" is an adequate answer when you get asked "How do you argue that?" Or that answering a question with questions instead of an explanation is?


Mostly because we aren't really a collective. But a share of people here contributes to promoting ethical behavior based on their personal knowledge and convictions on the one hand and the rules of Zooville on the other hand.


Let's stay on topic.

So education without promotion.... We agree education isn't really a problem with this axiom? What about promotion?

 

[temporaryacc]

What are your fundamental problems with the zeta principles? What problem do you have with philosophy in general? Action without thought is precisely what leads people ever deeper into darkness.

I'm not sure where I stated censorship of bestialists. I think you misunderstand the idea of holding people accountable for neglect and abuse. Something you already do. I'm not certain I understand your issue.

• Discourage the practice of bestiality in the presence of fetish seekers.

This is specifically what I’m against… I thought I made that clear but I’ve been told I fail to get my point across sometimes (often)

Fetish seekers need to be taught (and yelled at). They will continue to exist, as much as I hate them. They do still exist. I’d rather they do it ethically then just be told not to (because they will turn around and do it anyways)

Also how the hell do you expect to accept zoophilia if you try to encourage people not to do it at all. “Talk them out not in” which I agree with to a point. You’re arguing that beastiality is bad… which I’m pretty sure is the same argument antis are making.

 

[Kharrs]

• Discourage the practice of bestiality in the presence of fetish seekers.

This is specifically what I’m against… I thought I made that clear but I’ve been told I fail to get my point across sometimes (often)

Fetish seekers need to be taught (and yelled at). They will continue to exist, as much as I hate them. They do still exist. I’d rather they do it ethically then just be told not to (because they will turn around and do it anyways)

Also how the hell do you expect to accept zoophilia if you try to encourage people not to do it at all. “Talk them out not in” which I agree with to a point. You’re arguing that beastiality is bad… which I’m pretty sure is the same argument antis are making.

Dismissing ideas outright because you don't agree with them isn't really a good way to get at the truth.

One thing that everyone can agree on here, antis and zoos, is that bestiality is risky to both participants. If you'd like we can discuss the physical, emotional and societal risks but I think all of us are intimately familiar with them. The common mistake that antis make is that they then take the logical misstep of saying, because it's risky--->it is immoral. This ignores that risks can be known and mitigated, It's important to note here that the human component of the coupling is the one doing the risk mitigation.

Fetishizing animal sex promotes activities where the animals become a tool, an object. Their presence and performance is a defined part and foundation of the fetish activity itself. This suggests that the animal itself is not the primary concern of the participants. I have a problem with this in two ways. 1. Expected performance promotes practices like coerced performance (baiting, training) and forced performance (dildoging, restraints etc). Both of these rob the animal of agency (and violate other zeta principles). 2. Objectifying animals robs them of their state of being (itself a violation of agency.)

When the very definition takes this shape, it necessarily brings up questions of morality. It's important to note that because we are relying on the human component to mitigate risk, if we call into question that human's motives or priorities, it causes a fundamental problem. A problem with the basic premise.


For reference: (If you are using a different definition, let us know)
fet·ish·ize
[ˈfedəˌSHīz]

VERB

1. make (something) the object of a sexual fetish:
   "women's bodies are so intensely fetishized"
   • have an excessive and irrational commitment to or obsession with (something):

 

[temporaryacc]

Dismissing ideas outright because you don't agree with them isn't really a good way to get at the truth.

One thing that everyone can agree on here, antis and zoos, is that bestiality is risky to both participants. If you'd like we can discuss the physical, emotional and societal risks but I think all of us are intimately familiar with them. The common mistake that antis make is that they then take the logical misstep of saying, because it's risky--->it is immoral. This ignores that risks can be known and mitigated, It's important to note here that the human component of the coupling is the one doing the risk mitigation.

Fetishizing animal sex promotes activities where the animals become a tool, an object. Their presence and performance is a defined part and foundation of the fetish activity itself. This suggests that the animal itself is not the primary concern of the participants. I have a problem with this in two ways. 1. Expected performance promotes practices like coerced performance (baiting, training) and forced performance (dildoging, restraints etc). Both of these rob the animal of agency (and violate other zeta principles). 2. Objectifying animals robs them of their state of being (itself a violation of agency.)

When the very definition takes this shape, it necessarily brings up questions of morality. It's important to note that because we are relying on the human component to mitigate risk, if we call into question that human's motives or priorities, it causes a fundamental problem. A problem with the basic premise.


For reference: (If you are using a different definition, let us know)
fet·ish·ize
[ˈfedəˌSHīz]

VERB

1. make (something) the object of a sexual fetish:
   "women's bodies are so intensely fetishized"
   • have an excessive and irrational commitment to or obsession with (something):

I may not follow this principle and a lot don’t… but they still spend time educating and telling people the time. Look at the threads here and actually read…? You’d quickly find that people are here to educate beastialists and fetishists. (Cough cough Fence hopping thread) Just because I don’t subscribe to one ideology doesn’t mean I’m unethical or promoting abuse.

Also please acknowledge that being a zoo doesn’t mean we are a community. I disagree with a lot of zoos. And I sure as hell disagree with a lot of bisexual people. And white people? They all have diffrent opinions, some I don’t agree with.

Read the forum. Read the posts. You’ll see people yelling at fetishists all the time. But still giving them education. Do you want me to link some?

 

[Ruben]

Principled community standards is the topic, asking what your axioms for promoting ethical sexual engagement of animals is precisely the topic.

Oh well, I thought the topic was ZETA principles as community standard – especially principle number 4. As for my own crude ideas concerning the topic ... I don't feel comfortable to share them in this thread. To be honest, I'm still in the process of figuring things out, but I have thought about this enough to be able to say that it would stray far from your opening post.

I'll give you an idea why that is the case: the focus on sexual engagement with animals is much too narrow for my interest. I totally see why you would choose this focus when you're interested in zoo politics. However, I do not see how sexual engagement is an ultra-special thing disconnected from everything else, philosophically speaking. And sexuality is only a small part of life and it is only a small part of what happens between zoosexuals and their animals. Plus, our love interests aren't the only animals whom we engage with.

I am not so much concerned about the question how to treat animals while we are having sex with them than with the question how to treat animals. Or, to express this differently and a little more graphically, it seems weird to me to discuss things like agency, care and well-being of animals before, after or during a barbecue where we munch meat from who-knows-where-it-came-from.

The challenge that zoos face from society is to excuse their sexual encounters of course. Meat-eating, breeding defects, tail docking, ecosystem destruction etc. aren't problems that society has with us. So if you're interested in making zoos acceptable to society, then I get why you would be interested in guidelines for sexual conduct. But if you are interested in ethical treatment of animals, then that doesn't start or stop at sexual encounters.

The ZETA principles ... you could read them to be more general than just about our own animals or only those we have sex with. "Bestow upon animals the same kindness one would wish bestowed upon oneself" ... the wording is broad indeed. But then again, would you wish to experience the kindness of getting killed and eaten at young age? Most people I asked say that this is not what the principle means. It is meant narrower than it seems when taken out of context. But our treatment of animals is not narrow, it is that broad.

My shock was that you could not fathom the philosophical foundation of the ZPs. [...] I asked questions to see if you would engage in figuring out what these foundations might be.

This is one step toward answering "How do you argue that [the zeta principles are a good touchstone for ethical human animal sexual interaction]"

I don't want to engage in figuring out the possible foundations for this given set of rules. I would rather derive practical rules starting from basic foundations – build the house from bottom to top instead of the other way around, so to speak. But I am nevertheless curious about convincing explanations for the ZETA principles that anyone may have to offer.

Why is this? Because, if at the root of those principles you see considerations of agency, care and well-being of the animal partner (physically and emotionally), then you are a long way in understanding how that person or community treats risk and animal agency.

And when I notice that a majority of the same community considers the non-sexual exploitation of animals to be normal or even good, then I would get doubts about the understanding I thought I had gained.

(I know that most people don't act consistently based on stable philosophical foundations in reality.)

 

[Kharrs]

I may not follow this principle and a lot don’t… but they still spend time educating and telling people the time. Look at the threads here and actually read…? You’d quickly find that people are here to educate beastialists and fetishists. (Cough cough Fence hopping thread) Just because I don’t subscribe to one ideology doesn’t mean I’m unethical or promoting abuse.

Also please acknowledge that being a zoo doesn’t mean we are a community. I disagree with a lot of zoos. And I sure as hell disagree with a lot of bisexual people. And white people? They all have diffrent opinions, some I don’t agree with.

Read the forum. Read the posts. You’ll see people yelling at fetishists all the time. But still giving them education. Do you want me to link some?

It might be possible that you follow the principle without saying you follow it. Would it not make sense to formulate something that can be examined and communicated? If you are following a principle silently and doing "good" why not package that principle so that other people can do what you do and extend your "goodness".

"Community" is one of those amorphous words that means something to zoos only in the context in which it is used. This forum, for example, is a community. Your local zoo clique of friends and acquaintances is a community. In a sense, people who identify as zoo are a community. Something that was a part of my OP was, however this word is used, it is important to reflect on what qualities define the group. Wouldn't it be nice to include a neat, defendable package of axioms to point to to help define one of these groups?

If you have some great examples of positive interactions where you made a difference by "yelling" at fetishists, then sure, reference them here. I'm not certain I'd be able to find them on my own out of the 1000s of posts.

 

[temporaryacc]

It might be possible that you follow the principle without saying you follow it. Would it not make sense to formulate something that can be examined and communicated? If you are following a principle silently and doing "good" why not package that principle so that other people can do what you do and extend your "goodness".

"Community" is one of those amorphous words that means something to zoos only in the context in which it is used. This forum, for example, is a community. Your local zoo clique of friends and acquaintances is a community. In a sense, people who identify as zoo are a community. Something that was a part of my OP was, however this word is used, it is important to reflect on what qualities define the group. Wouldn't it be nice to include a neat, defendable package of axioms to point to to help define one of these groups?

If you have some great examples of positive interactions where you made a difference by "yelling" at fetishists, then sure, reference them here. I'm not certain I'd be able to find them on my own out of the 1000s of posts.

Here you go WGW clone



Thread 'How to fuck a horse'


Thread 'Fence Hopping'



Thread 'Hire prostitute for dog sex?'



Thread 'First Time'



Thread 'The abusive porn cleanup project'

Alright I have to study for an exam. I got lazy picking them from Ye old dumpster fire. But still some were originally posted in main thread.

 

[UR20Z]

You forget a c

Principled community standards

You forget a critical concept, wolfy, m'lad... I've maintained for years, and will continue to maintain, that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A ZOO COMMUNITY. The fact that I screw/am screwed by dogs/horses/giant sloths, or three-toed wombats doesn't make me part of a "community". It makes me part of a vanishingly small (when compared to the total human population) group of people whose *ONLY* - Oh... what's the word I want? "connecting point" will do, I guess - Whose only connecting point is that they don't automatically start spewing "Eww! That's sick! Kill it with fire!!!!" when the idea of a human putting his penis into an animal - or allowing (or even encouraging) an animal to put his penis into them - comes up.

Sorry, bub, but no matter how you try to dance around the facts, that DOES NOT make a "community". It makes a group of people who share a single common viewpoint: Sex with animals isn't automatically "icky" and/or worthy of persecution. (or prosecution, as far as that goes)

That's not a community, by any definition I've ever understood through the years. At best, it's a "commonality" - a similar-sounding word, but with no real relation to the one you wish it was beyond that coincidence of audio similarity.

 

[nekdoneco123]

But we are talking about a group of people who are engaging in sexual activities that carry with them physical risks. An activity that could easily venture into exploitation, coercion and rape if not performed with care. I would think it'd be important to be a part of a "tea drinking" community that promoted "drinking tea" responsibly, Do you not agree?

nothing's stopping you from trying to form a community... like a real community where ppl joining agree with being part of one. this isn't it... this is a forum for ppl with one common "trait". well, some folk won't call it even that, just "a kink".

i didn't come here to be among my "brothers and sisters", but among ppl who won't throw up when i mention what i like in the bedroom and to give pointers to ppl willing to learn how to "do it" properly and safely. that's not a community.

 

[Kharrs]

Here you go WGW clone



Thread 'How to fuck a horse'


Thread 'Fence Hopping'



Thread 'Hire prostitute for dog sex?'



Thread 'First Time'



Thread 'The abusive porn cleanup project'

Alright I have to study for an exam. I got lazy picking them from Ye old dumpster fire. But still some were originally posted in main thread.

Thank you, And your thoughts on the philosophical foundations of the ZPs? How the human component calls into question the support of fetishists?

 

[Kharrs]

nothing's stopping you from trying to form a community... like a real community where ppl joining agree with being part of one. this isn't it... this is a forum for ppl with one common "trait". well, some folk won't call it even that, just "a kink".

i didn't come here to be among my "brothers and sisters", but among ppl who won't throw up when i mention what i like in the bedroom and to give pointers to ppl willing to learn how to "do it" properly and safely. that's not a community.

Dig down a bit, what do you mean by "properly and safely"?

 

[Kharrs]

You forget a c

You forget a critical concept, wolfy, m'lad... I've maintained for years, and will continue to maintain, that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A ZOO COMMUNITY. The fact that I screw/am screwed by dogs/horses/giant sloths, or three-toed wombats doesn't make me part of a "community". It makes me part of a vanishingly small (when compared to the total human population) group of people whose *ONLY* - Oh... what's the word I want? "connecting point" will do, I guess - Whose only connecting point is that they don't automatically start spewing "Eww! That's sick! Kill it with fire!!!!" when the idea of a human putting his penis into an animal - or allowing (or even encouraging) an animal to put his penis into them - comes up.

Sorry, bub, but no matter how you try to dance around the facts, that DOES NOT make a "community". It makes a group of people who share a single common viewpoint: Sex with animals isn't automatically "icky" and/or worthy of persecution. (or prosecution, as far as that goes)

That's not a community, by any definition I've ever understood through the years. At best, it's a "commonality" - a similar-sounding word, but with no real relation to the one you wish it was beyond that coincidence of audio similarity.

This isn't the dumbster fire, seeing red won't serve you well in a logical discussion. Do you think "zoos" should educate ethical human sexual interactions without promoting fetishists? Do you believe people who have sex with animals should hold the animal's agency and emotional/physical well-being in high regard?

 

[UR20Z]

This isn't the dumbster fire, seeing red won't serve you well in a logical discussion. Do you think "zoos" should educate ethical human sexual interactions without promoting fetishists? Do you believe people who have sex with animals should hold the animal's agency and emotional/physical well-being in high regard?

When you come up with something logical, we can discuss it. When you continue to trot out idiocy like claiming there's such a thing as a "zoo community", there's nothing to be discussed, other than the fact that you're delusional.

 

[rockymountaindog]

You forget a critical concept, wolfy, m'lad... I've maintained for years, and will continue to maintain, that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A ZOO COMMUNITY. The fact that I screw/am screwed by dogs/horses/giant sloths, or three-toed wombats doesn't make me part of a "community". It makes me part of a vanishingly small (when compared to the total human population) group of people whose *ONLY* - Oh... what's the word I want? "connecting point" will do, I guess - Whose only connecting point is that they don't automatically start spewing "Eww! That's sick! Kill it with fire!!!!" when the idea of a human putting his penis into an animal - or allowing (or even encouraging) an animal to put his penis into them - comes up.

Sorry, bub, but no matter how you try to dance around the facts, that DOES NOT make a "community". It makes a group of people who share a single common viewpoint: Sex with animals isn't automatically "icky" and/or worthy of persecution. (or prosecution, as far as that goes)

That's not a community, by any definition I've ever understood through the years. At best, it's a "commonality" - a similar-sounding word, but with no real relation to the one you wish it was beyond that coincidence of audio similarity.

Even if we do not call it a communinty and we all are just sharing a common trait in this commonality. Is it still too much to have some principles? I know we all have greatly staggering view points but having some common agreed on principles could be beneficial to the group.

 

[Kharrs]

When you come up with something logical, we can discuss it. When you continue to trot out idiocy like claiming there's such a thing as a "zoo community", there's nothing to be discussed, other than the fact that you're delusional.

1. Do you think "zoos" should educate ethical human sexual interactions without promoting fetishists?

2. Do you believe people who have sex with animals should hold the animal's agency and emotional/physical well-being in high regard?

Are these questions illogical? If you see them as idiotic, show us how.

 

[UR20Z]

Even if we do not call it a communinty and we all are just sharing a common trait in this commonality. Is it still too much to have some principles? I know we all have greatly staggering view points but having some common agreed on principles could be beneficial to the group.

These so-called "principles", while reasonably good on the surface, are little more than a means for the holier-than-thou types to use in virtue-signaling. Some of us actually live the life, rather than thinking that a critter (of whatever kind) is the key to unlocking a "Look at me! I'm so extreme I fuck animals" kink-accomplishment badge, so these "principles" are, at best, redundant.

 

[rockymountaindog]

while reasonably good on the surface, are little more than a means for the holier-than-thou types to use in virtue-signaling.

I totally understand what you mean by the virtue signaling, there is A LOT on here

 

[Kharrs]

These so-called "principles", while reasonably good on the surface, are little more than a means for the holier-than-thou types to use in virtue-signaling. Some of us actually live the life, rather than thinking that a critter (of whatever kind) is the key to unlocking a "Look at me! I'm so extreme I fuck animals" kink-accomplishment badge, so these "principles" are, at best, redundant.

Redundant to what exactly? Is caring for animal agency and well being "virtue signaling" or a sensible approach to ethical behavior?