Is a shared sexuality enough to declare an established community?

[Darkmoor]

So what could define a zoo community?




One possibility would be a majority collection of like-minded individuals willing to self police bad actors that effectively exert peer pressures following an agreed upon code of conduct while maintaining an internal support system.




And from what I've seen, while the ideal is nice and pretty and something that many want, the reality is that most zoos don't trust the most of the rest of us. Why do you think they use nicks, multiple accounts, anonymizers, VPN's and so forth?




So, on paper, it works. But to me, there are 2 realities that get in the way.




1) The "old" if it ain't broke, don't fix it / stay beneath radar, don't be seen attitude.




Some, have nothing more in common than just the self applied word "zoo". We can't even agree on definitions of term and their implications. There are some with a the sense of need for some intangible right that seems too hard to define. There are some with a need to be public about it. These all tend to make such a "community" even less coherent.




There are also issues about representation. There have been a slew of those that felt that they were the figurehead to be the next spokesperson for the zoo community. There have been "pioneering" zoos from over the years that have acted to propel zoos into the public eye in various ways. They might write a book, go on a nationally syndicated program, might call a radio talk show host, might try to make a short film that isn't porn. All for what? So far, the results show the only significant outcome has been more anti-zoo laws.






 
2) Our animals are innocent victims of tragedy.



One thing that separates us from the LBGTQ+ community is our partners. The animals have no skin in human dreams and endeavors. They are individually non-social with the rest of society, being under human care and protection. And to endanger that protection, with publicity, or lack of caution, or simple carelessness, they can become the silent victim, the one that looses their life as "not home-able" in some act of idealism saving them from "cruel zoophilic sex acts". We know the truth of that matter, but what about the general public? Again, we've been shown time and again the reality of the situation. Society will strip the animals from their homes, mutilate them, and even kill them because they were interacted with by a zoo.




So how can a zoo selfishly endorse that danger? What kind of zoo accepts that risk to their animals? And what is the reward back? A "community"?

In general: zoos do not verify;  do not endorse; do not recruit; are the butt of jokes; are often local law breakers(considering most states have laws against human/animal sex); and do not generally trust each other.




Zoos are not even all present. Many are not online. Many don't participate in the same forums. There is even fighting among forums, and even within them.




For decades, have I watched this shallow breathing of "the community". It is a convenient phrase or term or moniker of convenience to use to talk about the general collection of zoos. But I personally don't feel it is enough for a defined tangible segment of society. In general, society classifies all who engage with animals sexually as abusers. So there is a disparity even between the internal and external classifications and use of terms.


And trying to enforce an individual's participation as a member of a community beyond what they choose to submit has resulted in many just walking away, evaporating into the mist.




Many more think the way I do, but most of them are no longer online. They have shaken their heads and walked away, happy to distance themselves beyond the few close friends they have.


There is no real "community" here or over there. Perhaps just a mirage of one appears on the horizon.

[Kharrs]

On 10/3/2022 at 11:11 AM, Darkmoor said:




So what could define a zoo community?




One possibility would be a majority collection of like-minded individuals willing to self police bad actors that effectively exert peer pressures following an agreed upon code of conduct while maintaining an internal support system.




And from what I've seen, while the ideal is nice and pretty and something that many want, the reality is that most zoos don't trust the most of the rest of us. Why do you think they use nicks, multiple accounts, anonymizers, VPN's and so forth?




So, on paper, it works. But to me, there are 2 realities that get in the way.




1) The "old" if it ain't broke, don't fix it / stay beneath radar, don't be seen attitude.




Some, have nothing more in common than just the self applied word "zoo". We can't even agree on definitions of term and their implications. There are some with a the sense of need for some intangible right that seems too hard to define. There are some with a need to be public about it. These all tend to make such a "community" even less coherent.




There are also issues about representation. There have been a slew of those that felt that they were the figurehead to be the next spokesperson for the zoo community. There have been "pioneering" zoos from over the years that have acted to propel zoos into the public eye in various ways. They might write a book, go on a nationally syndicated program, might call a radio talk show host, might try to make a short film that isn't porn. All for what? So far, the results show the only significant outcome has been more anti-zoo laws.




 




 




2) Our animals are innocent victims of tragedy.




One thing that separates us from the LBGTQ+ community is our partners. The animals have no skin in human dreams and endeavors. They are individually non-social with the rest of society, being under human care and protection. And to endanger that protection, with publicity, or lack of caution, or simple carelessness, they can become the silent victim, the one that looses their life as "not home-able" in some act of idealism saving them from "cruel zoophilic sex acts". We know the truth of that matter, but what about the general public? Again, we've been shown time and again the reality of the situation. Society will strip the animals from their homes, mutilate them, and even kill them because they were interacted with by a zoo.




So how can a zoo selfishly endorse that danger? What kind of zoo accepts that risk to their animals? And what is the reward back? A "community"?

In general: zoos do not verify;  do not endorse; do not recruit; are the butt of jokes; are often local law breakers(considering most states have laws against human/animal sex); and do not generally trust each other.




Zoos are not even all present. Many are not online. Many don't participate in the same forums. There is even fighting among forums, and even within them.




For decades, have I watched this shallow breathing of "the community". It is a convenient phrase or term or moniker of convenience to use to talk about the general collection of zoos. But I personally don't feel it is enough for a defined tangible segment of society. In general, society classifies all who engage with animals sexually as abusers. So there is a disparity even between the internal and external classifications and use of terms.


And trying to enforce an individual's participation as a member of a community beyond what they choose to submit has resulted in many just walking away, evaporating into the mist.




Many more think the way I do, but most of them are no longer online. They have shaken their heads and walked away, happy to distance themselves beyond the few close friends they have.


There is no real "community" here or over there. Perhaps just a mirage of one appears on the horizon.

 

<div style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;">
Whether or not you feel comfortable with it, whether or not you like or dislike it, zoo communities do currently exist.  The issue here is what sort of values, norms and culture do zoos want it to have.  How do we define "zoos," what is expected out of people who share this sexuality.



 



*For Reference*



 



<div style="color:#444444;font-size:14px;text-align:left;">
<div style="color:#111111;">
<div style="background-color:#ffffff;color:#111111;font-size:18px;text-align:left;">
In sociology, we define community as a group who follow a social structure within a society (culture, norms, values, status). They may work together to organise social life within a particular place, or they may be bound by a sense of belonging sustained across time and space.



<div>
<div>

Sociology of Community – The Other Sociologist


</div>
</div>
</div>


*Also for Reference*



 



com·mu·ni·ty: NOUN

</div>


<ol style="border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px 0px 0px 16px;"><li style="border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px 0px 4px;">
<div>
<div style="color:#111111;">
a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common:



<span>synonyms:</span>



<div>
<div>
group<span> · section · body · company · set · circle · clique · coterie · ring · band · faction</span>

</div>
</div>
</div>


<ul style="border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px;"><li style="border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px 0px 8px;">
<div style="color:#111111;">
a group of people living together in one place, especially one practicing common ownership:



"a community of nuns"




<div>
<div>
<span>synonyms:</span>



brotherhood<span> · sisterhood · fraternity · confraternity · sorority · colony · institution · order · body · circle · association · society · league · sodality</span>

</div>
</div>
</li>
<li style="border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px 0px 8px;">

a particular area or place considered together with its inhabitants:



"a rural community"




<div>
<div>
<span>synonyms:</span>



district<span> · region · zone · area · local area · locality · locale · neighborhood</span>

</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul></div>
</li>
<li style="border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px 0px 4px;">

<div>
<div style="color:#111111;">
a feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals:



"the sense of community that organized religion can provide"


</div>
</div>
</li>
</ol></div>
</div>


What kinds of zoo communities are there:



 



1. Online:  Each forum can be said to have its own culture, values, goals; Each App (twitter as an example) could be considered a group sharing a common place (though shared culture value etc is not as enforced or recognized)



 



2. Local Groups: Cliques bound together though a common geographical location exist and share goals and values 



 



3. Cross Pollination: There are zoos who exist within other communities such as the furry community, that may or may not have access or participation in either of the above.



 



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;">
I'm not certain how you could argue these communities do not exist.  Their existence is self-evident. 



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;">
How the communities define themselves is up for discussion.  The shared sexuality alone, clearly, is not enough.  "Having interest or participating in sex with animals"  -as a trait, clearly is not enough to produce values or culture, not enough alone to be valuable to those within it.  There must be some way to codify the values these communities should ethically hold.



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;">
If it ain't broke, don't fix it (out of sight, out of mind)



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;">
1. If an individual wishes to exist outside the community, nothing stops them from doing so.  There are many that do.  If this works for them, then so be it.



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;">
2. There is value in belonging to a community of shared values:




Create a Sense of Belonging | Psychology Today


<ul style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:16px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px;text-align:left;"><li style="border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px 0px 12px;">
A sense of belonging to a greater community improves one's motivation, health, and happiness.
</li>
<li style="border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px 0px 12px;">
Feeling a sense of belonging is important in order to see value in life and cope with intensely painful emotions.
</li>
<li style="border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px;">
One way to increase one's sense of belonging is to look for similarities to others rather than focus on differences.
</li>
</ul><p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px;">
How can this basic psychological fact benefit zoos outside improving one's motivation, health and happiness (likely tied to stages 2-4 of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs)?  It can help psychologically in the inevitable event we outlive our partners.  It can help physically when you have situations requiring help in the event of emergencies and unforeseen events. 



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px;">
3. If some groups are able to find values and build a stronger culture, who cares of other communities do not.  If there really is a benefit to that effort, then the value should be self-evident.  The aim need not be to define values and culture for the entire group of people who identify as having interest in sexual relations with animals.



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px;">
Animals as Victims



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px;">
1. Society views everyone engaging in sexual acts with animals as criminal regardless of the act or motivation.  There is no way around this.  Scoiety is built on the bone and blood of animals and won't think twice about harming a zoo's animals when they are in the crosshairs.  Furthermore, it's becoming increasingly difficult to remain out of sight and out of mind.



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px;">
2. Online communities do exist, regardless of this risk, for better or for worse.  To me, it would seem constructive or even imperative for those communities to put their best foot forward and make an effort to create defensible values and a positive culture.  



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px;">
3. Fighting or debate within these communities is a healthy process.  You can't come to agreements without it.



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px;">
4. Community Enforcement: It's up to the community to define how to enforce its values.  There are many possibilities aside from denial or resources.  (Probably a topic for another thread)



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px;">
 



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px;">
Whether or not you are ready, whether or not you like it, multiple zoophile or zoosexual communities exist.  The question remains, what values, what culture do you want to see in the spaces you yourself occupy.



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px;">
*For Reference*



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px;">
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px;">
1. Physiological: breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis, excretion



<p style="border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px;">
<font color="#111111">2. Safety: security of body, employment, resources, morality, family, property</font>



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px;">
3. Love/Belonging: friendship, family, sexual intimacy



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px;">
4. Esteem: self-worth, confidence, achievement, respect of others, respect by others



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px;border:0px;padding:0px;">
5. Self-actualization: morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, acceptance of facts, lack of prejudice



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;">
 



<p style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;">
 



<div style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;">
<div>
 

</div>
</div>
</div>

[threelegs]

On 10/3/2022 at 0:11 PM, Darkmoor said:




Why do you think they use nicks, multiple accounts, anonymizers, VPN's and so forth?

I may be commenting prematurely because I haven't read past this point yet, but these measures are necessary to our personal safety due to the fact that our attitudes and activities are nearly universally despised by the majority of the public, to the point of criminality. We're not hiding from each other so much as from bad publicity and worse.




It may be pointed out that a great many people use these same precautions for their otherwise legitimate online activities, to the end of maintaining a level of privacy.

[Darkmoor]

On 10/5/2022 at 11:42 AM, Kharrs said:

<div style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;">
Whether or not you feel comfortable with it, whether or not you like or dislike it, zoo communities do currently exist.

</div>

This isn't about my personal comfort. I've brought this up because of personal observation, experience, and some research.


First, I'll concede the loosest definition of Community as given by Oxford Languages:

<div class="ipsQuote_citation">
Quote




community
<i>noun</i>
1. a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common.

This is true, in the most basic sense, a group with the characteristic of "interest or engagement in human/animal sex", aka "the zoo community."


But let us get beyond this. It is blatantly obvious that this is not in any form of fashion a unified group. The simplicity of the statement "of interest or engagement in human/animal sex" is splintered in many ways. And let me continue on with some specifics:

In the "zeta principles" quoted elsewhere, there are 7 statements. This means there are at least 7 different things concerning "the protection of the animals" (I'll use that for sake of ease while it gets argued elsewhere) that have to be specifically stated. In other words, 7 defined lines of separation (otherwise 7 statements would not be needed). And in other places, I've brought up that there is lack of broader consideration in association with, and not limited to, the animal owners and the practioners of sex with them: such as personal willingness to share personal information, advertise their activities, online presence, and support the fight for zoo rights, among the watershed of other divisive issues. Even down to when simply defining terms to be used, there is division.


</div>

On 10/5/2022 at 11:42 AM, Kharrs said:

The issue here is what sort of values, norms and culture do zoos want it to have.  How do we define "zoos," what is expected out of people who share this sexuality.

What do you call the group that cannot agree on the definitions, expectations, norms, and values of a culture?


So, let's divert and go to the dictionaries for a moment:

<div class="ipsQuote_citation">
Quote




Culture
<i>Oxford</i>
2. the ideas, customs, and social behavior of a particular people or society.
<i>Merriam Webster</i>
1c. the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic.
<i>Cambridge</i>
B1. the attitudes, behavior, opinions, etc. of a particular group of people within society.

</div>


What I observe here is a list of the concepts which could be used as a checklist of what members of the "community" disagree on.

To imply there is a consistent, uniform, accepted set of these traits within the community is not realistic.

 

On 10/5/2022 at 11:42 AM, Kharrs said:

*For Reference*
<div style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;">
 

<div style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-size:14px;">
<div style="color:#444444;font-size:14px;text-align:left;">
<div style="color:#111111;">
<div>
In sociology, we define community as a group who follow a social structure within a society (culture, norms, values, status). They may work together to organise social life within a particular place, or they may be bound by a sense of belonging sustained across time and space.

</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

To consider zoos in general as "working together" provides some humor to my mental image. It either gets sideways looks if the reference is sexual,  or it sarcastically describes attempts to have sustained conversation about defining concepts and ideas within the group.


So back to Community:

You've brought references, so I'll share one as well. Considering there are a lot of people out there smarter than me, I'll consult a psychologist in the appropriate field.

Title: "Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory"

From the Journal of Community Psychology, Jan 1986

By McMillan and Chavis

I've included a free copy of the pdf for those that want to educate themselves at the bottom.


The paper goes on to explore 4 criteria, which I'll leave for the readers to explore in depth.


In summary, the 4 are:

Membership - the feeling of belonging

Influence - a sense of mattering

Integration and Fulfillment of Needs -  members needs will be met by resources

Shared Emotional Connection - belief member have shared experiences.



Some key points:

• - Members have a right to belong, with the difficulties being in defining boundaries. Typically, the identification of deviants are used to mark those boundaries.
  
  
• - Influence discusses not only the member's influence on the group, but the group's influence on the member with a major finding of a positive relationship between group cohesiveness and pressure to conform. here is a summary from the group cohesiveness research:
  
  

• 
  Quote
  
  
  
  <ul><li style="margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;">
  <b>1. </b>Members are more attracted to a community in which they feel that they are influential.
  
  <li style="margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;">
  <b>2. </b>There is a significant positive relationship between cohesiveness and a community’s influence on its members to conform. Thus, both conformity and community influence on members indicate the strength of the bond.
  </li>
  <li style="margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;">
  <b>3. </b>The pressure for conformity and uniformity comes from the needs of the individual and the community for consensual validation. Thus, conformity serves as a force for closeness as well as an indicator of cohesiveness.
  </li>
  <li style="margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;">
  <b>4.</b>Influence of a member on the community and influence of the community on
  a
  member operate  concurrently, and one might expect to see the force <b>of </b>both operating simultaneously in a tightly knit community.
  </li>
  

</li>
[*]
- Integration and Fulfillment of Needs simply translated is reinforcement with a main point that people do what serves their needs, but require directing concepts, such as "Shared Values". (This does not mean that a zoo community would have to supply animals, not that kind of resource)

[*]
- Shared Emotional Connection highlights that the members must identify with it, for example, self identify as "zoo"

</ul>
Observations even within segregated sections of online forums does not present itself well with "community" based upon these 4 criteria.


Example of the failure of Membership

Individuals don't want to belong. Yet the moniker of "zoo community" used to refer to all zoos. Many take on various objections of who is or is not included, and choose to remain not associated.




Example of failure of Influence

Some members of forum X feel that the porn on the forum is not suitable and should be removed. They are told the direction of the door and told that if they don't like it, they can leave. The "you don't have to watch it" sentiment. The ability of the members to shape their community has failed at least in part.


Example of failure of Integration

Individual values cover a vast array on several spectra. One member cannot use simple introduction of "zoo" to another of the community and have any faith that there is any similarity of ethics, viewpoints, definitions, support, honor, etc. within the over-arching conglomerate.


Example of the failure of Shared Emotional Connection

This one is the simplest criterion that zoo communities could meet. However, with visibility of factors such as the Zooier-Than-Thou, distinctions of "bestie-types" and various indications of have/have nots or are/are nots, such as owning animals or being only curious or zoo-friendly, shows that there are many dichotomies causing fractures on how one community member may connect versus another.


By the psychological definitions proposed in the paper "Sense of Community", the failures manifest in some way on each criterion. I suppose the moniker could be changed to say: "not quite a zoo community" but who wants to type that? I agree, in the purest forms of the dictionary definition, it IS a simple phrase to indicate the group.


However, as a functional community, I feel I have shown that the collection of zoos fails to uphold an accepted "sense of community". I personally do not feel a sense of community. I have some individual connections with specific persons, but beyond that, the personal feeling of inclusion is missing.


To externally look at "The zoo community" would be to take the public view that all all animal sex is abuse, that it is a criminal activity, and this member is no better than that member, regardless of the 2 members that are being compared. This is how the public defines zoophiles, and I do not agree with this definition by any means. And while portion of some of the criterion can be subverted by using a 3rd party definition, I do not think many would appreciate that kind of blanket approach for defining zoos.




<a class="ipsAttachLink" data-fileid="4784" href="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=4784">Sense_of_Community_A_Definition_and_Theory.pdf</a>

[Darkmoor]

5 hours ago, Darkmoor said:




However, as a functional community, I feel I have shown that the collection of zoos fails to uphold an accepted "sense of community".

Good news, however.

Using this information could be a starting point as a foundation to generate a real form of community.

Or rather, multiple communities.

The other good news is that groups that want community, can gather and work towards their sub-demographic within the umbrella "zoo"

There would likely be a bit of overlapping, and/or a recognition of more "us / them" viewpoint segregation.


Personally, I feel that the various zoo associated labels are now broad reaching and have been hijacked by any and every group wanting to lure traffic in their direction.

It would mean a complete redefining and creation of new terms that would touch and make those who use them feel included and something they would want to identify with.

And lets be fair. If a label is put in a negative connotation, it won't attract it's associated group. In fact, they will seek to hijack new positive terms, provided those groups would want to develop their own community.


And now for the bad news. I feel that to further unify and develop a zoo community, it first must be fractured further.