I was browsing reddit and accidentally found someone stating he is a "6th degree zoophile"....for T-rexes...
Scrolling through the replies, I accidentally found a list with "zoophilia degrees" I haven´t seen before. It goes like this:
0th degree: No attraction at all to non human animals
1st degree: Mostly only attracted to humans, but with slight interest in animals, mild experimentation, mental fantasies
2nd degree: Attracted to humans the majority of time, but occasionally willing to engage in casual acts with animals
3rd degree: Equally attracted and willing to engage with both animals and humans
4th degree: Willing to engage sexually with humans, but ultimately prefer animals
5th degree: Sometimes attracted to humans, but mainly can only find pleasure in animals
6th degree: Can only become aroused with animals
What do you guys think of this? And is anyone else getting the "black belt 3rd dan" feeling from this too? [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" /> Joke aside, do you find this helpful?
05-26-2018, 02:27 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-26-2018, 02:29 AM by silverwolf1.)
Though I've been attracted equally to (some) humans and (some) non-humans, zoophilia isn't about degrees or sexual arousal. Better to call this "Degrees of Bestiality" and leave it at that...
sw
The whole thing started as either a joke, or by some uber christian psychologist in Africa somewhere referencing it as a way to diagnose patients, I 1st saw it as a joke post then as a diagnosis reference. I suppose it would be useful to us, not only practically, but as a way to "take it back" from those who would use it against us. It's basically a zoo Kinsey scale anyways. I'm probably a 5 on there. My attraction to humans has been absent for the most part throughout my life. I have been in a lot of human x human relationships, more out of practicality, feelings of loneliness and fitting in rather than being a thing I actually wanted. My attraction to other humans has been waning over time, this is the longest I've been single, i haven't even bothered to try and find a human mate during the last 3 years and I'm a bit relieved about that. Now I can pursue the life I really want.
For a joke that´s gotten out of hand , the various degrees are way too seriously described. Plus it completely leaves out any emotional attachment and goes solely for the sexual aspects....for example, you could be someone totally using the animals as sex toys, without even the tiniest little honest emotions and still would qualify for the "highest" degree on that list if you abstain from humans. I just mentioned it in here because that term "6th degree zoo" sounded so goddamn retarded to me. I only was waiting for this guy calling himself an "operating Zetan" ... [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" />
But this list, probably not made up by some Christian shrink , but by some random "zoo" reading too much Kinsey stuff, only shows how much silly stuff is being made up in our community and then gets quickly presented as "facts" in public.Everyone basically is making his own scale...even beasties desperately yearning to be "the cool kids with the even cooler z-word". What shocked me was the complete lack of emotional attachment towards the animals this list displays. Doesn´t matter if you straight out rape animals and tie/restrain them during sex, you´re still a "6th degree zoo" if you don´t bang biped furless monkeys....yeah, that´s exactly what zoophilia is all about.
Why not stick with what has already been established? There's "zoo-exclusive" and "inclusive with humans." No need for degrees in attraction.
That list is about bestiality. It completely disregards the millions, maybe billions of humans who deeply love their family pets but would never begin to think of them sexually. A huge population of true zoophiles in plain view everywhere; they commonly admit--insist, even--that their pets are "part of the family." They have cemeteries for them, and that may be the highest honor a human can express for another living being.
We, as a species, love animals; we innocently anthropomorphize them constantly, projecting our character traits upon them as proxies in order to express ourselves (as well as sell product for us). I've wondered a lot why this is so; it's so much of a given that nobody thinks to question it, but it's saying something about us and I haven't figured out what.
And we--us on this forum and other such places--hide in the dark and pull our puds to critter-porn. We are different from them.
Quote:
49 minutes ago, threelegs said:
That list is about bestiality. It completely disregards the millions, maybe billions of humans who deeply love their family pets but would never begin to think of them sexually.
Well, you´re partially wrong with that statement. This list does indeed focus on the various degrees of sexual attraction towards animals, but I strictly advise against identifying "normal" pet owners as zoophiles at all. "Normal" people with pets they love and hold dear , but have no sexual attraction towards are as much "zoo" as I am gay because I have a couple of male friends I love hanging around with. For me, all this "You can be a zoo without sexual attraction" stuff is hilarious and weird...in the end, we´re talking about a SEXUAL orientation. Cut out the sex part and you´ll only end up with a normal pet owner. The sex IS defining what we are. Thus, your statement of " zoophiles hidden in plain sight" , referring to "normal " pet owners is a malinformed one per se. But I guess that´s what naturally happens when all the definitions we ought to rely on are nothing else but subject to each and every individuals´ personal interpretation...in the name of "tolerance". I prefer the Mason-Dixon approach..."you gotta draw the line somewhere".
Finding a coherent answer to the question about why "we", the species homo sapiens sapiens, are projecting and anthropomorphising animals surely is matter for a academic promotion and I´m far from having a complete and stringent answer, but my guess is that this is heavily connected to the human ego and its ways of interaction with the "little man sitting on your shoulder and whispering in your ear". We seek affirmation in animals. We project our feelings onto them because they seldom do anything that keeps us from that. We basically found ourselves the "ideal victim" in animals...and that´s why "we" do it.Another part of this would be the obvious shism of man and nature especially the westerners experience...with all that´s involved , such as irrational overromatisation of nature, with the terrible things that happen in the slaughterhouses while we pet our dogs at home. We put concrete between us and nature in our cities, we abandoned actual life to live a plastic life in our modern world...and the animals we keep are a remnant, a reminder of our disconnection with nature...the last straw we cling onto to keep us from becoming true biorgs, made of flesh and blood, but emotionally robotic. How many of you know how to grow grain and fruit? How many of you are sitting behind computers at work, only to get back home and sit in front of yet another screen that offers surrogate reality? We as a species are sick in our heads, everyone, every last one of us furless monkeys. We lost connection and animals are the last real ingredient, the real cherry on our plastic cake we call lives. And all of that because we´re having huge holes in our souls and only dig them deeper and deeper with consumerism and ego. What we lack in soul, we try to make up for with the company of animals. Cause we subconsciously know there´s something deeply and inherently wrong with us as a species. We project our humanity onto animals because we have so little of it ourselves. A failure in nature´s creation, desperately clinging to a non-failure creature...to soothe us, to fill the hole in our souls, to steal a little warmth from because we´re as humans are cold and selfish ab initio. For further insight, please consult Robert Anton Wilson´s books, especially cosmic trigger and also Dr. Timothy Leary´s game of life.
30-30,
We need a Greek language scholar for this, but I think you're giving an improper definition of 'zoophile.' If you want to talk about the sexual aspect of the relationship, then 'zoo-erotic' would be a better fit. It's just that the two realms overlap with us, where they don't with the everyday pet owners.
I spent some time around 'born-again' Christian Bible scholars, and I remember that there were, I think, four words for 'love' in Greek. The one they were all excited about was 'agape', a spiritual love. Then there was 'phileo' (IIRC) which is 'brotherly love'--like in Philadelphia ('City of Brotherly Love'). 'Eros' (sp?) was sexual, and I forget the other. Now that I think of it, that 'phileo' may be getting a lot of misuse, or else it means something other than 'brotherly.'
You seem to imply that our connection with animals is something recent, a compensation for our schism with nature. I disagree; we've always had this, as witnessed by the depiction of animals in the earliest artworks humans have made, not to mention that we were domesticating animals before we invented agriculture and maybe even before we had language. To fill a hole in our souls? Absolutely, but that hole is about a half a million years older than concrete and computer screens, so, yes, ab initio, but not a schism with nature. We still have our old animal instincts; we just don't pay attention to them anymore.
|
