Mu Conversations: Is a MAP-Zoophile alliance a possibility?

[Fragment]

https://www.map-union.org/perspectives/ ... ossibility

Conversation starter by Jim. What are your thoughts on alliances with other paraphiles?

[Olivia2012]

https://www.map-union.org/perspectives/ ... ossibility

Conversation starter by Jim. What are your thoughts on alliances with other paraphiles?

Not a terrible idea but I don't think the first goal should be to do it with zoophiles. I hope this isn't a bad take but zoophilia genuinely has no excuses, while being a MAP at least makes some sense and won't always hurt anyone. Saying u side with zoophiles will make people even more reluctant to side with MAPs

[Jim Burton]

I can't think of any reason to side against even pro-c zoophiles, besides gut reaction.

Even from a pragmatics perspective, sexual contact with animals is legal in more countries than sexual contact with fully post pubescent 13-year-olds, and here we are talking to nepiophiles who would be tarred as deranged and locked up permanently if they were ever so much as to agitate for the legalization of sexual contact with children.

MAPs could probably do with the moderating influence of an ally.

[racyturtle]

Cooperation yes of course, but a closed alliance would make no sense. Our interests differ a lot from each other, after all we are not only discussing our role in society, but the role of children as well. I think it would be fatal to equate minors with animals in this matter, we would only hinder each other. In my view, there is more reason to align with youth rights than with other paraphiles. Same reason why it makes more sense for trans people to align with gender theory than with MAPs.
Aside from that, we are already indirectly allied, if we understand ourselves as queer, which is per definition the case.

[Aspire6]

Cooperation yes of course, but a closed alliance would make no sense. Our interests differ a lot from each other, after all we are not only discussing our role in society, but the role of children as well. I think it would be fatal to equate minors with animals in this matter, we would only hinder each other. In my view, there is more reason to align with youth rights than with other paraphiles. Same reason why it makes more sense for trans people to align with gender theory than with MAPs.
Aside from that, we are already indirectly allied, if we understand ourselves as queer, which is per definition the case.

I agree that our interests don't align exactly, which is obvious, but the point I would imagine is fighting the intense stigma and misinformation that runs rampant in society. There is a lot of disgust towards MAPs and zoophiles. So I could see an alliance being possible and fairly reasonable.

[Fragment]

It depends on how much we think a broader "liberation" movement should be embraced. More holistic liberation would include animal liberation (veganism) and youth liberation both, and the sexual rights that go along with being considered free and autonomous.

I'm not sure that an alliance focused more purely on the sexual aspects is particularly beneficial, though. We're fighting against people's disgust reflex here. And adding an extra "disgusting practice" only increases the likelihood that people get turned off. Of course, I don't think any MAP activism should be opposed to zoophilia, especially as an attraction. It just probably shouldn't take a strong stance on legalization nor actively bring up the topic.

If I was being interviewed by the media I wouldn't mention it. If they asked "but isn't this just a slippery slope, what's next? bestiality?" my reply would probably be something like:
"Well, I definitely don't think we should be condemning people who have sexual feelings towards animals, even if we don't understand those feelings. Attraction and fantasies themselves are not harmful and should not be condemned or prohibited. As for the legal question, I don't know enough to have a strong opinion. Whatever the law is, it should uphold the safety and dignity of animals."

I wouldn't want to be any more "pro" than that.

[Lennon72]

It depends on how much we think a broader "liberation" movement should be embraced. More holistic liberation would include animal liberation (veganism) and youth liberation both, and the sexual rights that go along with being considered free and autonomous.

I'm not sure that an alliance focused more purely on the sexual aspects is particularly beneficial, though. We're fighting against people's disgust reflex here. And adding an extra "disgusting practice" only increases the likelihood that people get turned off. Of course, I don't think any MAP activism should be opposed to zoophilia, especially as an attraction. It just probably shouldn't take a strong stance on legalization nor actively bring up the topic.

If I was being interviewed by the media I wouldn't mention it. If they asked "but isn't this just a slippery slope, what's next? bestiality?" my reply would probably be something like:
"Well, I definitely don't think we should be condemning people who have sexual feelings towards animals, even if we don't understand those feelings. Attraction and fantasies themselves are not harmful and should not be condemned or prohibited. As for the legal question, I don't know enough to have a strong opinion. Whatever the law is, it should uphold the safety and dignity of animals."

I wouldn't want to be any more "pro" than that.

That sounds like a good reply. I do have to admit that I have often frowned upon bestiality because I condemn animal abuse but I have learned that most zoophiles have no desire to abuse animals just like most pedohiles have no desire to abuse children. So your reply is a good one.