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.

[Wibbler]

As primarily a zoo, It's not happening. I would like to see it happen, but both communities are ready to throw eachother under the bus for a crumb from the masses. Even within our own communities everybody is a pickme, everybody is the most petty gatekeeper ever (you fuck mares but don't feel enough emotion while doing so!) Everybody wants to be the perfect virtuous model minority.

The MAP community is atleast kinda civil in the activist sphere, the zoo community is ready to tear eachother to absolute shreds over the most petty shit ever. I'm not really sure what the solution is, but hilariously(morbidly) the same neo-puritan sex puritanism that oppresses both MAP's and zoos is present as a microchosm in both communities and it is actively self destructive.

Unless we can somehow overcome the huge number of model minority wannabe's in our communities, we are kinda just doomed to further and further persecution while we tear eachother apart over disagreements that are barely even disagreements. We are all in danger, we have no allies, and we seem determined to alienate as many allies as possible, meanwhile most people don't even differentiate us and would rather just put a bullet in all of us. It's all so fucking dumb.

[Bookshelf]

I'm not sure what the zoo community is like, but logically I think we should be in the same boat, right? The absurdities around society's beliefs on consent apply to them probably more than they do us — because arguing that animals can't consent would genuinely imply that sexual consent is somehow an exclusively adult human phenomenon. That of every life form on this planet, a fraction of a fraction of it is sophisticated enough to really understand the nuances of licking genitals, and we (adult humans) just so happen to be part of that unique class.

A theoretical alliance would help bulk up numbers and give more perspectives to tackle absurd consent theories. In practice though, I think it would fall apart with infighting pretty fast.

[Outis]

I wouldn't form an alliance with them because I feel it would alienate even more people and make our fight even harder. It's one thing to argue that an 11 year old can verbally consent and parents know all too well about dealing with their kids sexual natures, it's another entirely to argue for animals that can't communicate and have very different mental abilities.

But we shouldn't attack or shun them, we can exchange ideas and information.

Actually this conversation made me think whether we should actually aim to create a broader movement, inviting other sexual minorities to join in a sort of coalition. I'm sure there are members of the LGBTQ+ community who are disillusioned by that community, especially those who are maps or find themselves excluded or treated with less dignity for various reasons. Could a coalition be formed that brought people in from the LGBTQ+ community, them still remaining their own identity as a sub-culture in a coalition and maps retaining their subculture in the coalition. So lesbian and gay people can celebrate their sexuality specifically alongside TV/TS's celebrating theirs specifically and maps celebrating theirs specifically? Be proud and individual but still part of a coalition, strength in numbers without requiring all sub-communities to meld entirely into one. But started by maps so we can't just be ejected later. I mean the LGB community used to be less anti-map, then started inward looking, so splitting people out of that community into a new coalition might force them to rethink their own pedophobic views. Also, I've encountered people in that community in the past including a few trans people and gay people who are pro-map.