MAP Forum

I'm not particularly fond of such zoophilic themes, but I don't hate such people. Social aversion to them is an irrational trait, caused by the same thing that aversion to maps engenders in most people. Zoos cross the moral line of what is acceptable (in the minds of Western norms in the first half of the 21st century). In general, they deserve recognition, rights, and freedoms, just like everyone else. Hypocrisy is advocating for freedom for one's own group and the oppression of another.

Ultimately, it's odd to simultaneously justify the killing and eating of animals and condemn the idea of ​​interspecies relationships. This demonstrates that there are no rational reasons for such revulsion.

I think most zoophiles object to being lumped in with "paraphiles" because first off, zoophilia is an orientation, not a fetish. And unlike other paraphilias, zoophilia is illegal in many countries, actually more than a few decades ago, and even where it's legal they're uniquely chastised, second only to MAPs. Their situation and nature is unique and shouldn't be lumped in with others.

You have fallen into the "orientation" trap re. pedophila and zoophilia.

What even is a fetish, and an orientation, and what does paraphilia have to do with this distinction? I see no pattern here; pedophilia is widely enough accepted as a paraphilia.

What does Zoophilia have to do with a MAP Forum, in its capacity as a "distinctive orientation", that other paraphilia does not?

Why not stop trying to be distinctive, or "better" in some way about what you find "hot", and work together?

Show me some laws against Zoophilia - as far as I am aware, it is not illegal to express your Zoophilia.

The difference is clear and universally agreed upon.

And there are several cases in the US and European countries where zoophiles have gotten convicted just for running website with information about the orientation.

Explain the "universally agreed upon" distinction between fetish and orientation, and how "paraphilia" aligns with the former.

You are describing Zoosexual/Bestiality porn, not Zoophilia. In no place has it been illegal to be pro-expression for Zoophilia.

AtosW wrote: Wed Feb 04, 2026 7:58 pm I think most zoophiles object to being lumped in with "paraphiles" because first off, zoophilia is an orientation, not a fetish. And unlike other paraphilias, zoophilia is illegal in many countries, actually more than a few decades ago, and even where it's legal they're uniquely chastised, second only to MAPs. Their situation and nature is unique and shouldn't be lumped in with others.

It should be clear, in intent at least, that we are supportive of zoophiles. The subforum description makes that apparent enough.

Jim Burton wrote: Thu Feb 05, 2026 1:27 amIn no place has it been illegal to be pro-expression for Zoophilia.

In New Zealand, if I’m not mistaken, it is illegal to promote or support zoophilia. Publishing something that claims that zoophilia is even merely harmless is illegal. From what I’ve read, the law that underpins all of this (which also covers necrophilia and similar matters) is the Film, Video, and Publications Classification Act 1993.

Promotion/encouragement of bestiality is referenced in the law.

Anything written by a Zoophile in support of Zoophilia would not be covered by the law unless it sought to normalize or justify bestiality. The law also applies to sex with minors, and would likely only be used against clear incitement to illegal activity (although I am unaware of any examples where it has been used). Loren Robb was raided twice in NZ, including during the BL.net episode. All they were interested in was CP, which he didn't have.

It is unlikely a person publishing a website such as this would be prosecuted under the archaic law unless huge public pressure was exerted on public prosecutors. I don't want to promote the idea that glorifying Zoophilia online is a legal edge case, because it isn't.

Maybe this is my own issue, but isn’t writing something in support of zoophilia implicitly an attempt at normalization? The law would probably never be enforced over a comment on a site like this, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t potentially applicable.

I mean, very few people are reported for sharing a PDF or for downloading one, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t laws that, in themselves, consider such behavior to be copyright violations with corresponding penalties. Even if law enforcement has other priorities, that still doesn’t mean there’s no risk involved. Maybe not today, but when an authority feels it has too much free time or too many incentives, or when the issue is raised by someone who’s too popular, they could very well decide to deal with more marginal issues at any moment.

Then I admit that on my part there may be a bit of excessive paranoia, but better safe than sorry.

Like every other interest, it's valid. I wouldn't know how to conceptualize consent without human language but if animals can have sex with one another there's the chance it's possible, of course as long as there's not a possible injury involved in the action. I do find the way we treat animals hypocritical when it comes to sex vs consumption, of course for some people animal products are necessary for their health, but plenty of other things that are legal aren't, and can be horrible, such as inbreeding dogs to the point they suffer chronic pain and health problems. Personally I'm a bit disgusted by the thought of contact just from a public health and disease spreading perspective, but like every other sexual practice, prohibition isn't going to stop it. I think greater awareness and normalization will lead to safer practices and a greater degree of communication with doctors and veterinarians such that as a species we come to include zoophilia and cross-species contact in our models of pathogen spread and contact tracing, ultimately making it a good thing in the long run.