Could we have a zoophile subforum?

[AtosW]

To some of you, that might sound like a outlandish and completely out-of-nowhere idea. But i think it's something that could really lead to a big step forward for our movement.

Zoophiles and MAPs really do have a lot in common. There's really no reason for any MAP not to support zoophile rights, (i'm pretty sure very few here buy into the "animal abuse" or purely "moral" arguments) and i think very few MAPs consider themselves to be morally "above zoophiles", but rather it's the other way around.

Of course zoophilia is, like MAP, completely outside the current liberal idea of "tolerance", illegal in many countries, and there's no objections to that from those who claim to stand for civil rights etc. on other issues.

But, besides the fact that both of them are simply hot (and many MAPs also think so), there's even more to it.

Letting zoos discuss their issues here would be a big step forward towards uniting the movements. Something a few MAPs have called for, particularly in that brief golden age of MAP activism (ca 2019-2020?) but the problem was always getting support from the other side.

No need to go into what reasons zoophiles used to justify hating us, but obviously much of it came from a notion that they could become more tolerated by condemning us. As you can tell, it worked excellently.

Zoophile rights as a public, attention-seeking movement trying to achieve any social change has not had much activity for the last 25 years. Why everyone just gave up on trying to make it more accepted is something i still haven't been able to get an answer too. (See footnote)

For long periods there hasn't even been an obvious gathering place for zoophiles online, and in the last few years the remaining ones have closed or gotten deserted. What little remains is all about porn, with the occasional graphic sex advice thread, with any serious discussion dead or even disallowed. No idea why, but that's how it seems to be.

So right now, zoophiles looking for support, especially of the more serious kind, and the zoophile movement, doesn't have an obvious home on the web.

Now, if we MAPs can provide a better space for them to discuss serious issues, organizing and how to improve their standing in society, what would that do for their view of us?

So i think it's something to consider, given that we already have experience in running communities about controversial issues - so technically, how much of a difference can it do? It's not like MAPs are damaging their reputation by associating with zoophiles, if anything it's the other way around, as i already explained. And hell, there are even acts that combine both of them, i'm sure you can imagine what they are!



Footnote:
Almost every older, once influential zoophile who was "in the movement" (who hasn't disappeared entirely) has become overly complacent, and no longer really caring about the situation of other zoos. I have a theory that since their orientation inherently doesn't require humans, not only does it attract, unfortunately, a lot of hideously hostile, anti-social or outright anti-human people, but it also makes legality and public acceptance less of an issue for zoophiles than for MAPs, since it's possible to do entirely "in secret", and it's easy for them to fall into seeing legality or tolerance as "unnecessary", possibly even unwanted for some of them.

It is, however, an issue for those growing up with the orientation, and the fact that there's no information about zoophila that's not entirely condemning is incredibly destructive to young zoophiles mentally - i know, because i was one - and the problem might actually be even greater than for MAPs, because of the complete lack of any information from "normal, established" sources at all. That also gives even more overlap between zoophile and MAP issues.

[Jim Burton]

The original wording in the forum structure made clear you could discuss paraphilias in the general discussion forum. Maybe we should bring that back?

I fail to see what demand there would be for a paraphilias forum, though, even if it were pitched more broadly. Or where the present forums couldn't pick up that small amount of slack.

My scepticism is because we have created subforums for topics such as youth rights, but these only have content within them because myself and other mods have been aggressively moving topics from other forums.

At the moment, there seems to be a thriving community of pro-MAP Zoophiles, with the only remaining hurdle pre-emptive self-censorship. They are threatened with losing their platforms, so they are rightly defensive.

[CantChainTheSpirit]

In my opinion, this is part of a much bigger question for this forum or another forum.

One issue I've taken with the LGBTQ+ community which I've talked about with parts of that community is that its been undoing its good work over recent decades by increasingly turning away sexuality minorities which serves to weaken the community as a whole. Some push away queer folk because "it's not a real sexuality" or they push away trans people or maps, and so on.

It's like an onion made up of minorities. Each minority has no power, its strength comes from all minorities working together in common areas. They don't have to understand other sexualities, they do need to identify common areas they can agree on such as these.

- Everyone deserves respect regardless of their sexuality or who they are attracted to.
- A sexuality does not mean an action. Someone's sexuality does not make a crime better or worse, a crime is a crime regardless of the characteristics of the attacker.
- No one should feel shame or less valued for their sexuality or attraction.

Simple, broad pillars that people can work together on without judgement and which are hard to attack.

So my preference would be either include sub-channels for all sexualities and be welcoming to those sexualiteis or, a separate LGBTQ+ forum that by design includes maps. Now LGBTQ+ types that don't like it don't have to attend, but a case for unity and inclusion should be built. Bridge building not just with zoophiles but with anyone. I mean a zoophile to me is someone who's attracted to animals, it isn't a massive jump from furries, similar to age players and adults who dress as school girls in sexual situations having a link to maps. Should people have sex with animals? Well the law says no, as it does with kids, and so they shouldn't, but I'm not afraid to ask the question and support debate and research. The big difference to me is that a child of 7 is intellectually far superior to an animal, so I don't see it as a direct comparison. But I do respect zoophiles as people and their feelings.

So I would advocate to either add sub-channels here along LGBTQ+ lines or a new broad LGBTQ+ forum that is map welcoming.

I do actually run a blog where I'm openly a map but it isn't a blog aimed at maps, it's aimed at supporting anyone who is struggling with life. The elderly, people in financial distress, ex-forces, ex-cons, immigrants, the disabled, struggling parents, gay people etc. Not once has anybody attacked me for being a map. I believe that's because when I talk about being a map it's within a broader context, alongside other groups, so it contextualises map alongside other struggling minorities. I think that could be the same in a forum that is either across all struggling minorities (see my list) or across all sexualities.

[JGHeaven]

I would like to see more diversity, more people of different backgrounds and sexualities.

[Objectophile]

As an objectophile, I agree with this post. We may be attracted to different things, but we all experience discrimination of some sort since we are grouped under the paraphilia umbrella. We definitely need a peer support space for all paraphiles because most mental health spaces irl will NOT provide support, instead saying the discrimination is deserved.

but it also makes legality and public acceptance less of an issue for zoophiles than for MAPs, since it's possible to do entirely "in secret", and it's easy for them to fall into seeing legality or tolerance as "unnecessary", possibly even unwanted for some of them.

I can attest to that. Most objectophiles (including the ones that rebranded themselves as 'objectum') don't do much to advance their rights... because it was never illegal in the first place. However, we are still shunned by society because objectophilia is pathologised. I've had a therapist told me that my sexuality is abnormal and worth less than a non-paraphilia. He wouldn't have made a similar statement about homosexuality because there are legal consequences to being homophobic. Since there are no legal protections for paraphilias, it is perfectly legal to make those discriminatory remarks.

Hence, I believe there should be no distinction between non-harmful and harmful paraphilias. Some of us get arrested or killed, but all of us are despised. My therapist said he was fine with my non-harmful paraphilia. But he was NOT fine that I fully embrace it. There is no legal trouble for me, which is a privilege, but I was still berated for embracing my paraphilia.

The objectum forum on reddit specifically bans MAPs and zoos, which I disagree with. I think they are pandering to normophilic views on sexuality. So your statement is true on the objectophile side of things.

I have a theory that since their orientation inherently doesn't require humans, not only does it attract, unfortunately, a lot of hideously hostile, anti-social or outright anti-human people

Let's give those anti-human zoos the benefit of the doubt here. I theorise that those anti-human zoos are that way because of trauma. I posit that sexualities that exclude humans are uniquely discriminated against. I am non-exclusive, however I am more interested in objects than humans. I was told that my preference is wrong. That all humans are evolved to reproduce with one another, and it is impossible to have a relationship with a non-sentient object. There was an attempt to "reduce my attention on objects" through my therapist ordering me to form close relationships with people. Which I did do the whole time. My non-exclusivity allows me to form relationships with people (it's good to explore two different worlds, so to speak). Despite knowing I am non-exclusive, my therapist still assumed I am misanthropic and intentionally avoid people. It's like he has tunnel vision towards paraphilias. He then berated me based on his FALSE assumption.

Coercing someone to pursue something is a surefire way to make them hate that thing. Those events were traumatic, and I almost became misanthropic to cope with it. I'll admit, being misanthropic gives the zoophile community a bad rep; but I have nothing but empathy for them as I was almost in that situation. So I do agree with you that zoophilia does attract anti-human people, but I think it's mostly a reaction to others coercing them to be attracted to humans.

On a related note, this is why I support a zoophile subforum. As an objectophile, I heavily relate to the confusion and hatred we face for our attraction to non-humans. I believe that objectophilia has a lot in common with zoophilia.

[PorcelainLark]

I'd rather have a general paraphilia topics section. The point of the forum is MAPs. We MAPs fall under the paraphilia umbrella, so it makes sense to build alliances with other willing paraphiles. I think a zoophile subforum would be arbitrary, because why would we be more connected to zoophilia than necrophilia, for example? I think a general paraphilia section would avoid that arbitrariness. Maybe you could call it "general paraphilia rights discussion" or something like that? That way it connects with MAPs without being arbitrary about which paraphiles are included or excluded.

[Jim Burton]

Second the idea for a more inclusive, but separate forum. Paraphile and radqueer stuff is far too cliquey and confined to Mastodon and social media bubbles, even cult-like chatservers.

They should be more public in building an alliance, and a forum would be a way of doing that.

It would need a staff team, though. We started here with a team of four.

[OnionPetal]

[...] we all experience discrimination of some sort since we are grouped under the paraphilia umbrella. [...]

I disagree that minor attraction is a 'paraphilia,' because it reduces minors to (non-sexual or non-human) 'objects.' Some of the more recent revisions to definitions of 'paraphilia' seek to include minor attraction, because adversarial groups would rather see minor attraction defined as an 'abnormal fetish' than as an 'orientation.' And while I am the least person qualified to pass judgment on anyone with an unusual kink, 'paraphilia' is not an accurate description of minor attraction, in my view. Minor attraction is an orientation, in the view of most MAP activists.

That said, I have nothing against people with other fetishes, kinks, or paraphilias, especial when people of marginalised sexual identity are seeking support. And there is sure to be overlap across various spectra of identity and communities. Some alliances or bridges could be useful, but each distinct movement is going to have its own way of navigating the ethics and controversy around their movement. It could take a lot of time and understanding to see if two separate movements are even compatible in terms of goals. There is enough in-fighting within just the MAP community over legal and ethical standards impeding unity. Coming to a consensus with such fundamentally distinct movements would be a lot trickier.

I'd rather have a general paraphilia topics section. The point of the forum is MAPs. [...]

I tend to agree.

[Learning to undeny]

The paraphile section sounds great to me. On the extension of the term "paraphilia", it could be true that not everyone with a marginalised sexuality outside LGBTQIA+ is going to feel included under that label; if an alliance is built, it would be interesting to find a better, non-medical identity (something like blithe?). I know radqueer is like an attempt to integrate all these, but what even is a radqueer? I don't understand it yet. It is too complicated and ironic.

Edit: I don't mean the radqueer movement as a whole, but there are deranged communities.

[BLueRibbon]

I've created a paraphilia subforum - https://forum.map-union.org/viewforum.php?f=47