:inlove:

thanks...

10/10

:inlove:

I think the previous Replies pretty much covered it.

People who are not into certain lifestyles, beliefs, or general open-minded ways of thinking tend to overgeneralize and mislabel.

It's the whole, "Well I'm normal* and you're into (insert whatever you're being judged for here), so you must be into _______ and ________ and ______ you _______!"

Ever read the book Silence of the Lambs? There is a fantastic quote in it:
"You know what happens when you assume too much? It makes an ass of u and me both."

Don't misunderstand, I'm not going to judge people for feeling the way they do about anyone else. Love > all, including blood lineage.
I have a half-sister (child of a previous marriage, we share the same mother). I have never considered her a "half" anything. She is my sis, and I'm her little brother (although standing a foot taller than her, we both chuckle whenever she refers to me as being her "little" brother :P).
If my sister were ever to reveal to me that she...felt a certain way about me that was beyond the standard love of one family member to another...I don't know how it would impact me.
Despite being some 10 years older than I am, she and I were always close. She's smart, independent, and beautiful (at 42 she easily passes for 30). She has a great sense of humor and is savvy and street-smart. She's certainly the type of woman I would be attracted to.
That doesn't mean I want to...well, you know.
Unless placed in that position, I really couldn't say how I would react. I never really thought about it; I mean it's kind of a given that it would never happen, so I never really stopped to think about it.
I can say this, though...I would love her just the same as I always have, regardless. :heart: And I have no doubt she would love me just the same as well. She and I have been through many things in our lives, which has forged an unbreakable bond between us.
Would falling into a relationship, or even simply giving into the desire for the physical act of love (I'm trying very hard to tread as lightly as I can here, so forgive my lack of more blunt terminology) make us "wrong"? That's the question, I think, and an interesting one at that. Here's my answer:

I say...no, it would not. Love is the most defining emotion any living being can be capable of. It is pure. It comes from the source of the being's life - the heart. Human, animal, it matters not. If two individuals truly love and care for each other, nothing bad can come of it. Society on the whole will always look down on such people (which brings us back to the original question topic, I guess), but humanity as a whole is flawed and self-destructive...they'd rather see a "normal" relationship fail than see an "unnatural" one succeed. Sadly, that is the world we live in.

One could debate the two issues of the survey (zoo, and the other one) for days on end.

I think it's safe to say that the lifestyle here - zoo - is practiced by only a small percentage of people in the world. (Remember, there are over 6 billion humans on the planet) I would venture to suggest that the percentage of people who...are active in the other lifestyle mentioned in the survey...is smaller still. Thus, it stands to reason that the number of people who would be active in both would be very small indeed.
To label everyone in one lifestyle or the other as being into both lifestyles is just a bad, and inaccurate, assumption.

Just my 2 cents.

Interesting thread, though. Delicate as thin ice on a frozen lake, but interesting.


(Jeez, for a guy who isn't talkative, I sure do ramble in some of my posts, lol :blush:)






*And if being shallow and looking down on people who don't happen to think or believe the same way you do is what classifies as being "Normal"...I'll take being "not normal" any day.

This post has been edited by Skyrune on May 3 2008, 02:45 PM

:inlove:

thanks for contribute

10/10

My pleasure roboto, anytime. I like thought-provoking topics. ^_^

This post has been edited by Skyrune on May 3 2008, 08:12 PM

n.p......... sorry i forgot to mentian, i`m a female ^ ^

I'm not really into either of them (I have never had any particularly attractive family members or pets). I can see how people dislike the idea of lumping things together "oh, they like this so they MUST like this too" as wrong, which it is...

But there's probably a margin of truth to it as well. In either situation, you have taboos based upon biological differences between living creatures. You encounter this with different species (who are more genetically different than the norm humans), with human [CENSOR] (who are less genetically different than the norm humans), with homosexuality (not an opposite sex as is the norm) and with age-disparate relations where the amount of entropy individuals have incurred in the bodies differs.

Basically, if there is one common theme to all of them, it is that they involve taboos, and a person who sees one illogical taboo for what it is, is likely to see others for what they are, if they are also illogical.

Another common theme I suppose is that none of these can lead to pregnancy or procreation. It may be that natural selection for cultural values has favoured those biased towards habits which result in producing offspring, as naturally they teach these habits to their offspring directly.

exactly. This is what makes bestiality and homosexuality so "wrong" in many people's eyes. Its "unproductive sex" since no continuing of the species is occurring. However nowadays it is really not necessary to make lots of babies.

However, mating between female and male humans will produce babies, regardless of who is involved. I'm not going to go into detail, but if you know anything about genetics its apparent why this is looked down upon. You are limiting the genes involved which increases the chance for some recessive genes to show up, and these can create unwanted traits.

Yet I think in addition to this natural selection, it is humans placing their beliefs on others that really makes the difference as to how far someone will go with another person whether they are relative, same gender or another species. Because we are taught that it is wrong, many people will form strong beliefs based on what their friends and family believe. I think many people think "ewww" when family sex is discussed, out of habit without thinking of the real reason behind it, it is a no-no. Perhaps it is natural selection, but a good part of it is what is taught.

I think I already said so, but I'm not into the family thing.

:inlove:

thanks

for all contribute

:inlove:

:blush: :whistling:

Wasn't there an old saying about like, "Vice is nice, but something else is best"? :P

:wub:

No, that would be stupid to think that someone who loves animals has to have that kind of perversion ... :angry:

:inlove:


thanks for all comments

:inlove:
:inlove:

:inlove:

bump

Since roboto bumped the thread - and I'm feeling chatty today - I'll weigh in again. B)

It's interesting (to me, anyway) that we here in the zoo community consider the idea of sex with a family member to be taboo...yet sex with a different species of mammal seems normal to us. I would bet that if this same question were posed on a Forum dedicated to the other lifestyle mentioned, they would think we are the weird ones. -_-

As someone said already, one thing both lifestyles have in common are nonacceptance by the masses. Even if someone didn't group the two together, they'd still be viewed as "taboo" (to put it mildly).

Consider two people, one in each lifestyle choice. Let's say one Zoo (for zoophile) and the other FS (for Family Sex). If they were to debate their separate views, you could imagine how the conversation would go:

Zoo: "Look I'm not judging you. All I'm saying is sleeping with your (sister/brother/mother/father/whatever family member) is unusual, that's all."
FS: "Unusual? This from someone who thinks it's ok to have sex with animals. At least I'm sleeping with a human."
Zoo: "It's not just empty sex. Animals aren't sex toys, a zoo cares for their animal lover."
FS: "And I care deeply for my (insert family member). How could I not? They are my family, flesh and blood."



Is it me, or are these two individuals a good example of the proverbial "pot calling the kettle black"?

Zoo could point out that FS is unnatural because the intimacy is with someone you share a blood bond with, grew up with. FS could counter that Zoo's pet is in fact a member of the family (which pets are, I think), and if crossing over to a different species is acceptable, why wouldn't a physical relationship with a human whose same blood flows in your veins be just as acceptable?

In the end I really think it all comes down to tolerance, depth of feeling, and how open-minded you are.

I consider myself very open-minded...I love to think, to consider. Put myself in someone else's shoes. Or just look at things in my own life from a variety of ways.
I can see validation for both lifestyles. The human psyche (hope I spelled that correctly) is a deep and powerful thing, as complex as any great mystery of the universe. Tied directly to that psyche is the human heart, the capacity to love, to desire.

What, in our desire, makes us embrace animals the way we do? What, in their desire, makes a FS embrace their lover the way they do?
Something in our genetic codes?
The longing to be loved by someone who is a staple of your daily life, and loves you unconditionally?
Wanting to take that standard love, and bring it to a physical level?
The ability to step outside society's idea of what is "right" and "wrong", and trust in what you feel?
A combination of them all?

And speaking of combination, that brings us back to the survey. Just when I was getting comfortable on my philosopher's soapbox! (lol) :P



Let me say something, honestly (Warning: Topic swerve and even deeper-thought discussion incoming! :P)...
I am a zoo of some degree (not physically active in it right now, but in the past having been active with a female dog for nearly a decade). By necessity I keep it hidden, yet I've always known how I felt, I understood it, and accepted it. Spending time here on BF I discovered (much to my surprise and joy) that I'm not the only one out there.

Since my first post on this thread topic, I've seen my aforementioned sister a few times. And once or twice...I did catch myself recalling this topic, this thread. It made me look at her in a new way. No, not in an "omg-I-want-her" way; More like a "Am-I-sure-I-didn't-feel-like-that-about-her?" way. Meaning, she was always someone I loved and trusted. Very pretty both inside and out. Someone who, had we not been related, I certainly would have been interested in pursuing a relationship with, physical or otherwise.

Would have been...easy to say that now, looking back. After all, like I said in my previous post the issue never came up. I know for certain that, even if I had felt that sort of desire for her, I never would have had the nerve to let it be known. Much more for fear of how she would feel/react, than fear of what society would think. She was dear to me, I'd never want to do anything to hurt her or cause her to think badly of me.

Ironically, almost the same hesitation present on my part prior to my female dog and I becoming physical; had she not made the first move (let me know it was ok, so to speak), we likely never would have becomes lovers. She stepped across that invisible line in the sand that I didn't have the courage to cross.

And it made me think...what if my sister had been bold enough - for lack of a better term, I guess - to cross that same line with me?
Avy* (my dog) came to me one night, got into my bed, and I didn't shy away. I didn't think it was wrong or crude or taboo; what mattered most was the affection, to presence of my :heart: in the matter...becoming intimate what just a deeper expression of it.
Had Angelica* (my sister) done the same thing, would I have turned away?? :ruck:

The more I think about it...the more I doubt it. I know myself. I know my heart, the desire that dwells in it both on emotional and physical levels. I would have embraced her, just as I did my animal. Would it have been wrong? Would it have made me a bad person? Would I have regrets about it?
Since nothing ever did happen of course, I can only speculate. Which if you haven't noticed, is something I kinda do, lol. :rolleyes:

There's another thread about regret/feeling guilty (that's not the topic but most of the posts in it lean that way), and when I posted there I could honestly say I didn't regret my zoo choices in life. It makes me wonder if I would have regretted a FS choice, had I ever been faced with one.

One thing I do know, is looking at my sister now I feel all the same love for her, my sibling, that I always have. I would have loved her the same way had I never been a zoo. I loved Avy for who she was, and I love Angelica for who she is, and in the end I think that's what really matters.

So, to the zoo end of the survey I say yes. ^_^
To the FS end of it, I say... :thinking:

~Sky




(Sorry for the long rant. I tend to just pick up a topic and run with it sometimes...)
*names changed to protect those involved

This post has been edited by Skyrune on May 19 2008, 09:59 PM