Resource icon

Cafe Zoo

Dear zoos and zooey allies,

Yes, I am dropping the abrasive language. It got old.

Sometimes, I read schlock fantasy like The Dragon Quartet series by Margorie B. Kellogg. Why? The same reason you look at porn, just as I do not look at porn, and yes, I masturbate to it.

I might have masturbated to it, I correct myself. The Book of Fire is about the dragon, of the Dragon Quartet, that represents passionate feelings like anger, vengeance, delusions of grandeur, erections, love, hate, arrogance, self-righteousness, and so on.

Naturally, he got confused about what all of these things were really for and declared himself to be a god. His female human companion has the job of entertaining suitors that are apparently very unhappy to be required to strip naked before meeting her, and she is apparently unhappy about being pressured to spend virtually the entire day dressed like a harem girl and being forced to carry a loaded gun. The dragon, by the way, apparently likes to molest her.

I was almost able to get a boner over that, but he is orange. Orange.

I am one of the few people here that are not here for the pornography first and conversation second. The reason why is that my thing is really quasi-erotic fantasy that has quadrupedal characters in it that talk and, unsurprisingly, are either ultra-spiritual or highly libidinous, little in-between.

Pro-tip: if you are a zoo that is looking for a place to hang out where most non-zoos are not reflexively inclined to treat you like you must have no feelings at all, try hanging out literally anywhere that literacy tends to put you ahead. I have tried fitting in on porn sites, including the ones that call bad furry manga "art," and my advice is that the expectation of knowing how to read tends to be frowned upon by unpleasant people. This is solid advice.

Okay, catch you next week.
Did you guess the winners of the Academy Awards?

Dear pet-fuckers and anybody else that cares,

I fuck my pets. Besides that, I read a lot. I also occasionally procrastinate just a little bit on getting something done, and then suddenly it gets into that part of the day when my human-husband might randomly insist that he really MUST take me to a Cuban restaurant in Wake Forest, which is halfway between here and the Virginia border.

Usually, I would blog about a book that I opened up and read on the day for which this blog is dated, but I am really still working on C. J. Cherryh's Chanur books. I don't want to just blog every week about the same series. Besides that, I am getting back into learning how to play piano, and I was refreshing myself on the basics of fingerwork.

Speaking of music, here is a little insight into how my bizarre brain works. I was once listening to the song, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald," by Gordon Lightfoot, on the radio, and I wondered, "What kind of journalism could ever inspire such beautiful music?" so I looked up all of the news stories that reported on the original wreck of the original Edmund Fitzgerald, finding a beautifully written article by a journalist named James R. Gaines. I found out that James R. Gaines is a music lover, a historian, and a prolific writer, and his book Evening in the Palace of Reason caught my attention as a book that I truly wanted to read.

It always struck me as bizarre how many American Protestants believe that they can only show love toward their offspring by brutally forcing them into a specific mold of what they are expected to be. American Protestants get that idea at least partly from Calvinism.

Frederick the Great's dad, Frederick William I of Prussia, was habitually short-tempered, and he routinely beat his servants, his soldiers, and even his own children with a cane. Every day, he would shout at his son, Fritz, over his long-time interest in music, the arts, and natural philosophy, saying, "Why don't you do something productive?" I think that the phrase he used was ein Plus machen.

Fritz would not have become Frederick the Great if he had blindly obeyed his father, since music, the arts, and natural philosophy led to some of the most important cultural reforms in German history.

Fritz also helped spread a revolutionary musical instrument called the piano-forte, which means "soft or hard" and is now shortened to "piano." The introduction of the piano was so revolutionary because the piano was an instrument that could be played almost anybody but could only be played well by a skillful and experienced instrumentalist.

However, instruments like the piano also posed a threat to great composers like Johann Sebastian Bach. In Bach's school of thought, the beauty that was inherent in music was in its composition, and in the Age of Reason in which thinkers like Bach had been powerful, the ideals of music were based on order and perfection.

This new breed of music, a more impulsive and irrational style of music called "galant music," was really a little bit like the "glam rock" movement that swept through the United Kingdom in the 1970's, and Fritz was like David Bowie. The Age of Reason was passing on, and the Romantic Era was being born.

However, if we look back on history, the same things happen for the same reasons. The world that was created by men like Bach had many benefits because it brought order and a greater sense of certainty to society, but it was also cold and heartless. Reason was really not enough.

However, Fritz and Johann were not just rivals in their musical ideologies, but they were also very good friends that really cared more about their shared fondness of music than they did about their differences. Therefore, Fritz gave his friend Johann a challenge, and that challenge was to take a deliberately and calculatedly irrational melodic structure, which was painstakingly made to be resistant to being conformed to the principles of counterpoint, and then conform it the principles that Bach insisted were essential to good music. Fritz had made this bet because he was trying to teach Johann that reason cannot really be used to deal with everything.

The product of this bet was a now famous collection of music called The Musical Offering. Bach did thereby prove that even irrational things could be understood through the lens of reason. This was an important philosophical point that had really been Johann's adoptive purpose of his entire life.

I think that The Musical Offering may have been intended by Bach to prove that even the most irrational things must ultimately be answerable to reason, but what he was more successful at was creating a synthesis. This is not played as often in cafes or lounges as some of Bach's simpler works, but insofar as its musical theory, this may have been one of the most important things that Bach ever created.

ZETA principles is a synthesis.

Thank you,
Dear pet-fuckers and other interested parties.

For the record, I fuck my pets. I have the intention of helping to change how most people perceive that fact. My lifelong interest in literature has been one of the inspirations behind the fact that I care, so every Saturday at around lunchtime, you can find me sitting in a little cafe with my nose stuck in a book.

For the past week, I have been deeply engrossed in the Chanur novels by C. J. Cherryh, and to my surprise, the books actually send a truly powerful egalitarian feminist message by upending gender roles.

In the Chanur novels, a race of lion-like aliens, the Hani, sees their own male sex as being emotionally unstable, and the hero of the series, Pyanfar, is more well-traveled than most members of her species because of her occupation as a merchant. She has seen many different cultures and how males interact in those cultures. She no longer believes that her husband inherently ought to be confined to living in the traditional manner of the males of her species.

Cherryh bolsters her message about gender-inversion by introducing a male human into the story early on. One keeps expecting the human to manifest into a clearly intelligent creature that is just as able as any Hani. Throughout the series, though, Cherryh keeps this point abstruse to the disinterested observer. Evidence of the human's intelligence always demand that the observer look beneath the surface. The story always remains focused on the adventures of Pyanfar, not on the human male. The human male is always treated in the same way that Daniel DeFoe treated Robinson Crusoe's companion Friday: if one ponders how quickly Friday learned Crusoe's language, it is impossible, to the observer that chooses to be reasonable, to pretend that Friday is anything except deeply gifted, but the story is not about Friday: it is about Robinson Crusoe. Only the more introspective observer comprehends how sophisticated and underrated Friday really is, and perhaps this observation never even really occurred to DeFoe. While wishful thinking might compel one to resent DeFoe for not directly challenging slavery or the fact that Friday was always treated as Crusoe's towel-boy, DeFoe--somewhat in his defense--really had bigger fish to fry in his lifetime. DeFoe, for instance, had joined the Monmouth Rebellion, and the big issue of the time was really whether or not England would ever again be at the back and call of the Vatican. It probably helped later English abolitionists that Friday was portrayed as a clearly intelligent individual that was receptive to being educated, and also, DeFoe successfully defended King William III against English racism directed at the Germans in his poem "The True-Born Englishman." In any case, Cherryh's Chanur novels ultimately remained centered around the hero Pyanfar. It was Pyanfar's party. It was Pyanfar's turn.

Importantly, though, Pyanfar was not presented as a character that heroically called for the emancipation of the male sex, but in the long-run, she just loved her husband. The stuffy traditions of her people were clearly just stupid and impractical. She was a very practical and independent-minded individual, and she was not about to bend her own life around such imbecility. Pyanfar did not have any hidden agenda. She was just living her life as well as she could. Her people's sexism was intrusive and just got in the way of Pyanfar being Pyanfar. Pynafar just wanted to peacefully run a merchant ship and make an honest living off it. She was not on an anti-sexism crusade at all. What made Pyanfar Chanur heroic was that she was determined to be a successful capitalist, and her victory was on behalf of free trade. Sexism was just one more thing that got in her way, and she brusquely brushed it aside because she was Pyanfar Chanur.

The science fiction community does tend to be passionately capitalist, though. By that, I don't mean conservative capitalists. Instead, they seem to be free trade capitalists that are entrenched in the liberal roots of early capitalism, which was really more about fighting against the right of nobility and royalty to exercise a ruthless monopoly on trade. This goes back to the time of Daniel DeFoe. Ultimately, the appeal of the idea of space exploration goes back to "freedom of the seas," which DeFoe cared about. They act as the left-wing of capitalism. They are the Larry Pages and Sergey Brins, out there. They are the Elon Musks. Their culture has really been developing slowly for several centuries. You will find incredibly powerful allies among these people.

Likewise, Cherryh is, at heart, a capitalist, and she just sees sexism as one more element of ignorant trivial-mindedness and tediousness that is in the way. It's one more element of red tape slowing down the entrepreneurial spirit.

I would therefore argue that the traditional science fiction community is really a better place to look for zooey allies than the furry community. The science fiction fandom is really a lot more progressive and has a record for successfully shaping the discourse of western progressives. The subversive and subtle writing styles that are endemic to the science fiction community are powerful.

Anyhow, my mind has mostly been on this literature for the past week.

Thank you,
  • Like
Reactions: Stallionjets
Dear pet-fuckers and interested others.

For review, I fuck my pets. There are many people that have a problem with that fact, and I have every intention of helping to change that. I am always here, in the same cafe, every Saturday for my lunch at the same time.

Today, though, I am more interested in the fact that I have finally returned to reading a novel called Downbelow Station by the science fiction author C. J. Cherryh.

C. J. Cherryh was one of the authors that, during the 1980’s through the early 1990’s, began introducing to the genre races of aliens that resembled earth-like animals and, in some cases, were slightly more primitive than humans. In some cases, those aliens were found to not really be primitive at all, but they were just advanced in different ways. This is one of the hallmarks of Cherryh’s work. Cherryh’s Chanur novels actually helped create some of the themes that were a part of the early furry fandom, although this connection, between the furry fandom and the science fiction fandom, has been widely forgotten. As an early arrival to furry, I always have been and probably always will be a bookwyrm that likes to read space operas more than I am a furry.

In Downbelow Station, we can see that Earth Company is a powerful corporation, and the argument of Earth Company is that short-sighted governments can never really succeed at reaching out to explore the universe. Earth Company’s argument is that a government is ultimately short-sighted and does not have the vision to create anything new. Cloning of humans is absolutely illegal, and it is regarded as a serious crime. It is seen as a truly horrific thing to do.

Well, I have already read Cherryh’s book that is focused on Union, the sworn enemies of Earth Company, and that book was Cyteen. In Cyteen, I saw a very different question being asked: is a person less valid and less human if that person is a clone and barely distinguishable from another person? What if we could use a technology, let’s call it “tape,” to give a perfectly bio-identical clone of yourself almost exactly the same abilities, skills, and life experiences as yourself? Is that person really less valid? Do we really need uniqueness to confirm that we are valid as citizens of the cosmos? Should uniqueness even be forcibly stamped out?

In C. J. Cherryh’s Alliance-Union universe, Pell becomes the center of a third great power in the universe, which is the Merchanter’s Alliance. They are caught in the middle, and they are not really peddling any central ideology. They know that they love Pell and the creatures that live on it. They know that they are weary of being used as pawns in the ongoing war between Union and Earth Company. They bring an end to the Company War by coming together united on the point that they and their families and their other loved ones are not going to be used as pawns anymore.

I think that Cherryh makes the argument that the Company War, between Union and Earth Company, does not stop until the people of the Alliance recognize that their first duty is to themselves and to their families and to the worlds, natural or created, that they live upon. Once these people have stopped letting other forces bully them over to either one side or the other and just refused to join either at the expense of their own interests, the war comes to an abrupt halt.

Notably, everybody benefited from that fact.

I will discuss more along this vein after I have begun to read the Chanur novels. There, I am going to get into some territory where some questions about zooey-related topics can be approached more closely by approaching them obliquely. I did not directly discuss zooiness here, admittedly, but in the Chanur novels, Cherryh actually does start discussing ideas that are ones that we can use, which are really just an outgrowth of the ones brought into discussion here.

Thank you again,
Dear pet-fuckers and all other interested parties!

For the record, I fuck my pets. Most of the world has a problem with that, and I intend to help change that fact.

I have made up my mind to start posting these the day after from here going forward, since I honestly prefer to have more time write down my thoughts, rather than less.

This week, the book that I chose to open up was a book that I have read before, in my distant past, The Long, Dark Tea-Time of the Soul by Douglas Adams. For those that do not know, the British author Douglas Adams battled depression for his entire life, and ironically, this was a major influence on his brand of humor. He found that this type of humor made his own life better, and he decided that he would share it with us.

I was never truly depressed in the sense of having a serotonin transporter disorder or anything else genetically that would have made me that way, but at one time in my life, it was literally the salvation of my sanity. It taught me that I could talk about the weirdness, the chaos, the disarray, and the inconvenience in the world and still laugh.

At this point in my life, I now realize why this type of humor is so healing: it wakes me up to the fact that, although the world may be imperfect and incomprehensible to me, at times, this is not my fault, and likewise, it is not the world's fault that I am not tailor-made for my life to fit perfectly into it without any issues or inconveniences. We are not a perfect match for each other, this world and I, but life goes on.

Regardless of the fact that the odds were against me being alive and sane today, I somehow am here. I have defeated the myth that I somehow cannot survive the world not always working the way that I expect it to or would prefer it to.

The world has gotten very complicated for us zoos, over the past decade and a half. The liberals think that we are a part of the "rape culture," the humanitarians think that we are engaging in "cruelty," and the conservatives think that we are the servants of Lucifer. We are lucky to find friends that are not more unhinged than we are. At the bottom of it has been one Whole Sort of General Mish Mash sized misunderstanding.

We think about the kinds of people we really are, some of us being liberal Christian feminist animal rights nuts who are dedicated vegans all at the same time, and we know that the perceptions that people have of us are so off-the-mark that it is hard to believe that it is not a parody. If I did not know that people were serious over their bizarre beliefs about us, then I would think that they were joking on us.

Douglas Adams might seem like a stark departure from my more serious reading material from the past few weeks, but in our case, it has a truly deep meaning: while the world is not really built for our ease or convenience, this does not really have to get us down or make us gloomy.

We can just embrace the fact that the world is, by the flawed standard of our personal convenience, imperfect, unpredictable, weird, and backward and yet still find beauty and fun and sources of joy in it. We may never truly figure it out all of the way, but that cannot really stop us: we can still be here in it.

Therefore, instead of wringing our hands over the matter, let's just stop to lean back, once in a while, and have some pangalactic gargleblasters.

There is too much good stuff in the universe for us to let it stop us if some aspects of it do not work for us quite as well.

Those Norse Gods really can be impetuous, though, can't they?

Thank you again,
Dear pet-fuckers and interested others,

For review, I fuck my pets. Most people believe that this constitutes a reason why I ought to be put into prison, and I intend to play a role in changing this fact. It is a matter of time before this occurs because those of us that have become the architects of this movement, believe it or not, actually know what we are doing.

Social change is really always inevitable and really constitutes the only true constant in society, but there really are people that are certain that the status quo in society is and must be conserved forever and ever. The famous words, “segregation forever,” were shouted by a man to whom the idea of social change was terrifying and incomprehensible, and integrating European-American and African-American society or even engaging in intermarriage seemed like madness. To this person, miscegenation was inherently not any better than bestiality. George Wallace had fallen prey to the idea that the rules of “how things are” just never change or that it’s inherently an awful thing for those rules to change.

Whether we like it or not, though, us pet-fuckers have to follow the same rules as African-Americans and the LGBT community. If we are unhappy with our current situation, then the same system has to be brought into play that is always used for changing society. Music, art, and literature are things that society is capable of understanding, and if you are not good at it, then I suggest that you get good at it if you want the situation for pet-fuckers to change even slightly.

A study was done, back in 2013, which showed that literary fiction but, curiously, not genre fiction could increase people’s empathy. Literary fiction is not even in the same category as genre fiction. When you are reading genre fiction, you tend to already know who the good guys are and what the stakes are and who is going to win or even should win. When you get to the end of a book that is in the realm of genre fiction, you might have enjoyed it, but you have rarely been truly changed deep inside your soul by it. Literary fiction is written in a very different way.

Right now, for instance, I am starting my first ever reading of Oliver Twist, by Charles Dickens. Charles Dickens was one of the most socially influential authors in history. When he first published Oliver Twist, it created a scandal for some people. Very few people actually thought that there was the least reason why they should feel even the least bit sympathetic toward youth that were members of criminal gangs, and it was so preposterous to many people that it created a bit of a scandal.

In the preface, here, Charles Dickens actually talks with us about this in candid terms. His point-of-view is that, in works of fiction, criminals are almost invariably portrayed as almost superhumanly prosperous and impossibly happy individuals possessed of nearly god-like charm and wit. Even in fiction that attempts to paint a sympathetic portrait of criminals, there is very little attention being paid to their capacity for vulerability or the grim and difficult decisions they might have to make in their everyday lives.

Writing literary fiction like this is difficult and often incredibly risky. When you are writing literary fiction, you are not writing within a genre, but you are creating a genre or carving out a new niche in a genre. You are not giving people what they expect, and the majority of readers, when disappointed, are going to put the book down. If you want to make money off of writing, then do not attempt to write literary fiction. It is hard, and it is painful to see well-written manuscripts laughed at or, worse, just politely ignored. Even if you win a Nobel Prize in Literature, I can almost guarantee that you will make a lot less money than someone that writes even mediocre genre fiction. If you want to write literary fiction, then I recommend that you not consider quitting your day-job in order to do it unless you are also supplementing your income...and polishing your prose...with cheap, heartless, and morally spineless schlock that people will inevitably go out to buy in droves because people will pay you to have their preconceptions reinforced a lot more readily than they will pay for pornography.

It reassures people if you reinforce their preconceptions about things, and it deeply disturbs them and often angers them if you burn their preconceptions about things to the ground.

Charles Dickens was sadistic. Within the first two pages of Oliver Twist, he gleefully and cruelly tells us that Oliver might not have survived if he had been born to a more prosperous family. The practice, at the time, was spare a sickly baby from a short life and needless suffering by having them gently put to death. The very incompetence of people that were present, at the time of his birth, simply led to this, which was considered to be the best practice of the time, not having occurred. His mother dies within the third page.

I am not giving you any meaningful spoilers by spilling that. If you even open up the book beyond the preface, you will see the same thing within five minutes with little investment of time on your part. Dickens’ voice drips continuously with irony.

Charles Dickens was a sick puppy, and you have to be a sick puppy to write literary fiction. There is a certain sadism involved in burning down people’s beliefs and even the most sacred institutions in their moral reasoning.

In the end, Charles Dickens succeeded at inducing deep and incredible change in society. He stands as one of the most powerful people that have ever lived.

If we zoos want to change society, then we can. To change society, though, you have to follow the rules, and by that, I do not mean the established laws or morals of society. When I talk about the rules, I am talking about the rules that you would be well-advised to follow if you want to change the established laws and morals of society.

Literature is that dangerous genre that is overtly and unabashedly at war with society as it stands. Literature is an act of cultural warfare.
  • Like
Reactions: Tailo
Dear all pet-fuckers and also any curious non-pet-fuckers,

I am a pet-fucker. I am not even slightly embarrassed about that. I actually am embarrassed about the fact that I was an hour late getting to my regular lunch spot! I try to be there every Saturday at the same time, just in case one day somebody that is feeling alone and scared just needs someone to talk to. Maybe I could continue doing this for years and never meet even one such person, but being here alone and reading a nice book will not do me any injury. I love the people that work here. They are very kind. Great service is what keeps me coming back to a place.

The fact that I am saying so boldly that I am a pet-fucker should tell you a little bit more about me than the fact that I have had actual sex with an actual animal and enjoyed it. The majority of people that have done this do not really talk about it, and they probably are afraid to talk about it, even to themselves in their private thoughts. It is remarkable that I am not only talking about it openly, but I am not even using sanitized language in order to talk about it. I am talking about it head-on: I fuck my pets. I fuck my pets. I fuck my pets, and do not regard this as something that ought to be "taboo" or forbidden. I refuse to talk to you about it in euphemisms. I fuck my pets.

Right now, I am just reading Bhagavad-gita: As It Is by A. C. Bakhtivedanta Swami Prabhupata. I have had the book since it was given to me by some Hare Krishna practitioners back in the early 2000’s. I finally picked up this book to actually read it. Up until this point, my chief reason for liking this book has been staring at the cute white horses on the cover. I want to go up to that stallion facing left of the viewer and kiss his neck and whisper romantic nonsense in his ear.

As I finally read this book’s introduction, I am thinking, “Honey, you are just on drugs.” I am not against drug use. I am just not for it, either. I do not altogether ignore these instances where he was clearly just experiencing the effects of some sort of drugs or experiencing a psychonautic equivalent thereof, but I find his more lucid moments to be more interesting. The spiritual babbling constitutes nothing that I could not get off an acid trip and is therefore boring.

I have a friend on here that would like this paragraph from it:

In this world man is not meant to toil like hogs. He must be intelligent to realize the importance of human life and refuse to act like an ordinary animal. A human being should realize the aim of his life, and this direction is given in all Vedic literatures, and the essence is given in Bhagavad-gita. Vedic literature is for human beings, not for animals. Animals can kill other living animals, and there is no question of sin on their part, but if a man kills an animal for the satisfaction of his uncontrolled taste, he must be responsible for breaking the law of nature. In the Bhagavad-gita it is clearly explained that there are three kinds of activities according to the different modes of nature: the activities of goodness, of passion, and of ignorance. Similarly, there are three kinds of eatables also: eatables in goodness, passion and ignorance. All of this is clearly described, and if we properly utilize the instructions of Bhagavad-gita, then our whole life will become purified, and ultimately we will be able to reach the destination which is beyond this material sky.

The friend in question is vegan.

What if I regard myself as just another animal, though?

However, the introduction talks about the old Hindu concept of escaping from the cycle of death and rebirth, called Samsara in Hinduism. This is an old theme in spiritual literature. Taoists believed that the route to eternal life was actually perfectly secular, which was just to practice alchemy with adequate skill as to induce longevity, so the Taoists believed that becoming enough “like water,” which means to act with quiet persistence and conviction instead of with force, could help one to live a longer life or maybe even live forever.

I am going to flip this from a spiritual to a scientific perspective. The personality inventory called the NEO-PI-R refers to five different traits, which can be memorized using the mnemonics OCEAN or CANOE, and they are, in the instance of OCEAN, Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. The trait of conscientiousness is the single trait that has been the most clearly associated with longevity. A part of being conscientious means to be consistent and steady, in other words “like water.” Persist, persist, and persist some more. Persist patiently.

Mind you, I think the Tao Te Ching actually has some verses in it that are actually pretty creepy and borderline pro-despotic, but that is a discussion for another day.

Us zoos must also learn to be patient and persistent. This is good for us for reasons besides just changing how society feels about us. It is good for our health, too.

Although I am a skeptic, I am an ecumenical one. There is a tremendous amount of use to be found in religious ideas, and spirituality is perfectly accessible to someone that chooses to practice epoché for the sake of ataraxia emerging from not having to puzzle over things that are by definition without any evidence for them. Is it really different for me to practice this than it is for a practitioner of Hare Krishna to chant “Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Hare Hare, Krishna Krishna, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare,” over and over as a mantra? I do what I do because it is good for me. The practitioner of Hare Krishna does what he does because it is good for him.

We do what is good for us as individuals, but we do what is good for us to be better for our communities. To be good for our communities, we have to start with doing what is best for us as individuals.

Speaking of religious ideas, Matthew 7:15 from the Christian Bible warned, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves,” and Matthew 7:18 assured, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” If you find that both I and my dog are in good health, both physically and emotionally, then it is really not possible for an honest Christian to censure me for fucking my dog, although I am sure that there will be many that do, anyhow.

However, those that do were the sorts of people that said, in Matthew 7:22, “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?” and they were warned in Matthew 7:21, “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

If a person is being cruel toward someone else in the name of a spiritual or moral idea, then the bottom line is that that person is being cruel. Ultimately, there is nothing else there. That person’s desire to hurt and destroy the lives of others is ultimately that person’s aim. That person’s pretext for doing so is an empty one and, at the bottom of it, a lie. If a person is cruel to me and gives me a pretext, then I should ignore that person’s pretext and focus on the bottom line, which is that that person is cruel, and therefore, that person’s heart is wicked.

Many people that fuck their animals are also Christians, and many of them are extremely religious. On the other hand, those of us that have paved the way for brushing shame and self-loathing aside are not the same kinds of people as the rest of the human race, and it’s not because we fuck our animals. It is because we look with skepticism or even scorn upon the mainstream norms and beliefs of society. Besides the fact that we fuck our animals, we are not normal people. To be unaffected by social opprobrium and to turn to abstract philosophy instead of to society is not normal behavior. We are different kinds of people. We are really not worth more than Christians, though, and there might be some things that we are really less informed about.

For us zoos to unify, we must learn to be accepting of people that come from all religious, spiritual, and philosophical backgrounds. It is harder for a Christian or even for a Buddhist to comprehend that fucking an animal does not inherently make one a despicable person. Because of that, they need more support, not less.

Many children that come on this site, often lying about their age, come from deeply religious backgrounds, and they are tormented by the belief that being madly in love with their animals means that there is something deeply despicable and morbid about their character. They might have shallow or ill-informed views because they are children and because they are ignorant, but they truly need us the most.

It is imperative that us zoos learn to embrace the goodness that lies at the heart of all widely adored beliefs and philosophies, even if we disagree with some of their conclusions. This could save a life.

Thank you, my darling friends, and please have as happy a new year as you may,
Dear zoos, bestialitists, and anybody else that is merely curious,

Last week, I erroneously implied that "bestiality" always implies that someone is not really attracted to and in love with their animals. In an enlightening conversation that I was in, with a young man that was coming out to his friend, I realized that this person called himself a bestialitist, yet he referred to his dog as his "wife." This person uses the term "bestiality" in a different sense from how I personally would use the term bestiality, and I am not the sort of person that will worry over the tip of a yud.

Actually, I am the sort of person that will worry over the tip of a yud, just not over this one.

Today, I actually left Valley of the Dolls at home, and I brought Confessions, by Steve Colbert. As I was sitting there at that cafe where I have my lunch, occasionally breaking out in fits of giggles, I started thinking about the fact that a part of what made Colbert's "confessions" so funny was that almost none of these things were really sins.

However, it got me thinking about the idea of "sin," in the Catholic belief system and also in most of the non-antinomian Protestant belief system. The concept of "sin" is based on a deontological system of morality. A deontological system of morality, since the root déon refers to something which is binding, is one that is literally based upon commandment. Under a deontological system of morality, it is assumed that there is a set of commandments or "laws of nature" that you are obligated to follow, and if you do not follow those commandments or laws of nature, then you are "evil," which in most such belief systems implies that one should be subjected to either violence or deprivation of liberty or deprivation of property or even eternal Hellfire.

I am very strongly critical of deontological systems of morality. The most obvious reason why, to any of us that fucks our pets, is that our society has made "informed consent" into such a rule, where people have begun to interpret all "good" actions based on "informed consent" and all "evil" actions based on a lack thereof, whether the outcomes of their choices are really good or not.

Well, my pet is incapable of being informed because my pet is an animal and therefore not really informed about very much at all, so according to a deontological idea of "informed consent," the fact that I fuck my pet must inherently make me an evil person, regardless of whether or not this actually hurts my pet.

The reason why this leads to deontology being so toxic and so destructive is that when you enforce such a rule, in respect to us zoos, the consequence is that we lose our freedom and everything we have, and our animals are traumatized and often killed, with nobody demonstrably benefiting from this at all. Nobody is supposed to benefit. Under deontology, this outcome is okay because the idea is not to benefit anybody. The idea is punish people that do things that are "evil," regardless of whether punishing them serves anybody's interests whatsoever.

If you take a consequentialist perspective on the same situation, you would merely observe that my pet appears to be in perfectly good health and is apparently emotionally well-adjusted, and regardless of what you think of me fucking my pet, you cannot necessarily accuse me of doing anything that has harmful consequences.

A more evolved approach to consequentialism is a system called "rule utilitarianism." The benefit of rule utilitarianism is that it implies an acknowledgement that, in split-second decision-making, people actually cannot help but to think in terms of rules, which is inevitably going to lead to them taking more deontological approaches to their decision-making. If you do not give people a clear policy that they can just easily apply, whether they are having a bad day, suffering from a mental illness, or simply not getting along with someone, then the consequences are bad. Under rule utilitarianism, you are responsible for making a code or a set of rules or guidelines or a social contract or even a constitution that has the best consequences that are possible and which is binding and not easy to change based on an impulse.

I think that rule utilitarianism is a viable method of hedging against the anomie that can result from a purely consequentialist approach to morality. Anomie is a problem that was discussed by Emile Durkheim. Durkheim was concerned that, when society does not give its people a clear idea of what behaviors are considered to be acceptable, it leaves the people without a clear idea of what is wrong and what is right, and Durkheim observed that the health of society tended to not be very good as a consequence. Durkheim, though, seemed to believe, I think incorrectly, that a deontological route was the only alternative. Rule utilitarianism does the same thing, except that we that make the rules and also we that choose to subscribe to those rules are taking responsibility for the consequences of those rules. I think that it resolves the problem that was cited by Durkheim.

I believe that the development of ZETA principles is a good example of rule utilitarianism in action. ZETA principles are designed to attempt to protect the health and safety of both pets and people that fuck their pets. However, it gives people a code that is easy to follow. You can follow it if you are depressed. You can follow it if you are having a bad day. You can follow it when you have recently lost your job and are having to choose between a bag of pet food and a pound of ground chuck. It is a social contract that you can make with yourself, and I can guarantee that it would make you feel a lot better.

It was fun to read Colbert's silly book, but in the long-run, it just served to remind me of why I tend to be so critical of deontology. Under such a system, people feel ashamed over things that they really should not feel ashamed over at all.

If the rules or norms or laws of society are not really serving any purpose that is beneficial, then it is overdue for us to change them.

Thank you,
Dear zoos, bestialitists, and anybody else that is, for some reason, interested in reading a blog that is written by a person that fucks animals and for people that fuck animals.

I am a pet-fucker. However, I prefer to be called a zoo, since I like to use this term to distinguish myself from someone that is more inclined toward bestiality.

Bestiality constitutes the fetishization of human/animal sex. There are some men that like to see women in high heels, and there are other men that like to see women with a dog-dick in them. It is the same principle, which is the fact that it constitutes really hot and steamy sexual objectification. There are likewise some women that like to play to this fantasy because it is their fantasy for relatively desirable men to be attracted to them, whether they are wearing high heels or lying gasping on the floor with a dog’s man-fist-sized dog-knot buried in their quivering twats. In both cases, the dog is just an accessory to their desire for a human partner. I do not really condemn it, although some zoos do, but it’s not me.

I prefer to be called a zoo. I am really tired of the term “zoophile,” and I always really hated the term “zoosexual.” I like being a zoo. It’s one syllable that I think should belong to us. I am a zoo, and because of that fact, I am zooey, which means that I am possessed of zooiness.

When I see a dog, I see men and women on four legs, and they are gloriously naked and almost invariably incredibly, heartbreakingly hot. I really like it when their owners dress them in fancy harnesses and collars, and I think that dog-shoes are very sexy. I have sucked dog-dick. I’ll suck on a dog’s dick like a calf suckling on its mother’s teat, and I also just might fall in love with the magnificent creature that is attached to it. I am zooey, and I am proud to say that I am zooey. It is something magnificent, in this world, that I can see that non-zoos cannot see. I think it’s awesome.

Lately, the most exciting thing that I do, sexually, is that I rim my cat, who is far more practical for me to have while I am living in a small condo and working ten and a half hour shifts. I am also attracted to my cat, but my penis does not actually fit inside of his butt. My penis is big, and his butt is small. I nibble his feet and rim him a lot instead. Cats have the most beautiful hind-paws of any creature alive. Those hind-paws are works of art. They are magnificent. Hell, yeah, I’m going to obsess over them. Hell, yeah, I am going to zone out for a solid half-hour with one in my mouth.

There is also a place on my development’s property, where we can get a really good view of a beautiful and ancient crepe myrtle tree. On our walks, when it comes into bloom in the early summer, he likes to go to this place, and he will crouch down on his belly with his mouth parted slightly. I am convinced that, if my cat were human, he would be either an artist or someone who is intensely religious. He gets into the moment, and it looks like he is truly transported and at peace. I will sit down next to him, without him noticing me, and I will spend a while just understanding that something in this world makes the world beautiful enough to save, even if we are not always getting along with it well. In that moment, there is just no question that it is worth being there.

I have made my Saturday lunch spot known to local zoos in my area. It’s a small cafe and bakery, and its offerings for both breakfast and lunch are relatively humble. On most Saturdays, it’s not overly busy during the lunch hour. Last Saturday, it spent a while being a madhouse, and there were a lot of screaming children there. I found out that a probable reason why was that there was a Christmas tree lighting in town that day, and a lot of people were out with their families.

I don’t know if any local zoos will ever come join me there, but I am glad to spend my lunchtime in this little cafe minding my own thoughts and reading quietly in a little paperback novel. Sometimes, random strangers come sit down and talk to me. I do not really care very much whether they are zoos or not. I eat out on Saturdays and then stay a while to read because I want to be out among the people. I would still want to do this in the same sort of place, whether I were zooey or not. Books also are wonderful means of starting conversations.

The novel of the month was going to be Anathem, by Neal Stephenson. It constitutes a pretty complex dystopian society, where intellectuals have to live in restricted communes and are not given very many rights by society at large. The novel really comes across to me as something that I would have been more interested in when I was a teenager, and I took myself a lot more seriously when I was a teenager. At this point in my life, it is not really as inspiring as I had thought it would be. If I get into a mood for it, then I might pick the novel back up again later. I have changed too many times in life to ever think that I will always see the same content with the same eyes.

Instead, I have decided that I would finally get around to reading the substantially less self-important and, I think, considerably better-written Valley of the Dolls, by Jacqueline Susann. It is one of those novels that come across, on the surface, as shallow, and critics, including feminists, panned it. To women and generations of gay men, it was one of the most inspiring and relatable works of literature of the Boomer generation, and it became the most read book the year that it was published. I had honestly been meaning to get to it for a long while. It is just not the kind of material that I usually read, and every time I try to get into it, something else derails me. I am going to try it again. I have spent part of my Friday off getting my mind back into it, and it’s going pretty well.

Today while I as sitting at that cafe, I was thinking about the German court ruling, in which the German zooey community scored a landmark victory for zooey rights. The ruling created an alliance between the German zooey community and all animal-lovers. The law in Germany now protects all animals, including animals that belong to zoos.

A part of the language of the ruling suggests that we zoos ought to discourage the sharing of our animals, and I agree with this. I think that this behavior is actually a bigger problem with zoos than it would be with someone that is only into bestiality. Zoos are like any other people: they fall in love. When they have sex with an animal, they can become attached to that animal. This can result in dangerous, toxic situations. If you are a zoo, then I think it is not really responsible to encourage owners to share their animals. It endangers them, and it endangers their animals.

The German court ruling also prohibits commercial animal sex, which I also agree with.

Furthermore, I agree with the court’s decision that it is not really okay to train your animal to have sex with you, such as by using food rewards. If you want an idea of what my feelings about this are, then consider finding a copy of Valley of the Dolls. The protagonist from the book is a woman who lets her voice get taken away from her, and she is pressured into a lifestyle that is really not very much like her. In the end, she does not really like herself, and she becomes deeply unhappy.

Your animal is naturally sexual and does not need to be trained or goaded into becoming sexual with you. Your animal is like you: if you don’t slap your dog on the snood and tell him “NO!” then it is only a matter of time before he gets that dick planted in one of the holes on your body. Female dogs are not really chaste and pure, either. Wait until they get to the right age and realize that your simian-butt is actually adorable, and you can get as much animal-sex as you can handle. You do not have to teach your animal how to enjoy sex. They will probably teach more to you.

Male dogs are not like human men. Dogs do not think that fucking a gay male makes you gay. Voluntarily letting another male fuck you makes you gay. Dogs almost invariably are sort of indiscriminate about what they are willing to stick their penises into. They prefer a bitch in heat, but a human an with an adorable simian-butt will do in a pinch.

From what I have heard, a willingness to be on bottom is just as rare among male dogs as it is among human men. When your male dog wants you to put something into his ass, he will pose with his tail off to the side and still wagging, and he might give you a cute seductive look over his shoulder. If your male dog does this, then it is only a matter of time before you are balls-deep in his butt because that dog is gayer than a bloody Christmas tree, and he wants to get fucked. You are not lucky enough to end up with a male dog that does this, and you should not try to teach your dog to do this because doing so makes you like the pushy men from Valley of the Dolls.

Do read Valley of the Dolls for a quick idea as to why you should not push your animals into doing things that they are not really ready to do. It makes a creature deeply unhappy, and it fills them up with pain that you cannot easily see but which is real. The same thing happens to women when pushy, entitled men take away their voice and push them into being something that they are really not. Showing respect for your animal’s autonomy is an important part of keeping your animal happy. Over time, you will learn that having respect for your animal pays off.

That is why I think that zoos ought to regard the German court ruling as being a model for the entire international zooey community. They constitute the first government that has put limits upon zooiness that make perfectly good moral sense to both the majority of zoos and to society at large. Instead of being a law against us existing at all, it is a law for us...for us to follow and adhere to. It is the only law in the world that is is for zoos and partly by zoos.

At my local cafe, no local zoos came to drop by and talk to me, today, but I did get my fair share of people-watching done. In a local cafe like the one where I hang out during the lunch hour, you get a chance to see all possible kinds of people from all possible walks of life. You see people from across the political spectrum. You can meet just about anybody at these kinds of places.

Some good news, as far as my organizational efforts, is that one of my local friends became active again on our local chat. He said something there right in the middle of my reading at the cafe. That’s a good thing because that guy came across to me as one of the brighter young zoos in the local scene. I was very very glad to hear from him and to find out that he was still interested in us local zoos trying to slowly get organized. This guy is smart, and he is legit.

When I get done with Valley of the Dolls, I do want Uniquely Dangerous to be the next book that I read. The heartening thing about the story is that things have been turning out not too terrible for that guy. You can hear his voice, as “Fausty,” anytime that you tune into the podcast Zooier Than Thou. He is not just a person from history. He is not a product of someone’s imagination. You can hear his voice every full moon. He is alive and well and doing wonderfully, last I heard.

If you are a local zoo in the Research Triangle Park area, then please join my group on Zooville, and consider dropping by my lunchtime hangout. It gets a little bit busy at around lunchtime, but I am always going to be there at the time I say that I am going to be unless I say otherwise.

That said, I am going to go and nibble for a while on my cat’s hindpaws.

Until next week,

I am Sigma!