Resource icon

Cafe Zoo

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,
Sigma
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!
Top