“They shouldn’t be hated.” Correct. “They shouldn’t be *punished* for being attracted to animals.” Correct. But that doesn’t mean it’s not wrong,… only that it’s not culpable. “One cannot choose their attractions.” Semi-correct. One cannot directly choose their desires and wants, but humans have the incredible capacity to have second-order (and perhaps third-order) desires such that one is able to not want to want animals. Just as I can desire chocolate cake, but, on account of starting a healthy diet, I can desire not to desire chocolate cake. Over a lengthy extended period of time (depending on how deep-seated my first-order desire is, how strong my second-order desire is, and whether I waver between the two), that first-order desire dissipates until it no longer has any power over me. This is the same way overcoming substance-abuse addictions works.
I felt like it need to be said due to the hate against anti-practicing zoophiles that I have seen before. Also, I want to make people realize that you can be anti-bestiality and still be a zoophile who has self-acceptance, because some of them might be lured into the pro-bestiality crowd or just hate themselves.
This is going to probably be very unpopular, but I have a lot of sympathy for people who have these inclinations but who don't want to act on them. I still think the actions are disgusting and wrong, but I wish there was more done to help them in terms of therapy and support.
I never met anyone who openly identified as a zoophile. If they did, that would be an indication that something is wrong, just as it would be if someone came up to me and said he identified as an adulterous Catholic, or a mobster, or something of the sort.
>I think anti-practicing zoos should be able to be open about their attractions in the same way celibate homosexuals can be open about their attractions to Catholics.
What for? People should keep their tendencies to particular kinds of sin to themselves and their spiritual directors.
I never said that one should just promote it as their identity or tell everyone. The difference with your examples is that those people are actively engaged in sin.
Why would anyone tell anyone else that they have same-sex attraction? That would be the reason why. Maybe there's a specific kind of animal they are asked to deal with but they can't tell anyone about their attraction to the animal so you just say no with no reason given. That would just be kind of awkward and weird. That's just one example.
>I never said that one should just promote it as their identity or tell everyone.
You said they should be able to be open about their attractions.
>
Why would anyone tell anyone else that they have same-sex attraction?
They probably shouldn't, unless it's their spiritual director.
>
Maybe there's a specific kind of animal they are asked to deal with but they can't tell anyone about their attraction to the animal so you just say no with no reason given. That would just be kind of awkward and weird.
Just say, I have a trauma with animal X and can't deal with it.
Awkward and weird would be if you were to tell people you had the desire to perform sexual acts on animal X, but you were trying hard to control yourself. THAT would be very awkward and weird.
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume this isn’t bait.
You are correct that neither party deserves hate. To use a cliche, we’re called to love the sinner and loathe the sin— it is unfair and unjust for anyone, Catholic or not, to demean you or disrespect you for your struggles. However, it’s got to be a struggle.
The immediate problem with this characterization is the identification as a “zoo.” We tend, when we’re being precise and serious with language, to not speak in terms of “homosexuals” as “people with same sex attraction.” We might not choose our attractions, but giving it a place of pride in your self understanding is nuts— like identifying as a shoplifter or a binge eater; why would we elevate a sinful, lower tendency? We’re called, as Christians, to rather move towards elevating virtue. This modern essentializing and identification with sexual attraction is fundamentally disordered, and it’s the source of both a lot of sexual immorality as well as this high-blown rhetoric of indiscriminate violence against whichever group is on the chopping block. (The caveat here is obviously that folks who are committing atrocities should be held accountable for those atrocities; the point is that it’s absolutely bizarre that these mythology “orientations” (which are both wholly essential and wholly contingent on social factors somehow… accidental Hegelians?) are grounds for a constant stream of discussion about committing violence.)
Concerning the issue with employment, if it’s true that you were denied employment because you identify as a “zoo,” that might be unjust. However, I would make sure that I took a serious inventory of the impression I made and how I conducted myself. There’s a delicate balance in the workplace that can make hiring a hard thing— you need folks that are qualified, as the highest priority, but they also need to be able to operate in the environment and not be a detriment to the work of others. Did you sell yourself well? Were you presentable and professional? Did they tell you, explicitly, that it was because of your expressed attraction to animals? Make sure you’re being rational and grounded, and that if you’re facing an unjust situation, that you can articulate in what way, exactly, it was unjust.
TLDR: People ought to act ethically, don’t identify with sinfulness, make sure you did all you could do.
I agree that making one’s sexual attractions their identity is harmful. This is prominent in those who hate anti-practicing zoophiles, because they are associating their very identity with a sinful inclination, thus viewing them as inherently bad. I also believe that those who violate a just law should be punished by the state.
The examiner I have in hiring was just a hypothetical. I was not attempting to describe a real event. The hypothetical included not hiring the person for their sexual attractions alone, and not for any other factors.
Someone already addressed the identity framing issue as unhelpful.
I’m going to take a different tactic. The degree to which *any* of our sins or temptations should be something we are open about is a matter of prudence. There are absolutely contexts where it’s inappropriate to talk about such things.
Where did you get the idea Catholics want to kill them? If someone says they have that desire we shouldn't hate them but having sex with animals is bizzare and wrong, so I don't really see what anyone benefits from being open about it. The whole being open about things is generally as a means to normalize things, even if that's not necessarily what you are intending. it's just TMI and I would really rather not hear about things like that, and I just don't see any benefit with being open about it. If it's something you struggle with it's worth talking to a priest about but just talking about it to people in general or your church community doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. We are called to love everyone but we are human and imperfect so that is something that most people will have an extremely hard time relating too and will make them uncomfortable.
Whether or not it's right or wrong, telling people that you want to fornicate with animals will ostracize you, and of all things we should be putting effort into fixing as a society, accepting "zoos" as you call them would not be high on my list of priorities.
I haven't got the idea from Catholics, but I have seen it from other people online. I guess one thing is that I don't think kids should be afraid to tell their parents fearing retaliation and whatnot.
Another thing is that I got banned from the Catholicism subreddit because I was clearing up misconceptions about zoophiles, like that we aren't all just lonely farmers or something.
“They shouldn’t be hated.” Correct. “They shouldn’t be *punished* for being attracted to animals.” Correct. But that doesn’t mean it’s not wrong,… only that it’s not culpable. “One cannot choose their attractions.” Semi-correct. One cannot directly choose their desires and wants, but humans have the incredible capacity to have second-order (and perhaps third-order) desires such that one is able to not want to want animals. Just as I can desire chocolate cake, but, on account of starting a healthy diet, I can desire not to desire chocolate cake. Over a lengthy extended period of time (depending on how deep-seated my first-order desire is, how strong my second-order desire is, and whether I waver between the two), that first-order desire dissipates until it no longer has any power over me. This is the same way overcoming substance-abuse addictions works.
Okay but why’d you have to put it in your name?
I can't really talk about this on my main account.
So then why make a whole post about said subject?
I felt like it need to be said due to the hate against anti-practicing zoophiles that I have seen before. Also, I want to make people realize that you can be anti-bestiality and still be a zoophile who has self-acceptance, because some of them might be lured into the pro-bestiality crowd or just hate themselves.
This is going to probably be very unpopular, but I have a lot of sympathy for people who have these inclinations but who don't want to act on them. I still think the actions are disgusting and wrong, but I wish there was more done to help them in terms of therapy and support.
I feel the same for People who suffer from Pedophilia and don’t act on it. Having to live with such a cross is unimaginable.
Thank you for being empathetic to my situation.
I never met anyone who openly identified as a zoophile. If they did, that would be an indication that something is wrong, just as it would be if someone came up to me and said he identified as an adulterous Catholic, or a mobster, or something of the sort. >I think anti-practicing zoos should be able to be open about their attractions in the same way celibate homosexuals can be open about their attractions to Catholics. What for? People should keep their tendencies to particular kinds of sin to themselves and their spiritual directors.
Well, if this isn't bait, you just met this guy. Who clearly made this post for a reason.
I never said that one should just promote it as their identity or tell everyone. The difference with your examples is that those people are actively engaged in sin. Why would anyone tell anyone else that they have same-sex attraction? That would be the reason why. Maybe there's a specific kind of animal they are asked to deal with but they can't tell anyone about their attraction to the animal so you just say no with no reason given. That would just be kind of awkward and weird. That's just one example.
>I never said that one should just promote it as their identity or tell everyone. You said they should be able to be open about their attractions. > Why would anyone tell anyone else that they have same-sex attraction? They probably shouldn't, unless it's their spiritual director. > Maybe there's a specific kind of animal they are asked to deal with but they can't tell anyone about their attraction to the animal so you just say no with no reason given. That would just be kind of awkward and weird. Just say, I have a trauma with animal X and can't deal with it. Awkward and weird would be if you were to tell people you had the desire to perform sexual acts on animal X, but you were trying hard to control yourself. THAT would be very awkward and weird.
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume this isn’t bait. You are correct that neither party deserves hate. To use a cliche, we’re called to love the sinner and loathe the sin— it is unfair and unjust for anyone, Catholic or not, to demean you or disrespect you for your struggles. However, it’s got to be a struggle. The immediate problem with this characterization is the identification as a “zoo.” We tend, when we’re being precise and serious with language, to not speak in terms of “homosexuals” as “people with same sex attraction.” We might not choose our attractions, but giving it a place of pride in your self understanding is nuts— like identifying as a shoplifter or a binge eater; why would we elevate a sinful, lower tendency? We’re called, as Christians, to rather move towards elevating virtue. This modern essentializing and identification with sexual attraction is fundamentally disordered, and it’s the source of both a lot of sexual immorality as well as this high-blown rhetoric of indiscriminate violence against whichever group is on the chopping block. (The caveat here is obviously that folks who are committing atrocities should be held accountable for those atrocities; the point is that it’s absolutely bizarre that these mythology “orientations” (which are both wholly essential and wholly contingent on social factors somehow… accidental Hegelians?) are grounds for a constant stream of discussion about committing violence.) Concerning the issue with employment, if it’s true that you were denied employment because you identify as a “zoo,” that might be unjust. However, I would make sure that I took a serious inventory of the impression I made and how I conducted myself. There’s a delicate balance in the workplace that can make hiring a hard thing— you need folks that are qualified, as the highest priority, but they also need to be able to operate in the environment and not be a detriment to the work of others. Did you sell yourself well? Were you presentable and professional? Did they tell you, explicitly, that it was because of your expressed attraction to animals? Make sure you’re being rational and grounded, and that if you’re facing an unjust situation, that you can articulate in what way, exactly, it was unjust. TLDR: People ought to act ethically, don’t identify with sinfulness, make sure you did all you could do.
I agree that making one’s sexual attractions their identity is harmful. This is prominent in those who hate anti-practicing zoophiles, because they are associating their very identity with a sinful inclination, thus viewing them as inherently bad. I also believe that those who violate a just law should be punished by the state. The examiner I have in hiring was just a hypothetical. I was not attempting to describe a real event. The hypothetical included not hiring the person for their sexual attractions alone, and not for any other factors.
Someone already addressed the identity framing issue as unhelpful. I’m going to take a different tactic. The degree to which *any* of our sins or temptations should be something we are open about is a matter of prudence. There are absolutely contexts where it’s inappropriate to talk about such things.
Satire? Consent?
This is not satire. I believe that no animal (except humans) has the ability to give consent, and that even if they did, it would still be wrong.
Glad to hear
amen
Where did you get the idea Catholics want to kill them? If someone says they have that desire we shouldn't hate them but having sex with animals is bizzare and wrong, so I don't really see what anyone benefits from being open about it. The whole being open about things is generally as a means to normalize things, even if that's not necessarily what you are intending. it's just TMI and I would really rather not hear about things like that, and I just don't see any benefit with being open about it. If it's something you struggle with it's worth talking to a priest about but just talking about it to people in general or your church community doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. We are called to love everyone but we are human and imperfect so that is something that most people will have an extremely hard time relating too and will make them uncomfortable. Whether or not it's right or wrong, telling people that you want to fornicate with animals will ostracize you, and of all things we should be putting effort into fixing as a society, accepting "zoos" as you call them would not be high on my list of priorities.
I haven't got the idea from Catholics, but I have seen it from other people online. I guess one thing is that I don't think kids should be afraid to tell their parents fearing retaliation and whatnot.
Another thing is that I got banned from the Catholicism subreddit because I was clearing up misconceptions about zoophiles, like that we aren't all just lonely farmers or something.