🔥 Zoosadist Zoosadism Megathread - Joshua "Kero the Wolf" Hoffman & Friends.

If you really had to who would you sex?


  • Total voters
    4,097
More Twitter content

1574025983203.png


1574026382532.png

 
More Twitter content

View attachment 1013396

View attachment 1013401
If you’re into that shit and reading this, please Dorian Thorn yourselves immediately.
 
More Twitter content

View attachment 1013396

View attachment 1013401
10 dogs says that second tweet is a gay op.
Pretty sure intentionally receiving zooporn is a crime in certain states.
 
10 dogs says that second tweet is a gay op.
Pretty sure intentionally receiving zooporn is a crime in certain states.
You say that but we already had Aluzky or WGW or one of the other zoos post a video of himself feeling up his dog on Twitter.

That said the "Zoophile March" one is killing me. These fuckers won't show their faces on Twitter for fear of being semper fi'd by "anti's", let alone in a march where they can be identified en masse.

Something I've noticed while exploring Animal Control is that there's a definite gap between people who draw cub/bestiality/babyfur/feral vs. those who don't in regards to their likelihood to offend against IRL children or animals. This isn't to say that everyone who draws such material is exempt of course, but rather that furries who aren't artistically inclined and thus creating their own material are far more likely to seek out stimulation, whether through commissioning artists for their fetish or just outright predating upon kids and critters.

Some examples of this we can see with noteworthy entries in this forum;
-GlitchedPuppet and the Flora crew are notorious for creating/drawing/writing beastiality and ageplay material, but only Marl (arguably the least artistically inclined of the group) was caught red handed actually arranging to engage in such IRL. Not to say Glip and Eevee weren't aware and enabling, but beyond having a serious misunderstanding of personal boundaries neither can be directly stated as having agreed to fuck their dog, or a minor, IRL. At least not without Marl's involvement.
-Ino and her husband from the DAD thread are both into Ponyplay, although Ino's husband is the one with the most obvious fetish; Ino seems to mostly be into the BDSM aspects of it, while her husband is fixated on horse snuff and feral porn, commissioning it from everyone who draws it. It's worth noting that both Ino and her husband owns horses, although Ino seems to avoid drawing them in NSFW contexts. Her husband doesn't draw his own material.
-Virtually none of the dozens of zoophiles, pedophiles, and bestiality enthusiasts here in the Zoosadism Megathread do anything remotely creative (Youtubers don't count as creative) beyond doing photoshoots at conventions. Nearly all have enacted or engaged in such IRL, or consider it an active part of their lifestyle rather than a passing interest or kink. It's possible that some of the ones on Twitter are shadow accounts for artists on FA who don't want to be outed as zoophiles, but so far I don't think any of the ones who have been doxed have turned out to be.

This isn't to say that artists into bestiality or cub or babyfur or whatever weird fetish shit can't enact on it IRL (Scott Ford, for example, or Shmorky) but there are so many people on FA alone who draw that sort of material without (apparently) engaging in it that it's worth looking into, while a high percentage of those who don't draw their own porn seem to be willing to act on it in a covert (or overt) manner, regularly by predating on others.

Artists who create such material aren't exempt from criticism either; although their work is arguably less likely to make them personally act on it IRL, there are debates to be made about whether or not it counts as enabling active predators by providing them with stimulation and encouragement, or just cashing in on someone else's fucked up kinks. Distributing art containing such material (even if it's a personal way of dealing with one's own sexual interests in a "healthy" or non-harmful fashion) rapidly changes the context from "artist just draws weird material in order to explore a kink without involving anyone or anything" to "artist draws weird material in order to explore a kink and exploit money out of people with a similar kink by providing them a service and feeding their addiction".
Tl;dr furry artists seem less likely to directly offend and instead enable others, while those without any personal artistic outlet for their fetishes are often the cavebrained morons we see in this thread who want to actually diddle dogs and kids IRL.
 
You say that but we already had Aluzky or WGW or one of the other zoos post a video of himself feeling up his dog on Twitter.

That said the "Zoophile March" one is killing me. These fuckers won't show their faces on Twitter for fear of being semper fi'd by "anti's", let alone in a march where they can be identified en masse.

Something I've noticed while exploring Animal Control is that there's a definite gap between people who draw cub/bestiality/babyfur/feral vs. those who don't in regards to their likelihood to offend against IRL children or animals. This isn't to say that everyone who draws such material is exempt of course, but rather that furries who aren't artistically inclined and thus creating their own material are far more likely to seek out stimulation, whether through commissioning artists for their fetish or just outright predating upon kids and critters.

Some examples of this we can see with noteworthy entries in this forum;
-GlitchedPuppet and the Flora crew are notorious for creating/drawing/writing beastiality and ageplay material, but only Marl (arguably the least artistically inclined of the group) was caught red handed actually arranging to engage in such IRL. Not to say Glip and Eevee weren't aware and enabling, but beyond having a serious misunderstanding of personal boundaries neither can be directly stated as having agreed to fuck their dog, or a minor, IRL. At least not without Marl's involvement.
-Ino and her husband from the DAD thread are both into Ponyplay, although Ino's husband is the one with the most obvious fetish; Ino seems to mostly be into the BDSM aspects of it, while her husband is fixated on horse snuff and feral porn, commissioning it from everyone who draws it. It's worth noting that both Ino and her husband owns horses, although Ino seems to avoid drawing them in NSFW contexts. Her husband doesn't draw his own material.
-Virtually none of the dozens of zoophiles, pedophiles, and bestiality enthusiasts here in the Zoosadism Megathread do anything remotely creative (Youtubers don't count as creative) beyond doing photoshoots at conventions. Nearly all have enacted or engaged in such IRL, or consider it an active part of their lifestyle rather than a passing interest or kink. It's possible that some of the ones on Twitter are shadow accounts for artists on FA who don't want to be outed as zoophiles, but so far I don't think any of the ones who have been doxed have turned out to be.

This isn't to say that artists into bestiality or cub or babyfur or whatever weird fetish shit can't enact on it IRL (Scott Ford, for example, or Shmorky) but there are so many people on FA alone who draw that sort of material without (apparently) engaging in it that it's worth looking into, while a high percentage of those who don't draw their own porn seem to be willing to act on it in a covert (or overt) manner, regularly by predating on others.

Artists who create such material aren't exempt from criticism either; although their work is arguably less likely to make them personally act on it IRL, there are debates to be made about whether or not it counts as enabling active predators by providing them with stimulation and encouragement, or just cashing in on someone else's fucked up kinks. Distributing art containing such material (even if it's a personal way of dealing with one's own sexual interests in a "healthy" or non-harmful fashion) rapidly changes the context from "artist just draws weird material in order to explore a kink without involving anyone or anything" to "artist draws weird material in order to explore a kink and exploit money out of people with a similar kink by providing them a service and feeding their addiction".
Tl;dr furry artists seem less likely to directly offend and instead enable others, while those without any personal artistic outlet for their fetishes are often the cavebrained morons we see in this thread who want to actually diddle dogs and kids IRL.
A good part of this observation comes from the fact that there are artists taking furry commissions who are very much not furries themselves. I forgot precisely where (may have been KF) but I did read an article discussing how there were highly talented artists with training from highly regarded schools who were effectively pidgeonholed into drawing furry art to make ends meet. What really struck me in the piece was the testimony of one artist that kept a literal puke bucket nearby because of how repulsive the commissions he took got.
 
What really struck me in the piece was the testimony of one artist that kept a literal puke bucket nearby because of how repulsive the commissions he took got.
If you could find this article you'd be doing an incredible service to my KF namesake.

Also I can absolutely believe this. Unless you already had a gallery prior to leaving art school and an ample following of people interested in the kind of material you like to produce, odds are you'd be stuck taking whatever you can get in regards to commissions. What's more, fetishists are the ones where the real money is at, in particular those who aren't already artistically inclined themselves; without having a time-consuming hobby to eat up their day, they're probably either in the workforce or at least have NEETbucks to blow on wank material.
 
"Bestiality is merely the act of sex with an animal: you can be a zoophile and not have sexual contact with an animal."
I mean, that's technically true? But the likelihood of a zoophile vs. someone who isn't a zoophile choosing to have sex with an animal is astronomically higher. It's true that not every zoophile actively fucks dogs or other animals, but everyone who fucks dogs is virtually guaranteed to be a zoophile; barring some absurd circumstance like someone is holding a gun to your head to make you do it or whatever.

This is the same as the no- vs. pro-contact pedophile argument. Yes, there is a legal difference between non-offending pedophiles vs. actual child molesters; but virtually every child molester is a pedophile barring some bizarre circumstance. The association is not up for debate.

The Venn Diagram might as well be a big circle for "Zoophiles" with "People Who Commit Beastiality" as a smaller circle completely encompassed in the big circle.
 
View attachment 1016886

Dogfucker is here to educate normies on the difference between fucking an animal and wanting to fuck an animal.
"Paraphilia"
Stopped reading right there, tbh.

If you could find this article you'd be doing an incredible service to my KF namesake.

Also I can absolutely believe this. Unless you already had a gallery prior to leaving art school and an ample following of people interested in the kind of material you like to produce, odds are you'd be stuck taking whatever you can get in regards to commissions. What's more, fetishists are the ones where the real money is at, in particular those who aren't already artistically inclined themselves; without having a time-consuming hobby to eat up their day, they're probably either in the workforce or at least have NEETbucks to blow on wank material.
I looked, but i can't seem to find it. I'll keep an eye out and post it to your profioe if i can find the thing.
 
1574256287102.png

1574256307573.png


1574256447508.png


Ironically, I've heard Hitler was a big animal rights supporter.


Another zoophile saying zoosexuality is protected on Twitter.
1574256684152.png

 
View attachment 1016992
View attachment 1016993

View attachment 1016995

Ironically, I've heard Hitler was a big animal rights supporter.


Another zoophile saying zoosexuality is protected on Twitter.
View attachment 1016996
Someone should tell toogle that there are people out there who hate nazis but still find zoophiles disgusting.
 
Last edited:
It's remarkable that nothing new has happened other than the same people doing the same things in the span I've been gone.

8ch briefly came back as 8kun and promptly died again. To the best of my knowledge, that crowd has been scattered to the winds. So that's probably for the better. At the least, none of the boards relevant seem to be up on the Onion access point, so they weren't migrated during the brief span that was possible to do.

That's the only piece of news I've noticed.

Me? I'm dying. Maybe. That or I've got a nasty case of pneumonia and I've been sick since last you heard from me. I take a glance once in a while. When I've not been sick right now, I've been busy. This, too, is life.
 
View attachment 1016992
View attachment 1016993

View attachment 1016995

Ironically, I've heard Hitler was a big animal rights supporter.


Another zoophile saying zoosexuality is protected on Twitter.
View attachment 1016996

"I rape dogs but at least I'm not a Nazi"
"If you don't like me raping my dog you're a Nazi"
 
"I rape dogs but at least I'm not a Nazi"
"If you don't like me raping my dog you're a Nazi"
To be fair, it's very sound logic, considering how the Nazis were big animal lovers and created laws to protect them. So if you rape and kill animals you are dabbing on those evil nazis epic style.
 
There's a rule of the universe that basically says "say something, bitch!" That rule states that as soon as you say something related to circumstance, those circumstances will change.

Uh. In the USA, which is probably where most of you are motivated anyway, Trump just signed a new law.

HR text passed senate without amendment...

... So we can pull the HR text for reference on the bill that was passed...

Receipts part dealt with, the bill covers animal crush videos, round 2. Whereas before production of videos was illegal, this time the underlying act itself is illegal.

It's fairly succinct - to the extent it's almost its own summary - but just to highlight a few notes anyway...

Section (a) defines what we're talking about clearly and provides declarations.

“[(a)(1)] CRUSHING.—It shall be unlawful for any person to purposely engage in animal crushing in [...] the United States.

The actual, underlying act itself is now illegal, as I said.

[(a)(3)] DISTRIBUTION OF ANIMAL CRUSH VIDEOS.—It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, market, advertise, exchange, or distribute an animal crush video in, or using a means or facility of, interstate or foreign commerce.

Distribution of such materials is also now illegal. The language was tightened up. (It was already illegal.)

Section (b) is extraterritorial and perhaps isn't for the best - the US claims jurisdiction in cases where such materials are knowingly marketed in the US or using infrastructure in the US. This wouldn't be so bad, but the internet's key architectural backends are in the USA. The intention is likely to prevent people from going outside the US to produce it for a US market, as well as keep it off the US-centric web. Alarmists will point to this specific subsection as an increased overreach to control of the internet globally. So keep an idle eye out for that note.

Section (c) defines penalties.

(c) Penalties.—Whoever violates this section shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 7 years, or both.

I don't see a maximum fine stated.

Section d is worth quoting in its entirety as it directly affects this community, chiefly in terms of (d)(2), but also to give us the lines in which we operate for such matters to utilize this law in cooperation with law enforcement.

(d) Exceptions.—

(d)(1) IN GENERAL.—This section does not apply with regard to any conduct, or a visual depiction of that conduct, that is—
(d)(1)(A) a customary and normal veterinary, agricultural husbandry, or other animal management practice;

(d)(1)(B) the slaughter of animals for food;

(d)(1)(C) hunting, trapping, fishing, a sporting activity not otherwise prohibited by Federal law, predator control, or pest control;

(d)(1)(D) medical or scientific research;

(d)(1)(E) necessary to protect the life or property of a person; or

(d)(1)(F) performed as part of euthanizing an animal.

(d)(2) GOOD-FAITH DISTRIBUTION.—This section does not apply to the good-faith distribution of an animal crush video to—

(d)(2)(A) a law enforcement agency; or

(d)(2)(B) a third party for the sole purpose of analysis to determine if referral to a law enforcement agency is appropriate.

(d)(3) UNINTENTIONAL CONDUCT.—This section does not apply to unintentional conduct that injures or kills an animal.

(d)(4) CONSISTENCY WITH RFRA.—This section shall be enforced in a manner that is consistent with section 3 of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb–1).

Again, the law is succinct enough it almost serves as its own summary.

(e) prevents pre-emption (permits states to make their own laws).

(f) covers specific definitions of acts described.

So there are worse things I could wake up to on the verge of Thanksgiving, I think.

---

Edit: Quick reminder that America has no ex-post facto laws (constitutionally) so this only applies to acts after the law was signed into effect. That would be any act of animal crushing after 25 November 2019.
 
Last edited:
I don't see a maximum fine stated.

I see a lot of sections using the "fined under this title" wording, so it must be using this:


(b) Fines for Individuals.—Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, an individual who has been found guilty of an offense may be fined not more than the greatest of—
(1) the amount specified in the law setting forth the offense;
(2) the applicable amount under subsection (d) of this section;
(3) for a felony, not more than $250,000;
(4) for a misdemeanor resulting in death, not more than $250,000;
(5) for a Class A misdemeanor that does not result in death, not more than $100,000;
(6) for a Class B or C misdemeanor that does not result in death, not more than $5,000; or
(7) for an infraction, not more than $5,000.
 
It's remarkable that nothing new has happened other than the same people doing the same things in the span I've been gone.

8ch briefly came back as 8kun and promptly died again. To the best of my knowledge, that crowd has been scattered to the winds. So that's probably for the better. At the least, none of the boards relevant seem to be up on the Onion access point, so they weren't migrated during the brief span that was possible to do.

That's the only piece of news I've noticed.

Me? I'm dying. Maybe. That or I've got a nasty case of pneumonia and I've been sick since last you heard from me. I take a glance once in a while. When I've not been sick right now, I've been busy. This, too, is life.
OT: only board I ever used was /mde/ so now I have my Ssm Hyde diaper dungeon fan fic back.

More to the subject at hand: seriously of someone is a literal neo-Nazi but is still respectful to people and doesn't "act on their urges" I think I would prefer and trust them to some MAP or zoo even if they're likewise only sick in the head and not acting out.

I've met racists who were up front about their feelings regarding white being all that's right but don't actually seem to really hate minorities. Some even seemed to pity dark skinned folks and so long as they are decent people have no problem being civil with anyone even though inside they feel superior on the basis of race.

Meanwhile the zoo's and MAPs are basically that "I may be a pedo but at least I'm not a bigot" meme brought to life. Like the Ars Technica guy who asked the UC if they wanted the child rape to be "heteronormative." So progressive of him! He spoke out all the time about how horrible imageboard users were.

Meanwhile, who would you rather have watch your kid or pet? The civil racist who feels he is better because of his skin color or someone who wants to have sexes with kids or animals?

No brainers for me.
20191127_072904.jpg
 
It’s somewhat frustrating how all the internet vigilantes have given up on all the zoosadist investigations, but I suppose it’s better left up to the actual authorities anyways. I just can’t help but wonder what Snakething, Kero, Woof, etc have been able to get away with now that the spotlight is no longer on them.
 
It’s somewhat frustrating how all the internet vigilantes have given up on all the zoosadist investigations, but I suppose it’s better left up to the actual authorities anyways. I just can’t help but wonder what Snakething, Kero, Woof, etc have been able to get away with now that the spotlight is no longer on them.

Well stuff happened and people moved on. That's always how internet rage and witchunts (not saying they were not justified in what they were doing, all zoophiles deserve to be lynched) but you can only keep a fire going for so long. If anything it really exposed many people "normies" or whatever to call them to some of the deeper parts of the furry fandom that's been laying under the radar for quite a while and I'm grateful for that. Overall does it suck, yeah? But there's nothing else that can be done. Maybe it will blow up again but nobody knows. It really depends if there was another big leak released.
 
Back
Top Bottom