fchan

discussion

Morality of bestiality (Was: End bestiality on Fchan!)

Pages:1 41 81 121 161 201 241 281 321 361 401 441 481 521 561 601 641 681 721 761 801 841 881 921 961 1001
1Report
at 25 Apr 2006: 19:55

Moderator's note:
The original question of this thread was answered here:>>14. It has since then gone into another direction and bestiality on fchan is NOT the topic any longer.
[End of notice]


Why is there bestiality on Fchan? I'm talking normal bestiality: a plain, ordinary human being and a plain, ordinary animal... That's not furry!

Certainly the mods know where I'm coming from on this... As near as I can tell, bestiality doesn't belong here, not even in /ah/, because it's not furry to begin with (unless there is an anthropomorphic animal involved).

2Report
at 25 Apr 2006: 20:02

well i dont see how adding ears to an otherwise 100% human is furry, but SOMEHOW that passes.

3Report
at 25 Apr 2006: 20:03

*by ears i mean cat ears or some other shit

4Report
at 25 Apr 2006: 20:04

>>2
>>3

Then they should draw cat ears on all these humans so they're complying with the rules...

5Report
at 25 Apr 2006: 20:44

>>4
You're focusing on the wrong part of the image, FYI.

6Report
Furvy at 25 Apr 2006: 23:23

This was already *shortly* debated on the Felicia thread. Even though I remember one of the mods saying that she is a furry, there's still a large blurry line as far as how much percentage of a human figure being furry makes it a true furry... There are obvious cases, of course, but when transformations are considered, it's purely a matter of opinion.

7Report
Fatal_glory_128 at 26 Apr 2006: 00:33

I'd say when more than half of the body is edited (body tatoo styled editing included) and a distorting of the face, that's when it becomes truly a furry edit.  But that's not the issue.

The issue is bestiality.  It SHOULD be removed.  #1, it's illegal.  #2, it's not in compliance with Fchan's rules.  unless it's illustrated (not photo-manipulated).

8Report
at 26 Apr 2006: 01:47

>>7
Yeah, well you're a fag.

9Report
Furvy at 26 Apr 2006: 02:37

The only way to deal with people in these types of issues is to suggest alternatives (in addition to enforcing strict and direct rules). I'm sure most of us can relate, and I'm no exception by far. I would suggest some sites myself, but then I would be, for the second time TODAY (lol), treading on legal issues which I am not entirely familiar with.

If my idea makes any sense, this needs to be ok with the mods first because the fchan rules stated for bestiality are a bit sketchy...

10Report
Foxstar#3GqYIJ3Obs at 26 Apr 2006: 05:53

>>9 They aren't that sketchy. Live action is forbidden. Photomorphs are WAYYY forbidden because it's very easy to photomorph underage boys and girls. As long as it's not out of control, drawn humen/animal smut is allowed.

11Report
at 26 Apr 2006: 05:55

>>10
But it's not FURRY smut. This is supposed to be a place for furry artwork, and a normal animal and a normal human isn't furry. That should be the end of the discussion right there.

12Report
at 26 Apr 2006: 09:29

>>11
quit trolling asshole, go somewhere else if you don't like it. No mod decision = no ban.

13Report
DragonFlame at 26 Apr 2006: 11:05

Since when have there been any unillustrated images allowed on fchan. I have never seen any.
The only type of live furry porn that I can think of that is not illegal is either Plush sex or Fur suit sex and fchan doesn’t have a section for either.

Furry in a technical sense is the attraction to a different species thus Furry porn is widely ranged. Anthroporphic creatures are only a part of the Furry culture why do so many people think it’s the only part. If it were then it would be called Anthroporphic Porn not Furry Porn.
If bestiality was legal then it would also be considered Furry and last time I checked illustrations of bestiality is not illegal.

If you are complaining about Bestiality photography which is highly illegal I will support you there. After all I don’t want fchan going under.
If you are talking about Bestiality Illustrations there is nothing much you could do about it and what right would you have if you could.
Everyone seems to think that only there interests are what is considered Furry.
If it were up to me and I was in that state of mind fchan would not have a Male and Herm section but I understand that it is a part of the Furry Culture and they have every right just as we do to consider them selves Furries. This also applies to Illustrated Bestiality sections.

I realise that what I have written is going to create a bit of heat so let me finish by saying…….
Up yours to every fag out there that just can’t accept this. Just get over it or get lost.

14Report(capped)
Xenofur at 26 Apr 2006: 11:31

A bit of clarification:

Real bestiality is not allowed, was never allowed and will never be allowed.

In regards to illutrated bestiality:

The moderator team of fchan does NOT regard that as "furry". We have decided to allow it to exist in the /ah/ board for one single reason.

We do not care about the hassle of deciding wether something is "anthro enough" nor do we want to deal with repeated requests to allow said materials.

Thus we are TOLERATING it, nothing else.

15Report
DragonFlame at 26 Apr 2006: 11:49

Well said. I think that will clarify future complaints.

16Report
at 26 Apr 2006: 12:05

>>14 what's next, tolerating Shota? a fine line between reality anf fiction... too fine if you ask me.

don't get me wrong, i understand where you're coming from, best to avoid the hassle but sometimes putting your foot down on an issue is nessessary, no matter how many dog-rapers seem to disagre (i'll go on record to say i really fucking hate Zoo's, though that could just be that i've had to deal with the worst kinds ever)

17Report(capped)
Xenofur at 26 Apr 2006: 13:31

>>14 what's next, tolerating Shota? a fine line between reality anf fiction... too fine if you ask me.

actually we are. that's exactly why we have a place like /ah/...

don't get me wrong, i understand where you're coming from, best to avoid the hassle but sometimes putting your foot down on an issue is nessessary, no matter how many dog-rapers seem to disagre (i'll go on record to say i really fucking hate Zoo's, though that could just be that i've had to deal with the worst kinds ever)

that's why i won't put any foot down. hate does not matter to me. :)

18Report
at 26 Apr 2006: 13:32

>>16

Huh? Underage art is allowed on /ah/ also. Where have you been for the past...forever?

19Report
at 26 Apr 2006: 14:05

Like the mods said, there's no bestiality, or underage stuff here, in fact there's no porn here either, because all of which involve REAL things, everything here is a procuct of creative expression.

And there's no 'fine line' at all; art is fiction, all maner of porn is reality. so there's no clearer distinction between the two than this.

all that you see here is fictional artistic representations

20Report
Joan-Michele#R9F5WG6Bjw at 26 Apr 2006: 16:15

Just do what I do and avoid /ah/ simple as that. ;)

21Report
Janglur at 26 Apr 2006: 22:58

>>7
Incorrect.  There is no federal law under the United States which prohibits bestiality, zoophilia, or other sexual contact with animals.
The closest law governing this is general:  It is illegal to transfer through the US mail photographs or similar media of acts deemed offensive.  Offensive is defined as considered morally unethical by the majority of population, and containing no social or educational redeeming value.
In other words, it's illegal to send smut in the mail.  While this is rarely enforced, it IS illegal and enforced.  Most recently in 2001, a DVD sales company producing amateur pornography (all vanilla material) was fined $6,000 for using the US postal service for transfer of their goods.  They were placed on a ban list, basically, and forced to use other couriers (UPS, Fedex, etc.)

However, many states do have laws prohibiting human-animal sexual contact.  A few are sketchy and as such have been mothballed.  In Georgia, it is defined as 'Any and all contact with animal genitalia'.  When someone attempted to prosecute a veterinarian for this, the law was mothballed.  For the record, it is still in existance and still enforceable, though it may not be upheld in court.  A law in this status is generally 'left open', ignored until a situation arises to allow clarification or a solid decision.

Most states classify it as a misdemeanor, and those with criminal offense classify it as sodomy.
The following are states in which Zoophilia has been legally ruled as nonconsequential:
Colorado
Alaska
The following are states which do not prohibit it, but have not established that it cannot be disallowed.  (meaning it's currently legal, but could change.):
Arizona
Florida
Hawaii
Iowa
Kentucky
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Ohio
Oregon
South Dakota
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
The following do not have a law specifically against bestiality, but have prosecuted the crime under other articles (such as prosecuting under Sodomy, or Child Molestation [with claims that the animal is only 7 years old, and thus a minor].  AKA, bullshittery, where the law was abused and manipulated to prosecute where no law is broking using vague technicalities.):
New Jersey
Texas
All other states, it is prohibited.  Some range from $1,000 fines (Washington DC), to lifetime imprisonment without parole(Georgia) as their maximum punishment.

As for other countries, there is no law in:
Denmark
Finland
Mexico
Switzerland
And it is illegal in:
Canada (10 year mandatory sentance)
New Zealand (7 year maximum)
United Kingdom (Life Imprisonment [Typically 30 years])

There.  Now you're all educated.

22Report
at 26 Apr 2006: 23:12

Is anything legal in Canada?

23Report
Janglur at 26 Apr 2006: 23:20

I beleive it's legal to leave Canada, provided you go through the proper immigration methods, revoke canadian citizenship, and do not attempt to hold corporate or political property in Canada after revoking citizenship.  Any of those would make it illegal.

24Report
MadShroomer at 26 Apr 2006: 23:33

I'm pretty sure that in Kentucky at least having sex with a chicken is illegal. "Barn yard sodomy" I believe was the term. Apparently this is still a practice in some of the more isolated areas as a former aquantince of mine knew a guy imprisoned for it in a near by county. I agree that "real" porn and "fake" are differen't and find that the "real" porn is too "fake" for my taste and prefer the "fake" artwork that is "real" in its expression. Woot college make me thing 2 much?

25Report
MadShroomer at 26 Apr 2006: 23:37

omg! "Canada (10 year mandatory sentance)" AWESOME! I am amazed at america's "drug war" when compared to Canadians apparent animal sodomy war! Some how I support this Canadian legislation.... now as far as Art is concerned this wouldn't affect anything except "real" acts....

26Report
Janglur at 27 Apr 2006: 01:21

Actually, in Canada, it's to refer to any sexual contact, not just sodomy.

Also, in Kentucky, it is legal.  However, insertion of a foreign object into an avian's cloaca IS extremely damaging, and often fatal.  Something the size of a human penis is invariably fatal.
As such, they were probably charged will animal cruelty.  There are no records specifically referring to sexual contact to animals.

27Report
at 27 Apr 2006: 04:15

All Commonwealth laws are similar on this point. Hence Canada, NZ, AUS, UK, etc. willbe severe. All cooked up by the Church over a hundred years ago.

28Report
at 27 Apr 2006: 06:16

I look at bestiality as being not quite as bad as, say, molesting retarded children, but in the same ballpark.  Seriously, they can't consent... they CAN'T.  If you think they are, you're an unstable monster who imposes his reality in place of anything that doesn't involve you getting your way.  People who think you're disgusting become persecutors, laws forbidding your practice become opressive, and the dog's confused, instinctive participation becomes lust.  It's a delusion!  Quit torturing the animals!  Jesus, they have enough to suffer through as sub-slaves and food, don't add molestation and rape.

...

Damnit!

29Report
at 27 Apr 2006: 06:30

Punks. Considering 95% of all imagination of what furry is COMES from animals, how does someone defy that and put it aside. You wouldn't have canine looks, horse looks, or whatever else you can think of. Also putting to factor that a furry is mostly human being just with a different head + tail + animal sexual anatomy..

Hate to be querky but I have nothing again bestiality. Because nature is a whore. What do you think pollen is? Plants bombard us with their sexual orgies and we wave it out. The greeks had orgies screwing horses and whatever else was around. You know, alot of people think its because "an animal can't say no." But No, thats not the factor. It is because it IS that animal itself.

Guys especially. Being mortal means you have mortal urges. There is nothing you can do about it. When your horny, the only thing on their mind is.. "let 'er rip!" Screwin the pooch just might happen. It wasn't a mistake, nor a love issue.  It is the fact and it proves that this "love" and monogamy is BOGUS. Interspecies sex happens all the time. We are just another animal.. so what makes us any different. Nothing at all just alot of other people who think "were better then that."

Well I'll tell those bunch of people right now, Were god damn primates, were not going to get any better... bunch of whiney babies.

Sex is part of the miosis process and it is IMPOSSIBLE to stop. Unless that is.. you castrate and spay an animal. Which in my books is CRUEL. Because then you no longer have PURPOSE. Your just a dummy cell that will be born and die with no life purpose whatsoever. As long as we don't start asexually reproducing.. this issue of "obscenity" will always be debated because someone  can't FUCKING get a grip that

NATURE IS A WHORE

30Report
at 27 Apr 2006: 06:48

Us human have left nature behind in many ways, and developed concepts of morality and such.  I mean, territorialism is rampant in nature, yet you're not allowed to attack someone who cuts across your lawn.  Rape is a natural instinct practiced by many animals, yet that too is a crime.  Nature kills the sick and the old, we humans have developed medicine and such to aid them.  We aren't like other animals... we're too aware, and appealing to the primal state of nature is just an excuse.

So, if plants are bombarding us with their pollen because they get off on it, yes, they'd be degenerate perverts, especially since pollen HURTS a lot of people.  Plants don't think at all, and with the arguable exception of a few, animals are governed almost entirely by instinct... so what they do never enters the real of right and wrong.  Morality is beyond them, but not us.  We CHOOSE to do these things; more often than not, we're aware of the consequences in part at least.  Sure, physically, we're just primates, but our minds have evolved.  We don't sit around in the forest scratching for fruit and bugs to eat; we do things like argue on computers with people around the world about morality and the like.

As for concepts of obscenity, personally I think it's a matter of thinking reasonably.  If your goat comes up to you, and somehow manages to learn to speak and says "Oh yes, stick it in me", then yeah, go ahead I guess, if you swing that way.  If you just take a goat and start screwing it however, I'm sorry, but that just isn't complicated enough to argue about: it's clearly wrong... along the same lines as cutting the goat just to see it bleed and suffer.  Indulging yourself for gratification alone, by torturing and raping?  Sheesh...

31Report
Juberu at 27 Apr 2006: 11:13

>>30 :If they can't or won't give consent, it's rape. That's all it boils down to.
>>29
">Guys especially. Being mortal means you have mortal urges. There is nothing you can do about it.
Urges=/=needs. Urges=desires.

32Report
DragonFlame at 27 Apr 2006: 11:32

I am not part of the Bestiality scene and find no sexual attraction to real animals so don’t think im one of those guys trying to defend Bestiality to make it seem right but I have  to clear up some stupidity in this discussion.

So lets say a guy goes up to a mare and tries to fuck her. The mare according to you has no say in if she has sex. What a load of bull shit she will kick you in the face. And a dog will bite your dick off.
Another thing to add, when an animal is in heat it don’t give a fuck what screws it as long as its screwed.
How the fuck does a woman rape a male dog or a horse for that matter. Obviously they understand and react to sexual urges imprinted on them since birth. Male dog hump everything that moves especially your leg obviously they want and need sexual relief.
Rape is a word that was invented by the human culture and is neither understood nor relevant to an animal. The animal is either in the mood for sex or it isn’t end of story.

When im in the mood to have sex I don’t ask my girlfriend "Do you consent to have sex with me" every time I want to get laid. My girlfriend understands that I want sex by foreplay and my body language. Talking is not the only way to communicate and regarding sex is not the main way to communicate. I never see animals talking to each other either; they use this universal language of foreplay and body movement that symbolises that they want to have sex just like we do.
If the animal is willing and does not object (Bite your Dick Off) then I don’t think it can be called rape.

Having said all this I do not support Bestiality. Bestiality is usually the exploitation of animals in porno films for profit and they use methods such as drugs and bondage. This type of crap is not only illegal but just disgusting and evil.
Having sex with an animal because in your eyes you see it as a partner and lover and the animal sees you as the same is fine in mine books.

33Report (sage)
at 27 Apr 2006: 13:51

Actually, according the the 1996 Criminal Code of Canada is a 14 year mandatory sentence, not 10...  Unless they've lowered the sentencing guidelines since then. 

As for the rest of it:  Enslave them, beat them, kill them and eat them, wear their skins and mount their heads as trophies, but God forbid you have *sex* with them...  that's just wrong. 

Stupidly dogmatic much? 

In Canada, if someone kills my dog, it's 'destruction of *property* not exceeding $1000' - They'd get a fine or 90 days in jail or some such BS.  But if they fuck my dog, it's a federal offense punishable by a minimum 14 (or maybe 10) years in prison. 

And to all you dogmatic 'moral highground' morons that probably makes sense.   No wonder our culture is so fucked up. 

34Report
at 27 Apr 2006: 16:45

I think many of you may be missing the point. I never intended this to be a "right or wrong" conversation. My point was very simple.

Is a normal human being a furry? No. Is a normal animal a furry? No. Is a normal human and a normal animal furry? No.

IMO, bestiality between normal humans and normal animals doesn't belong on a *furry* board. But the mods have already spoken on the issue.

35Report
at 27 Apr 2006: 17:34

>>28
>>30
Just a side note. 

It certainly is possible for animals to give consent.  Animals are quite capable of communicating very clearly (usually through violent means) when they do not want to be approached, touched, etc.  Now, the abusive pet owner who continues to do stuff to his animal or forcefully restrains the animal, after the animal has bitten/scratched/resisted, etc., IS committing abuse/rape/bestiality. 

Should the animal not resist, we can assume he/she wants it to happen.  Especially take the instance of a dog mounting a human female, for sake of argument.  If the dog mounts the female without force or under threat of punishment, we must assume the dog wants to.

I've read a bit about this online.  Many "zoophiles" really care for their animals greatly and are very sensitive to their needs and communication signals.  They love their partners.  So I prefer the term "zoophilia" when referring to sexual relationships between humans/animals, and the term "bestiality" when force/rape is involved.

I know this deviates from the subject, but this subject has come up before and always it is said, "well, animals can't consent," trying to place zoophiles in the same category as stautory rapists.   Bullshit.  They can.  Zoophilia isn't for everyone, but don't think that it implies forcing animals against their will or anything.

36Report
HooRU at 27 Apr 2006: 18:04

What is a furry anyway? Isn't it part animal and part Human? So what you're all saying is that it's ok to have sex with something that's not entirely human or animal but has most major features of an animal such as tails, muzzles, ears, etc. Somehow you've gotten it into your head that it's ok to fantisize about having sex with something that's half animal but deny entirely your attraction to one of the 2 extremes of what makes up a furry: the animal part. If you ask me; you're all boarderline zoophiles.

If you want to not allow animals to be in this image board then why allow humans. Humans have no tails, pointy ears or muzzles yet I see countless pictures with them "interacting" with furrys on any of the boards here. If you don't allow one extreme why allow the other?

I'd just like to point out that I don't condone beastiality in any way. Nor do I condone rape or murder, yet I also see it on this site. Is it not illegal to rape or kill someone? Are you all complaining about that? Maybe if it's not a real picture and it's only a drawing then it makes it ok. Or maybe it's because it's being done to something that doesn't really exist that makes you feel that it's ok to do these things to them and somehow it's not wrong.

I understand that this is a furry image board and I believe that the mods are doing their job in sifting through most of the garbage that gets posted here, but it doesn't make sense to me how you can all write that beastiality is illegal and shouldn't be allowed on the board yet you say nothing about humans on the furry board or the countless images of rape and murder on these boards. Tolerate it if you must but don't complain because one of your sexual fantasies doesn't involve animals or rape and murder. If you don't like it, scroll past it.

37Report
at 27 Apr 2006: 19:37

>>35
Okay, so then if you take a kid who doesn't know any better, and start jacking him off, and he enjoys the stimulation, it's not wrong, it's "love".  Minors consent all the time right?  I'm sorry, but animals lack the capacity to consent as we humans legally understand the term.  At best, they can consent in the same capacity as an especially trusting, very young child.  They react to their instincts which they can't rise above; we react to our urges which we consciously give in to.  If you see consent, that's YOU reading consent into it, not the animal.  The animal doesn't understand consent, just stimulation.  Sorta like how a dog will drink anti-freeze because it likes the taste.

Ugh... Zoophile?  Sex between animals and humans is bestiality.  Making up a new word doesn't change the definition of the first.  Get a dictionary.  Sexual relations between a human and an animal = bestiality, period.  If you advocate zoophiles, you're advocating bestiality.  This isn't as complicated as it seems.

38Report
HooRU at 27 Apr 2006: 19:50

I really don't think the person who started this thread meant for it to evolve into a debate on whether fucking animals is wrong. They simple said that sex with "animals" doesn't belong on a furry board. All of you that are bitching about whether it's morally just or not to have sex with an animal are not going to take this anywhere. You can both have your opinions and can go on about the legality of beastiality but it's not going to get it off the boards.

All of you that don't like it: tough, you're gonna have to deal with it. All of you that do like it: Congrats, the mods choose to "tolerate" you and their opinion is all that matters when the topic of what should and shouldn't be on the boards is concerned. So post away!

39Report(capped)
Xenofur at 27 Apr 2006: 19:53

as far as i'm concerned, feel free to discuss it. but please do stay civil. :)

40Report
Janglur at 27 Apr 2006: 20:18

It's already become uncivil, it's just bashing now.  Anyone can plainly see.

When there are no more insults and cursing, then it becomes a civil debate.

41Report(capped)
Xenofur at 27 Apr 2006: 20:32

*sigh*

it's 03:27 here, i've been working on shit for other people straight-forward from 17:00 on. i am NOT going to read through this now and filter stuff, so this is what i'll be doing:

the thread can stay up until i get out of my coma tomorrow, when i see people flaming -> lock.

42Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 27 Apr 2006: 20:52

>>38
Like all threads it seems, quasi-points arise wit the "main" ones.  The issue of people being able to post bestiality or not has been resolved, and as a bit of trivial interest, someone posted information as to the legal status of bestiality in various places.  The reaction to THAT is what ignited the "is it right/ is it wrong" debate.

Personally, I find it a tad chilling that so many think it's alright in practice.  As you say, rape and murder are wrong, nd depicted on this board.  Nobody that I've seen has actually made a point of saying that rape is perfectly natural and understandable, or began advocating murder.  Some are, however, saying bestiality is fine, and it would appear that there is a bit of discontent about that... heh.  Still, I'd imagine if some guro fans started advocating the reality of guro, you'd see an ever greater outcry... or at least, I hope so.

>>40
In all fairness, you're talking about a civl debate regarding the morality of sex with animals.  Not as emotionally charged as abortion and such perhaps, but... well, if someone ever hopped the fence and started "loving" my dog, the only thing that might prevent me from calling the police is that my enraged desire for revenge would be giving me other, even less legal ideas of how to rectify the situation myself.  I love animals, and would see their suffering and abuse kept to a minimum.  I'm also a "vegan fag" though, so I would see a lot of things changed.

>>41
As long as a devout christian and an actual practicing, er, animal lover don't get on here at the same time, I think this is as bad as it's going to be.

43Report
at 27 Apr 2006: 20:55

>>37
First off all, I'm not a pedophile, nor do I support the lifestyle.  I'm not even into bestality.  Let the record show that >>37 veered the conversation this way first.

At what point does anyone really "consent" to anything and can be said to not be merely reacting to stimuli?  Does "will", "choice" even exist, or is it all reaction to stimuli?

Anyway, having sex with animals before puberty is wrong.  Enticing prepubescent animals to sexual acts is wrong too, as is jerking them off before puberty too.  Animal pedophilia is just as wrong as human pedophilia.  Once an animal is aware of their sexuality, maybe 6 mo./1 year after puberty, they are capable of sexual consent.

44Report
at 27 Apr 2006: 20:57

>>42
What if your dog enjoyed it?  But it is understandable if you don't trust a stranger with your dog.  I wouldn't in the same situation.

It's sad to think of sheer number of people who always equate sexual acts with force and/or nonconsent.

45Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 27 Apr 2006: 21:20

>>44

What if my... are you serious?  You can't be serious?  Ha ha, you almost had me!  I was about to get all ticked off and everything.  Well played. ^_^

46Report (sage)
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 27 Apr 2006: 21:39

>>43

Okay, serriously, silence is not consent, and philosophy doesn't define consent.  Common sense, or if that fails, the law defines consent.

And... animal pedophiles?  Uh... whatever.  Since an animal never reaches a level of intelligence that we recognize as consent, wouldn't any action done to that animal be, you know, without consent?  It's not just saying "no", it's the part where they don't say "yes"... which they can't, because they aren't sophisitacted enough to communicate.  I love dogs and cats and the like, but they aren't people, no matter how much I wish they were sometimes.

As for >>37, well, the point I imagine, is that an animal can no more consent than a child, because they have no more understanding of sex than a child... which is both right and wrong.  I'd say they have less understanding, but they also don't have a concept of right and wrong, so they don't care.

I do however, and in Canada at least, enough other people also agree that I don't need to worry about these kinds of things become legal any time soon.  Ah, it's nice to be with the majority for a change. ^_^

47Report
at 27 Apr 2006: 22:57

>>46
You are wrong.  While animals may not communicate sophisticatively, they do communicate.  If a person is doing something to them that they do not want, they will growl, try to run, hiss, bite, claw, etc.  Animals whine and make sounds when they are unhappy or in pain.  It's not that hard to figure out.

Animals have plenty of understanding of sex.  They seem to do it just fine.  Sex is really very simple, i.e., can I put <this body part> in <this place>.  It's not rocket science.  They know where everything goes and what to do with it.  Furthermore, in so far as communication and consent are concerned with animals, observe when a horny male dog approaches a female not in heat or not in the mood.  You will witness some very clear communication take place. 

Consent is consent, no matter why the party doing the consenting so does consent.  If the person says "yes" or allows the action because he/she doesn't care, it's still consent.

Certainly early in our species history, we did not have the intricate understanding of sex that we do at this point in time.  Did our ancestors commit immorality by following their instincts and not worrying about what it was that they were doing?  Even now, many people consent to eating food without full knowledge of the food they eat.

Another example, someone gives you $10, you don't say anything (and you don't know all the scientific details that go into money, economy, the paper it's printed on, etc.), but you take the money.  And then you use and enjoy the money.  You've consented to accepting the money.  Spare me technical legal details, from a practical point (which is all that really matters since this is the real world and not an abstract idealistic one) you have consented.

Consent does not have to be verbal.  Various legal actions require verbal or even written consent in some cases, but sex is not one of those cases.

48Report
at 27 Apr 2006: 23:01

Having sex outside the species is......

LOL, only furries could require an argument on this, IT'S WRONG, horrendously wrong.

Sex + animals = WRONG

49Report
at 27 Apr 2006: 23:10

we are animals, cmon...
and anyone with low enough reasoning to honestly think animals are incapable of consent, or of showing disaproval, are those who most assuradly should not be allowed around animals.
lesee this has reached 49 posts it should get frozen any time now.

50Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 27 Apr 2006: 23:37

>>47
>>49

Again, I'm endlessly thrilled that such a mindset is so fabulously rare in Canada, because it literally scares the crap out of me that people project their desires and emotions into animals like this.  14 years... ah, how I envy the british.  A lifetime in proson seems like such a powerful deterent, crushing the argument entirely by simply forcing people to behave.

>>48
No no no no!  Not all furries!  Some of us are quite harmless and sane!  Furries deal with anthromorphs, with an emphasis on Anthro; ie, the HUMAN part of us, which thinks, talks, uses electricity and goes to work, etc; practically people in terms of psychology!  Furries don't practice bestiality anymore than any other demographic. O.O

51Report
at 27 Apr 2006: 23:39

>>48


How is having sex with a horse wrong?

I mean, I don't do it, but I don't see what's wrong with it. They're more than big enough to accomodate a human penis(either anally or vaginally), same goes for most breeds of dog.

If you have sex with something that can't accomodate the penis, however, it's wrong.

52Report
at 28 Apr 2006: 01:28


>>51

here we go again, and people think we're zoophiles thanks to such talkin'

53Report
at 28 Apr 2006: 01:58

>>50
You don't know the actual mindset of everyone Canada.  There's probably more zoophilies in Canada than you think.

I just wish I could convince you that zoophilies, when they choose to bring sexual pleasure to their pets, that this should not be equated with harming them.  It is much crueler to take a pet and to completely deny it any sort of sexuality whatsoever, that it is to indulge it in it's God-given right and instinct.

That's all I have to say.  I won't respond anymore.

54Report
at 28 Apr 2006: 02:12

>>47
Like someone else said: simply because an animal doen't "say" no doesn't mean that it "says" yes. What if an animal is surprised or overpowered and cannot fully communicate its desire to not engage in the sexual act?

55Report
at 28 Apr 2006: 02:35

>>54
Dammit.  I have to say JUST ONE MORE THING and I'll stop.

The same can be said of a husband with respect to his wife. 

Overpowered?  I believe the above posts covered that.  If overpowered, your animal will be showing obvious signs of distress.  (That is, if you are even able to overpower him or her.  You'd probably have to restrain him/her using chains or something and then it's obvious we aren't talking about consent.  THAT is wrong.)

Surprised?  The normal reaction of a dog or most other domestic animals when surprised is to run.  If you approach them and they run under the couch, ears folded, well hell, what more clear communication do you want?  No means no, and you should stop.  Conversely, if you are a female and you put your behind in the air and then the dog proceeds to mount you, again, that's some pretty clear communication to me. 

In developing a relationship with an animal, you should learn things like that, how it acts when it's doing something it doesn't like, when it's hungry, etc.  If you are not sensitive to your pet's feelings and signals you have no business being a pet owner, let alone trying anything sexual with it.

I've noticed within the zoophile communites there is a distaste for others who seem to want to just use animals for sex.  This is frowned upon by the majority of them, it seems.  They always say you should love and cherish your pet, if you choose to do this with them.

Finally, if animals are really as unintelligent and instinct bound as is said in this post, then we can count on them not to think "oh shit, i'm scared, what do I do" when they are under stress, but rather have those wonderful instincts to kick in.  You're forgetting that dogs and cats and other domestic animals 1) run fast and 2) have natural instinct-driven weapons at their disposal.

But it shouldn't get to that.  If you have to overpower or surprise an animal for any reason, unless it's trying to hurt you or an innocent person, you are wrong.

Ok, that's it.  That's really it.  I swear.  I'm unplugging my dsl modem now.  Goodnight.

56Report
at 28 Apr 2006: 02:46

>>55
Okay seriously, it's almost as if the reasoning is that me, and others who think sex with animals is wrong are the bad guys here.  Like the /b/ guy said... why is THAT even being argued?  It's clearly wrong.  Animals can't reason, so they can't consent.  That doesn't mean they don't get scared, horny, angry, whatever... but they don't feel the same complicated emotions people do... except maybe chimps and such.  If you think your dog is "in love with you", that's your projected perception.  Seriously, talk to psychologists or something, they'll tell you there is a big jump between animal thoughts and human thoughts.

...

Crimney.

57Report
at 28 Apr 2006: 03:19

>>50  you just failed by presuming i was promoting bestiality,
i was discusing the ability to consent and wheather we are or are not animals -
>>52 a extreemly large amount of furries **are** zoophiles.
70%  +/- by various poling - you can do the research yourself if so inclined. 

58Report
at 28 Apr 2006: 07:29

It is bashing now because everyone wants to make the "right" point. Considering there is no right point no one will win. They just want that good feeling of assurance they were right all along.

 Come on who has'nt seen some animal at the zoo or on a farm start to get horny. They just do it right there. Gets the curiosity flowing huh? That creature has a biological program in their head and nothing will stop it from working. What we try so hard to AVOID is all around us. We'll sell it to ourselves, make superfical and fanatise. Yet we avoid it because our children have to be innocent. Usally that experience at the zoo f***s them up anyways so what does it matter. This so called "image" an IDEA of what we "should" be not what we actually ARE is what us modern humans actually live upon.

Usally this experience will make the child wonder, this wonder will become curiosity and eventually experience. Because this child will want to attempt what he/she just saw. Touch it, smell it, see it, feel it. To know that it is real and not of this world. Why do you think we have the phrase "hung like a horse?" Obviously a large majority of people must of observed this same experience. What is so wrong? scary? OBSCENE about touching animal gentialia.. a little bit of curiosity never hurt. Considering curiosity is a natural brain function, we can't even think that anymore?! @!*#&@!*


 Here is something of fact. There are thousands of millions of cells in our body that control what WE do. We our a slave to our own bodies. These cells are struck with chemicals the hypothalimus makes depending on what your exactly doing at the moment. They set your body to do things such as that "uncontrollable urge" for sex. When these cells are satisfied only then can we make decisions for ourselves. It is this moment which makes everyone different.

 So what does this have to do with anything. Well it has to do with the thing why bestiality is around. It is a cell dominance factor. Because this happens on all levels, not just our celluar level. When a smaller cell can latch on to a larger cell and reproduce that smaller cell will splurge itself, producing alot more chemicals then normal.
 
 Now since we are just larger celluar structures. I don't see whats so hard to understand about this. Why some people can't just accept the rule of miosis. What does consent have to do with this anyways? If a carrier cell does not want to be screwed  around with. It will tell you if you try. Alot of carrier cells become droned to sex anyways. Don't think we are the only ones who think of sex too much.

 Because as long as miosis, sexual reproduction, is programed in  our biological code. It will do as it pleases and there is not a     damn thing you can do about it. Nothing at all.

 What is sick and wrong is considered okay. That is backwards celluar reproduction. Inbreeding. People collecting semen from males and implanting it into a related female of the same animal. This completely denies miosis and it loopholes the creature into all the negative genes. Now if that isn't cruel then your the real sicko. That is right.. all these dog breeds, horse breeds. Inbred. What beauty is to us on eye level is just down right horror on the celluar level.

 Yet these people can get away with it no problem. Why? Because people want more bulldogs and boxers. Geez, how nice is that to screw around with nature and get away with it. It doesn't matter though because eventually the "purity" will come back to haunt them.

So.. what is wrong with bestiality? It is non-harmful. No person is trying to intentionaly "hurt" an animal. Actually most animals seem to like it. Because it just happens to be we are all programed for miosis. So regardless of species barrier will take a chance and since a DNA count is different no offspring will be present.

Any furry who thinks bestiality( drawn or not ) is a strange an unorthodox method is a hypocrite. I don't need to explain myself on that one because the evidence is in artwork.

59Report
DragonFlame at 28 Apr 2006: 07:34

I really don’t think this has become uncivil. In fact a lot of people have good arguments from both sides. Unfortunately everyone is absolutely set on their beliefs and will not be convinced otherwise.
Those people that are becoming uncivil remember this. There is a difference between imagining / fantasising and actually doing. Calling some one a Dog raper because they enjoy looking at scribble on paper is just stupid and ignorant.

I agree lets keep this discussion on track. It is partly my fault it has gone off.
To answer your question I think a lot of people consider illustrated bestiality to be Furry art. It is hard to define the line where it starts and where it ends. Example a picture of a Horse having sex with a woman is considered Bestiality but lets say Nala from the Lion King is having sex, a lot of people would consider this to be furry even tho Nala is in fact an animal not a half human half animal creature. Where do you place the line?

Taken from Wikipedia.
Furry fandom is a subculture that originated from the science fiction and fantasy fandoms. Members of the furry fandom, known as furry fans or simply furries, particularly enjoy media that involves anthropomorphic animals: that is, fictional animals with human traits (such as walking on two feet, talking, wearing clothes, living in houses, etc.). Such media includes popular animated cartoons, comic books, and stories and novels.

Since the mid-1980s, furry fans have referred to any such anthropomorphic animal character as a furry. Other terms for these types of characters are funny animal and talking animal, or kemono in Japan. Furry characters are usually portrayed as humanoids wearing clothing, talking, and acting like humans rather than animals. However, some fans consider any talking animal, humanoid or not, to be a furry. Some fans also believe that non-animalistic fantasy creatures such as dragons, orcs, and elves should also be considered furry. [citation needed]

The furry fandom, as an umbrella subculture for various interests, has grown rapidly with the advent of the Internet. Content created by furry fans (visual art, stories, music, games, etc.) on the World Wide Web covers a wide range of interests including fantasies, philosophy, recipes, sex, politics, religion, and even personal lifestyle and identity.

According to the above explanation Mr Ed would be considered Furry.
Obviously Furry is very vague and can be interpreted many different ways.
No one person or even a group of people can decide what Furry actually is. There are too many variations of furry and too many differences of opinion. There is no right or wrong. Each person must decide for them selves if they consider them selves as furries and what they consider Furry art.

60Report
Juberu at 28 Apr 2006: 13:31

>>35
Lack of dissent does not equal consent.
>>58
As I said earlier, sex is a desire, not a need. There are millions of people who live entire lives without sex. You have also neglected to explain how, if sex is a necessity, why we would be programmed to have it with other species. If we're hardcoded to reproduce, how would that work with species we can't get pregnant?

61Report (sage)
at 28 Apr 2006: 15:47

>>59
"...everyone is absolutely set on their beliefs and will not be convinced otherwise..."

It would be a better debate if the 'it's just wrong' folks had more reasoning behind their point than '*Everyone* knows...' or the very flimsy consent angle to go on (last I checked, people don't need their animals consent for *anything* else, so why is sex so 'special'?)

It becomes much easier when the 'it's wrong...' folks can just admit their operating from an indoctrinated cultural-norm, gut-reaction basis that has absolutely no intrinsic justification.  They've been conditioned to see it the way they do, ergo they see it that way, despite reality.  It's understandable that they get frustrated when they meet people who didn't take to the cultural coding so well, because those people ask them to think and reason *why* something is wrong, rather than just take it for granted. 

That's the inherent flaw of 'moral codes' as opposed to 'ethical thought' - Blind acceptance of a code leaves one floundering when they're required to explain or debate their position, and most codes don't stand up to the test of reason. 

The fact remains that sex with an non-human animal has no reasonable basis for being taboo, especially in a culture who otherwise treats all non-human animals as 'things', and even as essentially valueless things more often than not - The average car stereo being worth more than a dog or cat, 'sentimental value' aside. 

Unfortunately, reasonable or not, sex with an animal *is* taboo in our society, and will thus be seen as 'wrong' by the majority of folks whether they can adequately defend that point of view or not.  That is also a fact. 

>>60
"Lack of dissent does not equal consent."

Haha...  Tell that to the government, genius. :)

See how well they take that the next time they pass a useless bit of legislation just because nobody bothered to lobby against it.  "If you had a problem with it, you should have contacted your representative before the second reading..." 

Reality bites, eh? 

62Report
at 28 Apr 2006: 16:41

I won't speak for or against the actual practice of bestiality, but it's not wrong to be turned on by thoughts and images of bestiality any more or less than other "hard" fetishes. No one can control what arouses/squicks them, one just feels it one way or the other. People will not deny themselves thoughts and images of what arouses them, nor can they seriously be expected to when asked.

Such fetishes used to be considerd very personal and secret, to be shared only very discreetly, if at all. Not anymore with the internet, all can be shared freely and anonymously if one chooses to... or not. The choice to share isn't always made wisely.

One benefit of learning that others entertain the same fetish as yourself is an understanding of it as a not-so-unusual psychological sexual response. Another is, nowadays, you can find arousing examples of it so easily, right in the comfort of your own home.

63Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 28 Apr 2006: 20:33

>>62
I totally agree.  I have no problem with the perverse thoughts that tumble around in our heads.  If art depicting something like bestiality, rape, torture, etc, makes you happy, than by all means, draw and look at it all you like... but I do have a problem when people act on these fantasies.  Rape between fictional characters on a page is art, someone going out and raping someone is a monster with no control.  Nobody argues about that one though, and archaic examples are uniformly described as barbaric.

>>59
Ha ha, dude, not your fault.  You pointed out some facts, and information is never wrong in and of itself.  You can't control how the opinionated masses react.  I would caution, though, on citing Wiki as a source.  One day when I'd had a bit too much to drink, I set about "editing" a few pages myself. ;)

>>53
>>55
>>58
Why are the "Just Wrong" folks on the defensive on this matter?  I was under the assumption that those who WANT to have sex with animals are annoyed because of the legal and cultural stigmas that go with it.  If you're looking for a logical explanation, I have to admit that I never thought it out enough to come up with one.  It seems wrong to me for the same reasons that other cardinal no-nos seem wrong.  I can't understand how anyone can seriously argue that an animal is capable of reasoning what is happening to them, and making a decision based on that reason in order to give consent.  This is a projection of one's own desires!  I could argue that cows are happy to be slaughtered because they walk oh-so-willingly toward it, but that doesn't make any sense.  I'll concede that there are worse things in the world to deal with, but having sex with animals is entirely selfish.  If you do this, YOU are dictating the desires of the animal.  It isn't communicating with you on a level above an infant, and taking advantage of their trust is horrific to me. 

What makes it so intolerable that I feel the need to argue about it, is that these selfish individuals have the gall to claim that what they're doing is somehow not only acceptable, but noble!  They act out of a need to "stick it in" and such, and they pretend that they're some sort of champion for personal freedoms... as if satisfying their lusts on an animal is an act of enlightenment.  My dog trusted me enough to let me take her to the vet and have her belly cut open so she could be fixed.  I did this as an act of responsibility because I understand things about my dog that she doesn't understand about herself.  She didn't appreciate the pain, but it was for her own good.  Similarly, she didn't like taking her deworming medicine, but there was a spell of it going around, so I made her take it anyway.  I pulled some quills from her side, and held her for her shots... she didn't like any of this, but she let me do it because she's a good dog and, I would hope, cares about me, or at least considers the good moments to outweigh the bad.

Now, you can have another owner who looks after their dog in a way more agreeable to the dog, but they are doing the dg no favors.  Feeding the dog human food in excess will lead to health problems for the animal... but the dog loves it.  Many dogs don't like being bathed or clipped, but they will be itchy all the time, not to mention the risks of becoming infested with parasites, but the dog will be happy that the owner didn't put them through the hated bathing and clipping.  Hell, you could feed a dog chocolate and they'd love you for it... before they died.

My point is that an animal's reaction to any sort of feeling is defined by what they like right now.  They have a few instincts to protect them from natural phenomena, but they don't have any way of coping with what people do to them.  You can do something, in other words, that an animal will not only "consent" to, but will adore, even if in the same action you are killing the animal.  It's called taking advantage of trust, and it's invariably reprehensible... doubly creepy when done in the name of “love”.

The kind of love involved in bestiality only goes one way.  Sure, the dog (or whatever animal) may love their owner, but they do NOT experience the sentimental romantic love that we humans have invented (with a few possible exceptions, but they rarely seem to be involved).  Also, bestiality can well be practiced without hurting the animal, whether it’s too big, or because the person involved is gentle... regardless, it’s the human taking advantage of the animal for the purposes of sexual gratification.  The animal doesn’t know better, the person either knows better, or is in an acute state of denial... or crazy; whatever the case, the animal is being used for selfish ends.

Now, as a vegan, I’ve grown very frustrated with wide scale animal treatment over the years.  Animals are killed and tortured, rarely with any sort of point in mind.  It’s disgusting, and we should know better, and while I don’t consider bestiality to be as bad as most of that, I do consider it to be bad; very bad.  That’s why I’m satisfied to a degree at the moment.  Right now, it is highly frowned upon at best, and brutally punished at worst, and to be quite frank, as long as the best arguments presented are: “they can so consent” and “it’s only natural to give into your urges”, there is no way this is going to change.

Just think about those arguments for a moment.  They’re ludicrous!  If giving into your primal nature was an excuse, theft, rape, and murder would all be perfectly acceptable, among other things.  As a human, it is your responsibility to control your urges lest they hurt someone.  Those who fail to do this are criminally deviant, and thankfully, there are sturdy, guarded facilities for them.  The other... consent... just, no.  Animals lack the capacity to reason, and their actions are instinct.  They don’t consent.  They aren’t consenting to be humiliated, they aren’t consenting to being slaughtered, and they aren’t consenting to rape either.  Sheesh, they can’t even understand consent!

...

Well, for what it’s worth, that’s my stance.  Again, if anyone ever hopped the fence and had sex with my dog, I can’t think of a word to properly illustrate the extent of my rage.  I’m not trying to be an insufferable conservative shit here... I’m trying to be open minded about this, but I haven’t heard anything that sounds like an even remotely feasible explanation on the matter, and until I hear such an explanation I’ll continue to be one of those in the crowd who, if on a jury, invariable vote guilty for the strictest punishments on the matter, and fully support any political figure who objects to such actions.  Why?  Because I love animals, and they have quite enough to suffer through without playing the part of someone’s sex toy.

>>61
Oh, just to point out that whether or not it happens has nothing to do with the morality involved.  The government does things things without consent, and that's wrong... though in that case, they often get voted back in anyway, so majority consent is an arguable given. :/ booo...

64Report
Janglur at 28 Apr 2006: 22:24

The whole thing can be answered so simply.

"Does it hurt anyone, physically or emotionally?"

We'll use a horse for example.  Let's say someone masturbates this horse.  The horse is not being physically harmed.  The horse does not display a lack of consent by shying, kicking, or avoiding contact, which a huge powerful creature like a horse can easily do.
(In fact, many horses will 'request' this by backing up to their owners.  Many people who work with artificial insemination encounter this behavior.)
The horse, having failed to display a lack of consent, or displayed a willing desire, does not experience emotional damage from being taken advantage of.
Finally, being unintelligent by human standards and lacking our social heirarchy and ethics, the horse is not ostracized or outcast by his/her peers for contact with humans.

The answer is ultimately 'No', provided all three criteria are filled.
To argue otherwise would be to argue that my having taken my fiance out last month to an expensive dinner, followed by a romantic evening, is rape.  Solely on the ground that she did not refuse the actions.

Animals do talk, and communicate.  Humans are just so damned narrow-minded that they beleive that if they can't understand it, it's not a language.  Humans even treat other humans the same way.
In a certain era of germany, rape and murder of a certain religion was fully permissible, solely because they were considered sub-human.  We are doing the same thing by assuming Dolphins aren't intelligent, despite their clear ability to display emotion and communicate in a manner even more complex than us.  We are doing the same thing by assuming gorilla's are just dumb animals to be killed and ashtrays made of their hands, just because they speak with grunts and noises and physical displays, not proper English.

So in closing, i'm sick of this conversation.  The people who are wrong, know they are.  Animals can display consent.  The rest speaks for itself.
Ignorance, the willing refusal of indisputeable facts, is a sin.

65Report
Juberu at 28 Apr 2006: 23:17

What scares me about Zoos is that you guys always seem to have a complex array of rationalizations and circular arguments to prevent any valid point made by the opposition from ever penetrating to your remarkably impregnable skull.

And yes, I did just call you close-minded in a manner that would make even Nathaniel Hawthorne declare it verbose.

66Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 01:00

>>65
I would actually be more worried if they argued more convincingly.  As it is, they spend so much time condemning their condemners that they haven’t a hope in this lifetime of instigating even a slight change in the mind of the clear majority.  The laws that at least lessen the impact them make will remain in place.

>>64
I seriously don’t know how I can phrase this in a better way.  Animals can’t consent.  If you think they’re consenting, that’s you consenting for them.  Any and every student and professor of law and psychology has confirmed as much for me in the past, and no matter how belligerent you become in your wording, that won’t change.  Bestiality, no matter how “tender”, is a projection of one’s fantasy onto reality.

67Report
Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 01:51

>>66
Then an animal cannot say it is hungry, by that same regard.
Or say it is sad, or lonely.
Or say that it is in pain.

This is what you have said.  If you disagree, then explain the difference between an animal humping your leg not equating to desire for sex, compared to a dog begging for food IS expressing desire for food.

68Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 02:27

>>67
But that's just it; they're animals (or if you're going to get picky about language, non-humans).  They aren't capable of rational thought, so they can't weigh their actions in a reasonalbe manner, so they can't consent.  It's not that they don't react.  They don't consent.  Absolutely no law that I'm aware of considers an animal capable of consent, and absolutely nothing I've seen in your post or anyone else's has indicated that animals are capable of RATIONAL thought, which is required for LEGAL consent.

But sure, I'll take a crack at it.  The dog humping your leg... okay, yes, the dog is horny, and it's trying to hump a human because it doesn't know better.  Luckily, us human are capable of logical thought, and find the dog another dog so that nature can take its course, or, if that isn't the goal in mind, gently discourages the dog so that it doesn't get in trouble sometime.

Dogs also beg for food if you're eating chocolate by the way.  You wouldn't give a dog chocolate just because it begged for it would you... because that would make you a rather terrible person, or at best, ignorant.

69Report
at 29 Apr 2006: 03:17

>>63
Sex between humans is nothing more than two individuals mutually exploiting one another for pleasure.  When exploitation is mututal between parties, it's no longer exploitation, but an exchange.  If one was to say sex should only be performed for procreative purposes (the logical conclusion as why humans have sex) and only when a couple can actually procreate (i.e., when the woman is fertile), only the most inhuman would say that it should be that way. 

And, if animals are such slave to instinct (as they probably are), they will only allow things done to them and do things that they like.  Masochism is a phenomenon unique to animals in unnatural states such as overrcrowding, etc.  Under natural conditions (humans included) no animal will choose to harm itself, or do nothing while something harms it.

>>63
You are right, in the way you put it, but you completely assume the animal gets no pleasure from it.  You are equating genital stimualtion with cutting open of one's belly, which is completely off base.  Touch someone's genitals and ask them how they thought it felt.  They will NOT react the same way as if you were to cut their stomach open. Animals probably like genital stimulation just as much as you, except they, because they don't have the curse of human reason and morality placed upon them, can enjoy such stimulation in and of itself. 

You do NOT need to possess rational thought to consent or not consent.  To show that you don't consent, you must resist the action in some way, either verbally, physically, whatever.  Your instincts should be given the same rights to make you consent/not consent as your reason.  Instinct is usually more valuable to rely on than reason in certain instances.

70Report
at 29 Apr 2006: 03:18

By the way, this has turned into quite an interesting conversation on the nature of consent.  I am appreciative of all parties who have taken the time to respond and contribute, despite that the subject matter and various points of view may be disturbing.  Thank you.

71Report
DragonFlame at 29 Apr 2006: 03:31

It is unfortunate that there are people from both sides still arguing about the moral justification of Bestiality. My god this was supposed to be about if Illustrated Bestiality is alright on Fchan. It’s a pity that so many people out there are so un-acceptant about other people’s feelings and beliefs and claim that they are wrong with stupid explanations such as “Its Just Wrong” and “Animals can consent”.
These people do not look at the situation from both sided and have not read what has been written on this board.
Quit with the Bestiality is Moral / Immoral crap and get back on to the topic which is Illustrated Bestiality is it alright on Fchan.

72Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 03:43

>>69

I'm sorry to play the child molestation card here, but by this rational, it is perfectly fine to engage a child in sexual activities as long as they enjoy the sensation and aren't being harmed.  It isn't simply a matter of pleasurable stimulation, it's a matter of the intent behind it.  For animals, it's basic, primal, and innocent.  For humans, it's exploitive.

The kind of consent you are describing can be attributed to the cattle that go quietly to their slaughter every day.  Just because they aren't stampeding out of there doesn't mean they want to die.  The fact that they've been bred to be docile and compliant to humans doesn't mean they're asking for it.  Animals are constantly "willingly" doing things that are extremely terrible for them; from walking into traffic, to begging for food that is poisonous to them.  Animals aren't capable of making a rational judgment call, therefore, their autonomy isn't sophisticated enough to allow something like the KIND of consent that I'm talking about.

Consent: An agreement to do something or to allow something to happen, made with complete knowledge of all relevant facts, such as the risks involved or any available alternatives.

An animal is not capable of that, therefore, any actions done to them are done without consent.  Sex without consent is a form of rape.  Non-violent rape, but rape none the less.  If you brainwashed a human into a state of utter compliance with everything, you’ve robbed them of their reason, thus no matter what they say, it isn’t consent, and again, it is rape.  Reason is the key here.  Not reacting to stimulus or instinct.  Reason.  Reason is a requirement for consent.  Informed consent is the ONLY consent that matters in formal and legal terms, and that is the only consent that can change it from a form of rape to an act of acquiescence.

Reason!  For the love of all that is holy, if anyone responds to this, keep in mind that I’m talking about the kind of consent that requires Reason!  Rational Thought!  Reasonable, Rational, Logical Process Thought!  I’m starting to feel like a record on skip here!  Of course my arguments are blown out of the water when you Ignore What I Say!

73Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 03:51

>>71

Oh that.  That's already been resolved.
Bestiality, the reality = not okay.
Bestiality, the artwork = /ah/.

It isn't strange for threads to branch out to other ideas.  The good Sage herself said as much a ways below here in that thread by Echoen. ^_^

74Report
at 29 Apr 2006: 04:52

>>73, see >>43.  Animal pedophilia is wrong, your child molestation card attack is parried.

Reason is a tool, not a god.  It can help us, but is not an end to itself.  Make no idol of it.

There is nothing wrong with being exploitative unless you are trying to kill or harm (inflict physical injury)  someone.  It is completely necessary to be at least slightly exploitative to survive.  Nature is exploited, your friends are exploited, *something* will be exploited.  Opportunism is the method by which we live.  Civilization has only switched it from violent to non-violent things we exploit and opportune for.

Consent: An agreement to do something or to *ALLOW SOMETHING TO HAPPEN*, made with complete knowledge of all relevant facts, such as the risks involved or any available alternatives.

Relevant facts can be different depending upon the individual.  What may be relevant to me may not be to a dog or cat, for example.  I'd like an enumeration of things that you think should be relevant for informed sexual consent.  I'm sure the dog or cat or animal in question knows what is relevant to him or her.  Most animals have enough reasoning ability to learn and know when things are going to hurt them.  If you hurt your dog trying to do something sexual with him, he will not want to do anything with you anymore.  If then you approach him sexually, most likely he will run and hide.  If you continue to impose yourself on him after that, you are being abusive and wrong.

Available alternatives.  Yes, the dog may wish to hump your leg instead.  I'm sure, bringing in a female dog, that the male dog would demonstrate good knowledge of his alternatives.

Many people give consent to many different actions without a complete knowledge of all relevant facts.  At some point you have to let "yes" and obvious indications thereof mean "yes" and not worry about why one says "yes."  Especially for something as non-harmful as gential stimulation.

75Report (sage)
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 05:15

>>74

...

Okay, whatever, I give up.  These arguments have absolutely never held up in a western court, and probably haven't held up in any others, but I'm tired of trying to explain my position only to have someone spin four or five words of my post against me.  I'm done trying to actually figure out what goes on in the heads of such people.  It's easier to classify you as self indulgent, immoral monsters, and that seems to work well, so I'll go back to that.  Well played my friend, I never had a prayer of convincing you of anything did I?

76Report(capped)
Xenofur at 29 Apr 2006: 06:37

changed the title in order to prevent regression.

77Report
at 29 Apr 2006: 07:18

small cages = good
medical testing = good
killing spike to the head = good
any of thousands of atrocities = good
love an animal = bad
an animal using you for sex = bad
wtf is wrong with huimans?

78Report
at 29 Apr 2006: 08:00

>>77

Who said that small cages, medical testing, and killing was good?  Did anyone in this thread actually say that? Some of them are saying that it's all wrong, and some are saying that everything but sex is wrong.

My revision of your list.
small cages = bad
medical testing = bad
killing spike to the head = bad
any of thousands of atrocities = bad
befriend an animal = good
using an animal for sex = bad

79Report
at 29 Apr 2006: 10:04

>>75
don't feel too bad. you tried. if it makes you feel any better, I was kinda sitting on the fence about it before, and I think you made more sense then th other guys.

80Report
at 29 Apr 2006: 10:12

78 indeed - i was referncing the way things are -  my bad should have said overall this is an impression given by culture.
sometimes things are not as plain as they seem. 

81Report
Juberu at 29 Apr 2006: 12:18

>>75
Remember what I said earlier; in their mind, they've already defeated any arguement one brings up.

Interesting fact: hypnotized people, once made to do something silly, will come up with all sorts of Post Facto rationalizations for what they did. Make me wonder if the same applies here.

82Report
at 29 Apr 2006: 12:26

>>81 the exact same argument can be happily applied in the same manner towards what you are proposing. you are convinced therfore you must be right and will refuse to ponder that there could be any thing different, otherwise you could be wrong, cant have that.
ergo you are right and they are wrong and all logic shall be lost.

83Report
Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 12:39

The simple fact is, noone has presented a counter-point yet, because noone has attempted to define consent.
Why is rational thought required for consent?  Consent is the basis of understanding of one's own desired, and expressing acceptance for it's result.
Most animals are capable of this.
Noone has yet proven that an animal is incapable of making a choice.  Only that they are not as intelligent as humans, which is irrelevant.
So i'll sit back and wait, longer, for someone to prove that animals cannot make a choice.

It should also be noted I live in a state that HAS ruled that Bestiality, while ethically questionable and obscene, does not harm the animal physically or psychologically, and that it poses minimal risk to humans.  In other words:
It's not just 'not illegal', it's fully legal.  It's gone to court and come back clean.
So you might want to be less selective about where you look at your law that you use to weakly support your case.  The law does not argue the morality of the issue anyway.
Morality is defined as a sense of right and wrong un-affected by religion, creed, upbringing, or culture.  Based on the end effects of the actions on others.  This, or ethics (see below) is what lawmakers generally consider when making laws.  And here, they have decided that it is morally acceptible, because noone is hurt in any manner.

That is what we're arguing here.  The morality.  Not the ethics or your religious beleifs:  Ethics are a pre-disposed teaching specific to religions, societies and cultures, and upbringing.  They are not legal fodder because they differ between cultures.
For example:  It is ethically wrong, by most western culture, to radically modify one's body.  For example, lip disks.  While it poses no considerable health risk, it is 'wrong' because it is not accepted by western culture traditionally.  But in many parts of the world, NOT having one is ethically wrong.
You cannot argue Ethics to justify legal decisions.  Only morals.

And noone has yet argued any point of morality besides 'inability to consent', in which consent is falsely defined as 'Verbal communication by human langauges' or 'Complex rational thought'.  Consent only requires the subject to be intelligent enough to weigh the decisions and reply yes for consent, or no for dissent.  Which animals can do.
Before you aruge this, go to your pet (if you have one) and call it to you.  It will choose to come or not.  You have witnessed rational thought.
Don't make the ignorant mistake of beleiving that rational thought must be complex.  If it was, most of your own decisions would not be rational.  "Am I hungry?  Yes?  Let's eat."  This is the precise same rationing animals perform when hungry.


So until someone can provide a valid, correctly defined argument, the issue remains in my stance that Bestiality is morally acceptible.  Just like scat, watersports, heavy bondage, and other ethically 'wrong' sexual acts that aren't illegal, because there is no moral consequence.

84Report
at 29 Apr 2006: 12:48

>>75
Lol... Self-indulgence rules.  You can only be one person in this lifetime, so you might as well enjoy it.  Morality, except where it tells entity A not to injure entity B, is generally useless.

>>78
I think >>77's point was that slaughter/injury to an animal is considered more legally acceptable than having sex with it.  You won't get years in jail for physically abusing an animal, you will if you have sex with it under some localites.  The law allows many things to be done to animals that it says are wrong to be done on humans.  Law and morality don't always go hand in hand.

>>81
So, is a horny person seeking sexual contact from another person in some form of "hypnosis" and therefore unable to give true consent?  Take the words "horny"/"sexual contact" and insert any other word that represents an instinct telling you to do something, such as "hungry"/"food", "scared"/"comfort", etc.

85Report
at 29 Apr 2006: 13:14

what follows fits well, in recent times blacks were considerd to be property and or animals in many ways and one could happily get themselves killed for "laying" with such .
 in that point and time it was considerd moral to look down on blacks, now it is considerably different.
dont automaticly assume that this is different. 

86Report
at 29 Apr 2006: 14:10

Lol, don't have sex with things that get fleas and eat there own poo.  It's not difficult.  They are inferior lifeforms that aren't even aware of there own existence.  Resorting to  having sex with them is the ultimate failure of life, when you're not good enough for you're own species and you have to go for one that you don't need to impress.

87Report
Juberu at 29 Apr 2006: 14:27

I hate to sound wanky, but continuing debate, on my part, is rather futile. I can't see either side budging.

>>82
I'm postulating that Zoos pre-form their defenses to just about any point made against them, instead of actually thinking about it.

>>83
>The simple fact is, noone has presented a counter-point yet, because noone has attempted to define consent.<
Ever hear of 'selective ignorance'? There are several point in the thread on exactly that.

>>84
Wow, straw manning like crazy. For some reason, I'm not surprised. That analogy doesn't even make sense. As I postulated earlier in the thread, desires do not equal needs. For some reason, I've never seen anyzoo explain why, if sexual desire is hardcoded into humans, why it would involve going outside the species.

>>85
And you're showing what to indicate that it's the same?  Somethings are permanently considered wrong.

88Report
at 29 Apr 2006: 14:52

didn't Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ post definitions of consent in like great detail? didn't seem very complicated to me. has any court ever ruled that an animal can consent, or did they just rule that bestiality os gross but not criminal, cause those are two different things.

89Report
at 29 Apr 2006: 14:54

>>87 its "your" belief that some things are permenantly considerd wrong - im sure there were plenty of people who thought blacks would always be property and that it was their god given right to kill them if they rebeled.
*buzzer sound* try again.

you have just as fully locked yourself into what you are postulating as any others have into their defences etc.

90Report
at 29 Apr 2006: 14:59

Animals don't have any concept of 'being used for sex'. Most animals have sex because of procreation, while there are a few species which use sex for other purposes, the majority of sex in the animal kingdom takes place for the sole purpose of reproduction.

That said, the animals typically 'used' in regards to beastiality are species which use sex for procreation. When a dog humps its owners leg, for example, it's eager to engage in sex for the purpose of reproducing. Because dogs see their owners as part of their 'pack', this behavior is perfectly naturally, especially in scenarios where the family is very small. Were the dog to have the knowledge that the sex with his owner would be in vain, because no pups would ever result, then he would seek out another sexual partner who COULD bear pups. This really applies to any species who has sex mostly for procreative purposes. Also, keep in mind that a male dog will attempt to have sex with any female dog that is in heat. If she allows it, she's receptive. If she disallows it, she is not. Were a female dog to allow a male to have sex with her, even out of heat, he would do so with the 'understanding' that she is receptive, and he would continue to do so until she disallowed it (no longer fertile).

Also, referring back to my statement regarding dogs and their seeing their owners as the pack, it's important to keep in mind that the submissive in a pack tolerates a lot of abuse from the alpha. A submissive wolf, for example, will tolerate an alpha snapping his teeth down around his muzzle, and yet he will continue to wag his tail and try to appease his alpha with licks to the muzzle and face. He tolerates this behavior because of his position in the pack...and because not tolerating it would cause an uproar in the pack, and possibly a fight (where more serious injury could occur).

So to say a dog humps your leg because he wants to engage in sex with you for the sole purpose of sexual gratification is not correct. The dog humps your leg because his biological urge, the driving force in his, and many animals' lives, is to reproduce. He sees you as a member of his pack, and as such, a potential carrier of his offspring...nothing more. He continues to hump your leg because you allow it (or rather, don't disallow it), and so he believes you to be fertile.

In regards to dogs being on 'bottom', this is something that is inexcusable. I've seen people argue that some dogs just 'like to be bottom'. Just because a dog does not growl, bite, or run away, does not mean he (or she) is willingly engaging in sex. Rather, the dog, the one lower in the pack hiearchy, is simply tolerating the behavior of his (or her) 'alpha'. Keep in mind that humping, in the canid world, is also a show of dominance. Essentially, the submissive is tolerating the alpha's display of dominance over him, and nothing more. To imply that the dog enjoys the act is ridiculous, since the dog cannot communicate such, and what communication does exsist during the act is unreliable, since, as mentioned, the submissive tolerates high levels of abuse in a pack setting without complaint, and sometimes even with eagerness or enthusiasm. By the logic being applied here (pro-beastiality), the submissive -enjoys- his muzzle being bitten and torn open by such, because he does not object, and eagerly laps at the alpha's muzzle.

Horses work in much the same way. Stallions engage in sex because they too are driven by the biological need to reproduce. They see you as members of their herd and again, as a potential partner. They continue their behavior because you allow it, whereas their real sexual partners (mares), dictate when there is sex based on their receptiveness. Also, as far as horses being bottom, horses are used to having things inserted into their genitalia...they lack the ability to understand that a penis, for example, is no different than an arm, which they are probably used to having inserted into their anus for medical purposes. To take advantage of the horse being trained to tolerate such things for medical purposes is just disturbing to me.

Now, that all said...note how I have not said whether it is moral or not. In my opinion, having sex with an animal whereupon the animal is made to be bottom, and it is not a female in season (receptive to sex), is rape...nothing more, nothing less, because of the reasons I've listed above.

Having a male animal hump you? Well, it's not rape so much as taking advantage of that animal's biological drive to reproduce, and also taking advantage of their inability to understand no offspring will result from the sexual encounter. Taking advantage of anything is wrong, but it's not rape. Is the animal emotionally scarred? No, but that certainly doesn't make it right since the animal can't consent for the reasons I've stated above. And trying to defend it is just silly. No matter how many different terms one uses, it's still utilizing an animal for your own personal gain, which is no different than, say, medical experiments on animals, or butchering animals for meat/fur. Just because the animal isn't traumatized in any way doesn't mean it's not being taken advantage of in the same way.

91Report
Juberu at 29 Apr 2006: 15:28

>>89
Do you have anything besides wordplay, convenient misinterpretations, and straw manning? Cause I'd really like to see it.

I didn't refer to racism. I'm talking of acts that are considered wrong cross-culturally. And don't try that "It's just what YOU believe" fallacy. Just because someone does or does not believe something does not make it true or untrue.

92Report
Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 16:40

>>90
I'll ignore the relevent points and go to your first and only.  Male dogs frequently mate each other.  As do dolphins, horses, rodents, primates, apes, and elephants.
They do so out of season and incongruously with their instincts.
This indicates they are aware the act will not be procreative in nature.
Dolphins have been proven to be able to distinguish gender, and communicate it to humans, in laboratory tests.  Meaning they have understanding concept of male and female, procreation and recreation.
Dolphins in the wild are less prone to homosexual tendencies than those in captivity, due to boredom.  Furthermore, Dolphins have exhibited behavior in the wild of reduced procreational sex during times of reduces food or increased stress, indicating they are capable of contemplating the negative effects of increased population.  Or, in english, they abstain.

Nice attempt.  But arguing that animals are incapable of consent because they only perceive procreative sex, is false in many species.  Utterly false.
It is furthermore still incongruous with the definition of consent.  It still does not present facts to support that they cannot make a decision.
And most importantly, it presents no facts that harm is brought upon the animal in any way, thus making it immoral.


Please try to stay on topic with me if you're going to debate with me.  We're arguing the morality.  Whether it is harmful to the animal.  Not whether it's natural (which it is.  Google it, hundreds of pictures of inter-species mating) or whether it's ethical (because ethics vary and, intrinsically, are not to be considered in lawmaking.)

We also aren't arguing it's legality.  Because i've won that.  My state says it's morally and legally sound.
(As a mild supporting side note, the state outlaws purchase of alcohol on Sundays or during major holidays where DUI/DWI danger may increase due to higher traffic volumes.  A morally responsible law.)

93Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 16:52

>>79
Actually that does make me feel better. ^_^

>>88
What?  You understood what I posted?  You mean it wasn't just a bunch of gibberish that apparently made me look like a judgmental prick?  Thank you sir!  A pie and ice cream to you an all your friends and family! ^_^

>>90
You are doomed my friend.  They will take a word, or perhaps a sentence, and apply their own definition to what you say.  Take my advice and save yourself the grief while you still have respect for this community.

>>91
Juberu, you are a patient man... what are you doing here still?  And never mind the irony. :p

>>83
Jangular, you baffle me sir.  I copied the definition of legal consent itself and pasted it in my post, yet you still ask for a definition?  I apologize... it is a habit of many to scroll past copious amounts of text, so these things are often missed.

Consent (as in Informed or Legal Consent): An agreement to do something or to allow something to happen, made with complete knowledge of all relevant facts, such as the risks involved or any available alternatives.

The kind of consent referred to in trials concerning, among other things, rape.  In your state, animals are, I would wager, not considered capable of consent... but sex with them is legal.  This tells me that animals amount to so little in your state, that raping them is fully legal.

Reason may be a false idol to you sir, but the laws of western cultures the world over acknowledge its existence, so I’m afraid your definition hold no legal validity... though it would be fun watching someone try such a defense in a court.  “Your honor, I deny your reality and replace it with mine!”

94Report
Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 16:56

Again.  I am arguing the morality, not the legality.  I have already won the legality without a debate being necessary.
It's legal.  Thus, it's legal.  Can't get much more cut and dry than facts.

So please save your insults, they only serve to further weaken your position.

Morality.  Not legality.  Not ethics.
Morality.  Whether it is right or wrong on the basis that it harms someone.
Morality.

95Report
DragonFlame at 29 Apr 2006: 17:03

Hahaha I love this thread. It was about time the thread name changed now its getting interesting.

Heres some thing to think about.
Lets say you have a retarded male and a normal female. If the female were to have sex with him technically it would be the same situation which you call rape. It funny tho that most people that I have talked to have said "good for them it lovely that she can love him even tho he is retarded". I have even seen movie with this in. Forest Gump has it in it. Why is this particular situation where a retarded male that cant give consent (and is actually not as smart as an animal) is social acceptable and bestiality is not. Is it because you think animals cant give consent or because they are just animals. I don’t know my self. Think it over.

Mess with your minds Ohhhhhhhh.

96Report
Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 17:15

>>95
Very, very well said.
In a debate of this nature, one can only validly look at logic, principles, and concepts.  Ethical impressions too often end up making the entirety of arguments, making the debate unproductive.  So I ignore them until another valid argument is made, one not made on assumptions, opinions, and fallacies.

My religion forbids me to own an animal, much less have sexual relationships with it.  (Owning another creature is to say you are above all other of God's creations, and is blasphemy.)  It also forbids eating insects and certain seafood (shrimp), to damage or alter my body (peircings, tattoos), work on Saturday, eat the meat of cloven hooved animals (Pigs), to eat food prepared in an unclean way (cruel treatment of animals), or raise a fist against another living thing except in defense of my life.
These are my beleifs.  But I do not beleive they have any place in a debate.  Because they are MY religion, MY beliefs.  They are not congruous with man's intrinsic sense of morality, or even necessarily with the majority.

97Report
at 29 Apr 2006: 17:25

Why is everyone arguing about a bunch of illustrations? The vast majority of artwork here is a depiction of how the artist wishes the world was, not how it really is. No one believes that they can climb into their picture and experience that situation which is depicted. A lot of people who do zoo art probably wish they could experience that situation as the animal or as the person, but they know it is not a real and true representation of life. It is a fantasy that will never come true and as long as everyone understands that, then there is no harm.

98Report
Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 17:33

>>97
Somewhat, I agree.

It would not fit my moral argument for a man to try to lay with, mm, say... a lion.  It would bring HIM harm.  Which, though his choice, would harm others in the sense that his friends and loved ones would be hurt emotionally.

99Report
at 29 Apr 2006: 17:44

>>91 the refernce was to what is at the base of discusions like this ---->what you or anyone believes<---- it shapes what you say and what you do. it becomes apparent that you cannot open the blinders far enough to see beyond what you are trying to say.
the point you made was valid when seen from inside your world space. i acknowledge your thinking in this commentary yet so far you have chosen to use a carefull dodgeing of reasonble logic as a way to simply say im wrong,  so thereby  I find that your words loose value.
*bow*

100Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 18:42

>>94
Ah, so that’s how that works.  Well as ever, sex without consent is rape, and apparently, raping animals is legal where you come from.  Get to that then, and trouble yourself with my words no more, which don’t apply to you it would seem.

>>95
Whoa, I must admit this shocked me.  I heard of a similar situation locally once where a man had sex with a woman who had so much brain damage that she couldn’t speak properly.  He was charged with assault, and settled out of court for a lesser sentence, which included a restraining order.  He was hospitalized not long after by the victim’s brother who attacked him, and he dropped the charges for some reason before moving.  I never found out if he had harmed the woman or not, but it caused a bit of debate for a few weeks.

The laws where you are seem much more forgiving than they are here.  At best, if someone’s intelligence were so damaged as to be reduced to animal level, I can’t imagine anyone allowing them to be taken advantage of sexually.  On the other hand, I know a man with reduced IQ if you will.  He’s a nice enough sort, though he needs a bit of extra explaining.  He attends classes at the university and studies astronomy, though it is a special class that runs longer semesters with less students.  Nonetheless, he has a girlfriend, and indeed she has been looked upon as somewhat charitable, which I find a bit moving in a sorrowful way.

On the other hand, if you were to say he has no more intelligence than an animal, you would hurt his feelings greatly.  While it takes him longer to learn than the average measure, he does learn, and understands what is going on around him with sufficient clarity.

What I don’t understand is why I was considered to have failed for involving the delicate trouble of children when discussing consent, as it is largely on behalf of children that informed sexual consent needed to be developed for courts.  I suppose it involves some logical fallacy of course, or another large, important sounding word that carries lots of force... but I see little complication in linking, at least, your example of the mentally deficient with a young, mentally underdeveloped child...

101Report
at 29 Apr 2006: 19:05

I will weigh in here and say difintively, that if an animal doesn't want to have sex, he/she will very much let you know.  With animals, it's about timing. 

Examples:
1)  A human male is attempting to have sex with a female horse.  The mare may or may not be in season but she refuses his advances anyway by moving away from whatever he's trying to do under her tail.  The human procedes to use restraints (halter, tiedowns, hobbles, etc.) on the horse and has sex with her anyway. 

This is clear cut and dry.  It's rape of an animal.

2)  A human male is attempting to have sex with a female horse.  The horse may or may not be in season, but she does not refuse his advances.  In fact, the mare only tries to push herself back onto the human in whatever he's doing, or stands quietly with tail raised and allows the male to finish the sex act.  The mare is never restrained in any way and is at all times free to move away from the human.

This is not rape and an indication of consent.

3)  A human male is attempting to have sex with a female dog.  If the dog doesn't want it, she will bite, struggle, or otherwise indicate that she is not willing to participate.

End morality examples.

Legal ramblings:

Texas is very lenient on such laws.  IANAL, but I did read the state statute on this.  One can only be prosecuted for a misdemenor cruelty to animals and only then if a person makes a complaint against the perpetrator.  Therefore it's legal for a person to have sex with his/her own animals, unless he/she files a complaint against him/her self.  To my knowledge, there are no laws in Texas forbidding the posession of bestial porn unless it involves a child, and that's a whole other ball of wax that does not fall within the scope of this thread. 

For the record, I abhorr child pornography and pedophiles.  I was abused as a child.  I've survived it.  Bestiality does not bother me in the least.  My first sexual experince ever was with a horse, and if you wish to get technical, I've had more sex with animals than humans.  If farmer Brown wants to bang his sheep instead of his wife, that's not my problem as long as neither the farmer, nor the sheep get hurt.

Interspecies sex is not uncommon outside of the human species.  It's more common than most would like to believe.  Bestiality (human sex with animals) is also much...much more common than most would like to admit.

102Report
Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 19:19

>>101
1)   Agreed.
2)   Agreed.
3)   Agreed.

I think the argument speaks for itself at this point.  Noone can yet say how it hurts the animal if there is no force involved.

103Report
Juberu at 29 Apr 2006: 19:25

>>92
>"They do so out of season and incongruously with their instincts.
This indicates they are aware the act will not be procreative in nature.<
What, did you ask them?

>>93
I have no idea. Probably Masochism.

>>99
And I "believe" that you keep using logical fallacies. In this case, ad hominem. I also made the point, earlier, that one's belief in a given statement has jack-all to do with the validity of said statement. I will acknowledge readily that belief may inform one's argument.

Please give one or more examples of logic-dodging I have done. Please.

>>101
2) That's exactly what's under debate here.
It's also mildly ironic that Texas, of all states, is lenient on the matter.

104Report (sage)
Juberu at 29 Apr 2006: 19:26

>>102
Lack of force=consent? Did I miss a memo?

105Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 19:27

>>101
As mush as it seems popular to demonize me and those like me, I would plead for this bit of understanding at least.  This is a rather big step for me to come in here and remain civil on the matter.  Whether you agree with me or not, I consider those who practice bestiality to be a tiny step removed from pedophiles for almost all of the same reasons.  Every admission is like a vile stab of something I consider extremely evil.  I react in a similar manner to those who cut a cat's head in half and then post a picture for all to see... it's a horrid thing.

I'm trying to understand... really I am.  I want to know why so many people are not only apparently doign this, but neigh celebrating it!  When I hear talk of love, I see the creepy, sadistic psychos who claim the same thing about their lusts for children.  When I hear talk about the consent of silence, I think of an animal who would let you put a gun to its head and pull the trigger.  None of this seems reasonable in the slightest, yet I am trying to understand, and also, I am trying to find a basis for... your understanding.

Now... I see a lot of claims that informed consent doesn't matter, and that animal instinct can be defined as fully rational consent, or, that the rationality of the second involved is irrelevant.  I must admit that every instance of this blatant dodging of the only point that I care about it maddening, but the taunting that follows, attacking my morality and judgement, and labeling me as closed minded... it goes beyond mere hypocrisy, because again, I feel if something akin to pedophiles are mocking me for being the "true" enemy!

All of this will amount to shit I suppose, but there you have it.  A "judgemental prick" trying to figure out how the subject of his hatred ticks in a vague attempt to see if, perhaps, it is I who have been wrong all along.  So far, I've been mocked, I've had my words butched and thrown back in my face in some puerile word game, and I've had my moral values spat upon and been likened to an ignorant thing.

Have I really wasted my time?

106Report
Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 19:41

>>105
Basically, yes.

See, cutting a cat's head off harms it.  Bestiality, non-forced, does not.

Making stark comparisons does not validate your argument.

107Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 19:46

>>106
Okay sure.

I don't suppose I can get an answer from someone other than Janglur?

108Report
Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 19:53

I think i'm the only one who's still arguing.  Everyone else who isn't interested in actually proving it one way or the other have left.

I'm still waiting for someone to try to teach me how it's wrong.

109Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 19:58

>>108

And I'm still trying to figure out how informed consent seems irrelevant.  I suppose if I just discount complications I can rationalize anything... but that isn't how things work.  Still, I'll try again I suppose.

Your way of pointing out how pointless rational consent is involves the law.  It's legal where you are.  Well, dog fights are legal in Thailand.  Doesn that make them right over there, or is it still wrong?

110Report
Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 20:00

>>109
Perhaps you missed my obvious previous statements.

Morality.  Not legality.


Still awaiting the answer.  'How is it wrong'?

111Report
Juberu at 29 Apr 2006: 20:01

>>106
Neither does begging the question.

112Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 20:04

>>110

Look mate, the morality is that sex without consent is rape.  Do I need to explain how rape is wrong, or can I at least have THAT as a given?

113Report
Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 20:09

>>112
Animals have displayed the ability to consent.

Sex with consent is not rape.


It's obvious at this point I will have to argue with myself.  So let me begin.

114Report
at 29 Apr 2006: 20:10

>>112
I can't believe I'm getting involved in this issue...

What if you were asleep nakid and a dog were to mount you in your sleep. Would you still be raping the misinformed dog?

115Report (sage)
at 29 Apr 2006: 20:13

>>105
Yeah, I'd say you wasted your time.  Arguing on the internet is rarely ever productive, especially when the vast majority of those involved seem to be ill-informed, under-educated and generally incapable of engaging in anything vaguely resembling intelligent debate. 

It's an amusing read though, I suppose.  In that sad sort of 'humanity is doomed to devolve into a species of morons' sort of way... 

116Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 20:18

>>113

You're creating your own definition of consent.  Can I at least have an instance... some example where anyone with any sort of academic credibility has ever defined animals as capable of the kind of consent that actually defines rape?  You like to discout the entire legal system as somehow being totally irrelevant, and you refuse to discuss that.  You haven't even remotely shown how the legal and moral systems are so completely exclusive that they have no possibility of baring on each other.  What I happen to be discussing is both a moral AND legal matter.

So it's legal where you are.  Again, it's legal to host a dog fight in thailand.  The point of that being that laws don't make it right.  Just because it's legal where you are doesn't mean you're somehow right to do it.  It does, rather, indicate that animals have absolutely no, or very little autonomy where you live.

Every time I mention that, your response is "Nope, that doesn't matter, everything you say therefore doesn't matter".  How does dismissing what I say without challenge constitute anything even kin to a valid argument?

117Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 20:21

>>115

Well, at least some good is coming from this then...

>>114

What?  Worry about the fringe cases and acceptions after some grounds at least have been established.  Sheesh... what if I get hit by a meteor right now?  Jeez, I guess I'd be killed.

118Report
Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 20:32

(AntiB = Anti bestiality.  Pro B = Pro-bestiality.  Clar = Clarification needed for logical argument to continue.)

AntiB:  Bestiality is wrong.
Clar:  Define 'Wrong'.
Clar:  Wrong is defined as morally unacceptible actions.
Clar:  Define 'Morality'
Clar:  Morality is the basis of acceptible or unacceptible actions based on the sum of the effects of actions upon another living thing.
ProB:  What is immoral about it?
AntiB:  It is unethical/against my religion/against my beleifs.
Clar:  Subjective personal views.  Invalid response.
AntiB:  It is rape.
ProB:  How is it rape?
AntiB:  Animals cannot consent.
Clar:  Definition:
(n.
Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another; acquiescence. See Synonyms at permission.
Agreement as to opinion or a course of action: She was chosen by common consent to speak for the group.)
Clar:  Define 'Acquiescence'
Clar:  Definition:
(n.
Passive assent or agreement without protest.
The state of being acquiescent. )
ProB:  Animals can display lack of consent through hostility, violence, verbal or physical resistance.  Acquiescence is present when such behavior is not displayed.
AntiB:  Animals are not intelligent enough to consent.
ProB:  Animals are able to display sexual desires unprompted and unqueued.  Animals are able to display choice.  Animals are able to display acquiescence.
AntiB:  Consent is not possible with higher thought or intelligence.
Clar:  Define 'intelligence'
Clar:  Definition:
(n. 
The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.)
ProB:  Many animals are capable of learning and applying knowledge.  Primates and dolphins and apes can even communicate with humans on their level.  They are all able to display emotion.  They are capable of quantifying and abstract thought.  The requirements for intelligence have been met.
AntiB:  A child is too, but cannot consent.
Clar:  A child is capable of consent.  They are only legally restricted.  Argument invalid.
AntiB:  A retarded person is incapable of consent.
Clar:  Depending on degree of retardation, consent is capable.  They are only legally restricted.  Argument invalid.
ProB:  Additional suppositive reply:  A retarded man should still be able to choose for their own happyness if no harm occurs.
AntiB:  Neither the mentally handicapped nor animals are capable of making decisions informedly to prevent self-damage.
Clar:  Possibly true, situational.  AntiB is assuming all retardation results in loss of logic function.
ProB:  Guidance is necessary to prevent damage.  Agreed.  But Bestiality does not harm or damage them in any way.
AntiB:  Raping a child is wrong.  Raping a retard is wrong.
Clar:  Invalid statement.  Solely 'shock' value.  Rape is defined by consent and repurcussions.  Statements are not alligned with situation outlined in Bestiality of acquiescent consent without forceful or coercive methods or restraints.

(HERE is where all arguments on this board ended.  I go on to argue my own internal dissent to bestiality:)

AntiB:  It is socially/mentally damaging to underage humans to engage in sexual behavior.
ProB:  Underage humans are not animals.  Underage humans are harmed by social stigmas, ethical rejection and ostracization, and conflicting taught knowledge.  Animals lack social structures of this nature and cannot be mentally anguished or emotionally damaged, as animals do not ostracize or persecute for such acts.  Animals lack complex ethical structures.
Clar:  No further rebuttals conceived for either side.  End debate.  AntiB failed to prove how Bestiality is damaging.

Draw your own conclusions.


The best argument i've heard so far is from a friend that it may be immoral on the grounds that disease could transmit from animal to man, or vise versa, via the form of mutation.
The best and almost only morality argument thus far.  This is still invalid, however, because the transmission is often possible without physical contact, much less sexual.  It would be no different from a child sharing icecream with her dog.
Furthermore, human disease transmission is much more common.  Even with no known identified diseases, new diseases occur periodically which prevent prior knowledge to make such rational decisions even in humans.
Which further supports that ignorance does not invalidate consent.  Consent is situational in humans.  Thus it is in animals.

I am unable to convince myself it is wrong.
I am also unable to convince myself it is right.


The purpose of a debate is to inform others of ideas, and to convince one party of the others' views.
I still welcome any who would like to attempt this.

119Report
Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 20:39

>>116
I have not stated this.  I am arguing morality.  You argue that, because it is legal or illegal, it is right or wrong.
Legality is not intrinsic in many cases with morality.
In Georgia, all sodomy is illegal.  Consenting or not.  Punishable as a form of assault.
In Alabama, it is illegal to have ice-cream in your pocket.
These are clearly not immoral acts.  As such, legality only adds a complexity which serves only to obfuscate the issue being debated.

If you desire to discuss a legal debate, you are wasting your time.  I am not arguing such, and even if I were, it is legal where I live.  Argument ended.
I don't see why you have such a difficult time removing obstructive facts unsupporting of your argument, or why you insist on arguing legality rather than morality.  I see these as clearly admitting inability to argue the issue due to lack of content or personal refusal to accept foreign concepts.

So let's start again, more simply, like in my mock-debate.

Simple question, simple answer.

What makes Bestiality wrong?

120Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 20:51

>>118

What?  Are you serious?  Well, I should like to meet this Clar fellow.  The most adept minds have spent thousands of years attempting to define morality, and here he did it in a neet little sentence that could have only taken a few seconds to write!  Awesome!

That, or, you know, it's a personal view, and thus invalid.

I've taken philosophy.  If you want to get existential, you can't even prove that I exist... or anything but yourself for that matter.  Assumption is required in order to function, and logical assumptions are those generated by observation and rational thought.  Whether animals have intelligence or not has never been disputed.  They aren't rocks or anything.  What my point is, and ever has been, is that they lack sufficient intelligence to be capable of informed consent, and informed consent is required for sex to not be rape.  Non-coessential  sex is legally defined as rape.

And why is it necessary to prove that it is damaging in order to prove that the motives are depraved?  All I would have to do for that is to show a thought process that disregards the autonomy of the second subject before making decisions to benifit the self.

"A child is capable of consent.  They are only legally restricted.  Argument invalid."

Okay seriously, your third little dude on the shoulder just said that the only thing that makes sex with children wrong is the law.  You've just, in a "logical" (to you) manner, decided that there's nothing morally reprehensible about sex with children.  Now, I'm sure Janglur isn't saying that, because that would be wrong, but this makes me reconsider what I've said about fictional character Clar.  Clar is an extremely terrible entity, and I'm glad he doesn't exist.

121Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 20:58

>>119
You either aren't reading my posts, or aren't listening, or you think it's funny watching me squirm.  I've explained why legal issues matter, complete with an example, twice.  You can't separate entwined matters into biniaries when both are being adressed.  YOU decided law didn't matter, and then, apparently whenever you get to that part of my post, you skip past what I say and act as if that makes you have a point.

I make points as to why it's wrong, and you say "Those points don't matter", and then you repeat "Why is it wrong?"  Jesus, I haven't encountered someone this thick since I was seventeen, and it was fricken ME!

Anyhow, that was all a big, stupid waste of energy.  Does anyone want to refute anything I've actually posted or, you know, add something other than repeated rhetorical questions, because a small, retarded part of me is still curious as to what the other side has to say.

122Report
Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 21:10

>>120
1)  Definitions were given.  Nothing more.
2)  Assuming true, your own definition is also invalid on the basis of personal view.
3)  Philosophy and existance are irrelevent.  The subject is the morality of bestiality.  Consent is displayed through acquiescence.  Informed and intelligent decision is displayed by decisional preference and experience-based abjectional preference.
4)  It is necessary to prove it is damaging because if it is not in some manner damaging, it does not harm them, and thus is not immoral.  Only ethical or religious morality can be argued afterwards.
5)  Selective ignorance does not enforce your stance.
"AntiB:  It is socially/mentally damaging to underage humans to engage in sexual behavior.
ProB:  Underage humans are not animals.  Underage humans are harmed by social stigmas, ethical rejection and ostracization, and conflicting taught knowledge.  Animals lack social structures of this nature and cannot be mentally anguished or emotionally damaged, as animals do not ostracize or persecute for such acts.  Animals lack complex ethical structures."

123Report
Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 21:28

>>121
I have stated with legality is not intrinsic with morality.  You have failed to refute this point.

Insults do not serve to improve your position.  It is a clear admission of anger, loss of rational thought, and attempt to antagonize your opponent into the same.  It implies forfeiture.

124Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 22:10

>>123
Yes yes yes, you're very mature.  You win a toaster. Well done.

125Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 29 Apr 2006: 22:27

>>113
To reiterate: You keep begging the question of whether what animals do is consent. That's exactly what's under debate. You are assuming the topic under debate to be true in order to make an argument about it

>>123
It's a sign of poor debating, sure, but not forfeiture.

126Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 22:38

>>125

In my defense, he does keep ignoring every point I make as "irrelevant". My fault for taking him seriously though I’m afraid. I think the point where he played the playwright was where annoyance became anger. He put words in the mouth of the opposition in order to make them look bad, and inserted his own voice as the voice of reason. It's like arguing with a magic eight ball. No matter what I say, there are only so many responces I can get. >.<

127Report
at 29 Apr 2006: 22:40

The race to whoever can make the best comback after the next guy's post wins. Aint a discussion if people cant accept others ideas or soemthing.

An animal is real, sucking on Fido's dick is much diffrent than looking and masterbating at two furries (who will never exist and are just fantasies or whatever) fuck.

128Report
Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 22:56

>>127
And skinning an animal, cutting it's head off, starving it, or otherwise harming it is completely different from subjecting it to sexual gratification.


As for the debate at hand, i'm about to turn in for the night.  I'd say the debate has come to a close without a conclusion.  Just as it began.

129Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 23:11

>>128

I don’t know... I think I’ve gotten a pretty clear look into the thought processes of, erm, Zoos.  It’s been agonizingly educational.

130Report
Fair and /b/alanced at 29 Apr 2006: 23:41

>>101

I'm sorry but as Psychology Major i have to address this by principle.

>>I was abused as a child.  I've survived it.  Bestiality does not bother me in the least.  My first sexual experince ever was with a horse, and if you wish to get technical, I've had more sex with animals than humans.

Isn't it entirely possible that you have sex with animals because you were abused as a child? Perhaps as you were progressing through you're socializing stage, and learning from your elders, you were abused by said elder, and now foster a fear of humans and sex with them. So instead of fighting your inate fear of humanity, you turn towards animals, and attempt to appease your instinctual habit of procreation with an animal, one who cannot hurt your feelings, or abuse you sexually, due to the fact that they DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU, NOR ARE THEY ABLE TO WITHOUT YOU GUIDING THEM.

Thank You for your time

131Report
at 29 Apr 2006: 23:44

If you were to ask a human if they wanted to have sex, and they said yes, and you just sat there wouldn't they eventually start making their moves on you?

If you were to ask an animal if they wanted to have sex, they could not actually answer, and if you just said there, they'll probably just leave or something.

132Report
at 30 Apr 2006: 00:31

It is wrong to do these things because lets take the situation, a human having sex with a non-human, and transpose it. A lion will not have sex with a tiger unless you totally force it to, and i'm pretty sure that lions and tigers are more closely related than humans and horses, that is why it's immoral.

Ban Janglur, goodnight

133Report
at 30 Apr 2006: 00:38

>>147
Wrong. the reason they don't do it in the wild is their territories don't have enough of an overlap. Tigons and ligers happen in captivity where the species are kept together, but nobody forces them to mate. They are also not the only two species that can have hybrid offspring, either. While most species can't mate for genetic reasons, some species are separated only by distance, by the function of their organs, or the timing of their reproductive cycle... If these species are kept together long enough, they will breed. It has nothing to do with force!

Get a good night's sleep, then actually study some biology before you make such an incorrect statement, please!

134Report
Samus at 30 Apr 2006: 00:55

Wrong, and wrong again.

They do happen in the wild.  www.google.com  Ligers

135Report
at 30 Apr 2006: 01:12

>>149
They do, but it's rare enough to not deserve mention. What do you want, a trophy? And wow, you can google ligers. Silly me for wasting my time and money majoring in biology in college...

136Report
semicolonthree at 30 Apr 2006: 01:17

I think most of you are missing the point...
The content on Fchan is illustrated; the scenes and character are not real, no real people (or animals) were involved in the act.  Therefore, despite what happens in these depictions, nobody is hurt (including any animals).  So where's the issue?  If you are on Fchan, you are not in a position to speak of morality; it's freaking PORN!  I could say I find homosexuality immoral, does that mean we should remove any depictions of such? No!  The Mods have done a good job at trying to sort content into specific categories so all of would stop complaining about "immoral content".

137Report
at 30 Apr 2006: 01:33

>>148

Ok, so maybe a lion and tiger were a bad example, both being of the  same genus Panthera (as they can interbreed). But two animals of different Genuses(genii?) cannot and will not even try to breed with eachother, even in captivity. A Penguin will not try to breed with an emu.

>>150
Yeah, like he cares enough to use Google, he just watched Napolean Dynamite.

138Report
at 30 Apr 2006: 01:34

holy sh*t you people are talking about actually having sex with animals what the hell is wrong with you. don't get me wrong i'm a part of the fury fandom but this is sick on so many levels. non of you people own pets do you? Cause if you do then i feel sorry for them. Anthroporphic characters are just factional characters you know like werewolf’s but dog's or other animals are real breathing (and lets face it) diseased things. another thing when a dog is humping your leg its not thinking "ooooh baby i love you" its in heat and can't think clearly it just want’s to hump. i don't believe in god but i do believe that every thing is the way it is for a resign, which is why our
anatomy is different then that of an animals, because we were never meant to have sex with them

139Report
Sakura K. at 30 Apr 2006: 01:44

The problem is that while zoophiles exist among fur art fans/furries in general, not all of us ARE zoophiles.  While I do not object to the personal preferences of others, I do believe that it reflects poorly on the community as a whole for beastiality to be presented on one of the main art resources in the furry community.

Those who do not understand and already hate furries will look for any excuse to hate us more, and we really must be on our best behavior.  We are better than the face that we have been given by CSI, MTV, and the anti-furs on 4chan.  I know too many people within the fandom who've been shunned by mundies for the actions of others and labeled with terms like "furvert" (not in a joking way) and "dogfucker".

My point is that of decorum.  We should behave civilly towards one another, and present a good, friendly face that won't scare off newbies to the furry fandom, and hardcore bestiality is something that would scare a lot of newbs off.  Remember that Fchan is an ART forum.  This is about art.

140Report (sage)
at 30 Apr 2006: 02:48

>>152
"But two animals of different Genuses(genii?) cannot and will not even try to breed with eachother, even in captivity."

Wrong.  Do some research before you make false assertions based on only your own unschooled opinions.  It's not that hard, libraries are a good start.  I'll even give you a hint:  Desmond Morris.  It'll be under anthropology or sociology most likely. 

141Report (sage)
at 30 Apr 2006: 02:54

>>154

That was kind of sort of my point when I started this thread: this place is about furry art, not bestiality art.

As for people hating furries, I don't think they really do. I think they're just looking for a laugh, and over here are a bunch of grown-ups having fantasies about cartoon characters (and similar beings) who are very easy to stir up. Having blatant bestiality (and pedophilia, for that matter) among us only gives them a bigger target.

But it's all moot. The mods gave me an explanation and I was done with it. All the rest of these 150 threads? Well, I'm glad everyone is so passionate about this subject, but we're currently beating a dead horse, and involving more than one website in the process...

My take on bestiality? It exists. That's all there is to it. Some people bring up legal issues, some people bring up morality issues, some people bring up disease issues, and some people bring up the "gross out" factor. I'm sure with a bit of thought, the bottom line, at least for me, is bestiality isn't natural, but it's been happening in strong or weak cycles throughout all of human history (and in some cases accepted by the general public). Does this mean it's wrong (illegal)? I don't know. Does this mean it's bad (immoral)? I don't know. None of the arguments I've seen in this entire thread have leaned me in either direction, nor given me enough information to make my own decision (and I'll be damned if I let someone else choose for me).

So there you have my take on this whole conversation.

142Report
at 30 Apr 2006: 03:13

>>92

Every aspect of my post was relevant. Just because you cannot defend against some points does not warrant dismissing them entirely.

You completely overlooked the fact that I said -MOST- animals have sex purely for reproductive purposes. I acknowledge there are some higher species (dolphins, humans, chimps, Bonobo...all species which are considered the smartest and most social) which have sex recreationally to strengthen their bonds within the group, hence, you know, why I didn't say -ALL-.

This really boils down to dogs and horses, the two most frequently used species when it comes to beastiality.

Dolphins, yes, they have sex outside of their breeding season to strengthen bonds within the pod, but how many people are actually having sex with a dolphin? It's dangerous for both parties. The person receiving from a male dolphin can easily be killed by the thrusting force. A person could struggle during the act, causing the dolphin difficulities in breathing, ect. So while dolphins may engage in non-reproductive sex, that's irrelevant, because of the reasons I mentioned.

Horses do NOT have sex outside of their breeding cycle. Mares dictate when there is sex. They allow sex when they are fertile, and disallow it when they are not. Mares, generally, are pregnant most of the time, and were they to engage in casual sex the foal would be aborted due to the length of the stallion's genitalia. Male horses do NOT have sex with each other...male horses are HIGHLY territorial and a lead stallion only tolerates his male offspring in his territory, and even then until they reach sexual maturity. As I mentioned in my previous post, just because a mare or stallion does not move away when you insert something into their genitalia does NOT mean they are OK with what you are doing. They have been trained to have objects inserted into their orifices for medical purposes (health checks), and having sex with a horse is taking advantage of such.

Rodents... Rodents do NOT have sex outside of breeding purposes. How do I know? I've raised just about every domestic rodent there is. Rodents have very fast breeding cycles. A female rodent may have sex the next day, or even just minutes after giving birth. That's the nature of the rodent breeding cycle. The female only allows sex while she is capable of producing babies. This applies to not only lagamorphs, but rodents as well. Male rodents do NOT have sex with each other. Just like with wolf packs, most rodents (with the exception of Syrian Hamsters) have a hiearchy among the males. Mounting is a display of dominance that even occurs among the females as well. It is not indicative of sex. Also, do I really need to argue how sex with a RODENT is dangerous and potentially harmful to the animal?

Primates are one of the higher species whereupon some sex does take place on a casual level similar to humans. Most PRIMATES, however, are small and having sex with them is potentially harmful because of that. Also, unless you're living with that primate for the rest of its life, it's all irrelevant, as primates only have sex with those in their close-knit family group or for reproductive purposes...they don't just go have sex with whatever other primate wanders through their territory. So if you want to argue that primates do it, therefore it's OK, you're still advantage of the primate's use of sex to strengthen family bonds, and so unless you're acting as it's family (ie: with it 24/7, 365 days for the course of its life), you're simply tricking the animal into a false sense of security and familiarity to take advantage of its means of family bonding.

Apes are less likely to engage in casual sex, but they do so for the same reasons as most primates, and so the same logic applies.

Elephants do NOT have sex outside of their breeding season. Male elephants undergo a surge of hormones during the breeding season that increases the testosterone in their body, therefore increasing sex drive. This is when the female elephants are receptive to breeding in order to reproduce. Male elephants do not have sex with one another and are, in fact, highly territorial.

In regards to male animals, they have sex with the understand that there are offspring resulting from it, as I've already stated. Female animals have sex for the same reason, except in certain cases (such as some primates (the Bonobo) are concerned).

Relying on captive animals to base assumptions is incorrect. Captive animals do many things that their wild counterparts do not do, due to boredom or other factors. Captive animals are not a reliable means of basing species behavior off of.

Also, yes, sometimes animals do have sex with the same gender within the species. This does NOT occur often and usually occurs between younger animals who are in their first breeding season and confused by the rush of testosterone in their bodies (which increases the sex drive, making them more competitive). I've not seen any concrete PROOF that male animals actually engage in the entire act of sex (ejaculating into another's anus)...the only things I have seen have been pictures of a male mounting another male, which, again, is a common display of dominance, whether there's an erection involved or not.

You're trying to defend having sex with an animal as natural, and part of their nature, when that is certainly not the case. With the exception of dolphins, humans, some apes, and the Bonobo primates, 'lesser' animals have sex for reproductive purposes and nothing more, and having sex with an animal is taking advantage of that biological drive, whichever way you decide to sweeten it up. Taking advantage of anything or anything is wrong, no matter how you look at it.

FYI, any of the facts I've presented are readily available for research. I would recommend watching the Discovery channel, for one, as well as reading some medical journals (especially regarding rodents and lagamorphs).

I was not able to find any evidence of horses, dogs, rodents, ect. having sex for recreational purposes. Nor was I able to find, aside from a few photos which showed mounting, documentation of male animals having anal sex with one another whereupon there was -actual sex- and not just mounting. Feel free to point me to the place where you found your information regarding such. I would especially love to read about horses, dogs, and rodents having recreational sex among themselves and outside their breeding season.

143Report
HooRU at 30 Apr 2006: 03:26

Why can't you admit your obvious attraction to animals? You'll sit there and "paw off" to pictures of half-human and half-animal nonexistent creatures, but you deny entirely your attraction to the characteristics that make up a furry. If it didn't have that "cats" tail or immense "horse" penis you wouldn't be as attracted to it.

You dress up as "skunks" and "foxes" with fluffy tails and long faces. Are these common HUMAN features?

The fact is: Beastiality is illegal, but that doesn't stop you from fantasizing about having sex with something that closely resembles an animal. Then, you have this huge (and entirely POINTLESS) debate about whether its morally wrong to have sex with an animal.

To me this looks like some sorry attempt to somehow justify your profane attraction to animals. You are NOT a fucking lizard. You are NOT a friggin fox. Maybe you got it into your head that if you pretend enough you'll become one and you can have all the sex you want with them, and then it wont contradict your perception of right and wrong.

144Report
at 30 Apr 2006: 03:28

Animals do not mate for pleasure like humans do(with the exception of dolphins) so if you were to have sex with a dog and they don't resist it's only because it's instinct.

You may love your dog to the ends of the earth but there is no way for it to feel the same way as you do because they don't perceive the world the same way we do. They don't know that someday they will die or that hunk of metal they chase down the street isn't alive.

All of you know this. That is why you strive to break through this barrier that divides the human and animal world. By making something that is half-human and half-animal you have successfully developed something that is able to voice it's opinion yet still has the features of the animal which you find attractive.

You wouldn't dream about fucking a real skunk but suddenly that "Skunkette" is looking mighty fine. Stop trying to vindicate your perversion by denying what is too obvious not to see and LET THIS THREAD DIE with whatever is left of your humanity.

145Report
at 30 Apr 2006: 03:37

>>158

You could quit generalizing. That would be great.

Not everyone who enjoys furry art is a crazy fursuiter who's 'pawing off' to pictures, or wants to have sex with animals. I'm quite happy having sex with my HUMAN partner, kthx.

Also, some furries are drawn more 'human' than animal. Adding 'cat' ears to a human does not make them a closet furry with beastiality tendencies. More often than not, it's the -behavior- of the animal that is appealing (aggressiveness, ect.), and not the physical aspects (ears, tail, fur, ect.).

Personally, I am not sexually attracted to animals IRL, and additionally, am not attracted to anthros IRL. They look good on paper (or on the computer screen), but otherwise the appeal goes no further. And I know many more 'furs' who feel this way.

Just because someone likes something on a fantasy level (Hey, I like medieval stories with sword fighting and zombies...doesn't mean I want to go live in that era), doesn't mean they've a desire to play out the fantasy IRL.

146Report (sage)
Fan at 30 Apr 2006: 03:41

The 7 Rules of the Farm
1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol in excess.
6. No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.
7. All animals are equal.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Stop pretending your animals and then outright deny that you'd fuck them if given the chance.

"I just jerk off to pictures of animals having sex. That doesn't mean 'I' want to have sex with them or condone it."

Maybe you're just jealous because all these people are doing it but aren't because you don't have the guts or can't bear the fact that it might be true.

>>159
Totally agree to LET THIS THREAD DIE!

147Report (sage)
at 30 Apr 2006: 03:56

>>161

This is from a book, Orwell's "Animal Farm" if I'm not mistaken. It sounds like you could benefit from giving it a read.

148Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 30 Apr 2006: 04:36

Holy Crap!  I didn't think anyone would continue this, let alone for so long.  I'll have some reading to do when I get back from work.  Excellent. ^_^

149Report(capped)
Xenofur at 30 Apr 2006: 04:44

>>162
Indeed it is. Nadia put that there as a sort of joke. :)

150Report
DragonFlame at 30 Apr 2006: 07:04

This thread is growing very quick.

First off no one is trying to twist anyone’s words around on purpose. They have an opinion and that is what the truly believe. Saying that they are just making excuses up is just ignorant of others feelings and beliefs and you should stop now before this becomes nasty.

Let me recap what each side thinks.

People Against Bestiality.
-Its immoral because an animal can’t give consent.
-Its illegal in most places in the world.

People For Bestiality.
-Its moral because an animal can give consent.
-Its legal in some parts of the world.

Does anyone have a problem with these stupid arguments that are going nowhere?

The legal matter is final, if it legal then go ahead if not don’t.
Regarding the Morality.
I look at it this way Pro-Bestiality groups seems to think that Animals are equal to humans and are smart intelligent creatures that are capable of making their own decisions and is able to communicate consent in their own way.
Anti-Bestiality groups seem to think that animals are a lower life form than humans and that they are stupid and can not make any decision on their own let alone give consent.

I think instead of arguing about this maybe we should try to figure out if an animal is smart enough to understand what Consent is. I believe that some animals are smart enough to make this decision.
So far no one has really answered this but some have come close.

There is only one argument that has made any sense to me and that is that having sex to not reproduce is unnatural. I agree with this but remember that this apply’s to Sex with Condoms and other Protection devices and also Homosexuals and Lesbians.

For those that are becoming uncivil get lost this is a friendly discussion, we don’t care to hear your prejudiced opinions and you bring the worst out in everyone.

151Report
xAmthystMystx at 30 Apr 2006: 07:45

Alright guys, listen up. It's as simple as this-if you don't like it, **DONT LOOK AT IT*** It's not an argument of if it's right or wrong.

(This next sentence may make me seem a tad raciest, or offend some, I mean in no way shape or form offence.)

Back in the south, MANY slave owners thought it was right to own slaves. They justified it.

Doesn't make it right. People say things are wrong or right and justify them simply through their own means. I am not pro slavery to anything, but I am pro beast.

So, really, morality is equivilant to mentallity. If you think its right, it's right. If you don't like it, don't look and keep your own views. THIS IS A FURRY SITE. IT INVOLVES ANIMALS! What makes anthropomorphic different than beast? Its still the same concept, only one has a more humanish appearence.

Sorry for rambling, I'll go now. ^^;;

152Report
at 30 Apr 2006: 08:44

===QUOTE===
There is only one argument that has made any sense to me and that is that having sex to not reproduce is unnatural. I agree with this but remember that this apply’s to Sex with Condoms and other Protection devices and also Homosexuals and Lesbians.
===END QUOTE===

1)  Ok, then explain why 100% of all animals masturbate.  Masturbation is sex without procreation.

2)  Explain why dolphins have casual sex?  Casual sex = sex without the intent of procreation. 

If it was unnatural, neither of these cases would exist.

Your argument is invalid.

153Report
at 30 Apr 2006: 08:51

>>151

What are you trying to say? Are you saying people shouold have ignored slavery? Or are you saying the bestialists need to move to the south? I'm so confused!

154Report
SFlanagan at 30 Apr 2006: 09:43

I have just one thing to say:
 Fchan is a site for yiffy, right?
 This post will be number 154 - Why is it that bestiality/zoophilia whatever is so important to you people?
In my opinion it has ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with yiffy, so it has no relavence to Fchan.
The moderators have deemed it and other stuff (suicide? Jesus, get some therapy) acceptable so arguing about it for over 150 posts is pointless because if they wont ban it now and they never will so GET OVER IT!

PS. For clarification I don't agree with it at all.
    And what's with people writing a two-post argument and not      
    even bothering to give their name/ pseudonem?
    Dont forget to check out my art on the Equine Girls thread,
    rock on Fchan!

155Report
at 30 Apr 2006: 10:06

>>154 "Yiffy?" Do you mean "furry porn?"

156Report
Yggdrasil at 30 Apr 2006: 10:47

>>137
http://picpop.com/gallery/albums/userpics/FNPICS_funny/thumb_elrhino.jpg  40 seconds in google.
Next?
>>150
I agree completely.  While I don't practice bestiality, noone yet has explained how it hurts anyone.
Even if consent was the issue, noone asks an animal if they consent to:
Being held in captivity.
Being fed unnatural foods.
Being killed for their meat/skin.
Being dressed up for fashion shows.
Having their genitalia removed.
Being restrained by a choke collar, shock device, or noisemaker.
Being forced to breed and produce offspring to sell.
Having their yound taken and sold prematurely.
Having products and drugs tested on them.
Hauling people around on wagons.
Hauling people around on sleds.
Being made to fight for pleasure/profit.
Etc, etc, etc.

So frankly, if someone argues it's wrong because they can't consent, they have no right to protest unless they are a perfect vegan, wear and use no animal products, use nothing created via animal testing, and live someplace that allows any of the above and doesn't take an active stance against it.
Only someone who doesn't take advantage of animals could have the right to comdemn another for the same.


Morality is funny that way.

157Report
at 30 Apr 2006: 11:08

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/
good read - go into it with an open mind.

158Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 30 Apr 2006: 17:09

>>156


Okay, I fully agree that animals are treated in an cruel manner, but in all seriousness, we aren't talking about having sex with animals instead of killing them, we're talking about having sex with them as WELL as killing them, and so forth.  Just because they have the collective plagues of humanity's heartlessness to contend with doesn't mean adding one more is justified by not being as bad as some of them.  That's like saying it's okay to steal because it isn't murder.  Well... sure, murder is worse, but that hardly makes stealing right.  Also, by this reasoning, I have no right to protest is I see someone lighting a bag of puppies on fire because I drive a car which harms the environment, and thus, animals.  Even if that makes sense on a purely mechanical level, you;ll have to forgive me for dropping the idea as utterly impractical.

>>154
Oh the original idea of bestiality art has been resolved.  This is a tangent. ^_^

>>152
Why do people keep saying "your argument is invalid"?  Saying that doesn't make it true.  You can say anything you want and dismiss everything people say about it, but this doesn't make your argument stronger.  If I were standing on train tracks and you said "Move you stupid fuckwit!" I could respond by saying "You've lowered yourself to insults, thus you show your lack of intelligence, thus your words are invalid."  And then I'd get hit by a train.  Honestly, any time you say "Your words (or whatever) are invalid", that invariably applies to you as well unless you start involving provable scientific laws (which are few and number and tend not to define matters of debate).  This is supposed to be a discussion, so exploring different opinions IS the point... isn't it?

I mean, sheesh, go with the obvious spirit of the post anyway, not the syntax.  That would be like me saying: "You said that 100% of animals masturbate.  Pufferfish do not masturbate, thus 100% of animals do not maturbate, thus, the rest of your argument is invalid."  You worded this one point in a manner that, while not technically correct, is perfectly understandable.  It occurs outside of humans (representing unnatural), which means that it's natural.  Awesome.  You've defeated that point... but there are counter points to your position, and you act like you've already won.  Now, you have a right to do that and all, but it's kind of annoying, and makes it really difficult to make a point since the whole thing needs to be practically started over each time.

>>151

I understand this point, and I do see animals as being practically enslaved or worse.  Rape is just one of many problems I see happening to animals, and those who disagree with me are calling it love, or natural.  Well, the legality, one way or another, doesn't impact the morality of the issue.  The frighteningly liberal laws of thailand, or any nation's archaic (and current) laws show that.  My problem is that I see people having sex with animals, then calling it "fine and good".  Well, they aren't consenting in a manner that is recognized in court, so a new definition of consent would need to be applied to animals to make it 'not rape'.  Some are arguing that instictive responses are sufficient, where as I argue that it isn't.  Whatever the case, I hope I don't need to explain why making your own arbitrary definitions in order to justify something is frightening... but I can, though I doubt people would read it.

As for "if you don't like it, don't look"... I assume you're talking about the art?  Well, the morality of that wasn't what I was getting at anyway.  My philosophy on that matter is: If it isn't real, it isn't hurting anyone.  I don't like it when the art becomes reality though, and in most cases, people seem unanimous on that matter.  Looking at a picture of someone being raped and killed may say things about you, but you haven't raped and murdered just by looking at the picture.  The same applies to pictures of bestiality... but people are saying it's fine to engage in these activities in real life in this case; hense, the big long discussion on the matter.

>>150
Come on man, you're better than this.  Saying an animal isn't capable of consent isn't saying that it's a lower lifeform that is stupid.  Some may say that, but some of us are merely pointing out that animals lack that particular capacity.  I wouldn't say that children are lesser people who are stupid, but when a child decides they want to eat nothing but pudding, I, as the knowing adult, will intervene on behalf of the child.  If I ask a scientist a question, sure, he knows more than me, but that doesn't make me stupid and lowly, and if he lies to me and gives me a bogus answer "just for kicks", sure, I wouldn't know better, and would probably never be hurt for it in any way, but he's still a jerk for taking advantage of my trust like that.

It's all a matter of relative position.  I'm not saying that bestiality is unnatural, I'm saying it's selfish, and done utterly without regard for the animal's benefit, which, as far as I can tell, is being dictated by the owner of the animal, either because it makes them happy to believe that, or because they're not an evil person as such, and don't want to abuse an animal, yet they don't want to not have sex with the animal, hence, the excuse.  Sex IS natural... so is theft.  Indulging yourself without regard for others is a natural urge, but it's often wrong to give into that.  This may be clear cases, like hitting people for fun or stealing.  Then there are others, like saying mean things about people behind their backs.  Sure, they never find out, never know, and are never "hurt", but that doen't make you morally sound for doing it.  It's still a rotten thing to do.

Fringe cases are troubling to me.  I don't know enough about dolphins to know if all the things people say about them are true.  I've heard claims one way and another, but I will admit that if some of the more amazing stories are true, then yes, dolphins can consent, and it becomes a different argument.  Chimps and gorillas... maybe they can too, I don't know.  Again, I've seen reputable sources from both sides makes claims that seem feasible, though I would like to believe that it's true.  Still, this doesn't mean that dogs, horses, and sheep consent.  Humans aren't rational because we're humans, we're rational because we're rational (capable).  Maybe humans stand alone in this, or maybe we have a few others with the same capacity to share the planet with... heck, it's possible that some of them may be "superior" to us in terms of what they could amount to given the opportunity... but everything isn't rational.  There are living things that don't think at all, and an enormous quantity of those who fall inbetween.

I don't think dogs or goats are far enough along to form the kind of complicated thoughts required to love and consent as we humans understand it, so any sexual activities done to them are done without concent, just like the rest of the stuff that we do to animals.

>>140
There's all kinds of animals that can interbreed, with or without human interference.  Don't read too much into the purely reactive responses.  It's like when people were trying to decide if the world was round or not.  Some argued one side, some argued the other, and then there was a large amount of people who just said what was popular, and of course, those who said something because they were "rebels", and did just the opposite.

Still, you can expand his point and say that animals will often breed in ways that are unhealthy for them in the long run (with or without human consent).  Inbreeding being the biggest example that comes to mind.  Just because it happens and is natural doesn't mean it's good or bad... it just means it happens.

>>132
No, if you forbid a topic of conversation, it just gets pushed further underground, and people will just do it anyway because they think they're right.  Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but how will either side know if neither side will listen?

Though I got to admit it is nice being on the side with the most physical clout for a change.  Not very enlightened of me, or mature... but it does mean that if nothing is resolved and things stay the same it will favor me... on this matter at least. ^_^;;

159Report (sage)
at 30 Apr 2006: 19:22

>>158  "It's all a matter of relative position.  I'm not saying that bestiality is unnatural, I'm saying it's selfish, and done utterly without regard for the animal's benefit, which, as far as I can tell, is being dictated by the owner of the animal, either because it makes them happy to believe that, or because they're not an evil person as such, and don't want to abuse an animal, yet they don't want to not have sex with the animal, hence, the excuse. "

Well, if it's just a matter of selfishness, then what's the problem?  Selfishness is the essential state of humankind, and service to the self/ego is a more basic motivation than Freud's idea of sex and aggression.  Even doing 'nice' things is typically motivated by self-serving gratification, and altruism is widely considered a mythical beast. 

In cases where the animal seems to enjoy it, the human obviously enjoys it, and neither party is harmed significantly against their will, what's the issue?  The human is selfish?  Yeah, but he could hire a whore, be just as selfish. 

Is the issue that the person is deluding themselves?  People do that all the time too, especially when it comes to how they think about themselves and their lives.  The folks who see themselves as they actually are usually aren't very happy, and spend a lot of time in therapy. The Truth hurts, and self-delusion is a tool of self-preservation in a lot of cases. 

So if some guy is boinking his sheep, and she's unharmed and/or indifferent, and he's convinced himself she likes it, what the worst thing going on?  Social taboos aside, he's just a regular, selfish, self-deluded member of the fucked up dominant species on the planet who happens to like boinking his sheep. 

Hardly worth a lot of hate and loathing and a bunch of expensive legal proceedings concluding in a hefty jail term.  Sure, he's not necessarily a 'good' guy (though opinions would differ on that, too, I assume) but he's not exactly evil incarnate either. 

Personally, I'd be happy with the world leaving folks like that a lone, and saving the hate and venom and law-book throwing for folks that show obvious disregard for the safety and comfort and health of the animals they get involved with.  While I can't agree that every girl that spreads her legs for Fido is commiting rape, I do agree that raping any animal *is* well within the abilities of any human, kicking, biting and clawing or not.    As a species we can very well take what we want by force, and I'm sure a lot of folks likely do, and then convince themselves otherwise. 

I'd be happy to see folks who rape animals get whatever punishment folks can manage, whether it's ostracization, fines, jail time, whatever.  But I can also entertain the possibility that some folks who have sex with animals aren't committing rape, and don't deserve punishment of any sort, because they're not 'bad' people. 

So I guess I'm just not comfortable going with an all-or-nothing position on the matter, when all evidence seems to me to say it's not that clear cut.  As you said, it's relative, not absolute - It's not *always* wrong, and it's not *always* right, either. 

And I think arguing, or trying to convince someone, that it is a black-and-white issue of absolutes is foolish.  Of course, who am I to talk about foolish, after writing almost 500 words about 'the moral connotations of human-animal sexual contact' on the internet.  On Fchan, no less...  ;)

160Report
at 30 Apr 2006: 19:49

Quick query. Why is it okay for a horny animal to hump another horny animal of the same species? Aren't we animals too? What gives? You or your intended partner have to be pretty darn slothful and dirty to be passing diseases around anyway, the zoos I know are very respectable about it, cleaning them and their partner thoroughly before any hankypanky.

161Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 30 Apr 2006: 20:01

>>159
It's an aweful lot to ask people to live and let live when the matter is defending your interests against theirs. In a way, you're saying I should look the other way in regards to what I consider animal abuse. :/

>>160
Well, by that token, if we're just slaves to animal instincts, then every impulsive action that humans commit is justified, no matter how violent, because it's our nature.  I, at least, believe in a certain measure of civilization and responsibility, which means just because you want to do something, doesn't mean it's okay.  It complicates things immeasurably, but I think it better than the alternative.  Darwins laws, in their full glory, would not treat humans well if we started acting on impulse alone.  Even as it is our impulses get us, and more often, others in trouble. :(

162Report (sage)
WhyMe at 30 Apr 2006: 21:35

Beastiality isn't all that bad. I bet if you tried it you might like it even. Sex is sex. We're all perverted and going to hell anyway so we might as well enjoy what we can while we're alive. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll ever want to do that to an animal.


One day I was walking to school on the sidewalk and my brother and I were attacked by a dog. My brother was sent to the hospital and almost died. 2 days later I went down the back alley of the street where we were attacked and I killed the dog and 3 more that were left outside during the night. A month later they got another dog and I poured anti-freeze in it's water. It died. I also set a farm on fire once while I was visiting out in the country. The owners weren't home and most of the animals died inside. One horse escaped and collapsed outised the barn. I split it's gut open and watched it trip over it's entestines when it tried to run away.

The moral of this story: There are worse things you can do to animals then fuck them.

163Report
at 30 Apr 2006: 22:33

Sounds like someone needs some serious therapy.  Put your shrink on speed dial, k?

164Report
at 30 Apr 2006: 22:52

>>162
Uh-huh, sure you did.

>>163
He didn't do any of this. Whatever else, arson is illegal in every country, and he just confessed in a public place.  If he were really an arsonist, he wouldn't have done something that foolish.

165Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 1 May 2006: 00:32

>>143
Congrats, you're a bigot! Or from 4chan's /b/.  Same difference.

>>150
>"Anti-Bestiality groups seem to think that animals are a lower life form than humans and that they are stupid and can not make any decision on their own let alone give consent."
Whoa there, tiger. We don't think they're capable of consent.  That's it.

>>151
">Alright guys, listen up. It's as simple as this-if you don't like it, **DONT LOOK AT IT*** <
Bull.

 >>152
">1)  Ok, then explain why 100% of all animals masturbate.  Masturbation is sex without procreation.<
You're pulling that statistic from which hole?

>>156
Yep. Funny how people can try to divert from the issue.

>>162
That's like saying that there are worse things you can do to people than shooting them in the kneecaps.

>>164
No. He confessed on the Internet. There's a biiig difference.

166Report
DragonFlame at 1 May 2006: 01:17

>>152
You sir are exactly like one of these people that I have been talking about. No where have I talked about Masturbation. Masturbation is a natural thing. You can Masturbate in your sleep and not know it. I am talking about sexual contact with an animal or human without the capability of reproduction. It is obviously possible for an animal to have sex with out the possibility to reproduce but this does not make it natural. Saying my argument is Invalid is rude and ignorant and there is only one thing to say to you “GET LOST”. See what you made me do, you have made me UnCivil. Next time read what people write very carefully before you post anything.

>>158
You seem like an intelligent person and I’m glad that you are involved in this discussion.
Sorry bout that I was just generalising what each side was arguing in this Tread, Not what each and every other person on each side believes. Now that I read it again I see how it can be taken the wrong way. I am sorry if I have offended anyone. I think of Bestiality as disgusting and I would never use an Animal for sex but at the same time I can not really find animals to be uncapable to give consent. This is just my opinion but that is what I truly believe.

167Report
DragonFlame at 1 May 2006: 01:22

>>162
If all you have said is true then I hope a stalion rapes you up the arse until you die. You are evil and have no place in this site.

168Report
PS at 1 May 2006: 02:11

I would just like to say:

Everyone, get the fuck over it.

This thread was about disallowing human/animal hentai. The admins said it was allowed in /ah/.

That's it. This thread should be over.

169Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 1 May 2006: 02:51

>>166

Okay, I've actually been reading some stuff that people have directed to... and, I must admit that a new part of my problem is that even if animals ARE capable of consent, almost every bit of “zoo" material I've read is still creepy.  Posts in forums and such stating how their "lover" lustfully thrust back at them, and how they both fell into their passions... or a particularly chilling theme that seems to fall under the "And suddenly we both knew that we wanted it" category.  Seriously, rapists use this logic to defend themselves, though their victims talk, so they have a lot more explaining to do. "It was obvious from her low cut skirt that she wanted me."  And you can never convince them otherwise.

Animals don't argue, and most of these examples I've seen tend to show a preference, in "zoos", for docile, domesticated animals that have a tendency to let humans do anything to them.  I'll just try to go, for the moment, with the assumption that animals can consent.  Has anyone who engages in bestiality bothered to obtain this consent?  If one horse kicks do they just keep moving down the line until they find one that just sits there... or are they one of the ones who keeps at it until they've "convinced" the horse to accept their "love"?  This is saying nothing of they types who blatantly manipulate the animal.  I read an account of a man who would take resistant mares that were in heat and put them in a pen with a stallion on the other side.  Apparently this makes the mare more willing to "consent"...

Humans are the masters that dictate the creed and measure of the animal's life, and many have been bred for this.  I've never heard of a case of an in-season deer blowing off the bucks to take a stroll through a human neighborhood looking for some action.  Actually, it seems to me that in most examples that I've heard, if the animal had been presented with an alternative within their own species, they would choose that over the human... yet animals are driven powerfully by instinct, so when these people have an animal that's showing signs of sexual need, rather than presenting it with this choice (and thus, an opportunity to "consent"), the owner decides to take it upon themselves to deal with the animal, and the release of tension in the animal is interpreted as love.

Anyhow, as it is right now, I don't believe animals possess the sophistication to consent to something like a sexual encounter with a human, let alone a "relationship".  Or at least, they no more consent to that than they consent to something like (sorry for the repetition) eating chocolate, which is to say they'll do it, and do it gladly, but only because they have no concept beyond the flavor of the moment.  Now, chocolate will kill a dog, where as sex with a human probably won't depending on the dog... but the harm caused by the action doesn’t change the fact that consent wasn’t obtained.

As far as my obsession over legal matter goes, I was trying to explain the concept of rape.  It’s simple... sex without consent.  It became more complicated as people found loopholes in this though.  Enough drugs, alcohol, or ignorance can acquire bare bones dictionary definition consent, so the defining of a second, legal consent was necessary.  This brought about informed consent, which requires rational understanding of the situation, and the consequences, before it can be given.  This became the definition that defines rape.  Consent given without understanding is not informed consent, and thus, not a legitimate defense.  Contracts, particularly medical waivers, also use this definition... which means you can’t be held as consenting to a contract that tricked you, for instance, into giving up your kidney by obscuring the language.  Also, if you agree to something that is clearly terrible for you, the state intervenes on your behalf, since you’ve shown a lack of reason... so even if you agree to let somebody disembowel you, they will still be charged with murder.

In places where bestiality is legal, it seems that the reasoning isn’t because the animal was recognized as giving consent, but rather, the animal is considered so inconsequential, that as long as you aren’t killing it, you can do whatever you want to it.  (In terms of movements for rights, this can be compared to, say, the incidents in medieval history when lords could legally have sex with any of their peasant women.  It wasn’t considered rape, because the lord consented for them.)  Now, if you’re of this school of thought, you can’t rape an animal, because whether they can consent or not, they don’t have the right to do so, so consent s no longer needed.

With a few (honest?) exceptions though, “zoos” claim to do what they do out of love, respect, affection, and what have you.  Now, as quick as they are to point out that they would never hurt their animals, I don’t think this has anything to do with rape.  Rape victims can escape without physical injuries, or drugged into consenting... yet it’s still rape.  You don’t let the rapist go because he “wasn’t going to hurt her”.  Animals aren’t generally bothered by the same things that bother humans, so even if they were raped, they aren’t likely to be haunted by it.  This is true... but again, you can duplicate this with a human.  In the extended, unlikely example that after buying her a drink, a woman said yes when you invite her over to your place, where you offer another drink (drugged), wait until she’s unconscious, take plenty of lube and use a condom, then have sex with her, then clean her up and put her to bed... she would wake up with what she thought was no more than an ordinary hangover, leave for her home, and go on with her life, never realizing that she was violated.  She is neither physically nor mentally traumatized, the man is sexually gratified, the woman got free drinks... everybody happy?  It’s still rape though.  Even if she would have said yes if you propositioned her, you didn’t wait for the consent.  Yes, she came home with you, willingly, and fully possessing her faculties... and yes, she may have even been likely to consent... but she didn’t, and you went ahead anyway.  That makes you a rapist, albeit one who didn’t “hurt” anyone. :/

But with bestiality, the victim is an animal.  I don’t think that makes enough of a difference to justify rape.  Add to this that animals will constantly “consent” to things that are extremely bad for their well-being.  This means that they do not show proper reason, and thus, cannot perform informed consent... meaning that sexual intercourse with them would still be classified as rape if they were human.  It becomes necessary at this point to find a new definition of consent that applies to animals only, or to show that animals are capable of rational thought in sufficient quantity to be capable of the already existing informed consent.

Now, I don’t know if a fair definition can be found for this.  Any example that I can think of an animal showing signs of consent for sex can also be applied to something that is dangerous to the animal... not to mention that animals will often resist things done to them for their own good.  A dog will eat chocolate (sorry), and a horse will gorge on oats, and a cow will just stand there even as the killing spike is lined up.  I know this happens to people too, but in cases where they can’t rationalize (children and the mentally disabled), they are protected by the law, and in cases where they have the capacity but don’t use it (emancipated adults), they are expected to “know better”, and thus when you do something stupid, you’re responsible for part of the burden (so if you trustingly buy a stolen car, they not only take the car back, but you aren’t reimbursed, and so on).

What pro-bestiality types have proven to me beyond a doubt, is that animals can be brought to trust humans, and animals can experience pleasure from humans... but trust alone isn’t consent, and making it good for the victim doesn’t negate rape.  I’m sorry, but I don’t think I’m being closed minded about this.  It just seems so... wrong.

Anyhow, at the very least, I’ve learned quite a bit about animal psychology theory, and a range of opinions, so regardless of whether I manage to convince anyone of anything, I’ll be walking away from all of this with increased wisdom... even if I did I did flip out over some baiting from time to time.  I’ve finally managed to find words to express my gut feeling on the matter, and even if the subject is... extremely odd... I feel I’m a better person for it.


>>168
Oh the matter regarding Art was solved a long time ago.  This is a tangent now. ^_^

170Report
DragonFlame at 1 May 2006: 11:04

>>169
You make some strong arguments and I agree with most of them.
One thing that bothers me. You say that an Animal will do things that are dangerous for them. In what way is sex dangerous for the animal.

-Quote-
"Humans in cases where they have the capacity but don’t use it (emancipated adults), they are expected to “know better”, and thus when you do something stupid, you’re responsible for part of the burden"
-Quote-

Is it not possible that an Animal does know better but they just don’t care. If humans can why cant animals. All you have told us is the things that animals do that can harm them. Exactly what do you think the consequences of an animal having sex with a human would be. Other than it being Illegal or diseases which can happen in human to human contact or animal to animal contact.
Mostly I am talking about the consequences that the animal may have to live with.

I am not attacking you im just interested.

171Report
at 1 May 2006: 11:14

dudes, beastiality between a human and an animal belong here just as much as fucking balloon furries, taurs, halo elites, etc.

its all or nothing. either all animal-related content can go here or youll have to get rid of a lot of other shit i find fucked up. id love it that way but i know a lot of people would be pissed.

stop looking for problems where there are none.

172Report
at 1 May 2006: 11:58

>>171

Exactly. If you want to get rid of zoophile stuff here, you should get rid of crap like cub and pedophilia first. Personally that bothers me a hell of a lot more than a girl fucking a dog.

173Report
at 1 May 2006: 12:12

This thread exmplifies why people look down on the furry fandom. Get over it.

174Report
at 1 May 2006: 13:14

the more perverted images the more people want to see them.

175Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 1 May 2006: 13:17

>>166
Masturbation isn't natural. It's manual stimulation of genetalia. Artificial. None of which has any bearing on whether it's right or not.

>>168
And then it went off on a tangent, which became the main purpose of the thread. Or did you not notice the mod-changed title?

>>170
Completely missing the point. What a surprise.

>>172
Fallacy of composition. Assuming attributes of the parts are the same as the whole.

176Report
Geo at 1 May 2006: 14:52

Everything in this thread is void. They are pictures, DRAWn pictures. Not real Zoo. Whats the diffrence in seeing a fox morph fuck something than a picture of a non morph fox fucking somthing? Animal is animal, and if you go anywhere but the fur fandom with it you well be harrased equally no matter which one you choose. This drama magnet is there for pointless and stupid and I waver and cast my vote that the person who started this thread needs to be burned at the cross. Or at least banned from the net.

177Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 1 May 2006: 15:22

>>171
>>172
>>174
Oh the issue with art has long since developed into this tangeant. It's a discussion of the morality of bestiality thread now, as the title shows yes? ^_^

>>170

I just pointed out that animals will consistently consent to things that are harmful to them by way of showing that they likely don't have the capacity to consent.  In other words, the same "consent" they show towards sex with humans is the "consent" they will show towards being poisoned or slaughtered.  It isn't consent so much as trust, and even if you aren't injuring the animal doesn't mean you aren't taking advantage of its trust, and thus, raping it.

And again, even if an animal might be capable of consent (which I doubt, but even if they are), that consent is not obtained.  Trust and not fighting back is interpreted as consent by people practicing bestiality, but that's not consent, it's trusting and not dissenting.

Now, as for why animals can't rightly bbe held responsible for their actions... my point is that they aren't capable of developing sufficient reason to opperate under a set of rules completely foreign to them. As a result, special allowances are made to compensate for their animal behavior, which they can't be fairly expected to grow beyond.  Humans only meet them half way on this of course.  Often animals are "held responsible" for their actions.  If a dog bites someone, the dog is often destroyed, even if it was just a freak incident or the dog was just sick or something.

So in short, I'm not saying an animal won't sit there and let you have your way with them: I'm saying that since that isn't grounds for consent with humans, so it isn't for animals either if you recognize animals as having any sort of rights at all.

178Report
King at 1 May 2006: 15:26

That you all have to even argue whether an animal should be allowed to live it's life the way it sees fit and makes it happy, reflects horribly on the human race.  It suggests only humans can make decisions and they're the only good ones.

82% of the world's daily deaths because of bad decisions.  Venereal disease, smoking, obesity, drug abuse, pollution which leads to asthma diabetes anorexia anemia and more, suicide, war over dirt and physical placement, beliefs, and prejudice.  Starvation the result of self-inflicted ignorance and disasters heightened by global irresponsibility, and others ignoring their own kind in pain and suffering.  Murder and theft, riots over sports games, MURDERS OVER POKEMON CARDS AND WILLIAM SHATNER VS. SPOCK ARGUMENTS!

The human race is destroying the world and itself systematically and undeniably.
And you can honestly say humans are capable of rational and informed decisions?


All dogs go to heaven.  Humans' fate, is clear.

179Report (sage)
at 1 May 2006: 15:40

>>169  Well put.  Of course, now that you've got the basic-scenario stuff worked out (and deemed unacceptable), we could add a lot of other factors to fog up the morality to the nth degree anyway.  Lines get blurrier the farther you go, and it's good you seem to have the luxury of strong convictions to help you out with that. 

But just for general information, chocolate for dogs isn't poinsenous in the sense that say, anti-freeze is - The break down of chocolate produces an enzyme that's difficult for the dog's system to process.  Over time it'll dissappear, but too much, too fast will cause liver failure and death.  And of course, the smaller the dog, the smaller amount needed to be 'too much', and breed has a lot to do with it as well (as some breeds are more tolerant than others, while others have weak sysatems prone to failure). 

The more you know.  :)

180Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 1 May 2006: 16:12

>>176

If it's all the same to you, I'm just going to keep discussing it anyway. ^_^ I mean, if I didn't, I'd probably just waste my free time watching sitcoms or playing video games.

>>179

Word. ^_^  And yes, the scenario is unnaccpetable to me, yet not others.  In a perfect world, there would be no bias and all discussions would be true due to our amazing minds.  Sadly, I lack this clarity, and must muddle along as best I can.  Who knows if I'll find an answer, but if I don't look, I'll never find anything.

>>178

Well, as much as life, and humans may suck, I don't see how surrendering to our depravity can offer any solution. I believe we can do more than sit around and feel depressed about any and all of the problems you outlined, but before we start pursuing a goal, it's usually best to define that goal yes?  Hence, the human tendency to discuss matters.  This is a discussion on bestiality.  I'm sure there are discussions on the other matters as well.

181Report
at 1 May 2006: 17:11

Heres the bottom line.  It's illegal to fuck children because it is accepted they don't have the mental capacity to consent to sex.  Even if they DO give consent, it's not consent because they don't understand the gravity of what they are consenting to which makes it RAPE.

What animal on earth is smarter than a human child?!  NONE, sex with an animal is also rape.

Thread over, if you fuck animals please hang yourself or seek therapy because you have SERIOUS problems

182Report (sage)
at 1 May 2006: 18:00

>>181  Because *obviously* the guy getting boned by his dog has more issues than the guy advocating hate and suicide. 

There should be a law aganst being a stupid asshole.  And it should have been in place long before anyone ever bothered to consider whether banging Bessie was a sin or not.

183Report
at 1 May 2006: 18:14

Thread not over. An animal is not comparable to a child in any legal view. Domestic animals are property and better compared to slaves in that regard. Sidestepping the ethics of enslaving animals (for the moment), animal abuse has legal definitions, regardless of how benign or malicious the intent.

What would be a "serious problem" to you is a part of another person's being. That part won't change unless that person HAS a serious problem with it.

184Report
at 1 May 2006: 18:56

>>175
Primates do it. I've seen a few horses do it creatively. I bet dolphins would do it too if they had arms.
It's not natural for ALL animals to masturbate but those that are aware of such things, well, they'll find a way.

185Report
at 1 May 2006: 19:12

>>182
Yes, a guy getting boned by his dog has FAR more issues than somebody advocating hate and suicide.  Such a disgusting act, it's just as easy to hate a dogfucker as it is to hate a child molester, fucking dogs is the ultimate life failure.

>>183  When did the law come into this?  Wtf?  this thread is about whether it's cool to fuck dogs and despite the fact that it's common sense to know it's NOT cool to fuck dogs, you people apparently require some rationalle which i gave you.  If a 12 year old girl can't consent to sex, how on earth could a dog with an IQ of about 10 consent?  It doesn't take a genius to know that using a living animal as a sex toy is NOT COOL and is morally reprehensible in every possible way.

186Report
at 1 May 2006: 19:13

>>181 people who equate children with animals are most in need of mental help. and its actually considerd a aberation of mental stability to do so, while "most" shrinks that are up to the later teachings and studies find zoophiles and bestialists - so long as harm is avoided to be classed in the same zone as fetishists (ass lovers stocking lovers, etc) dont bitch at me i dident do the studies and such that led them to those conclusions. google and some calls are your best freinds - plus refernce from textual bases.

187Report
at 1 May 2006: 19:28

>>186
You must have a huge ass to pull all that out of it so fast.
I didn't state that animals and children are equal, you must have dreamed that one up on your own.

And these "studies" you made up sound REALLY convincing.  Dogfuckers aren't mentally healthy for the following reasons:

1. Nobody that's mentally competent enough to get real sex from a real person just decides to move on to dogs.  They resort to dogfucking cuz it's the best they can get.

2. The biggest reason they are mentally fucked up is the fact that they're using a living animal with thoughts and feelings as a sex toy, talk about malicious and selfish.  Other than the fact that a child's life is worth the life of 5 million dogs lives, it's basically the same thing as child molestation.  You're using an innocent creature that doesn't understand and is incapable of giving consent as a sex toy for your own selfish ends.  The fact that somebody would be crass enough to even do that indicates them not being very right in the head.

188Report
at 1 May 2006: 20:12

>>185 The point of law made was that an animal's consent is irrellevant. They're property.

189Report
at 1 May 2006: 20:31

>>186 Actually, most psychiatrists link bestiality to a lack of self esteem and anxiety over rejection. They turn to animals because of the perception of uncondidional love. Please reference a psychology textbook rather than the Internet for further details.

190Report
at 1 May 2006: 20:32

>>187 try doing a subtle bit of research before jumping to conclusions and making yourself sound even less logical and reasoning than you already do.
as for nobody who f**ks dogs ...... umn yah right. you win by your display of immence logic reasoning and facts.

191Report
at 1 May 2006: 20:41

>>187 I agree that bestiality is a bad idea and uncool and all that but your really hateful tone brings me to argue against you. Are animals incapable of consenting to anything we do with them? The tame ones seem to consent to a lot of benign handling. 

192Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 1 May 2006: 23:42

>>184
Animals masturbate. That doesn't necessarily make it natural.

>>186
So Bestiality is classified as a fetish. And?

>>191
So, you're arguing just because you don't like the manner in which he presents his argument?

193Report
at 2 May 2006: 01:27

This point may have been made already, but here's an insight:

When you pet a cat, are you committing assault?  Why not?

194Report (sage)
at 2 May 2006: 01:53

>>193

You know, you'd have a point there if the world was just black and white, but there's a huge difference between screwing or molesting an animal, and petting it. Jesus, that's like saying if you give a kid candy you just molested him, or by shaking someone's hand you just raped him.

Did anyone read through this thing, and actually read the articles? Its like there's only 30 posts that actually say anything, with the rest bringing up points that have already been answered, or popping up with these hypotheticals that don't adress anything! Read it or don't comment!

Its like talking to /b/ I swear.

195Report
at 2 May 2006: 03:15

http://www.break.com/index/lama.html

-whistles innocently-

196Report
DragonFlame at 2 May 2006: 04:07

Congrats guys this has to be the longest thread that fchan has ever had. This thread has also been the most repetative that its just stupid. When I started reading I would never consider having sex with an Animal but I would just tolerate that people do it. Now my feeling havent changed. I followed this thread from the very start and I have now had enough. I may come back in a month and reply if this thread is still up and it looks like it will at this rate. This thread should have been shut down 150 posts ago. I wish you guys good luck and goodbye.

197Report (sage)
at 2 May 2006: 04:28

>>196

I'm confused... This thread was so repetative and stupid that you read it from the beginning to the end and then added to it? Did I miss something? See you next month...

198Report (sage)
at 2 May 2006: 06:11

Doesn't a long discussion mean its something people want to discuss? How is a short discussion better than a long one?

Anyway, I served on a jury in an animal abuse case where a guy was having sex with animals in Alberta. The psychological profiling of the guy was pretty much that of a sexual predator. Speaking for victims and such, but since he was trying to hide what he was doing, he didn't strike me as out and out insane. He used that "I didn't hurt anything" argument too.

Yeah bull. I'm glad that guy's in prison. Maybe a few people are loving him in there the same way he loved his animals.

199Report
Svansfall at 2 May 2006: 06:26

I take care of a herd of cows now and then.  I enjoy being in their company, because several of them are sweet and cuddly individuals.  When I walk out into the pasture, they come running up to me.  They are all very different indivduals and all of them enjoy different things.  One of them really loves to have her back scritched, so as soon as she sees me, she'll try to head-butt the other cows away so that she can get to me, and then she'll press her side up against me, right where she wants to be scritched.

So I will scritch and massage her back, and she lowers her head and closes her eyes, relaxing deeply, and leaning into my touch when I touch the parts of her back she enjoys the very most.  Eventually, my hands grow tired, and I might have other things to attend to, so I will stop scritching her and start walking away.   This will lead to her running after me, and trying to get me to start scritching her back again, and I might start again, even though my hands are tired.

Sometimes, she just can't get enough, and then I have nothing to do but just walk out of the pasture and come back later, because when she's in the mood for a back scritch, she'll not give up.

Some other individuals in the herd enjoy other kinds of stimulation.  Some of them will come up to me, turn their rear towards me, and raise their tail up to the side.  If I walk away from them, they will sometimes be okay with this, but sometimes they will run after me, once again get in front of me, and raise their tail up to the side.  If I now start stimulating their genitals, they will lower their heads, close their eyes and relax.  If I stimulate them good enough, and for long enough, they might orgasm.

Next time I see them, the same individual cows who I have stimulated in this way might come up to me, and once again raise their tails in front of me.

How am I to interpret this?  Is it informed consent?  No it is not informed consent.  It is however communication.  If a cow does not like what you're doing they will simply walk away, and if they really don't like what you're doing, they'll kick at you, headbutt at you, etc.  By interracting with another species, you get experienced by reading body language and it gets easy to interpret what they want and what they do not want.

When a dog leans into your hand when you scritch behind the dog's ear, most people, even if they don't know anything about animals, will interpret this as meaning: "That feels good, please continue."

People who are finding the thought of sexual interraction with animals to be disturbing and disgusting, have the right to feel this way.  It is a personal view, and it should be respected.

However, I feel that to declare that something is by default wrong for anyone else to do, is another matter.  I believe that as long as everyone involved are enjoying it, it cannot be wrong, wheter I personally find it disturbing or not.  I am against all forms of sexual interraction with anyone, human or animal, if it's not clear that everyone are enjoying the act.

To those people who find sexual interraction with animals to be wrong, I ask of you to look at my two examples, of the cow who likes having her back scritched, and the cow who likes being sexually stimulated.

Is it right or wrong of me, to scritch the cow's back, when she shows me that she enjoys it, and will come back for more later?

Is it right or wrong of me, to stimulate the cow's genitals, when she shows me that she enjoys it, and will come back for more later?

Is there anyway you can see that I am causing discomfort to the cows by either scritching their back, or by stimulating their genitals?

The only answer I can see here, is that you feel it is wrong, because you feel it is wrong.  I.e. you find it uncomfortable to think that people interract sexually with animals.

But what if someone is disturbed by the thought of scritching someone's back?  Should that also be officially wrong?   Is it rape to scritch a cow's back when she comes up to me?  Is it rape to give attention to her genitals when she comes up to me?

Sexual interraction with animals is not always right, just like sexual interraction with humans isn't always right.  Different people are differently responsible.  In my opinion, as long as someone is responsible, and sensible, and careful to make sure that their partner is enjoying it, and will not suffer in the long-term from it, then it is fine.

As a side-note: For sexual interraction to be okay in my opinion, all participants should be sexually mature.  To give sexual attention to an animal who has not yet become sexually mature, is therefor not right.

And I am not deluding myself to believe that the animals feel the same kind of love for me, as I may do for them.  But I know that they are happy to see me, and eager to greet me, and that they enjoy my company.  I enjoy their company highly also, to lie in the grass among a herd of resting cows is a wonderful relaxing experience.

As for the act of selfishness.  Personally, I cannot enjoy something unless I know that the one I am spending time with is enjoying it also.

Therefor it is important to me to make sure that I am only being sexual with those who enjoy the sexual interraction.  So, yes, I am selfish by making sure they enjoy it.  But it is in the same way that a non-zoo person might enjoy to scritch a dog behind its ear.  They enjoy scritching the dog, because the dog so obviously expresses that they enjoy the touch.

There is a lot of people here in this debate showing intolerance towards the other side.  To the people here who are not zoophiles, I'd like to apologize on the behalf of some of the zoophiles or so-called zoophiles, for some of theirs inability to accept that people may have a different view.

Hats off to Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ, for managing to stay sensible, despite such provocations.  This is the first time I am visiting this place, another zoophile just pointed me to this discussion.  I am not sure I'll be back, but in either case, it was nice to read your posts, Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ, because I enjoy your well-written posts and you seem like a nice person.

Take care, everyone, and stay calm. :)

200Report
at 2 May 2006: 09:32

>>193  OH PLEASE

Petting =/= sexual intercourse

*rolls eyes*


201Report
at 2 May 2006: 10:12

201GET

202Report
at 2 May 2006: 10:19

>>200
Sexual intercourse is about as harmful as petting.  Rough sexual intercourse can injure, but so can rough petting.  (To clairfy, by "petting" I meant the normal standard affectionate non-sexual gesture, not any implied sexual meaning behind it)

So, if it's okay to pet an animal without consent (read the law, any contact without permission is considered assault)...

203Report
at 2 May 2006: 11:19

>>202
Who here is talking about Rough sexual intercourse. True Rough sexual intercourse can injure but that applies to any species including human sexual intercourse.

Also.
Read the law, any contact with another human without permission is considered assault.

204Report
Yggdrasil at 2 May 2006: 14:55

>>200
So, only sex is wrong?  Only a mutually enjoyed act is wrong, but forced captivity, murder, testing, etc. are all okay?

Hypocrasy at it's finest.

205Report
at 2 May 2006: 15:18

>>204

Now, if you had actually read any of this, you'd have seen this addressed like 4 times already.  It's all wrong, but that doesn't mean the sex is okay.  Lesser evil is still evil.

206Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 2 May 2006: 16:35

>>199

Blast... well, I'll try to think of a response to this when I get back from work, but for now, all I can say is that I have the same feelings for a similar situation when it involves children.  Sexual maturity is a cenvinient excuse, but really, it's arbitrary.  In theory, you can have someone who is more intelligent than us all, yet perhaps possessing some defect that prevents sexual maturity from ever occuring.  Innocence and taking advantage of trust is what concerns me, and...

And I'll have to get back to you on that. ^_^ It's nice to see someone who seems willing to discuss this at length and admit to the fact that an animal cannot grant informed consent.  Now if I could just see how an animal can provide sufficient, consent on the matter that is at least similar to informed consent, so that I can lay to rest my fears that those practicing bestiality are yet another group out to use animals toward a selfish ends.

>>204
Actually, I think all forms of animal cruelty are wrong, but bestiality is one that enough people seem to agree upon as being wrong that there's actually a chance of doing something about it.  For the most part, it's punished on discovery... but I've been wrong about things before, and I may be wrong about this.  I doubt that I'm wrong, but in order to find personal closure at least, I need to think this out... though I think I'm close now (for myself).

...

I don't recall seeing a post saying that murdering animals was okay...

207Report
Wolfblade at 2 May 2006: 16:44

>>169
This is the most well-voiced argument I've ever heard on this subject. On the subject of how much consent an animal can give though;

If an animal is incapable of consent by the human definition of it, then NO sex, even between two of the same animal, is consenting. If an animal gives a human every signal and indication of consent it can give to another animal, then either it has given consent, or ALL animal sex is rape, in whih case how is being raped by a human different from being raped by another animal? If an animal can consent to having sex with another animal, then they can consent to the same degree with the same signals and body language to have sex with a human.

>>205
So the other point seems to be where to draw the line of how human an animal can be.

This is my only argument on the subject.

Right or wrong from a standpoint of morals is just an argument for the sake of arguing. Everyone's morals are different and changing. A few hundred years ago, few felt it immoral for one human being to own another. Morals change, differ from person to person, and are not set in stone.

Arguing whether or not it should or shouldn't be legal is a different matter though. It depends on whether society sees an animal as a living sentient thing, or just as property.

If you feel it is wrong because you see it as some form of abuse to the animal, fine. If it is abuse, then abuse is abuse, and people should be judged on the severity of the abuse. If society decides a person who fucks his dog is ABUSING that animal, and chooses to punish him for abuse, then ok. But then more severe abuse should warrant a more severe punishment. Fuck a dog that by all appearances isn't fighting it and get 15 years for animal abuse, then killing a dog should be a significantly harsher sentence. You don't get jail time for rape, but only a fine for murder.

So if an animal is only considered "destroyed property" when it is killed (something I find MUCH more disgusting than the concept of someone letting their dog boink them), then society has decreed the animal to be nothing more than property, so who are they to say what someone can and can't do with their own property?

I'm not saying sex with animals is ok. I'm not saying it should be legal. From a moral standpoint, that is a matter that will differ from person to person. From a legal standpoint, the ruling of society in general, is that they can't make up their mind, plain and simple. Until society (law) decides one way or the other, it is ridiculous to treat it as both.

If sex with an animal warrants "abuse" and jail time, murdering one should warrant much worse, and I'd be all in support of both. As long as murdering an animal constitutes nothing more than "destruction of property" and a fine, and law has no problem with animal testing which often leads to death, then punishing someone just for having sex with his "property" is just as ludicrous as if there were a law against fucking your stuffed animals.

208Report
at 2 May 2006: 18:14

I don't know how many religious people there are here but if you go by the Bible, there is a part that states if you have sex with an animal, you will be put to death. I listen to the radio in the mornings and have heard of many people who have been caught sneaking onto farms and fucking animals. They were arrested and sentenced to prison time.
So if you get caught you will be arrested and jailed. I won't get into the consent issue. Mainly because consent or not beastiality and underage sex will get you a handful of trouble.

209Report (sage)
sage at 2 May 2006: 18:18

WHY THE HELL ARE PEOPLE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS!!? 209 comments, damn!

210Report (sage)
at 2 May 2006: 19:34

>>209
some people cannot agree to disagree.

And sage for thousand+ year old topic that won't be settled any time soon, that's only brought up for the
sake of argueing/flaming.

211Report (sage)
at 2 May 2006: 20:20

>>210 This isn't why I started this thread. Don't pile this on me. I was satisfied with the mod decision before this topic hit it's teens...

212Report
at 2 May 2006: 20:23

>>209
>>210
So you contribute to a topic, complaining that it's too long?  Do you think?  I mean that... did a thought promote you to post that?  Frig.

>>207
I don't think the sentense and punishment of one crime has anything to do with another.  By that token, if killing the animal is legal, then there's nothing wrong with torturing it. Just because there's injustice doesn't mean it's solved with more injustice.

Yes, I think sex with animals is abuse.  Animals are innocent.  They don't think like we do, so with the exception of chimps, they can't commit a crime, so with them, it's just sex. Humans complicate things cause we choose to do it just for the fuck of it, and that makes it rape if you don't get consent. If there was a human so stupid that he thought he's making babies with animals, it wouldn't be rape, it'd be brain damage.

Kind of like how if a plant kills a plant, it's nature, but if a human kills a human, it's murder. With the ability to think about it, comes the responsability to THINK about it. :)

213Report
at 2 May 2006: 20:51

Whats wrong with beastiality?. Well, heres my answer.
Because beleive it or not, it is possible for a human to impregnate an animal (doesn't happen often, but occassionally). And what the animal gives birth to wil be born badly deformed and probably dead (due to genetic incompatabilities) as well.
Dont laugh... I've seen pictures.
THATS the harm it can cause.

214Report
at 2 May 2006: 21:01

>>213 I'm sorry, but you've been tricked. There isn't a single animal on the planet with the same number of base DNA pairs. If you don't believe me, look for it in any medical or scientific journal (as in not a website).

215Report
at 2 May 2006: 21:02

>>213

...you.... wow.

just wow.

216Report
at 2 May 2006: 21:13

>>214 Clarification to what I was saying... There isn't a single animal on the planet with the same number of base pairs as a human... There are quite a few animals with the same number base pairs amongst themselves... We humans are an island in the genetic soup...

217Report
Janglur at 2 May 2006: 21:14

Behold!  Ignorance!

Where's my bliss?

218Report (sage)
at 2 May 2006: 23:00

>>213
Yes you have seen pictures in an age when computers can doctor any image to make it look real. Reality on the world wide web is much different than real "reality".

219Report
Svansfall at 3 May 2006: 01:24

>>212

You say you consider sex with animals to be abuse, because animals are innocent, and they don't think like we do.

I would like to see your answer to the questions I am raising in post 199.
If it is abuse to give pleasure to an animal, wheter it is by stimulating their genitals, or by scritching their back.   How
come is it then that the same individual animals come back for more?

I am not saying that there are people who are not abusing animals.  There are, and it is terribly, terribly wrong.  But an
abused animal does not come back for more abuse.

For example, there are heterosexual humans who abuse their human sex partners.  Should we therefor say it is wrong to be a
heterosexual human?  The percentage of caring and responsible zoophiles is a rather high number, but they prefer to do it in
private with animals they know well, animals they can understand the body language of.   There is more to sex than just
getting your own rocks off, the point is to give pleasure at the same time.  Are you thinking that animals are incapable of
recieving pleasure?   Then why are you scritching a dog?  Why am I scritching the cow's back when she enjoys it?  And why am I giving attention to her genitals when she enjoys it?   Because it feels good to give pleasure.

You are completely right when you say that animals do not think like we do.  But animals have a sexuality, and they do enjoy sexual stimulation.  That is why a mare might rub her genitalia against a tree to stimulate herself.

I respect your right to feel that sex with animals is wrong, but please do not let that get in the way of sensible, and caring animal owners who may wish to stimulate their animals, in the case that the animals enjoy it and get pleasure from it.

Animals are fully capable of feeling pleasure by having their genitals stimulated.  If an animal wants to be pleasured, what
is so wrong with giving them this pleasure?  And do you seriously believe the same animal would come back, and eagerly raise their tail and present their genitals to someone who has given sexual stimulation, in case the animal did not wish to be
pleasured again?

>>206

I wouldn't say that sexual maturity is some kind of excuse.  I would say it makes all the difference.  Animals have a sexuality.  Children does not have a sexuality, it is not developed yet.  As stated above, some animals enjoy stimulation to their genitals, and I am wondering why it is wrong to stimulate the genitals of an animal who enjoys the stimulation?

I agree that it is wrong to take advantage of trust, and it should not be allowed.  But if you take advantage of the trust the animal shows you, and you harm the animal in any way, it already falls under the category of cruelty to animals.  I agree that people who abuse animals are really bad people, and I am very concerned with the well-being of animals.  In fact, most zoophiles are concerned with the well-being of animals.  There is a great difference between zoophiles who enjoy to care for, and live together with animals, and people who might just go out to have sex with any animal as a kind of getting off.

It's all about showing respect for what the animal enjoys and does not enjoy.  And just as I stated above, an animal who did not enjoy your stimulation, will not choose to come up to you and raise their tail in front of you again.

220Report
Svansfall at 3 May 2006: 01:28

>>219

I did a typo in the post I just wrote.  In the third paragraph, it reads: "I am not saying that there are people who are not abusing animals."   It should read:

"I am not saying that there are not people who are abusing animals."

Sorry for making it confusing.  :)

223Report (sage)
at 3 May 2006: 03:53

  ∧_∧   ∧_∧   ∧_∧   ∧_∧      ∧_∧
 ( ・∀・)   ( `ー´)  ( ´∀`)  ( ゚ ∀゚ )    ( ^∀^)
 (    つ┳∪━━∪━∪━━∪━∪━∪━┳⊂     つ
 | | |  ┃This thread has peacefully ended.┃ | | |
 (__)_) ┻━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┻ (__)_)     Thank you.

224Report(capped)
Xenofur at 3 May 2006: 04:10

  ∧_∧   ∧_∧   ∧_∧   ∧_∧      ∧_∧
 ( ・∀・)   ( `ー)  ( ∀`)  ( ゚ ∀゚ )    ( ^∀^)
 (    つ┳∪━━∪━∪━━∪━∪━∪━┳⊂     つ
 | | |  ┃    We lied! It's still on!     ┃ | | |
 (__)_) ┻━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┻ (__)_) 

225Report
DragonFlame at 3 May 2006: 12:25

Im back early Bwhahahaha.

>>223
LOL That would be a Miracle.

>>224
Awwwwww. You got my hopes up and then crushed them. ;)

226Report
at 3 May 2006: 18:49

>>202
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You're really using that as a rationalle for dog fucking?  DUDE, if you have to make such fantastic leaps of logic in order to attempt to justify to yourself what you're doing maybe you shouldn't be doing it hmm?

If petting is just as harmful as sexual intercourse why are there hundreds of thousands of women in therapy and support groups and recovering from the emotional and psychological trauma of being raped whereas NOBODY is in therapy to help them get over the psychological trauma of a non consensual pat on the back or somebody brushing up against their arm.  What you said is like pissing in the face of every rape victim out there.

>>204
*slaps forehead* Do you know what hypocrisy is?  Did i mention enslaving/murdering/testing on animals?  NO, so why on earth did you bring it up?  This thread is about fucking dogs, that's what i mentioned.  I'm saying fucking animals is wrong and a hair under %100 of the earths population agrees with this since it's so obvious a 226 post argument shouldn't even have been necessary.

As for mudering animals, theres people being murdered every day, who gives a shit about the animals.  Once we end all homicides, then we can worry about kids shooting pigeons with bb guns.  As for testing, a lot of it is wrong but without it, my brother would never have survived infanthood if it weren't for his artificial baby heart bypass being tested on pigs and goats.

227Report (sage)
Joan-Michele#R9F5WG6Bjw at 3 May 2006: 19:31

>>226

I approve of this message

228Report
at 3 May 2006: 20:06

Think it's ok to screw an animal?. Fine. Go ahead and do it. You'll have plenty of time to think about how wrong it is while sitting in your prison cell.

229Report
RandomGuy^^ at 3 May 2006: 20:33

>>226

Why so angry friend? :)

If someone wants to have sex with a dog, what's the big deal?  As long as the animal isn't hurt, to each his own.  ^^

I can assure you that about 60 to 70 percent of those people who "think fucking animals is so wrong" do it behind closed doors anyway. :P

And dude, what's with the hostility toward animals?  Were you raped by a gang of cats or something when you were little? Jeez...  Just because people are getting murdered somewhere doesn't mean you just drop everything and stop caring about animals.  "Oh that kid is about to set that cat on fire but some chick is hypothetically getting murdered halfway across the globe and there's nothing I can do about it anyway but I'll sit here and NOT help the cat out of protest!"  I don't get it. :P

230Report
RandomGuy^^ at 3 May 2006: 21:24

>>228

Not really.  How often do people actually get caught doing it?  That's the type of thing people don't really advertise.  They do it behind closed doors. You know it goes on CONSTANTLY in every community and how often do you ever hear about people gettin' caught?  NEVER. :P

Let em have their fun. It's no whoopity doo. :)

231Report
at 3 May 2006: 21:31

>>229
"Why so angry friend? :)

If someone wants to have sex with a dog, what's the big deal?  As long as the animal isn't hurt, to each his own.  ^^"

To each his own, right, pardon me while i go rape a child, as long as i don't punch her in the face she won't be injured ^^
Just because it doesn't PHYSICALLY hurt the animal doesn't mean it's not hurting it.  And who's angry?  Are you?  Cuz i'm certainly not.  We've got a thread here filled with perverts advocating the rape of animals.  The fact that this thread is so mind bendingly stupid makes harsh words warrented IMO.

"And dude, what's with the hostility toward animals?  Were you raped by a gang of cats or something when you were little? Jeez...  Just because people are getting murdered somewhere doesn't mean you just drop everything and stop caring about animals.  "Oh that kid is about to set that cat on fire but some chick is hypothetically getting murdered halfway across the globe and there's nothing I can do about it anyway but I'll sit here and NOT help the cat out of protest!"  I don't get it. :P"

Who's hostile toward animals?  Did i advocate any hostility? Sheesh, did i say i wouldn't help a cat cuz people get murdered?  Where on earth do you people come up with this stuff?  You need to get with reality here and acctually read the posts you're responding to instead of replying with all this rediculous conjecture.  Compared to human lives, animals are beyond insignificant, that's what i was implying, the shit happens, it's sad but no big deal.

"I can assure you that about 60 to 70 percent of those people who "think fucking animals is so wrong" do it behind closed doors anyway. :P"

Oh, wow, wow.....I've seen some delusional furries that are seemingly completely out of touch with reality but with this post you take the cake man.  If you acctually believe this you are truly lost in your own world.  I mean you don't acctually believe that 60 to 70% of the world is fucking there dog behind closed doors do you?  Cuz %100 percent of random people you meet on the street will tell you that fucking a lesser lifeform that eats it's own poo is about as gross as you can get.  NEWSFLASH!  NOBODY FUCKS DOGS, it's about as niche a perverted fetish as you can get.  Keep telling yourself that everybody is doing it, infact, why don't you tell EVERYBODY that you do it?  I'm sure %60 to %70 percent of them will understand since they all do it right? 

good grief......

232Report
at 3 May 2006: 21:47

>>231 Some animals explicitly ask for sex, even from human partners. It's not rape if it's consensual.

233Report
RandomGuy^^ at 3 May 2006: 21:56

>>231

Hehe.  Right back at ya.  You're the one who's delusional if you think everyone is spotlessly clean.  Oh and I never even mentioned whether or not I was a furry or into besitality or not.  I just said "to each his own." What people do is their business, whether I agree with it or not.  If it's not hurting anyone, there's no need to make a big deal out of it. ^^

Again, why so angry friend?  "Good grief......" ^^

234Report
RandomGuy^^ at 3 May 2006: 22:10

>>231

Oh and one more thing.  If animals are so insignificant to you...then why does any of this matter?  Just think of the animal as a sock or a condom, a simple tool, if they're so insignificant. You should calm down and have some hot cocoa. Everything will be okay, guy. ^^ 

235Report
at 3 May 2006: 22:27

I will say it best for the entire world who agrees

THERE FUCKING ANIMALS THEY DONT HAVE SOULS THEY DONT MATER
THERE FUCKING USELESS
AND FUCKING ANIMALS IS FUCKING SICK
IT IS THE ULTMATE FAIL OF LIFE

now close thread and ban dogfuckers

236Report
RandomGuy^^ at 3 May 2006: 22:44

>>235

Whoa, dude.  Are you alright? ^^;

237Report
at 3 May 2006: 22:55

>>235

youre just straight nuts man. been readin too much into that thar bible or something. besides, whether or not they have souls has nothing to do with anything. if i started arguing with you about it all our posts would dissapear because i dont think religion is up for debate here.

people like you who are that negitive about anything are the ones who fail at life. shit is the way it is and its probably that way for one reason or another. kicking and screaming will only make you look immature.

238Report
Wolfblade at 3 May 2006: 23:01

"And who's angry?  Are you?  Cuz i'm certainly not."

Obviously.

"THERE FUCKING ANIMALS THEY DONT HAVE SOULS THEY DONT MATER
THERE FUCKING USELESS
AND FUCKING ANIMALS IS FUCKING SICK
IT IS THE ULTMATE FAIL OF LIFE"

Because this is in every way a more healthy and balanced way of thinking than it is when someone sees no problem in giving physical pleasure to an animal that, whether you see it as sick or not, they see it as expressing affection and caring.

All the arguments FOR bestiality have been talking about loving an animal, feeling affection for them, showing them physical pleasure. Whether that is misguided or sick or whatever you choose to think, it is still better than the people who have been speaking against it. The guy who says he killed an alley full of dogs, burned a barn full of horses, the people who say animals aren't capable of thinking or reasoning on our level but can somehow be scarred emotionally by sex on levels they supposedly don't have, and now a guy who says they are soulless, useless, and don't matter. Yet he's about ready to pop a headgasket over this.

Why are people who think so little of animals so violently rabidly against people who do this?

239Report
at 3 May 2006: 23:17

amen wolfblade. *bows*

240Report
skibum#KrV755.GHU at 3 May 2006: 23:33

>>238
Apparently hate is all they have left; all other arguments are exhausted.  *shrugs*

241Report
at 4 May 2006: 00:04

That's about the size of it. We can yell and scream and call each other doodyfaces until we all turn blue. This issue can't be solved just by talking about it. I do find it funny when some users say "end of thread ban these people" when they think what they are saying is the final word.

242Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 4 May 2006: 00:49

>>219
It is at this point that I must bow out as Dragon Flame did.  I have points to make Svansfall... you seem like you have actually though about this enough to address the issue rather than simply argue.  However, if taking you seriously and perhaps being convinced requires that I also take... some of these others seriously, I must refuse and end on a note that I still believe that those practicing bestiality are only marginally less reprehensible than pedophiles, for many of the same reasons... and if I were to so much as tolerate bestiality, I would also have to tolerate child molestation, which I assure you, will never happen.  As infantile and absurd as this sounds, that does, unfortunately, make us enemies, for if I ever learned the location of your farm, I would feel obligated to report you, and otherwise hamper your efforts from that moment on.

>>238
Wolfblade, dictating "the true meaning" of somebody's argument is not going to solve anything.  If you're going to ignore what people say and replace it with your own version that allows you to dismiss them more easily, you're no different than those who invoke religion.  I believe these people who are showing "love" for their animals are no more than sexual predators with an inherant guilt trip, and over the past week, all the reading and discussions that I've had on the matter have reinforced what I've thought with few exceptions.

I think very highly of animals.  They're our little brothers and sisters on this planet, and as a species, we abuse them in a manner that is nothing short of disgusting.  Taking advantage of animals for the purposes of sexual gratification may not be as bad as some of what happens, but that justifies nothing.  I would see animal cruelty evaporate in every measure, but that will probably never happen... but I will not concede that what these people are doing to their animals is out of love.  Lust, certainly, and perhaps a "need" to love, and maybe a complex emotion that is like love... the love shown towards any prized possession.  If nothing else, if it were truly love, the human would opt out in respect for the fact that the animal cannot consent because we canot understand them.  Whether their thoughts are too simple, or whether they just can'y convey their meaning, no consent is obtained.  I've seen many who have chosen to interpret consent from natural behavior, and I've seen people who attack the character of others rather than look at themselves to see if, perhaps, THEY were the ones who were wrong.

Anyway, I hope this discussion continues and that others find some sort of closure.  I think I have, and though it's the same as it was before, I now know the reason why I feel this way, and can justify myself for not merely basing my opinion on ignorance and one-upmanship. ^_^

243Report
Skunkworks at 4 May 2006: 01:34

I don't usually partake in these kinds of discussions, but >>242, you have my utmost respect.  Well said, my friend, well said.

244Report
at 4 May 2006: 05:54

>>Animals masturbate. That doesn't necessarily make it natural.

And this is why animalfuckers think they're in the right, because of absolutely moronic nonsense like this.

245Report
at 4 May 2006: 06:02

Tripcoded anonymous, you have my undying elove and respect for your words on the matter. So much so I'll forgoe the typical "tripfag" comment and if it were possible, I'd buy you a beverage of your choice. Throughout this thread you have constantly provided your stance and reasoning only to have it ignored, twisted, or lambasted for reasons that boggle the rational mind.

246Report
Svansfall at 4 May 2006: 08:25

>>242

Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ, I am sad to see that you are leaving the debate, but I understand your reason for doing so.  This is one of the saddest debates on the topic I have ever witnessed, due to so much intolerance and name-calling from both sides.  I don't have much in common with most of those who defend bestiality in this particular debate.  I do not take some of those others seriously, so if you feel like taking me seriously or not, it is up to you.  But I do not represent these kinds of people, and I don't agree with them.  There was mentioning of sexual lust being one of the reason for why bestiality should be allowed.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  The humans own sexual lust must NEVER be allowed to be the main reason for having sexual interraction with an animal.  Any interraction with an animal must always be out of respect for the animal's own desires, needs and wants.

I,like you, think very highly of animals, as do many other zoophiles.  We are often among the first people to protest against animal abuse and cruelty to animals.  Animals are worthy of our respect, and should not be treated the way they are, in general in this world.  You are saying we cannot understand
what the animals mean?  So, you are saying that when dogs lean against your hand as you scritch their ear, we cannot understand wheter that means they enjoy it, or wheter they want you to stop?

A cow comes up to me, and pushes her rear up towards me, raising her tail to the side.  If I ignore it, and go away, she comes after me, and tries again, being persistent, until I have  sufficiently given stimulation to her genitals.   The fact that she will continue until I pleasure her... is this a sign to me, that she wanted to be pleasured, or is it a sign to me that she doesn't want it?

When spending a lot of time together with animals of various species, you do learn their body language, you do learn to communicate.  Someone who knows their animals well and are interracting with them on a daily basis, will definitely learn
to understand them.

And once again... animals are not children.  Young animals are children, without a sexuality.  Grown up animals have a sexuality, they masturbate, they enjoy sexual stimulation.  If animals were children they would not be able to procreate, and would die out after one generation.

Once again, Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ, I am sad to see you leave.  I liked reading your posts in this discussion, and I agree with a lot of what you think and say.  I would be happy if you wanted to contact me in private somehow.  I don't know how that works on this place, but you can look me up and send me a private message on Beastforum.com if you feel like?

If you don't, be well, and take care, and I wish you all the best in your striving to stop people from abusing animals.  It was good to communicate with you, and I will continue my own striving to stop people from abusing animals.

247Report
Joan-Michele#R9F5WG6Bjw at 4 May 2006: 10:43

>>242

Very good point.

I'd like to point out as well that if bestiality is about loving the animal. WHY, of all ways to express your love of an animal, does it have to be sexual? Is that all you think about anymore?

248Report
Janglur at 4 May 2006: 10:43

What I also don't see is why anti-zoophiles can't tell the difference between Bestiality and some other act.  They have this 'all or nothing' opposition in their views regarding pedophilia and bestiality.  Which are, truly, uncomparable.  One has sexual development and desires, the other does not.  They're apples and oranges, seperate cases that must be handled with seperate considerations.  As well, they both have completely different mental compositions and emotions, further making them incongruent.  They've provided their argument, but the argument always, even with the anonymous, requires that you consider animals incapable of consent and thought, making it wrong, yet also require that humans children be of the same mindset.  To even argue their point of view it requires severe double standards and incongruent views.
This leaves me to beleive that they are either grasping at straws for their argument (which I hope for), or their moral fiber is damaged in a way far worse than bestiality brings up as a topic.  That they actually equate animals and children as the same, and treat them as such.  A situation that restricts the rights of the animal, and horribly belittles and harms the child, by treating them both as property.

I also cannot understand why there is so much basis on hate and "I feel it is wrong, but cannot/will not defend my feeling" sentiment for anti-zoophiles.  If someone feels so strongly about it, why would they choose not to take action and explain why it is wrong, to try and let others 'see the light'?

I also cannot understand the incredibly overwhelming hatred and desire for anti-zoos to throw zoos into jail, despite the fact we've established that it's legal in some areas.  Many ignore this fact, beleiving that their hatred would be enough to jail them.  And further beleiving that their hatred justifies their damaging, hindering, or otherwise harming the zoophiles.  This rabid fanaticism is frightening, to say the least.

I cannot understand any of these sentiments or situations.  The only explanation I can gather, which I have yet to desire to resolve myself to, is that these are merely the result of anti-Zoophiles being wrong, knowing they are wrong, and knowing that they are guided solely on hatred and social programming, with no interest in the actual welfare of the animal, concentrated solely on the act, and how it offends them.

I would ask that someone, like >>242 continue the argument, to prove to me that this is not so.  And that anti-zoos exist for the welfare of the animal, and not as witch-burning inquisitors.
I have already exhausted my own argument, which noone has directly continued with new points or information.  But I do not want to see this thread die until I am convinced that whichever side gets the last word or 'wins', that both sides are truly concerned over the animal, it's rights, and it's freedom, without showing a disconcern for childrens'.

249Report
Janglur at 4 May 2006: 10:55

>>247
Ah, a good argument!  Thank you.

The same reason human couples do.  Sex is extremely pleasureable, and as such most humans will engage in it to show passion, because there are few better ways.
With humans, there is also the option of poetry, fancy restaurants, and romantic sentiments.
But with animals, they would be unable to appreciate or enjoy many of these, leaving tender care, attention, and sexual acts the only remaining methods of displaying love to the animal.
Animals display the same behavior, even non-sexually.
Cats often will kill things and leave them for you.  In the wild, this is a form of gift-giving to display trust, submission, and affection.
Cats also engage in forplay by nuzzling, especially around the base of the tail, which triggers a reaction of the cat to lift it's hindquarters for mating.
Wolves will engage in homosexual behavior with other wolves (and in captivity, dogs with most anything) for the 'top' to display dominance, and the 'bottom' to allow them to display submission and trust.  It may also presumably be a desire for mutual enjoyment, or for the submitor to allow the top to gratify himself as a pleasantry to thank them for their support.
Female hyenas will lick each others' psuedopenis in greeting.  They lift their legs to their extremely sensitive and vital organs (and belly, too), as a sign of trust.  They further often engage in sexual relations with each other solely for pleasure.  (In Hyena societies, males are horribly abused and ostracized, due to genetic conditioning and their social heirarchy.  Matings with males only occur during season, and many males are extremely hesitant and afraid, as the females are extremely aggressive and have been known to hurt males who are 'not fun'.  It's a true lesbian society.)

Just a few examples.  Many animals in the world use sex as a form of gratification, trust, love, friendship, submission, and social act.  It's only natural that humans, closely related to apes and primates who display an almost rabid degree of lust as social and heirarchal confirmation, that humans would default to show affection via sex.  For many humans, psychologists determine that 'bottoms' are generally submissive to their partners, and less willing to function independantly from them, displaying great love and trust.  While 'tops' are often very protective, act as the providers, and take it upon themselves to provide for every need and want of their bottom.

250Report
DragonFlame at 4 May 2006: 11:21

First off every single person that has posted a comment with no explanation of why they think that way is just wasting everyone’s time. I thank everyone that has at least attempted to explain their point of view instead of just saying things like “But animals can consent because I say so” and “But having sex with animals is disgusting and is just rape because they can’t consent”.

>>242
I haven’t quite left yet. I am sorry to see you go. But I understand why you feel you must.



A few people have been craping on about how having sex with an Animal is fine or not fine because it may physically hurt the animal or not. This is a shit argument. Having sex does not hurt you physically unless you are forcing your partner so why is everyone arguing about it.
The way humans are affected by rape is not really the physical harm but the mental harm that is caused by the rape incident. When a child is raped she may enjoy it but she is not at an age to understand her actions (Thus not considered rape at the time by the child) and when she gets older she will be traumatised by the event. She was not hurt physically but mentally. It really comes down to the fact that the Human does NOT want to have a sexual encounter with that person. This is where consent is brought in.

The real question is, is an animal having sex with a human mentally harmed by this encounter. If so that means that the Animal does not want to have sex with the human and when forced will be traumatised by the encounter. This obviously shows that the Animal knows how to consent to a situation.
Only the individual can decided if they feel they have been Raped or not and no one can make that decision for them.

Rape is sex and every one has sex, it is not the physical behaviour that defines Rape but the Mental behaviour.
If an Animal will never have enough intelligence (like many people think) to be mentally scared by the encounter when the Animal is older then it is possible to argue that Animals can not be Raped. My reason for this is that according to Anti-Beast groups Animals lack the knowledge to consent thus have no ability to be traumatised by the sexual event because they don’t have an opinion about wether or not they have sex.
This is crap off course.

To clarify.
Rape is a Human term for Human beings to use for a situation when someone is forced into having sex when they don’t want to. It is defined by the mental disagreement.
If rape is not understood then the Animal will have no opinion either way if it wants to have sex and will not be traumatised because it hasn’t got the Mental ability to understand and will never have that ability. – Not considered Rape by the Animal.
If an Animal thinks its being raped then they have the ability to consent and the animal will be traumatised by the event. – Considered Rape by the Animal.

I hope this all makes sense.
I’m just trying to get both sides think about the mental and not physical consequences of Rape. And why it may or may not apply to Animals.

251Report
Janglur at 4 May 2006: 11:26

>>250
Thank you.  You have phrased, better than me, my entire argument all along.

252Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 4 May 2006: 11:37

>>232
What, do they put on teddies and light candles? Where are you getting this from?

>>233
">You're the one who's delusional if you think everyone is spotlessly clean. <
You turned his argument into a bizarre absolute.

>>240
You're taking one jackhole as representative of your entire opposition?

>>244
">And this is why animalfuckers think they're in the right, because of absolutely moronic nonsense like this.<
How is it nonsense? It's like saying that making a car, or infrastructure, or organized religion, is natural because humans do it.

>>248
">I cannot understand any of these sentiments or situations.  The only explanation I can gather, which I have yet to desire to resolve myself to, is that these are merely the result of anti-Zoophiles being wrong, knowing they are wrong, and knowing that they are guided solely on hatred and social programming, with no interest in the actual welfare of the animal, concentrated solely on the act, and how it offends them.<
I feel a strong desire to call "BULL" on that. I don't know how many times I've seen Zoos claim that their opponents are just conformists.

>>250
And what about the human opinion? What about to opinions of the people around the hypothetical child?

253Report
at 4 May 2006: 11:39

>>246

Has it occured to you that by the bovine, cared for by you, then sees you as part of her 'herd', and subsequently a mate whom will impregnate her and allow her to give birth to a new generation?

Animals, especially herding or pack animals, easily adopt humans into their pack mentality, and as such, will see them as potential sexual partners---for the purpose of procreation. To imply that your dog, cow, ect., simply wants sexual gratification for the sake of being pleasured is delusional.

Animals don't have recreational sex with the exception of 'higher' species, such as dolphins, humans, and some primates.

I've yet to see anyone provide any actual proof that there are animals out there (with the exceptions I've listed above) having sex for recreational purposes, and not with intent to have offspring.

The problem is that zoophiles, beastiality furs, whatever they want to call themselves, are very passionate about the subject and are -vocal- on the matter. There's a reason why every person outside the fandom tends to think of all furries as 'dog fuckers'---because those are the furs who are trying to instill it into everyone's head that it's right, and it's all about love, ect. And most are under the assumption that since people like furries, they must like animals (in a sexual manner) IRL as well.

Also, and frankly, I think it's a delusional assumption to say 60-70% are practicing some form of beastiality behind closed doors. With what accuracy can you say that? Because I can assure you that for every person who may do it behind closed doors, there's probably 10 people who don't, and disagree with the practice in general.

Furthermore, you're defense for engaging in sexual trysts with animals is that you're doing the animal a favor? If the animal were seeking sexual gratification, and you declined to amuse it, it would move along, if he/she had access, to one of its own species. By seperating animals from the opposite genders of their species, we -force- them to view us as potential mates and as their ONLY potential mate because they've no access to anyone else. As someone else stated, if given the option, a male dog will forego having sex with a human if a female dog was equally as willing in the same room.

Everyone who's arguing that animals need sexual pleasure too because they're sexual creatures, ect., well then by all means, find them a partner of their own species to indulge their primal behavior, but don't try to pretend that by providing the sexual relief yourself, that you're somehow, doing the animal a favor, or that the animal, specifically, wants to have sex with you instead of with a member of its own species. Animals attempt to have sex with humans because they're driven by the need to reproduce, and we, as their caregivers, have cut off their ability to find a mate of the same species, and so they turn to us.

So yes, I think sex with animals is wrong. You're taking advantage of an animals' basic instincts to reproduce, and by not supplying it with an adequate mate to reproduce with, you force the animal to view you as its potential partner. The animal is none the wiser, and is generally not harmed, but that doesn't make the act acceptable...it's still taking advantage of a creature who is not as intelligent for personal gratification. I'm not saying people should be thrown in jail or the like, just accept the fact that you're taking advantage of an animal and stop trying to convince everyone what you're doing is some selfless service to the animal...because it isn't. People do lots of things that are wrong, but don't go trying to convince everyone what they do is right. Is it so hard to say: "I'm doing something that's wrong. I do it in private, because I don't want anyone to know. But no one's hurt by it and it doesn't, personally, affect anyone else, so it's ok that I'm doing it."?

>>249

Are you implying all animal species have recreational sex? There's a huge difference between mounting, and licking as signals of trust, and inserting one's genitalia into anothers. Animals don't engage in sex recreationally unless they're of a higher species, with more complex social standards (humans, Bonobos, ect.).

254Report
Janglur at 4 May 2006: 13:01

>>253
I just mentioned several species that did.
Acting like facts aren't presented doesn't make you right.>>253

255Report
Just me! at 4 May 2006: 13:43

The way I see it, if different species were meant to mix it up and screw each other, their DNA would be a lot more compatible.  Different species have different numbers and types of chromosomes for a reason: because they're supposed to mate with others of their kind (or a closely similar species).  There's nothing wrong with loving an animal, but if your mind starts thinking about having sex with it, well, you probably need to get out more.
Animals mate when they enter their heat cycle, which occurs at a particular time of the year.  They do not "always want it".  I think some folks are mistaking affection for the desire to have sex, and therein lies the problem.  The human animal is interpreting the signals in a way which it will view as favorable, and then proceeds to apply logic to that interpretation in order to back it up and relieve any possible guilt.  The person then becomes absolutely convinced that it's okay, because it's what they want, and they convince themselves that it's exactly what is occurring.  Believe in something hard enough, and it becomes true, even if it really isn't.  Remember how everyone "knew" the Earth was flat?  Yeah, kinda like that.

256Report
Janglur at 4 May 2006: 14:00

>>255
But that's also a double-edged sword.
Humans have always thought sex with animals is wrong.  Just like they've always thought homosexuality is wrong.  And most of the world has always thought witchcraft was wrong.

Think about it.

257Report
at 4 May 2006: 14:07

>>235

WORD
I would place dogfuckers about 2 notches below child molesters on the fail-at-life-O-meter.  It's just so sad these degenerates have latched onto furry for some reason.  That's how hard they have to look to find somebody to except them.

258Report
Svansfall at 4 May 2006: 14:08

>>253

Hello.  For some reason I could not see your name, so I am not sure of who I am talking to, which makes me feel a little weird, but whoever you are, thanks for your well explained thoughts on the matter.   Yes, I am well aware of the fact that the cows I take care of sees me as part of their herd, and also as a potential mate.  I should mention, that not all individuals in the herd enjoy the same thing.  Some of them enjoy stimulation to the genitals, while some of them prefer a good back-scritch instead.  I'll give them what they want.   Truth is that the ones that enjoy stimulation to their genitals will come to me wheter they are in heat or not, while those who prefers a back-scritch tends to want stimulation only when they are in heat.  I must admit that I do not take advantage of this situation, I give them a backscritch even if they are in heat, because I know it is just the fact that they're in heat that makes them come up to me, and it'd feel wrong to me to take advantage of that.

Humans are not the animal who get pleasure from having their genitals stimulated, humans are not the only ones who enjoy an orgasm, wheter the result will be for reproduction or not.  Animals does not have a stigmatised view of sex, I am quite sure that they don't get traumatized by the fact that it is not another bovine who is giving sex to them, but a human. They don't have a concept of guilt over their act, and they are not Catholics, so they won't feel bad for their orgasm not leading to reproduction.   If a cow would count the months and feel cheated for not being impregnated?  Sorry, no, I don't believe they have that concept either.  It's rather common that when inseminating a cow, or having her covered by a bull, that the impregnation did not succeed, so that the process has to be done again.  So, in comparison, this would be no different than a failed mating attempt.  But I am seriously sure that she does not make the connection between the pleasure of her orgasm and the potential impregnation.  I think she's happy for the pleasure, without caring about if she's pregnant or not.

Another point to make is that it is extremely rare for a cow to reach orgasm during mating.  Bulls tend to be very very quick about it, and the cows don't get much chance for stimulation.  So I seriously believe the cow will prefer the more gentle and slow pleasuring they can recieve from a human.

I should also mention that no animal has ever brought me to orgasm, since I have never have had my own genitals involved in interraction with animals.  My preferred method of pleasuring is to give oral, and to use my hands, and fingers.  In that way I can concentrate fully on her reaction, without being disturbed by my own arousal, and read by her body language which things she enjoys the most, and concentrate on those things.

Oh, and don't worry about me calling myself a furry, because I am not a furry.  Another zoophile pointed out this discussion to me, and I came here just to have a look at this discussion.  And the reason that I am vocal on the matter, is that I think it is sad that so many people think it is wrong to give pleasure to animals, when the animals don't get harmed by it.

There is sexual abuse of animals also, and I am strongly against that.  I am strongly against any form of abuse or cruelty to animals.  I just don't like to get dumped in the same category as those.  That is my reason for me speaking my view on the things - to try and explain that not everyone who enjoys sexual interaction with animals is an abuser of animals.   And if you think it is wrong to take advantage of an animal's instincts for the reason of giving her pleasure, feel free to think so.

Thanks for the good questions.  :)

259Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 4 May 2006: 14:38

>>255
You're referring to some sort of retroactive reasoning?

>>256
q>But that's also a double-edged sword.
Humans have always thought sex with animals is wrong.  Just like they've always thought homosexuality is wrong.  And most of the world has always thought witchcraft was wrong.<
I think it's strange that you're using the past tense. A good deal of people still think homosexuality and witchcraft wrong, and have complex, well-reasoned arguments to support them, if not prove them right. There are also people on the other side of said issues who do the same. By contrast, you're debating technique seems to consist of pointing out that the basic principle of what your opponent said can easily be reversed, whithout actually presenting much evidence to actively refute it.

>>258
q>Humans are not the animal who get pleasure from having their genitals stimulated, humans are not the only ones who enjoy an orgasm, wheter the result will be for reproduction or not. <
Bizarre absolutes again?

260Report
at 4 May 2006: 14:48

>>242

Well well well.  Someone thinks rather highly of themselves, eh? "I'm completely immune to ignorance and one-upmanship.  I'm the perfect little angel! What I say and feel cannot possibly be wrong!"

I'm sorry, but you're doing the same thing that you are so quick to criticize others for.  You are over generalizing and oversimplifying the matter in all respects. Implying things like those who commit beastiality are no better than pedophiles and don't actually love the animals at all but are just lust incarnate, etc etc.

Now I'm not saying I'm for or against beastiality. I could really care less what people do behind closed doors.  I'm just pointing out some hypocrisy here, whether intentional or not.

261Report
Janglur at 4 May 2006: 15:53

>>259
Are you seriously debating whether homosexuality and freedom or religion are crimes!?

People like this are beginning to traumatize me from thinking their side is correct.  And to think, i'm not on either side, just debating what I see.
The anti-zoo side, with a few individual exceptions, are becoming increasingly more condescending, as well as belligerant and, what most frightens me, delusional and malevolently specious.

In common words, i'm being frightened by the slash-and-burn mindset.  "You're evil and deserve to die.  And all other sins are unimportant in comparison to what you do, because we see it as a sin for paradoxal and disconsonant reasons.  Furthermore, you are wrong for the lack of respect you show, but we are less wrong for showing greater degrees of nonchalance to animal, and yes, even human rights and paramountly, lives."

It's just becoming clearer and clearer that, again, with certain individual exceptions.. you're monsters.


I am not going to engage in this debate anymore.  I feel that nothing good can come of it anymore, and that further argument will only further encourage the delusional to think that they have enough substantial evidence to continue an argument, when they in fact fail to produce any evidence that hasn't already been lucidly and manifestly proven a fallacy.

In closeing:

IF
The animal is not physically harmed.
The animal shows the ability to decide.
The animal actively encourages behavior.
The animal display acquiescence when engaged.
The animal is not mentally, or emotionally harmed.
The act is not performed in a manner as to offend others, with reasonably exception. (Closed door rule)
It is not illegal where you live.

Then it is morally acceptible, and only ethical and religious argument remains, which is manifestly unproveable and conditional.


Anyone who wants to continue this conversation with me in a civil manner, with humane reasoning, knows how to contact me.

262Report
Me again! at 4 May 2006: 18:34

>>256  The core purpose of sex is reproduction.  That's all.  It's a means to pass ones genetic traits to the next generation, and to keep the species alive.  Hopefully, it will also result in an improvement of the species, though such changes often take several generations.  By this logic, yes, homosexuality and bestiality are wrong, because they do not accomplish anything other than the release of sexual desires or tensions.  This is uniquely human.  If such activities had a true, definitive reason for occurring, if they absolutely served a purpose other than gratification or release, if they were necessary for the survival of the species, then they wouldn't be looked down upon.  You state that homosexuality used to be considered wrong; the difference these days is that most things previously considered "wrong" are now accepted by a wary and indifferent public.  There are a LOT of things in this world that are wrong, but no one cares any more; therefore, these things become an accepted evil.  Society's lackluster indifference to the state of things will certainly be the cause of its' downfall.  And I fear the act of bestiality may soon be added to that list.

263Report
at 4 May 2006: 18:45

>>262

Brought to you by Brainwash Shampoo! :P

264Report
at 4 May 2006: 18:52

>>259 Just for the record, humans have not always considered bestiality wrong. It was encouraged by the pre-Catholic Romans and practiced publicly by pretty much the whole Roman army. One might even make an argument that it was Catholicism that made bestiality wrong. 100 years is "forever" to a generation, after all.

Also, while it may not have been publicly accepted, there was bestiality a-plenty happening on ships crossing the Atlantic to settle the "new world." This has been traced back as the source of syphilus in America in medical studies. But the point is that enough sexual contact was happening with sheep to allow the disease to mutate to a human infecting one. Maybe not accepted by all, but certainly very frequently done anyways, and in the close quarter confines of a sailing ship...

265Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 4 May 2006: 18:53

Are you seriously debating whether homosexuality and freedom or religion are crimes!?

No, I'm just pointing out that people still think they're wrong. Where did you get "crimes" from?

It's just becoming clearer and clearer that, again, with certain individual exceptions.. you're monsters.

I've never advocated that any Zoo kill themselves, or anything of the sort. My focus has been on logical, civil debate, with a wee bit of snark. Yes, I have seen a few jerkwads on my side, but they're far from the majority.

The animal shows the ability to decide.

That's kinda the main point of contention here.

266Report
at 4 May 2006: 18:54

>>264

The ancient Greeks were all about beastiality as well.  Their stories, history, and mythology are LOADED with the stuff.

267Report (sage)
at 4 May 2006: 19:06

>>266 "All about" may be a little too strong in the wording... They did other things, too, after all. ;)

268Report
at 4 May 2006: 19:09

>>267


I know, I know. ^^  I'm just saying that it wasn't that big a deal back then...before the new agey beatnik Catholicism came along and ruined everyone's good time. :P

269Report
at 4 May 2006: 20:15

I'll simplify this for you. A HUMAN PENIS HAS NO BUSINESS BEING INSIDE AN ANIMAL. EVER
Forget the morality crap, or any of the other lame excuses. Anyone that fucks an animal deserves to have their dicks amputated.

270Report (sage)
at 4 May 2006: 20:39

>>269 Because you say so?

271Report (sage)
at 4 May 2006: 20:39

>>269  And you feel this way, because..? 

272Report
at 4 May 2006: 22:08

Because it's a crime, and just plain sick in the head. All this talk of consent is meaningless. The minute one screws an animal, they've committed a CRIME. Try explaining your twisted concepts regarding human/animal consent to a judge. See what you get.

273Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 4 May 2006: 22:18

I've never advocated that any Zoo kill themselves, or anything of the sort. My focus has been on logical, civil debate, with a wee bit of snark. Yes, I have seen a few jerkwads on my side, but they're far from the majority.

>>268
Anyone that fucks an animal deserves to have their dicks amputated.

*headdesk*

274Report
Ohboy#KrV755.GHU at 4 May 2006: 22:28

>>269

A HUMAN PENIS HAS NO BUSINESS BEING INSIDE AN ANIMAL.


Okay.  Take your own advice and never stick your penis in your wife/lover again (if you have a wife/lover).

But apple pie is okay, we'll allow you that.

275Report
Ohboy#KrV755.GHU at 4 May 2006: 22:32

>>272
There is no federal law regarding the ACT of beastiality, though it is illegal to distribute materials showing such.

State laws vary from state to state; 21 US states have NO laws pertaining to beastiality.

276Report (sage)
at 4 May 2006: 22:44

>>272 >>275 One state's law says it's legal to have sex with an animal providing you own it or have the owner's permission. I won't name it to prevent people from freaking out, I'm just presenting it as an example of a law "for" bestiality.

277Report
at 4 May 2006: 23:16

>>261
Thank You for the good and well-worded post, Janglur.

>>259
I apologize, Juberu.  I was typing too fast and missed a word in that sentence.  It was supposed to read:
"Humans are not the ONLY animal who get pleasure from having their genitals stimulated, humans are not the only ones who enjoy an orgasm, wheter the result will be for reproduction or not."

>>253
>>258
I forgot to add this:
To anyone who feel that it is wrong to give an orgasm to a cow, who will enjoy it and come back for more, for the reason that the cow views me as part of her herd, and a potential mate.

It is rare these days that a dairy cow will ever even see a bull.  They get inseminated.  Most often by an inseminator, who the cow does NOT see as part of their herd, and not as a potential mate.  The cow is restrained, and the inseminator will inseminate the cow, wheter she wants it at the time or not.  The insemination involves inserting metal objects into her sex, as well as an arm inside their anus.  Few cows enjoy those things, even though some might.

Now, why should it be allowed to restrain a cow and poke around with her genitals against her will?  If you think it is wrong to gently stimulate an unrestrained cow, and give her an orgasm that she will enjoy, how can you support the dairy industry by buying milk, butter, yoghurt or cheese?

Another note to make regarding it being wrong, because the sex will not lead to reproduction. As I mentioned in post 258, I am fairly certain that the cow will not make the connection between her orgasm, and the potential of becoming pregnant or not.  It does not traumatize a cow to get pleasure.  However, when a dairy cow is pregnant, and when they eventually give birth to a calf, the calf is always removed from their mother.  This is traumatic and stressful to the cow.  I'd rather have cows not giving birth at all, than cows having their newborn calves taken away from them.

The animal cruelty here does not lie in giving them sexual pleasure without the chance of reproduction.  The animal cruelty here lies in the reproduction, and in the separation of mother and child.

278Report
Svansfall at 4 May 2006: 23:17

Sorry, missed to add my name.  Post 277 was made by Svansfall.

279Report
Joan-Michele#R9F5WG6Bjw at 5 May 2006: 00:30

Interesting points, I guess it all boils down to intent on engaging in acts of sex with an animal. However, personally I feel it is wrong because it's against my Christian principles.

I have another point I'd like to add here, zoophillia is usually additive, meaning that it is added on top of them being turned on by fellow humans. So, I'd like to ask, why animals and not humans?

280Report
Svansfall at 5 May 2006: 00:59

>>279
It is most understandable to feel that it would be wrong because of your religious principles.  I respect your right to feel that it is wrong for you.  But I do not respect when some try to force their own religious principles upon someone else.  To each their own - as long as no one is harmed in any way, and everyone involved are enjoying it.

As for your question, Joan-Michele, it is true that most people who is turned by animals is also turned on by humans.  I believe  one study on it came up with the number of 8% who was only attracted to animals.

For me, I am only attracted to animals.  I enjoy human company, and I value my human friends greatly.  I form emotional relationships with humans, but I can not conjure up any kind of attraction for them.   This does not bother me, and it feels right to me, with one exception:  I would like to be able to make my friends happy, and I have had to turn down many sex-offers from friends who have wanted to have sex with me, and thus disappointing them.

Apart from this, I am happy for finding animals attractive, because I know that I am a caring being who would not harm someone I feel emotionally attached to.  And I would not be sexually intimate with an animal unless I felt emotionally attached to them.

So... what is it about animals that make me attracted to them?  Hard to say.  I have to like their personality, but that goes with humans I like also, and I am not attracted to those.  So what is the main difference?  I think it is the smell.  I don't find human scent to be very appealing, whereas the natural aroma of a cow, who is not in a stressful productive environment, is a very pleasant scent.   The natural scent of a cow is affected by their surroundings, and if they are being fed manufactured feed or silage, instead of fresh juicy grass or high quality hay.  Those who think that cows smell bad, has probably not been close to a cow in more calm and natural surroundings.

281Report(capped)
Xenofur at 5 May 2006: 11:06

>>280
You expressed a bit of confusion about the anonmity here, so if and when you read this, please have a look at this: http://wakaba.c3.cx/shii/shiichan
It might help you understand and also show you how to deal with some of the posts in here. =)

Also, thanks to you and everyone else who manages to discuss this rather hot topic in a civil manner. :D

282Report
Svansfall at 5 May 2006: 13:24

>>281
Thanks for the information, Xenofur.  It is appreciated.  :)

283Report
DragonFlame at 5 May 2006: 15:09

>>251
No Problem. Im glad someone else is trying to think logically about the situation.

>>252
Human opinion does matter. A parent opinion and the laws opinions clearly state that sex is wrong until a certain age. But the only reason people make these decision for them is because they know that latter on in life they will regret and become traumatised by the encounter.
If an animal never reaches a stage of regret and becomes traumatised then this does not apply.
I believe it is possible for an animal to feel regret and become traumatised but for this to be true then the concept of consent must apply to Animals.

>>253
Do you really believe that Humans are the only species on this earth that finds pleasure in sex. An animal just like us is not programmed to think about procreating, we don’t need to. Nature has figured out a better system called sexual gratification. Sexual gratification is the tool that urges animals and us to reproduce. If we didn’t enjoy sex we wouldn’t do it thus there would be no life on earth. I do not believe that any animal has the thought of procreation in their mind while having sex. Pregnation is just a consequence of the sexual encounter. Animals just don’t seem to mind or just don’t understand the consequences of sex. Don’t think for one minute that Humans have this ability to waver these sexual urges either. If a human finds his girlfriend arousing he will do anything (Mostly irrational things) to bump her. If a Human finds his horse arousing he will do the same. If the horse finds the concept of having sex with a human arousing then of course it will fuck its brains outs.

>>254
I agree lack of proof only leaves more questions not opposite answers.

>>255
You may need to explain that better. I can see where you’re coming from but when an Animal enters its heat cycle it has a strong desire to have sex. They may not want it but you don’t have any proof to back that up. Please explain more.

>>261
I am sorry to see you go. It has been a pleasure to discuss this matter with some one of intelligence and understanding. I wish you all the best.

>>262
I happen to agree with you. My belief is that sex without the ability to procreate is not natural and should not be done. One thing you must understand tho is who is to say what is unnatural or wrong. We do not have the ability as a species to decide the laws of nature of every living thing on this earth. We also do not have the right to enforce these beliefs for the fact that our opinions may be wrong. Why do so many people then think that their opinions are right and people not following their rules must be evil and misguided.

>>263
Unconstructive comment.

>>264
Quite true. Unfortunately a lot of these records of bestiality have been destroyed by religious groups. Have you found any sites to support this?

>>265
Yep also true. I also believe that what most people consider to be Furry was actually started in ancient Greece. Many murals have depicted half animal and half human creatures.

>>269
Even tho I have never put my dick in an Animal and never plan to either I have the compelling need to tell you to GET LOST. Half of the comments in this thread are saying the same thing over and over. Get over your self and find some thing constructive to say.
>>270 & >>271
I’m glad you agree.

>>272
You have obviously not read the heading of this Thread. It is the morality not the legality of Bestiality.


To all those out there that believe that Bestiality lovers are giving Furrys a bad name consider this. Bestiality has been around thousands of years and has been depicted in art and literature. Over time these depictions have been watered down and altered through history until this day. Bestiality unfortunately has been apart of human nature for so long that these attractions to creatures you call Furry are nothing but the watered down versions of bestiality. So saying that bestiality lovers are latching on to Furry groups and giving them a bad name is false. In fact Furry groups have latched on to bestiality but because they can not accept the reality of animal sex they find a happy medium in half animal artwork.
The unfortunate truth is that Furry was started by Bestiality and the proof is right in front of your eyes every time you look at a furry creature in a sexual position.
Another thing saying that having sex with an animal is a fail in life can be considered true but jacking off to led on paper really aint much better.

I know that by posting this I’m going to get at least 20 or more people grabbing my words and twisting them around so remember this. I am a natural part in this convo. I am not for bestiality nor against it. What I have written is not supposed to sway your decision on the matter but to inform you of some point that people seem to keep missing when arguing their opinions.

284Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 5 May 2006: 17:23

Why do so many people then think that their opinions are right and people not following their rules must be evil and misguided.

Well, that's kinda the whole idea of an opinion. Sometimes, we can't all be right.
Bestiality has been around thousands of years and has been depicted in art and literature.

...And?
Bestiality unfortunately has been apart of human nature for so long that these attractions to creatures you call Furry are nothing but the watered down versions of bestiality.

Where are you getting this from? Almost all cultures try to associate animals with human virtues, and anthromorphize animals.
In fact Furry groups have latched on to bestiality but because they can not accept the reality of animal sex they find a happy medium in half animal artwork.

There's a not-insignificant amount of furs who do both.
The unfortunate truth is that Furry was started by Bestiality and the proof is right in front of your eyes every time you look at a furry creature in a sexual position.

Circular argument. Furry came from bestiality which started furry.
Another thing saying that having sex with an animal is a fail in life can be considered true but jacking off to led on paper really aint much better.

What? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that having sex with an animal is rape, then how is that barely better than masturbation?
What I have written is not supposed to sway your decision on the matter but to inform you of some point that people seem to keep missing when arguing their opinions.

Funny, I could've sworn it was just a bunch of unsupported statements.

286Report
at 5 May 2006: 18:48

You people...

This whole discussion is POINTLESS.  Nothing is going to come of it so please just give up.  Nobody is going to convince anyone into changing their mind on either side of the issue.  Beastiality exists, it's always existed, it's never going to disappear.  If you don't like it, don't do it.  Just...somehow...get over it.  PLEASE.

287Report
at 5 May 2006: 18:52

There is no defined goal for this discussion. View it as an excercise in reasoning, rethoric and most importantly: Intelligence.

288Report
at 5 May 2006: 19:02

>>287

Well by the looks of it, there's not a whole lot of any of that going on here anyway. So it might as well just be over. :P

289Report
at 5 May 2006: 19:06

Any debate over the 'morality' of something is just an excercise in futility anyway.  Morality is such a loose and vague concept that it really has no true hold on anything.

290Report
at 5 May 2006: 19:55

>>280
Oh man that makes me nautious.  My grandfather had an enormous cattle ranch with only about a hundred cows on it, they defenitely had many acres to stretch there legs.  Even with the size of the place the smell was absolutely horrid.  And how when they shit it just kindof slops down there backside over there genitals, i couldn't imagine being turned on by that.  All they do is stand around, shit, eat, and shit some more, truly an animal that is destined to be killed and eaten.

My guess of what attracts you to animals is:

1.) They don't care about appearence
2.) They don't care if you're successful or well groomed
3.) They can't reject you.
4.) You don't need to put in any work with them
5.) They can be acquired merely by writing a check
6.) They can't tell anybody what you are doing to them

291Report
at 5 May 2006: 20:01

>>235

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCUUgTs4hjs&search=waiting

292Report
A Wolf at 6 May 2006: 03:39

OK, for all those who hate beastiality and or zoophila, let me clarify this much. Animals do have the ability to consent, they just believe in oppurtunity a heck of alot more than we do. Let's take an example for some of you lust mongers out there. Say the sexiest thing you can think of comes up and asks you to have sex with her (or him) with no strings attached. Would you say yes or no? Most of you would say yes, some would say no, true. And believe me, canines can say no other ways than jus speaking. You see those one inch long teeth in their mouth? Imagine those around your dick. That's there way of saying no. When the urge to mate comes on, you'll screw anything, even someone you trust. Sometimes love can bond through it, even if it's not really there. I myself personally am in love with my dog, and she loves me as far as I can tell. Personally, I wish she could have my pups, but unfortunately she can't, so I gotta deal with it. And in fact, I find her more attractive than most furs, and if you find that to be disturbing, then fuck off, that's my opinion.

Alot of animals have a choice. Most just choose the choice that ends up with sex. You would too if offered it by someone you trust and care for, wouldn't you? And if you say no, then why the hell are you on a yiff image posting board?

293Report
at 6 May 2006: 03:48

....why the hell are you on a yiff image posting board?


I've been wondering similar to this since the topic started. Why is this convo even taking place? This is Fchan, not the 7th-Day-Adventist-chan.

294Report
Foxstar#3GqYIJ3Obs at 6 May 2006: 04:08

>>293 Because it's F-chan and this is the only place it would be not only be taken seriously but have somewhat meaningful talk.
 

295Report (sage)
Huh at 6 May 2006: 06:36

>>292

Uh, no, you're just saying animals can consent, while the other side says they can't.  Neither side has proven it at all.  All they've proven is that animals are pretty stupid, thus, lettting of the sex, slavery, and slaughter.  Dogs that bite people are killed, and docile dogs are bred for better placidity.

...

Actually, I guess you could say that domesticated animals have been altered so that they consent to everything, including sex using.  Sucks to be them, but whatever.  There's bigger problems in the world than a bunch of perverts who can't handle the guilt of their own kink.

296Report
at 6 May 2006: 07:48

>>295 I suppose that somehow magicaly explains ones interactions with a couple of semi friendly timber wolves, and or anothers interactions with a house kept cougar.
domesticated into complacancy as the only reason an animal will mount a human -.............umn no.

297Report (sage)
at 6 May 2006: 08:19

>>296
 Just as there's humans that think it's a good idea to swallow razor blades, there's mentally unstable animals that get inexplicably friendly with people.  Unless it's common it explains nothing.

298Report
DragonFlame at 6 May 2006: 09:51

>>284
-Quote-
Why do so many people then think that their opinions are right and people not following their rules must be evil and misguided.

Well, that's kinda the whole idea of an opinion. Sometimes, we can't all be right.
-Quote-

My point is that people seem to think that their opinions are some written law that everyone should follow.

-Quote-
Bestiality has been around thousands of years and has been depicted in art and literature.

...And?
-Quote-

Just pointing out fact. Don’t be an arse about it.

-Quote-
Bestiality unfortunately has been apart of human nature for so long that these attractions to creatures you call Furry are nothing but the watered down versions of bestiality.

Where are you getting this from? Almost all cultures try to associate animals with human virtues, and anthromorphize animals.
-Quote-

That is exactly my point.

-Quote-
The unfortunate truth is that Furry was started by Bestiality and the proof is right in front of your eyes every time you look at a furry creature in a sexual position.

Circular argument. Furry came from bestiality which started furry.
-Quote-

In what fucking universe is that considered a Circular Argument. Bestiality was started first then Bestiality Artwork after that and then Furry Artwork which is nothing but watered down bestiality artwork.

-Quote-
Another thing saying that having sex with an animal is a fail in life can be considered true but jacking off to led on paper really aint much better.

What? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that having sex with an animal is rape, then how is that barely better than masturbation?
-Quote-

You have totally missed my point. I don’t believe Animal sex is Rape. My point is that having sex with something other than the opposite sex of your species is a fail at life. Stop putting words in my mouth and twisting my words around.

-Quote-
What I have written is not supposed to sway your decision on the matter but to inform you of some point that people seem to keep missing when arguing their opinions.

Funny, I could've sworn it was just a bunch of unsupported statements.
-Quote-

Exactly what am I supposed to be supporting when I am neither for or against Bestiality. I am not trying to change peoples minds by giving them facts. I am only trying to make people think about things that they may have not thought of.


Let me repeat my word again.
I know that by posting this I’m going to get at least 20 or more people grabbing my words and twisting them around so remember this. I am a natural part in this convo. I am not for bestiality nor against it. What I have written is not supposed to sway your decision on the matter but to inform you of some point that people seem to keep missing when arguing their opinions.

You are exactly the type of person I’m talking about. You don’t care to open your mind and think about others opinions. Instead you grab the words of others and twist them around and add in things to benefit your own opinions.

299Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 6 May 2006: 10:24

My point is that people seem to think that their opinions are some written law that everyone should follow.

No, they think that their opinions are right, at least.

That is exactly my point.

And my point is that wanting animal traits does not equal bestiality.

Exactly what am I supposed to be supporting when I am neither for or against Bestiality. I am not trying to change peoples minds by giving them facts. I am only trying to make people think about things that they may have not thought of.

My point is that they *aren't* facts, just things you said without backup.

You have totally missed my point. I don’t believe Animal sex is Rape. My point is that having sex with something other than the opposite sex of your species is a fail at life. Stop putting words in my mouth and twisting my words around.

Fail at life is an Internet meme. In the context of this debate, it means nothing. I just guessed at what you meant, not twisted the meaning.

You don’t care to open your mind and think about others opinions.

Thinking about the opinions of others is not the same as agreeing with said opinions.

Instead you grab the words of others and twist them around and add in things to benefit your own opinions.

Give one example.

300Report
at 6 May 2006: 10:31

women trainers are told to avoid being around big cats while they are in menstrating as teh large cat will attempt to rape the human .
this hardly seems like an isolated mental aberation - sources - big cat traners handbook and various other places ive read such .
oh btw 300 get

301Report
Svansfall at 6 May 2006: 10:45

>>290
Feel free to feel nautious.  It is your own opinion, and you have the full right of your own opinion.  So your grandfather's cows smelled bad?  I do not disbelieve you.  Some cows do smell bad, and I am not attracted to those, even though they may be having great personalities.  That does not mean that I would not still treat them with kindness and caring, just that I do not find them physically attractive.  If the cows have their own natural scent, or somehow start smelling bad has a lot to do with which surroundings they are in, what they eat, etc.

Cows that retain their natural scent do smell good.  I can actually not think of anything that smells more appealing to me.   However, it is not very kind of you speak of cows as if they were stupid and unable to do things.  I have had cows who were more brainy and clever than some of the dogs I have had.  You just have to give them the opportunity to use their mind.  Give them the chance, and they will surprise you.  Teach them things... you'll find they are not stupid.  They deserve to be treated with respect.

Since some of your guesses of why I am attracted to animals has to do with wheter humans are attracted to me or not, please then explain to me why I have to turn down offers from people who wants to have sex with me?   Maybe I should somehow make myself unattractive so I don't have to get the offers in the first place.  I do not want sex with humans.  If I was attracted to humans, I would have sex with humans.  It is as simple as that.  I've sadly lost friends who I enjoyed the company of, because I did not want to have sex with them.

Animals can't reject me?  Well, they can.  As mentioned before, some animals do like to be stimulated, and some does not.  I only have sex with those who want it, and when they want it.  When they want to reject me, they do reject me.  I am happy with that, it means that they truly do enjoy it when they come up to me and ask for sex.

I don't need to put in any work with them?   Oh, so you are thinking they don't need to be fed, groomed, cared for, etc? 

And I should also mention to you that I have lived many years in non-sexual, but emotional relationships with other humans.  So, work still has to be put in to make those relationships with humans work.  I love humans, just not in a sexual way.  If I would find it a bother to try and make relationships work, I would choose to live alone.

If the animals could talk, and tell others of what I am doing with them, I would not be bothered.  Why would I?

You have the right to your opinion, but it's a bit rude of you to make so many assumptions of the private life and the feelings of someone you do not know.  Still, it is interesting to read your thoughts.

302Report
Svansfall at 6 May 2006: 10:52

Oh, and just a general pondering to DragonFlame and Jubero:  Wheter someone is a failure in life or not, doesn't that depend on what their goals is to start with?

Since my goal is to spend my life giving pleasure and caring for cows, I would consider myself a failure if I did not.

For instance, if a lesbian woman's goal was to live in a happy relationship with the woman of her dreams, and she ends up actually doing this, would you consider her to be a "failure" since she wasn't married to a man, even though she never wanted to marry a man?

If people end up where they wanted, how are they "failures?"

303Report
at 6 May 2006: 11:39

because those people who are so called failures are not living up to what the perspon saying "failure" thinks they should live up to. and the person saying "failure" has suddenly gained the authority to judge who is or isn't a failure.

304Report
at 6 May 2006: 14:55

>>303
People who fucks dogs are failures

FACT

305Report
at 6 May 2006: 15:27

>>304

refer to >>291

You're all on FCHAN people.  Discussing morality at all on a site like this is just...inane.

306Report
at 6 May 2006: 15:30

>>304

Dude you're on fchan. You don't really have the right to call anyone else a 'failure'.  :P

307Report (sage)
at 6 May 2006: 15:56

People who don't fuck dogs are failures. 

FACT

(Whoa, I can do it too...)

308Report
at 6 May 2006: 20:45

>>307 wow your better at it as well, so I choose to believe you.
surprisingly a large amount of zoophiles make it much further and into much better paying jobs than non zoophiles.
gleaned from 3 databases cross corelating non individual targeting data mined from the apa and aza. if one cares to invest any anergy a small amount of digging can glean you hard statistical data as well.

309Report
This took forever to read! at 6 May 2006: 20:48

>>298

Seriously?

You are exactly the type of person I’m talking about. You don’t care to open your mind and think about others opinions. Instead you grab the words of others and twist them around and add in things to benefit your own opinions.


And here, >>283


No Problem. Im glad someone else is trying to think logically about the situation.


I am sorry to see you go. It has been a pleasure to discuss this matter with some one of intelligence and understanding. I wish you all the best.

About This guy?
>>64  >>67  >>92  >>94  >>106  >118  >>119  >>122  >>123  >>217  >>248  >>254  >>256

Dude, you just basically complimented the intelligence of someone who argues the pro-beast side that does everything you apparently don't like. He twists words, he ignores what people say, he puts words in their mouths, he dismisses animal/human comparisons then makes some to prove HIS points, he says insulting makes you weak then says anyone against him is ignorant or monstrous.  Then you say that Juberu, who's done that like a quarter as much, but is against bestiality, is somehow doing something wrong.  WTF?  It's okay for the pro bestiality guys to argue like that but not anti bestiality?  Yeah, you're real neutral there buddy.

Besides, BOTH sides keep stating "facts".  Facts are scientific truths based on universals which are necessary for logic.  What you were stating was just a bunch of stuff that doesn't even mean anything for the most part... well, not if you're going to dismiss the child mind/animal mind argument.

Here's a fact.  NONE OF YOU KNOW WHAT THE ANIMAL THINKS!!!  None of You!  Both sides are basing everything off of their opinions, and the pro-beasters think this is grounds for live and let live.  Well think about it this way.  If anti-bestiality types think of it as animal rape, and they LIKE animals, what makes you think they'll just sit there and look the other way?  If they did that, thinking what they do, they WOULD be monsters.

>> 253
Right on!  It's like drugs.  Yes it's self indulgent.  Yes it bothers people, yet you do it anyway.  Yes it's frowned upon EVERYWHERE.  If it isn't legal, you can sure as hell bet it's still not something you just talk about.  There's all kinds of cultural stigmas.  You aren't doing the animal a favor.  You aren't enlightened for fucking your pets.  Yes there are worse people in the world.  If you do this, you are a FREAK!  You are extremely different from the norm!  Deal with it, hide what you do, and you know what, go ahead, cause for the most part, as long as they don't have to see it, people don't care about you OR your dog.

If you bring it out in the open, don't bitch about it, cause you KNOW that people have a problem with it.  If it bothers you that people have a problem with it, either teach your dog to talk so the "myth" that animals can't consent can be dispelled, or quit fucking your dog!  You can't fuck your dog, talk about it, and not be shunned or punished.  That's how things work in the perfect egocentric world in your head.  In the real world, everything from conservatives, bible thumpers, intellectual snots, and hard core animal rights activists are going to hate you if they catch you doing it.

Since when has anyone given a flying fuck about morality when they go to do something anyway?  People do shit they shouldn't do all the time, but they don't act like its right.  "Oh, its okay for me to throw this trash on the ground, because I'm really lazy and don't want to walk over there or carry it, but I'll make up some convoluted argument to make it okay for me to do this... but oh, by the way, grafiti is wrong, just littering is okay!"  Just live with it!

***

And as for you guys who contribute to the discussion because you think it's long and tired, give your head a shake!

310Report
at 6 May 2006: 20:54

>>269
Thank you, this seriously shouldn't be debated.  I mean you're fucking creatures that eat there own poo and aren't even aware they exist.  They run on instinct, which is eat, drink, fuck, period.
Oh right, LOL, you love them and they love you back the same way.  It's cruel, sick and jesus christ, think of the animal?  How confused do you this makes it?

Sick bastards

311Report (sage)
Sarcasmo! at 6 May 2006: 21:10

>>310
  Another brilliant, well thought out argument from the anti-bestiality side...  "It's wrong cuz it's gross"  "It's wrong because I don't like it."  "It's wrong because God/the Law/my daddy said so..."  And the ever popular, "It's wrong just because it is!!!11" 

Well I'm convinced.  Such persuasive, unassailable arguments are just astounding!

312Report
at 6 May 2006: 21:22

>>310

Yet again...refer to >>291

313Report
at 6 May 2006: 21:28

>>310

Okay the whole bestiality thing aside...

And how do you know how an animal feels?  I doubt you've ever even been around an animal. When you work with them all day, especially dogs, you eventually pick up that they are VERY self aware and emotional.  They're much more than instinct alone.

Now straight guys, that's a whole different matter entiretly. :P

314Report
at 6 May 2006: 21:36

>>311

Okay, so his argument falls flat.  Why not respond to one of the well thought out ones instead?

315Report
at 6 May 2006: 21:54

>>314

Which ones would that be?  They're all just long winded and pompous self-indulgence. "I'm right! You're wrong! WAAHHH" is all any of them amount to.

(On both sides by the way)

316Report
at 6 May 2006: 21:59

>>315

Some of them are good, but yeah, for the most part...

317Report
at 6 May 2006: 22:01

>>316


It's just that none of them have presented FACTS yet.  It's all just bullshit opinion.  This is why 'morality' discussions are pointless.  It's all based on NOTHING.

318Report
at 6 May 2006: 22:02

>>317

Uh... when you mean "facts", do you mean scientifically proven facts?  Cause, you know, the entirety of civilization is built on assumption and opinion.

Besides, yes they have.  Both sides have presented facts, and lots of them.  Read the posts... even the long ones, or at least don't comment on them if you don't.

319Report
at 6 May 2006: 22:09

>>318

Dude most of these 'facts' that people have presented are nothing more than very loose and vague information.  None of which have been very successful in proving ANYTHING. :P

320Report
at 6 May 2006: 22:20

>>319
Oh well then, just ignore it and leave it alone so people who are interested can read it then. You aren't bringing anything at all to this discussion other than the sulky "it's pointless" remark.

321Report
at 6 May 2006: 22:22

Well...because it is.  But whatever. I'm done here. You guys really should just drop it though before it gets outta hand.  I don't see this having a 'happy ending' of sorts. :P

322Report (sage)
at 6 May 2006: 22:31

>>318
 Besides, science lost it's ability to be an authority the moment the scientific community allowed psychology and other 'soft sciences' call themselves 'science' and demand the same respect as hard science, without adhering to basic scientific principles.  It's all been down hill from there. 

When science becomes as much a matter of faith as religion (IE: This is a fact, but only works *if* you accept common, unprovable assumptions like 'God' or unvaried 'probability' constructed on limited factors and ignoring everything that doesn't 'fit') then 'fact' and 'opinion' becomes much the same, and the only authority we have left is a pragmatic philosophy based simply on observation and logic (the same principles that spawn 'science' before it got all messed up). 

Several pragmatic philosophies have already been expressed regarding the so called 'morality of besitiality' and have been completely ignored or dismissed, either because they work (which is no fun, and leaves nothing to argue about) or because they conflict with various unpragmatic philosophies (Eww, it's icky, something must be done!) and/or the Cult of Science (well, you don't KNOW for a FACT) who seems to still believe there's such things as univeral absolutes in a subjective reality that can be found by means other than practical experiment and observation.

In short, people will argue because they like arguing, rather than accept any of the nurmerous *reasonable*  (albeit practical and unsatisfying in that ego-gratifying sort of 'I win' way) conclusions that have been presented. 

Such is life.  I just figure I can have some fun throwing their own nonesense back in their faces, ergo >>311 and >>307

Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery...  At least when it's not intended as mockery.  :)

323Report (sage)
at 6 May 2006: 22:51

>>322
Well, if your fun is making other people unhappy, then that makes you a jerk, and you should probably stop posting.  Seriously, why do people feel compelled to interrupt people who are having a discussion?  A click away is a picture thread about babies being molested in their nursery, so it's not the content which offends.  If you think it's boring, don't read it, and if you think they're stuck up, just think it, and then don't post.  Don't justify mean spirited shit-disturbing as some sort of intellectual exercise.

Anyhow, as for science, yes, it's based on fact, but the facts surrounding hard math aren't hurt by psychology.  They can call themselves whatever they want, and the facts remain.  That's the beauty of facts.  They're there regardless of us.

On the down side, they don't apply to anything here except when describing "What I did" scenerios.  Rather, "accepted" facts are being discussed, and disputed, and even though you think accepted facts are bunk, they don't, so this entire discussion is completely valid.  For whatever reason, you and a bunch of others can't seem to abide this.

Anyhow, here's hoping that this post, and all the other posts talking about the thread's length or saying "this is stupid" are deleted, unless they actually bring something to the discussion.

324Report
at 6 May 2006: 23:09

>>323

I believe that this discussion was started with the sole purpose of causing strife.  Nothing good will come of it. Morality discussions don't even make sense on a site like this.  They only exist to cause problems.

325Report (sage)
at 6 May 2006: 23:11

>>323

Don't justify mean spirited shit-disturbing as some sort of

intellectual exercise.


At least I have an intellect to exercise, unlike most these ass-clowns.  :) 

Besides, I prefer to justify it as 'potentially educating the ignorant' which is an entirely different sort of arrogance than 'mean spirited shit disturbing'. 

It's okay though, I'm done now.  My apologies for any stepped on toes or feelings of inadequacy I might've wrought...

326Report
Svansfall at 7 May 2006: 00:25

To those of you who feels that the discussion is pointless, feel free to not read it.  I think the discussion is entertaining, and it will certainly make people on both sides have to excerice their brains a little.  So, if you don't enjoy it, stay out of it, and don't get in the way of those who actually enjoy the discussion.

I find it interesting to read other people's point of view, wheter they agree with me or not.  It's not pointless at all to find out what people on both sides of a debate are thinking and feeling.  Quite the opposite: It's constructive to learn of other people's opinions, wheter you agree with them or not.

327Report
at 7 May 2006: 00:35

>>326

The problem is it's not even a debate.  It's just a schoolyard fight. :P

328Report
Svansfall at 7 May 2006: 10:18

>>327
Oh, there are quite a few good posts from both sides.  But they are difficult to spot among the posts that don't contribute with much substance.

329Report
at 7 May 2006: 10:18

nah there isnt any name calling mud slinging ankle biting and crying yet :p
seriously ive enjoyed reading this all so far and tossing in a few thoughtfull tidbits here and there.

330Report
at 7 May 2006: 11:04

btw, if you think a post is jut a flame, there's the star to the side with which you can report it to the mods. :)

331Report (sage)
Joan-Michele#R9F5WG6Bjw at 7 May 2006: 12:01

>>280

Is there a link to a study that supports this 8% claim? (Why hasn't anyone else picked up on this?)

332Report
DragonFlame at 7 May 2006: 12:14

>>299
I have already given an example. I am tired of talking to you. And you can think what ever that makes you happy.

>>302
The whole reason I brought it up was to point out the stupidity of the argument. I totally agree with you. My point was that the mentality of some of the people on this board was that you Fail at Life because you have sex with animals while they sit at home jacking off to Furry Porn. These are not a Fail at Life but if one is then the other is also.

>>309
Dude you must be incredibly bored to read through all my posts. I have not read every single one of his posts but I have read at least 90 % of them and I agree he has twisted some things around but he at least gives a bit of explanation into why he believes that way. Juberu on the other hand has not said anything to explain why he thinks my opinions are wrong except to say that I am wrong because he thing I am some type of confused individual that does not know what I am talking about.
I at least try to be natural but when attacked I attack back it in my nature.
It is funny if I actually knew him I would think it was a personal attack.
And one more thing how do I know this isn’t Juberu himself. You defiantly write like Juberu.

>>315
Short and to the point I like that. I wish I could get my point through with that many words.
I am not being sarcastic, I’m serious.

>>319
The reason that there are no solid facts is because it is so hard to find them and when you do there are almost always strings attached.

>>321
This already has gone out of hand. This thread has the Title of the longest discussion on fchan.

>>326
That has to be the most constructive comment on this board. Great work dude.
Now if only you could convince every one to think the same way this world would be a better place.

>>328
Quite true. I have heard some really good points and facts from both sides. The problem is that the next few post you will have some nub come along and twist their words and make them look like fools.
And don’t think I’m talking about what is happening with me and Juberu.

333Report
Svansfall at 7 May 2006: 14:51

>>331
The number 8% is from a non-scientific study that took place among members of an online zoophile community in 1996.  Since it is not scientific, it maybe shouldn't be thought of as representative.

When I look it up in the scientific study of Dr. Hani Miletski, the number of zoophiles who are exclusively attracted to animals is 12% out of the 81 men who participated in her study. 0% of the 11 women in the study were exclusively zoophiles, though.  It is on page 171 in the book "Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia" by Dr.Hani Miletski.
http://www.drmiletski.com/bestiality.html

334Report
Svansfall at 7 May 2006: 14:57

>>332
Thanks for the kind words, DragonFlame.

335Report
DragonFlame at 8 May 2006: 09:10

>>334
No problem.

I think this post has finaly run out of steam.
I think we can all agree that this is a Hot Topic that will in my opinion never be resolved. The only thing we can do is accept that every one has their own opinion and we are going to have to live with that.

336Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 8 May 2006: 10:00

Juberu on the other hand has not said anything to explain why he thinks my opinions are wrong except to say that I am wrong because he thing I am some type of confused individual that does not know what I am talking about.

There's a difference between pointing out what I believe to be a fallacy, and saying that my opponent doesn't know what he's talking about. Guess which I haven't done?

337Report
Svansfall at 9 May 2006: 03:15

Looks as if the discussion is over?   I'm a little saddened to see that almost no one has questioned what I've written in my posts.   I enjoy a good debate.  Thanks to everyone who put in a little thinking before you added your posts to this discussion, especially Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. but thanks to everyone else also.

338Report
Kupok#BY.QtDIz06 at 9 May 2006: 03:44

This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because...

339Report
DragonFlame at 9 May 2006: 09:01

>>336
Cough Cough..........

>>337
The reason people were not questioning your post is because you made some good points. It always a good sign when people are speechless at what you have written so dont feel saddened.

>>338
Ahhh God it stuck in my Head. Damn You. ;)

340Report
at 9 May 2006: 21:23

So, do I get a medal or something for starting the longest thread in /dis/? ;)

341Report
Gedrean at 9 May 2006: 23:38

Isn't there a post limit in /dis/ posts?

342Report
at 10 May 2006: 01:34

>>339
>>337

Nobody really wants to repeat what's already been said and better, thus setting themselves up for various atacks on ther character for being "ignorant" and "closed minded". >>337 There's a lot to be said about your points, but I think  speak for a lot of the "not just bashing" types when I say Screw That!  I'm not discussing it here.  Sorry man, but every time someone makes a point about bestiality being wrong, like five people start picking apart every little thing they say, and then some jerks come in all jihad-like and lump everyone on this site as animal rapers, and then a bunch of people just post for the sake of posting, contributing nothing to the discussion.

It might be interesting to actually talk to you about this Svansfall, but not here. People can't seem to tolerate this discussion, and those that decide to post something constructive have only read the last few posts most of the time. Hell, I wasn't even going to reply, but something about DragonFlame's comment bugged me... that silence is somehow implied as agreement and awe. No. Just, no.

343Report
Svansfall at 10 May 2006: 03:02

>>342
I'd be more than happy to read your views, feelings and thoughts on the subject, and everyone else's also.  But where?

344Report
DragonFlame at 10 May 2006: 09:36

>>342
Silence.... What silence. You must be crazy its freaking loud.
LOL ;)

345Report
Kupok#BY.QtDIz06 at 10 May 2006: 13:47

>>342 "then a bunch of people just post for the sake of posting, contributing nothing to the discussion."

There's really nothing to discuss o.o
This is a board for smutty art and other art. It's not a board for any kind of RL porn. That's as far as a zoo debate should go on a smutty art board.

/345 GET!
//Let's next 400! =3

346Report
DragonFlame at 11 May 2006: 09:12

>>342
One more step to 400.  =)

347Report
at 11 May 2006: 19:37

Relevant to this discussion:

"Heavy Petting" by Peter Singer

here: http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/main.asp
or here: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm

348Report (sage)
at 11 May 2006: 21:05

>>347
Also relevent:  The book the guy you linked to reviews.  "Dearest Pet: On Bestiality" by Midas Dekkers. 

Though by this point it's probably rediculous to expect folks would be willing to read any take on the subject that wasn't at all heavily biased in either direction in favour of people's own ego-response.  God forbid anybody approach the subject in an enlightened, scholarly manner.

349Report
DragonFlame at 12 May 2006: 09:33

>>347
That was a great read. Thanks for posting.
Did anyone else get the impression that the Author is blaming women for men resorting to having sex with Animals? If females wait until getting married until having sex then men must find other sources for sexual relief. I think it may be easier and more acceptable to go down to the local brothel.
Even tho it was a good article.

350Report
at 12 May 2006: 14:28

sex with animals! anybody ever jacked off their dog? i need tips. i can't make him cum.

351Report
at 12 May 2006: 14:47

>>350
  Is it a crime where you are?  Because telling someone how to commit a crime is a crime where I live, so... 

352Report
at 12 May 2006: 14:57

>>349
I assume you are referring to this: "In the 1940s, Kinsey asked twenty thousand Americans about their sexual behavior, and found that 8 percent of males and 3.5 percent of females stated that they had, at some time, had a sexual encounter with an animal. Among men living in rural areas, the figure shot up to 50 percent. Dekkers suggests that for young male farm hands, animals provided an outlet for sexual desires that could not be satisfied when girls were less willing to have sex before marriage."

That's Midas Dekkers' suggestion, not Peter Singer's, just so we don't get mixed up. And I don't think Dekkers is "blaming" women at all, just trying to account for the 50% rate among rural men (brothels being less common in rural areas). That was in the 1940s, too, and attitudes about sex before marriage have changed a lot since then...

But young rural women can hardly be blamed for the backwards sexual ethics that were/are forced upon them under penalty of being outcast. Blame the people who push bronze age patriarchal sexual rules... Focus on the Family, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, etc.

353Report
at 12 May 2006: 16:35

>>352

I blame the people who can't control themselves, because ultimately, no matter what society thinks, it's up to the individual to control whatever urges are present, whether it's the urge to steal, rape, murder, or even just say nasty hurtful things.  Although don't get me wrong.  Society can make your choices miserable.  Threats of punishment and such... but in the case of bestiality, people were making a choice between getting their rocks off, and not getting their rocks off... in a warm body.  They could have just masturbated or something, but they chose to have sex with animals.  Society didn't make them have sex with animals.

And just as an anal, pointless point, bronze age values were likely more liberal than modern values.  Victorian values, in contrast, are still lingering strong today.  A for-instance being toplessness in women.  Seriously... is it really immoral?  I mean, will the youth be corrupted by seeing the occasional boob?  I imagine the result would likely be desensitization, not corruption.  Young men would cease to make such a big deal out of breasts, etc etc.

354Report (sage)
vvDOWNvv at 12 May 2006: 18:56

This thread is still moving?

355Report
at 12 May 2006: 19:11

>>353 It's funny... Nudity and/or sex acts in public are so despised by the world in general, yet we put people violently killing other people on children's channels. Not to mention that kids are watching more and more adult programming... Children these days are exposed to over 40 violent murders thanks to television before the age of 16...

Yet we arrest and fine women for showing breasts? WTF!

(Not bestiality related, but commenting on the last post...)

356Report (sage)
at 12 May 2006: 20:20

>>354  Yes, it is.  We're trying to get to 400, so thanks for the help.  :)

357Report
Gedrean at 13 May 2006: 03:32

>>355
You have a good point.  Why is sex wrong when murder isn't?  It wasn't "thou shalt not get it on" it was "Thou shalt not kill."

On that topic, b00b33z!  Hehe.

358Report
at 13 May 2006: 04:42

>>357
Actually now that I think of it, we're a society full of unwanted people that are obsessed with possessions and ownership.  In order to acquire more things you need to take them from people, and if you don't employ violence they're likely to take them back, and with so many people, we subconsciously don't want any more.  Hatred for sex and glorification of violence... witht he usual twist.  Sex for others is bad, but good for the self, and it's okay for others to die and so forth.  I mean, look at the basis of stability in our culture.  "Do what we say or goons with guns will come to your house and lock you up."  And we're all so accepting of it too.  For the powerless, it's cutting people off in traffic, or getting pissed off at people who don't trim the weeds in their lawn, or have a nicer lawn than you.  For the powerful, it's about making sur ethey stay where they are, and any means of doing so is justified because they basically control everything.

It's all very emo, and very old.  Human life means nothing, so all we have left is our dignity, which most of us waste.  I mean heck, I could start down the correct path right now and trash the gun I have in my garage and spend my extra cash on something good like feeding the hungry or restoring the environment, but I think the gun is cool and I prefer to spend my cash on cigarettes, cider, and movies.  The closest I'll ever come to being moral is pointing out how immoral I am on this fetish site.

359Report
at 13 May 2006: 11:54

>>358
interesting but good way to look at it. Thread effectively over, but knowing my fellow furries...feel free to keep bitching until the cows have died of old age and been sold to starving Africans as part of a corporate practical joke so they don't appear to be reneging on an offer.

It might sound weird but I think fighting more often would actually help society, way too much pent up aggression since you can get jailed in some places just for using nasty language, much less throwing a punch! Maybe put up padded rooms that function like the basement in Fight Club or somethin'.

360Report
Bizzle at 13 May 2006: 13:37

Dude, this got depressing!  Ah well.

It's not so much that we need more fighting just for it's own sake.  What we need is honesty.  I have long felt that, if someone or something inspires righteous indignation in you, it is healthy for you to act on that feeling provided that you approach the situation with a sense of honor. That is a part of being honest with yourself.

Sexual honesty is equally important, and it is something that is significantly lacking in our society.  Yes, your girlfriend would be more attractive if she lost a few pounds.  You do feel an urge to try something different after sleeping with the same woman for years.  You're boyfriend would be better if he had a bigger penis.  It isn't wrong to feel that way when it's the truth.  You only hurt yourself when you try to tell yourself that it isn't.

As for bestiality, yeah it's freaky and just a little disturbing, but it's not like the animals involved are emotionally scarred by it, so have a ball!

361Report
MoogleSim#qcgTIuf6mw at 13 May 2006: 18:56

Dude, Bizzle did a >>360 !

362Report (sage)
at 13 May 2006: 19:04

>>361  Radical! 

363Report
Bizzle at 13 May 2006: 20:55

Hey, no fair clowning a guy who grew up in the late eighties-early ninties!  Besides, I think you mean, "gnarly."

364Report
skibum#KrV755.GHU at 13 May 2006: 22:52

>>363 Or "tubular"

365Report
Bizzle at 14 May 2006: 11:10

>>364  Or "wicked."  You could also add "pissa" to it if you happen to be from New England.

366Report (sage)
at 14 May 2006: 16:07

>>365
  Wicked was my second choice, actually, as it was my fav term of affirmation back in the day.  I just thought 'radical' was more apropo, my bad. 

367Report
at 15 May 2006: 02:12

Has this topic officially died now, or what?

368Report
at 15 May 2006: 02:22

nope I'm waiting an apropriate amount of time before I post some deeply insightfull thinking regarding all of this and our own imersion within our perceptions of what we think right verses wrong really is and how we will try anything to keep those ideals even in the face of sound reasoning.
those thoughts will come much later.

369Report
at 15 May 2006: 05:30

Existentialism?  Come on, that's just annoying pomp.

370Report
DragonFlame at 15 May 2006: 10:02

Meditation is good for you.

                                                                          
                                 66O6O^                                   
                             6OQOQQO6666I                                 
                           !66OQQO6OO6II666                               
                          I666OI|6QO66O6OOQO`                             
                         I6QOO6|``OIIOQQQQQQQ^                            
                         OQQO6^.^^ `!.`!I6O6OO                            
                         OOOQ`. .`.`...`.QOOO6|                           
                         6IOQ^. `!`|`. .^QO666I                           
                         IOOQ6`.!|^!|!.`!QOO|6^                           
                          IOQQQ^`.....^|QQQ6OO                            
                         ^6OOQQO`.^^``^6QQ6O6OO^^                         
                       .!6QOOQQI``````!OOOOQO6OOI                         
                     66O6OO6OOO`  ..... .66QOQOO6O66                      
                   666666666666666I!!I6O666666OO66O66OI                   
                  O6666666666666I6I66I66666O66OO66O6O6O6                  
                 .O6OQ6O66I666666I66666666666O6O6QOO6666O                 
                 I66OOOQOQ66666666I66666O6666OOOQO6O6666O6                
                 666O6O6Q6O6666666I66666666O6O6OOO666O                    
                   QO66OOQO666666O66666666666OOQQQQQQOI                   
                   QQQOQQQO66O6O6O6O666666O6OOOQQQQOQOQ                   
                   QQOQOQQQOOO6OO6OO66O6O6OQOOQ^QQQQOQO                   
                   QQQQQQQQQQOOQO6O6OO66OO6OOQQ.IQQQOQO                   
                  ^QOQQQQQQOQQOOOOOOOOO6OOOOOQ``!QQQQQOQ                  
                  QOQOQQQOQQQOQOQOOQOOOOQQQ6QOOQOQQQQQOQ^|                
                ``. .QQQQOO6I6I6IIIII6I6II|I66O6O6OQQ`..`.^               
              ^``..`.`^QQQOOI666666666I666OO6O66O6O66^``.`.`^             
             ```.`.`^6OQOO6IIII|II|IIIIIII6II666OOOO6``|^^`.`.`           
          .`....`!! ^66IIIIIII|I||||IIIIIII6III66666O6O6O6!``.``^`... .   
   .^!. .`.`..^!666III|IIIIII6I6II6666I666I6I66I6666666666O6O^`   ..``    
      . ...^6I|I|IIII6IIIII6I6I6I666O66O66O6666666666I6I6I6I66O` `..` ` . 
  . 6 |.^`O6IIIIIIIII66II66I6666666OOQQO6O6O6O6O6O66O6O66|IIII666^`6`.``. 
      .6I|||||I||II666O66O6O66O6O!^. .66666I6I6III6IIIIII|I||||||||||     
       ||!|||||I|I||III|III66OI|!`6I6666IIIIII6III6III|III||||||||||      
       !|!||||||I|I|I|IIIIIII|IIIII666IIIII6IIII6IIIII6II|I||||||||       
         |||||||||IIIIIIII||IIIIIIIIIIIIII66OO66IIIII|I|I||IIIOOI         
             |||I||I|I|I|IIIIIII6II6666I666I^`^^!^^^^!!                   
                 |!I|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII6II|`.`..^``````^``^              
                 ^.|6I    ^!|I|II6I66O66Q6I! `||!!||!!!^!^^.``            
                                                           ^!.`           

371Report
at 15 May 2006: 15:49

Yeah, this discussion is just a lot of wasted space now.  Are the mods even keeping tabs here anymore, because this thing should probably just be closed, or renamed /b/.

372Report(capped)
Xenofur at 15 May 2006: 15:52

We don't close threads unless absolutely necessary. :)

373Report
at 15 May 2006: 17:59

while, you of course do not need my aproval, :p   I do apreciate the more relaxed atmoshpere that is prevailing as of late, you may force me into posting more of my newest art xenofur.
peace out man.
Couger

374Report
Southpaw at 16 May 2006: 14:31

And now something completely different.

Instead of deciphering your own opinion come to question it. Come to realize that maybe your own opinion and situations really don't matter. No matter what, someone else will try to overcome your ideas because self indulgence is number one, the big cheese. Glorious piles of skank will be written up regardless of what you have to say.

Have no regards and an indifferent opinion. With that no one can possibly bother you and you won't bother them. Easy enough right? ...Too bad alot of people can't think my way.

375Report
at 16 May 2006: 16:52

What?  Most people think your way.  That's why so many horrible things are tolerated in the world.  People have no inclination to change anything.

376Report
at 16 May 2006: 20:27

Dammit, Anon. got 375 :( *emo*

377Report
at 16 May 2006: 23:42

>>375
soooo...because people are making out with animals, and not even that many people, one puuuuny form of exploitation...This is what's causing all the violence and moral decay and hatred? What are you, a Fox News pundit?

378Report
at 17 May 2006: 00:39

>>375 there is a distinct difference between turning a blind eye to things that are plainly visable to all verses something that is at most times (at least hopefully so) rather private.
critical reasoning man .......

379Report
at 17 May 2006: 00:56

Hey, 379.  Almost up to that magical 400.  Weren't we gonna hit some number some time ago?  I dunno......

380Report
Svansfall at 17 May 2006: 03:49

Can anyone who are against zoophilia please come up with any logical reasons to counter the points I made in my posts, mainly 199 246 258 and 277.

I would like to see if there are any logical points against it at all, that anyone can find.  In short: Why is it wrong to give pleasure to someone who clearly comes up and asks for the stimulation?

A simple question, I would be happy for an answer.  :)

381Report
at 17 May 2006: 04:01

roll on 400

382Report
at 17 May 2006: 04:56

>>380 And the answer is: it's not really wrong. It does, however, gross out a large majority of the human species, can lead to the mutation of STDs (syphilis was a sheep-only disease long ago), and is actually illegal in a lot of places.

There is a Biblical argument against it as well, but unless those people are willing to give up haircuts, seafood, cheeseburgers, equality between the sexes, cotton blend clothes, etc, IMO, it doesn't count.

383Report
at 17 May 2006: 08:49

while slightly different there aree many deseases that jump species barriers and have absolutelty nothing to do with zoophilia  and or bestiality, swine flue, avian flue, small pox, cow pox, not sure but i think chicken pox - those are pulled from my memorie so  the exact milage and acuracy may vary a bit but overall its correct and just shows that there is a multitude of places mutation of deseases happen (std's just happen to be only sexually transmited"
 

384Report
at 17 May 2006: 16:31

>>382

Isn't that just a myth?  I am 99% certain modern research has showed that STD's cannot be transmitted between other species and humans.

385Report
at 17 May 2006: 16:36

hey guys what are you talking about

386Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 17 May 2006: 20:34

>>382
That's a fallacy of composition; assuming the parts are the same as the whole. And something of a False Dilemna. I've heard that one used to "invalidate" the Bible's statutes on homosexuality, too.

I'm not actually back in the argument, or necessarily agree with the Bible, mind you, it just bugs me when I see that used.

387Report
at 17 May 2006: 21:35

>>384 Nope, not a myth at all. There's a STD that some dogs have that can be fatal to humans, according to an ACK office holder I've talked to, for instance.

388Report
at 17 May 2006: 21:40

>>386 It bugs me when I see anyone's dogma being used to support or deny anything, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. My argument is just as valid as any other argument made from Biblical or religious sources. I didn't include it because I thought it was a strong point, but just as a reason people say it's wrong.

As for assuming the parts are the same as the whole, isn't that whole section in Lev about "God's law?" Doing any one of the things mentioned there is a break of God's law, lest we forget that detail. What makes any one of these laws more or less important is individual perception and convenience of the moment.

389Report
Juberu at 17 May 2006: 22:09

I stand chastized.

390Report
at 18 May 2006: 00:13

>>380

That "someone" is an animal, and you're molesting it.  Read back man, these points have been made by like 5 different people.  The point isn't whether animals like it, it's whether they can consent sufficiently.  Right now, I'm convinced you've trained your cows to let you molest them.  But, what I think probably won't make a difference to you regardless of how much I explain myself.  You do it because you want to, you think whatever you want is fine, and you won't stop because you don't have to face consequences.  You'll go on molesting animals, and I'll go on thinking your sick for doing it, and you'll call my opinion closed-mindedness, and you'll call your opinion logic.

391Report
Kupok#BY.QtDIz06 at 18 May 2006: 00:27

Subjective logic.
True logic is based on facts.
Both your arguments are based on opinion/morality.

Additionally, Postcount+

...I want a commemorative flash when this thing hits 500.

392Report
at 18 May 2006: 03:43

Isn't there a post count limit on certain threads?  And as to the post where they said it's impossible for STDs to go inter-species, AIDS was a disease that was carried by monkeys/chimps/apes at first.  The most likely reason it was spread, contrary to popular belief, wasn't bestiality.  Most likely a hunter gutted one of the animals, spread the blood on his body (for the purposes of hunting colors and masking scent) and went out hunting, then screwed his wife.  Sometime later, his wife slept with somebody else... etc.etc.etc.  This happens apparently.  Who knew?

393Report
at 18 May 2006: 05:24

>>391 A commemorative bestiality flash? OK mods, start looking for people to commission! ;)

394Report
Svansfall at 18 May 2006: 07:58

>>390

The animals I take care of has not been trained.  And if it is to molest them when I stimulate their genitals, when they clearly enjoy it and come back for more, then isn't all artificial insemination also to molest the animals?  In artificial insemination the animals don't even get enjoyment from it, they just get their privates and anus invaded, without care of wheter the animal likes it or not.   Congratulations, because by buying dairy products or meat, you are actively supporting molesting of animals by your own definition.

As I mentioned before, I only stimulate the genitals of the individuals who enjoy this kind of stimulation.  Those that prefer to get a back-scritch, I give a back-scritch instead.  They all enjoy it.  Am I molesting them when scritching their backs also?

Pleasure is pleasure, and they enjoy the pleasure.  They do not have a stigmatised view of sex as we do, all they know is that they enjoy the stimulation.   It seems as if you think it is a bad thing to give pleasure.

395Report
Bizzle at 18 May 2006: 08:22

>>384  Most diseases that we know today mutated from animal diseases into a form that infects only humans only in the last several thousand years.  Bestiality was one path by with diseases made that chage, but it is far from the only one.

396Report
at 18 May 2006: 08:45

prove to me that animals cannot consent in the same manner one can prove that rain is composed of water droplets.
so far im agreeing more and more with the animals can consent crowd. their logic seems better thoughtv out so far.

397Report
at 18 May 2006: 09:05

That's a fallacy of argumentation. The one who makes extraordinary claims must provide the extraordinary evidence.

Nobody can prove a negative. That's just like asking, prove to me that god doesn't exist.

What you should be asking from the bestiality party is:

"Prove to me that the animals CAN concent"

398Report
at 18 May 2006: 09:15

If you base your opinion on a statement that "nobody can prove that animals can't consent", then you are only fooling yourself.

For example: Apes and chimps can clearly think, and even communicate, as well as dolphins, but can a dog? Or a horse?

SOME animals can pontentially consent, but not necessarily all animals.

399Report
Svansfall at 18 May 2006: 09:31

>>398

If you couldn't communicate with dogs and horses, you couldn't use  guide dogs, or go horseback riding.

400Report
Svansfall at 18 May 2006: 09:35

So why is it so extremely important that the animal must live up to the official definition of "consent", even when it is clear that the animals are enjoying something, and actively coming back for more?

Why is it suddenly not at all important if the animal lives up to the official definition of "consent" when they pull sleds, or ploughs or carts, or when dogs are helping with police work, or helping blind people.

Why is it not important wheter the animal officially "consents" to being slaughtered, or wheter the animal officially "consents" to having their newborn taken away from them?

But why is it so important that they must officially "consent" when someone stimulates them, and brings them to orgasm?

401Report
at 18 May 2006: 10:37

>>399

You can teach a friggin bee to find landmines by Pavlovian reactions, so you damn well can teach a dog to sit without it needing any higher brain functions.

402Report
at 18 May 2006: 10:48

>>400

Cool, so now the opposition has gone from "animals are intelligent enough" to "animals are so dumb that they don't care".

This whole thing isn't about animals, but the person who fucks them. In essence, bestiality is an elaborate way to masturbate and other, regular people, don't want to see it, don't want to hear about it and don't want to think about it or know about it.

Why? Because it doesn't feel natural to them. People fuck people and that's it.

403Report
Svansfall at 18 May 2006: 10:59

>>402

No, animals are definitely intelligent enough.  Animals are not dumb, and they do care.  If animals didn't care, I would not be attracted to them.  It's the whole issue of their enjoyment that does it enjoyable to me.   That's why they come up to me and ask for the stimulation.  If they didn't care, they wouldn't come up to me.

What I said in post 400 was that animals do not meet the human official definition of "consent", because that implies that they can speak with words.   However, my point was that animals do communicate, can communicate, know when they feel pleasure, know how to actively search that pleasure.  They also know how to communicate that they want the pleasure.

It's not the human definition of consent, but as I just said, if the human definition of consent would matter, we could not do anything together with animals.  No horseback riding, you couln't even go walk your dog, because even though the dog comes up to you with their lead in their mouth, they have not actively spoken with words to say that they want to go out.

I totally respect that some people are repulsed by the thought of sex with animals.  That is fully understandable.   But because they don't like to see it or know about it, doesn't mean that it is wrong for someone to give pleasure with an animal who clearly enjoys the pleasure.

404Report
at 18 May 2006: 11:01

And the whole idea of consensus comes from the same people vid people theme: if the animal can think like a person, it's enough of a person to be considered one of us.

405Report
at 18 May 2006: 11:05


>>403
Even if it's not techically wrong, or even morally wrong, what gives you the right to stuff it down my throat? I don't want to see it, or hear about it, or know about it.

406Report
Svansfall at 18 May 2006: 11:05

>>401

Training a dog to sit is a lot more simple than all the communication that goes on between people who actively work with their dogs.  Such as a sheep herder who works together with a sheep herding dog.  There's a lot of communication going on there.  If communication between human and animal was impossible you could not do this.

407Report
Svansfall at 18 May 2006: 11:07

>>405

You are actively viewing this thread.  I am not forcing you to view it.  If you don't want to see it, hear about it, or know about it, simply do not click at the link that says it will contain it.

408Report
at 18 May 2006: 11:28

Unfortunately, this thread sits on this board for all eyes to see and I am very much aware of it every time I look at the list of threads.

I have to participate, so that possibly in the future, I would not have to see even a hint of bestiality whenever I visit this site.

409Report
at 18 May 2006: 11:29

>>406

If communtication between a human and a computer wasn't possible, I wouldn't be able to type you this message.

That still doesn't say that there's anything more than air running through that dog's head, just because you have taught it some signals.

410Report
Svansfall at 18 May 2006: 11:42

>>408

I see your dilemma.   I honestly do not wish to expose anyone to anything they don't want to see.   But, the discussion happens to take place right here, right now.   I am personally happy for the discussion actually taking place, because when someone says that what I am doing is harmful, I feel I have the right to explain that it is not harmful.

The discussion at this point is not about what is allowed on this site, but more about wheter something is wrong or not.


>>409

So you seriously mean that you believe a dog to be as unintelligent as a computer?   I sincerely hope that you don't interract with animals very often.

411Report(capped)
Xenofur at 18 May 2006: 12:43

>>408
Read the subject please.

412Report
at 18 May 2006: 15:56

>>410

Look man, you're talking about animals that have been bred for total domestication. The kind of consent you're talking about isn't good enough. By your definition, cows consent to being slaughtered. They aren't smart enough to consent. Maybe dolphins and apes are, but dogs and horses aren't, and cows definately aren't.

Anyhow, though you continuously reject it, it all comes down to being wrong for the same reason that pedophilia is wrong. Yes, the animal can consent, but they don't know any better, so their consent doesn't matter. The average child is vastly more intelligent than an animal, and boys and girls as young as 11 can technically be "mature" in a sexual sense. Yet, they can't give sexual consent, because they don't fully grasp the gravity of what they are agreeing to. No matter how harmless the "fun", it's molestation to engage a child in sexual acts. Same goes for animals, except they won't EVER attain the wit to properly consent. They can't talk, nor learn to talk, including sign language and the like. Sure, they get off on it, but the animal isn't the one doing anything wrong. You're the one who makes it about sex, and you choose to interpret a pavlovian response as consent and love. Animals don't feel romantic love. As you keep saying, they see it as a form of petting, so why don't you just pet them. Why did you start diddling them in the first place?

Anyhow, as for your comments in 400, no, animals don't consent to being slaughtered or pulling sleds, etc. It's not very nice that we make them do that is it? We constantly use animals for our own ends. You, just happen to add sexual usery on top of a big pile of shit that animals have to go through when dealing with us. You take advantage of their bred trust and compliance, and you use them as a living sex toy for your ends.

Again this can be linked to children though, if the morality becomes clouded. Children can't consent, yet things are done to them all the time. Adults choose what they wear, make them go to school, make them eat food they don't necessarily want, etc. The point is, the adult consents FOR them, and, because we're adults, we're expected to make decisions that are benign for the child, otherwise you're a bad parent. So if you make a kid eat vegetables and go to school, you're a good parent. If you let your kid eat nothing but candy and keep him home from school to play a few "private games", then you are a terrible parent and human being. This seems obvious to most.

Now, animals are a bit more complicated, but basically the same principals apply. A good owner will make decisions for the good of the animal, including the respect of the animals limitations. Exploitive owners will take the young, bugger them for insemination, etc. I think it's fitting that you compare yourself to them as a "lesser version" of what they do... but when they do it, they're trying to make a living, feed humanity, etc. When you do it, you're trying to get your rocks off, and apparently masturbation isn't enough for you, so you've got to involve your animals.

So you're using an animal for personal pleasure. That puts you in a category more along the lines of the abusive. No animal has given consent as we humans recognize it, because they can't, because in order to do so, they'd need to be at least intelligent enough to learn a language. Speech, sign language, whatever, they need to be able to somehow articulate their consent. Now, to reiterate before you pull the pleasure card again, children as young as 11 can become sexually mature, and according to my proffessor, even infants feel pleasure from genital stimulation (Freud's stages). Just because they like it, doesn't mean you're right to do it, nor does it make it "not wrong" to do it. You're still exploiting them, you're still molesting them, and that's wrong, especially since you pose as some sort of activist.

413Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 18 May 2006: 19:21

>>410
You're doing that "Straw Man" thing we had our little conflict about. I don't recommend continuing on that course of action.

>>412

Now, to reiterate before you pull the pleasure card again, children as young as 11 can become sexually mature, and according to my proffessor, even infants feel pleasure from genital stimulation (Freud's stages).

Actually, I recall one psychologist who caused a huge fuss when he masturbated a baby. No joke.
especially since you pose as some sort of activist.

To be fair to my longtime nemesis(j/k), he doesn't. He just thinks what he says is right. Just as I do. Just as you do.

414Report
at 18 May 2006: 20:09

Okay so no one stepped up to prove animals cannot consent...
someone step up to prove humans can consent. the other side of the coin. (this should garner sonme interesting results)
as for the one who doesent want to see this ---then dont take the time to read through this thread again - the title seems clear enough.

415Report
at 18 May 2006: 20:29

>>24

Now that's what I call KFC.

Kentucky Fucked Chicken!

416Report
Bizzle at 18 May 2006: 20:38

>>397  "Prove to me that the animals CAN concent"  My in-laws have a pair of yappy dogs that like to consent all over people's legs.

My favorite story about an animal consenting to getting fucked by a human involves a stallion and some fool from Enumclaw (which quite appropriately happens to be in Butt-Fuck, Nowhere).  I put it to you that this horse was probably not the participant who felt victimized afterward.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002384648_farm16m.html

>>413  "Actually, I recall one psychologist who caused a huge fuss when he masturbated a baby. No joke."  Ewwww!!  Amazingly, that's the most disturbing anecdote in this thread.

417Report
at 18 May 2006: 20:44

>>414

Prove to me that god doesn't exist and I prove to you that animals can't consent.

In both cases, all that you can prove is that "god isn't here" or "this animal can't consent", but there will always be blank spots where the opposite -might- be true.

That's why it's called a fallacy of argumentation. You can't prove a negative, so you can't use the argument to back up any sort of claim. Trying to prove a negative doesn't answer any questions and attempting it is simply pointless.

418Report (sage)
at 18 May 2006: 20:52

I like dogs. 

419Report
at 18 May 2006: 21:02

>>416 "My in-laws have a pair of yappy dogs that like to consent all over people's legs."

Um.... no. That's called "being dominant." Dogs do that in order to say "I own you." My female dog used to do it. It has nothing to do with sex or pleasure, the dog is just trying to be the alpha. It means your in-laws don't know how to train their dogs, not that they want sex.

420Report
at 18 May 2006: 21:19

OK, wait... Let's try this the other way. Not if animals can consent, but if animals can deny. If we can prove than an animal can deny something, doesn't that show the ability to make a choice? And if we prove that an animal can deny someone, then would the lack of denial represent acceptance on some level?

As far as children go, adults are generally bigger and stronger, so that if an adult were determined enough, they could make a child do anything they wanted...

What about a horse? One that's bigger and stronger than a human being who has the ability to kick hard enough to shatter bones... In a one on one situation, the horse would kick the ever-loving shit out of someone trying to do something to it that it didn't like. It would stand to reason that not kicking the shit out of someone represents the horse having chosen to let it happen, would it not?

421Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 18 May 2006: 21:46

>>402

Why? Because it doesn't feel natural to them. People fuck people and that's it.

Funny, most of the arguements in the thread haven't said jack-all about "natural". Not that it matters in the first place.
Also; bestiality isn't another way to jerk off. It's sex, except with an animal instead of a person.

422Report
at 18 May 2006: 21:59

All one has to do is live around dogs long enough with an eye towards their intelect and watch - no dont just sorta watch!! really watch - one will see all manners of both giving and denying consent. those who cannot see that are far better suited not liking the idea of zoophilia as they are the ones who are so blind to the subtle cues animals give they would be rapists due to not seeing what is really there.
those who "know" that various animals are capable of consent and reasong know this by experience. those who do not are either blind to animals or have been exposed to retarded animals all along - that is if they are basing their opinions on experience verses the I say so factor.

423Report
at 18 May 2006: 23:49

>>422
Either that, or you're the one who's wrong, and you're fooling yourself into seeing consent where there isn't any to justify yourself.  You see what I did there?  Exactly what you did.  In all seriousness though, I refuse to believe that a bunch of self indulgent perverts have managed to prove something that scientists and psychologists are still wrestling with.  If animals can consent, nobody's been able to see it yet, including the crazies.

424Report
Svansfall at 19 May 2006: 00:05

>>412

By my definition cows does not consent to being slaughtered.  If you've been in a slaughterhouse to see what happens there, you'd know what I mean.

And they are certainly smart enough to communicate what they want and what they don't want. Post 422 says it well, just learn to interract with some individual animals, and you will learn to read their body language, and you'll see they are communicating all the time.  Recieving signals from each other, giving signals to each other.  Giving signals to humans, and reading signals from humans also.

You think the animals are too stupid to show what they want, or what they don't want?  I know that they are not.  They express themselves clearly - read their body language.

And the only time bestiality can be compared to pedophilia, is when someone is molesting a young animal.  A fullgrown animal who has gone through a few heat cycles are sexually mature. Young animals and young humans are not sexually mature.   I am going to use the N-word now, it is natural for fullgrown developed animals to engage in sexual activity.  They don't care which species it is that gives the sexual pleasure to them, as long as they get the sexual pleasure.

I agree with you, that a good owner will make decisions for the good of the animal, including the respect of the animals limitations.  But I do not feel it is right to exploit an animal to make a living or to feed humanity, you can eat vegetables, you don't need to make the life miserable for a lot of animals to survive.

And I do prefer to not mention details here, but since you insinuate that "apparently masturbation isn't enough for me.", I can inform you that no animal has ever brought me to orgasm.  When I am giving sexual stimulation to an animal, I am focussing on reading their body language, and responding to their signals, to try and stimulate them in the way they enjoy the most, finding the right spots, etc.  Once I have brought them to orgasm, I can maybe care about my own lusts, by myself, but seriously, the entire thing I enjoy about being with animals is to make them feel good.

That's what I get off on.  I seriously get almost as much pleasure from giving non-sexual stimulation to those that don't enjoy the sexual stimulation.  But those that do enjoy the sexual stimulation, I am not going to deny them that pleasure when they ask for it.  We both enjoy it.

Feel free to think it is disgusting, but don't tell me that it is wrong to give pleasure to a fullgrown, sexual individual, when they actively seek it, and obviously enjoy it, and when they are clear to communicate what they want and don't want.

>>422

That was very well said.

425Report
at 19 May 2006: 00:07

>>423 good try you get two stars for effort.

426Report
Svansfall at 19 May 2006: 00:09

>>423

If you feel it is so unclear to humans what animals like or do not like, please tell me how you can justify that we are sitting up on horses and making them run and perform all kinds of things for us?

427Report
at 19 May 2006: 05:02

>>424

I've known people who "know" that trees have feelings, souls, and a voice that we've apparently just trained ourselves not to hear.  Trees.  They think trees can talk, and they swear by it.  They won't take it back, and every time I try to explain things to them, they just repeat over and over that I'm just not listening right, or that I'm in denial.  They're saying that trees can talk, and I'M the one in denial.

You... you're saying that you can understand your cow's body language.  Physically, they don't have a sophisticated enough brain to come up with a language at all, so no, they aren't smart enough to communicate beyond simple emotion.  You want to see consent, and so you see consent.  I see animals that have been bred so docile that they put up with that kind of abuse.

As for your continued dodging of the comparison to pedophilia, dude, it's not considered wrong just because they're young, it's their state of mind.  Children aren't considered intelligent enough to consent to sex, and animal never get to be as intelligent as children.  The only reason people don't make a big deal out of bestiality is because they don't give a damn about your cows as long as they don't see what you're doing.  You could fuck them, you could torture them, you could kill them, whatewver, as long as nobody knows.  If people find out, legally, you'd face some consequences if animals are seen as having any sort of rights where you live... and socially, you'd be an outcast, and probably activaly persecuted.

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe... maybe YOU are the one who's wrong?  That it isn't the ignorant masses, but perhaps an ignorant few this time?  Maybe you aren't some sort of enlightened underground, but simply what a large number of people have labled you... someone who molests animals, and, it would seem, thinks himself as doing the animal a big favor.

Just curious though, do you know what would happen to cows if people quit exploiting them?  Do you think people would set aside the time, space, and resourses to keep a useless animal alive and abundant?  If cows aren't used, they would be killed, and the fields that kept them would be used to grow crops of beans and such to take their place.  A few cows would live in zoos and such, and maybe people would eventually feel bad about eradicating them... but you have to know that cows only survive because people want their meat and milk.

Sheesh, unrealistic dreams are nice and all, but yes... in order to survive, we humans need to make things very miserable for animals, because we're a part of this world.  We need space to live in, food to eat, and resources to use to keep our lives up to par.  There's billions of us, so we need a lot, and unless the population is slashed tenfold and we give up technology, that's not going to change.  Since you're not even going to consider not messing with your cows, I'm guessing you're way too "selfish" to volunteer for the mass suicide it would require to cull enough humans to exists on this world in a non-exploitive manner (if that's even possible), so don't start on the whole "we can all live in harmony" crap.  For every drop of gas, every volt of electricity, every piece of paper that you use, something had to die or be displaced in order for it to get to you.  As a species, we slaughter animals without thought or mercy.  You happen to molest them as well as play your part in their slaughter.

A farmer too at that.  How many wild animals were exterminated to free up those acres so you can have those domesticated concubines of yours?

428Report
at 19 May 2006: 05:46

it's not considered wrong just because they're young, it's their state of mind.

wrong, it's because their bodies aren't ready yet.

429Report
at 19 May 2006: 05:48

>>427
You should know that he isn't actively fucking them.

430Report
at 19 May 2006: 06:45

>>429

Okay fine, he's molesting them then, does it make that much of a difference?

>>428

So if you came across a kid who matured quickly, it'd be okay then?  Or what if someone was sexually mature, but had a child-like mind, and you tricked them into having sex.  Is that a good and moral thing to do?  Why is it morally fine with animals, but not humans?  If you think animals are shit and you can do whatever you want with them, I can't argue with that... but if you say animals deserve to be treated well, and then you molest them, that's just disturbing.

And regarding the point that's likely to be brought up again, since when do you have to prove they Don't consent?  If someone says I signed a contract and I say I didn't, do I have to prove that I didn't or do they have to prove that I did?  Give your head a shake.  If you're saying there's consent, then you got to prove that.  No answer is "No", and training an animal to do nothing but comply is hardly a moral high ground.

431Report
at 19 May 2006: 07:51

All you consent arguers neatly avoiding my very logical post in >>420 ... So how about that? If one can prove an animal is capable of saying no, would that then prove they're capable of saying yes on some level?

432Report
at 19 May 2006: 08:37

>>431

They're being manipulated.  If you condition an animal they won't deny anything.  They "say" what their owners want them to say.

And that "logic" is just opinion. Logic doesn't now, nor has ever had anything to do with any issue of morality.

433Report
Guan at 19 May 2006: 08:56

Uhm, guys?  Considering the length of this thread, how can you all be sure you aren't saying the same thing over and over?  I understand the need to get your two cents in, but...jeez.  I'll give it to ya though, you guys have managed not to deviate from this topic after 100+ posts.  A remarkable feat for the Internet in my opinion.  ^..^

As far as my stance on the issue, I support zoophilia under very certain conditions, do not practice it, and have nothing to say that hasn't already been said...as far as I can tell.  o..o

434Report
at 19 May 2006: 08:59

>>432 an animal says no with teeth and or hoves that is the big no
an animal says no with subtle behaviour.
of course this isnt provable but at least it has far more evidence
on its side than the argument of they cant consent has. one asks the they cant consent side for evidence and they really dont present anything solid. the argument of at least animals are capible and willing to bite and kick at least has the weight of something tangible as a means of backing up its own argument.

435Report
at 19 May 2006: 09:03

>>434

It's very easy to condition a dog not to bite his owner, because the owner will bitchslap the dog immediately if he tries to. In the end, the dog is too scared to do anything, even if he is being molested.

436Report
at 19 May 2006: 09:19

Hypothetical situation:
Let's say a person has a habit of sleeping in the nude. There they are, asleep, when their male dog hops up on the bed and mounts them.

Is the person raping/molesting their dog?

437Report
at 19 May 2006: 09:40

>>436

What would the answer to this question prove?

438Report
at 19 May 2006: 09:41

Dogs hump sofas and lampposts, because they're in heat. It's a biological instinct and not an act of consent.

439Report
at 19 May 2006: 11:34

427 Quote “As for your continued dodging of the comparison to pedophilia, dude, it's not considered wrong just because they're young, it's their state of mind.  Children aren't considered intelligent enough to consent to sex, and animal never get to be as intelligent as children.”  No one has really responded to this so I thought I would. I have to ask, do you really believe that? So, if the child is intelligent enough (and there are many, many genius children) then it would be ok? No, sex with a child is still wrong.  And it has nothing to do with consent. Many children are aware enough to be able to consent, but sex with a child is still wrong. So why is sex with a child wrong (and hopefully we all agree here that it’s very, very wrong)? It has nothing to do with intelligence or consent. Sex with a child is wrong because a child is not sexually mature enough to have sex. An adult animal is. An adult animal is not a human child, and comparing the two is pointless. 

440Report
at 19 May 2006: 13:10

>>438 Then why is the hypothetical dog humping it's master and not the chair in the corner?

>>437 It would prove you're oblivious to the obvious, for one...

441Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 19 May 2006: 13:11

>>431
You seem to be confusing a hypothetical question with a statement. And you haven't properly explained what the relevance would be.

And no, lack of dissent does not mean consent.

442Report
Svansfall at 19 May 2006: 14:23

>>427

So in this post animals are being compared to trees.  In an earlier post, dogs, cows and horses were compared to insects and computers, when it comes to intelligence.  Why do you think there are animal psychologists that work with mammals?  Because the mammals have a higher level of intelligence than bees have.

So the fact that I know that mammals have intelligence enough to communicate does not compare to people who "know" that trees have feelings.  Ask your local vet, ask your local animal psychologist, ask your closest horse trainer.  They will all tell you that animals are intelligent enough to communicate.  People who deal closely and regularly with animals, will all know that they can communicate well with their animals, know how they feel, what they want, what they don't want.

If you keep denying this, go ahead, but it is a fact.  I understand your belief that animals lack enough intelligence to communicate is the key reason for why you feel it is wrong to be sexual with animals.  If it was the way you claim it is, I would agree with you, but it isn't.  Animals are not mindless or incapable of communication.

You're claiming that cows cannot communicate, and cannot come up with a language... not even body language.  Well, feel free to "know" that... just like some people "know" that trees have feelings.  Anyone who's ever spent enough time to get to know a cow well, will know that they have a clear and expressive body language.

As for what would happen to cows if people quit exploiting them.  That is happening a lot in the country where I live, because it is extremely hard to gain enough income by farming, so a lot of farmers just give up and quit.  What usually happens is that someone who has a regular job on the side keeps cows just to graze and keep the pastures and meadows open.  And to keep the land from becoming overgrown with trees and weed, the government gives funding to everyone who does keep the landscape open, to make more people do it.   Most of those people do sell the cows to slaughter after a few years, but far from everyone.   There are also a lot of people who work without gain, because they have the genuine interest to keep the ecosystem running, preventing rare species of insects, plants and snakes from becoming extinct as monoculture takes over the previously open land.  Cows are an important part of this, so a lot of people keep cows, solely for the ecological aspect.

I am not a farmer, and would never dream of selling a cow to become meat.  But I care about keeping my pastures in a good shape for the sake of the eco-system.

But all this is a side note and not really relevant to the discussion at all.  The only main thing I can see we disagree on is the level of the animals' intelligence - that is your reason for comparing it to pedophilia.

443Report
at 19 May 2006: 15:07

>>90

By saying that most animals only have sex to procreate, you imply that they are cognizant enough to understand that, by not having sex, there species will go extinct.  Thusly, they chose to have sex because they want to preserve there own species.  This is complete rubbish.  Animals have sex because they want pleasure, not because they think it is a sensible practice.  Animals simply are not smart enough for that.  In fact, this type of sensible reasoning is hardly something that even humans ever consider, even though we are fully capable of it.  When we consider somebody as a mate, we rarely ever think “would they make a good father/mother?”  On the contrary, we based who we want to mate with on how attractive they look to us and how strong our desire for them is.  This phenomenon is not just observed in humans, but is also frequently observed in other mammals and even birds.

True, sex is not necessary for the survival of the individual; however, sex is a fundamental necessity for the survival of the species, which makes sex a need by default.  The desire of the individual reflects the need of the species.

But even with this reasoning, one could still make a case that sex is essential for the survival of the individual.  Most people don’t realize this, but if a person has sex at least three times a week, they optimize the performance of there immune system making them more resistant to disease?  The same may also be true for animals.  We also know that humans who have sex frequently at a young age have less prostate problems later in life.  The same can also be said for intact male dogs who are allowed to breed, versus intact dogs who are not allowed to breed.  Sex has health benefits in humans and probably has similar benefits in other species. 

We can assume that all animals with at least some higher brain function want to feel good.  Feeling good, after all, reduce stress levels and eases our discomforts.  Why then is it so hard for us to understand that animals desire sex because it is so pleasurable?  Nature built into our makeup a reward system to encourage us to repeat certain beneficial behaviors.  But like all reward systems, the focus is not on the behavior that gets the reward or the real world benefits of the behavior.  On the contrary, the focus is on the reward itself, which is why this system is so effective and why it has been preserved for millions of years.  Again, why is it so hard to understand that animals seek out sex for pleasure?

I think the real question is not “do animals have sex for pleasure or reproduction”, but how much of a social function does sex play in a given species.  Sex, by its very nature, is a social activity because it requires two individuals to interact with one another with a certain degree of coordination and cooperation.  But how much of a role does sex play as far as social groupings are concerned?  We all know how social sex is for humans, and I'm sure a lot of us are also aware of how other primates and dolphins also use sex for social purposes.  Any creature smart enough to understand the individuality of another is capable of understanding that, not only do they enjoy the pleasure of sex, but other individuals enjoy sexual pleasure as well.  With this understanding, it isn't too far of a leap to figure out that sex can actually be a means to an end.  In other words, if you want something from somebody else, use the gift of sexual pleasure as a bargaining chip.  As they say, prostitution is the oldest profession. 

We all know that sex is pleasurable for humans and we can also infer that other animals, such as dolphins and pigmy chimps, also enjoy sex because they exhibit behaviors analogous to human behaviors that indicate sexual enjoyment.  If humans and dolphins both show visible signs of sexual enjoyment, then perhaps sexual pleasure evolved from a common ancestor to dolphins and humans millions of years ago.  If so, this means that all other species of mammal that evolved from this common ancestor likely also possess the traits that allow them to feel sexual pleasure.  If that were the case, then every descendent from that same ancient animal would also likely possess the ability to experience sexual pleasure as well.  

If sexual pleasure, as a trait, has been preserved for millions of years, then it is obviously a critically important and necessary component for reproduction.  Let's face it, if sex didn't feel good, we wouldn't have sex in the first place.  It takes a lot of energy, places you in an awkward position, and leaves you vulnerable.  The same goes for every other creature out there.  SEXUAL PLEASURE IS NATURE'S WAY OF TRICKING YOU INTO BURDENING YOURSELF WITH OFFSPRING.  Without pleasure, we have no incentive to have sex.

In the cases of other animals who only engage in seasonal sexual activity, the social function of sex appears to be quite limited.  In these cases, sexual desire seems to be switched on and off by seasonal/hormonal control.  When the switch is turned on, they actively seek out sex and when it is turned off they could care less about sex. 

Since sexual desire in these creatures is rhythmic, rather than static, does this mean that they have sex out of mindless mechanical impulse, or is it more likely that they enjoy the pleasures of sex just as much as those who have it year round?  Do we really know enough about seasonally sexual animals and there psychology to conclusively prove that sexual activity does not feel like a fun recreation to them?

The only real difference between those who have sex seasonally and those who have sex year round appears to be the degree sex plays a social role, which also appears to be more relevant to an animal’s level of intelligence than how much they actually enjoy and appreciate the physical act.   What remains constant between the two groups; they all have sex because it feels good and because not having sex feels uncomfortable.  We want to feel good as much as possible and we want to avoid as much discomfort as possible.  We eat because we are hungry, we scratch because we itch, we drink when we are thirsty, and we have sex when we are horny.

444Report
at 19 May 2006: 15:17

>>435
This would hold true so long as the situation was as you described
there are far to many instances of agressive male dogs or (insert apropriate species) being the agressors - this line of argument fails due to one presuming that an animal is conditioned to this behaviour. which at least in numerous situations they are most decidely not. as for the domestication angle. there are enough
animals out there that the domestication has not taken well, for that to be a moot point.
so....... next try please.

445Report
at 19 May 2006: 15:46

>>120
"What my point is, and ever has been, is that they lack sufficient intelligence to be capable of informed consent, and informed consent is required for sex to not be rape."

By your logic, all sex for non-humans is rape!  If a bitch and a male dog are unable to have informed consent they rape each other every time they have sex!  This is a ridiculous conclusion which demonstrates the fallacy of your argument.

446Report
at 19 May 2006: 16:06

>>138

This is supposed to be an intelligent debate not an incoherent rant fest.

Be quiet, for you do a disservice to your side's argument.

447Report
at 19 May 2006: 16:11

>>445
Read everything dude.  Animals can't rape because they lack the capacity to be immoral, so consent isn't an issue on their side.

>>433
Hit the nail right on the head there buddy.  Everything's been said like 3 times now.  All of these "points" that people are coming up with have been stated before and better.  Nobody has read back.

448Report
at 19 May 2006: 16:58

>>142

"I was not able to find any evidence of horses, dogs, rodents, etc. having sex for recreational purposes."

Of course you didn't because that topic isn't researched very much!  In fact, the scientific community is rather reluctant, if not resistant, to the idea that animals could behave in a homosexual manor.  Do you honestly think that, just because there sexuality is seasonal for some animals that sex does not feel like a pleasurable recreation to them?  For all we know, the very quest for pleasure is the one and only reason why they have sex in the first place.  You assume too much without proof. 

"Nor was I able to find, aside from a few photos which showed mounting, documentation of male animals having anal sex with one another whereupon there was -actual sex- and not just mounting. Feel free to point me to the place where you found your information regarding such. I would especially love to read about horses, dogs, and rodents having recreational sex among themselves and outside their breeding season."

My friend, you simply are not looking hard enough.  For research, academic and intellectual discussion on the subject, try these links:

http://www.subversions.com/french/pages/science/animals.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html
http//www.ama/...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

I’m sure that the citations in each will give you enough leads to examine hard research papers on the subject.

For photo documentation try these links:

http://www.beastforum.com/showtopic-61502.html
http://www.beastforum.com/showtopic-82126.html
http//www/...

449Report
at 19 May 2006: 17:01

There was a test done with rats involving overpopulation. Five generations into the experiment, the male rodents were having homosexual sex, raping and hoarding females, and breeding outside their normal breeding cycles.

Maybe bestiality is a symptom of human overpopulation, since it makes "unintelligent" aminals into sexual deviants.

450Report
at 19 May 2006: 17:03

perhaps the most important thing abought this whole discusion is that both sides are willing to continue discussing it thereby illistrating how signifigant of a role such trully plays within the furry community.

451Report
at 19 May 2006: 17:11

>>450 Actually, since I started the thread, I'm going for 1000 replies. I want to win a free T-shirt.

452Report
at 19 May 2006: 17:32

that explains your part - what abought all the rest?

453Report
at 19 May 2006: 19:07

>>181

Psychological Harm VS. Physical Harm

I don't think that pedophilia is illegal because children are unable to give consent.  We make pedophilia illegal because it can cause psychological harm.  Children are developing psychologically and introducing sex during there development will cause them to be abnormal once they fully develop.  We protect children so they can stay in a happy little world where they don't have to worry about sex or be burdened by the ideals of attractiveness.  We, as a society, protect the innocents of our children so they can continue to play with Babies and GI-Joes until they grow up and are mature enough to handle sex.  Consent has little to do with the arguments against pedophilia.  Consent has more to do with adult interactions and guardianship over minors.

The confusion of arguments over pedophilia and zoophilia come in to play because animals and children think on a lower level in comparison to mature adult humans.  But what isn’t fair about this comparison is the fact that animals reach sexual maturity and adulthood many years before humans ever do.  Animals other than humans are not as complex as humans, so they do not need a protracted childhood for proper maturation.  A bitch could have her first litter of puppies during the second year of her life while most humans wait at least 10 to 15 times that amount before they ever have children. 

One thing that is continually missing from this debate is the concept of psychological harm rather than physical harm.  Does having sex with a sexually mature animal cause that animal psychological harm?  If they are large enough and lubricated enough to accommodate a human comfortably (assuming the zoophilic activity involves a human male and animal female) we can safely rule out physical harm.  What we do not rule out is whether or not having sex with an animal causes that animal PSYCHOLOGICAL harm?  For that matter, does it also cause the human any psychological harm?

PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM IS KEY TO THIS ISSUE

The reason we use consent, informed consent or acquiescence to differentiate between rape and love making is the fact that having sex with somebody against there will causes them psychological harm.  This is why rape is considered a violent act and why we consider it immoral.

Although animals are not capable of verbal or informed consent, they are capable of acquiescence, which is a type of consent.  We know that animals are able to consent in this way because we know they are individuals with there own will and agenda and are, thus, capable of making there own choices.  They may not an agenda as complex as a human’s but they have there own agendas, nonetheless.  This type of independence can be observed every time you are deliberately ignored by your pet when you call for them.  This allows us to infer that, by ignoring you, they made a choice to do so.  Thus, animals have the ability to make choices for themselves.

Even though an animal is unable to verbally express consent or approval, they are perfectly capable of showing disapproval and delight.  No matter how well trained an animal is, they will cry, growl, attack, snap, claw, bite, kick or run away when they feel pain or discomfort.  On the flipside, though, animals are also able to show signs of enjoyment when delighted.  Scratch a dog in the right spot and one of his or her legs will gun nuts.  You could also, perhaps, scratch a place behind or inside there ear and listen to them give you a moan/growl of ecstasy.  You could also rub a dog between there front legs and watch as they quietly smack there lips.  Animals can do more than just acquiesce; they can show enjoyment as well.

Do animals enjoy sex with each other, even if only seasonally?  More than likely, they do.  Do animals enjoy being sexually stimulated by humans?  Perhaps they do, or perhaps they don’t.  It really depends on the given animal’s preference.  If an animal enjoys the stimulation and wants it to continue, they will not resist or walk away.  This is, in effect, acquiescence.  Likewise, if an animal does not like the stimulation, they will resist and flea, which is the animal equivalent of saying “no”.

Does having sexual relations with an animal cause that animal psychological harm?  We all can agree that forcing sexual relations when an animal resists is probably harmful, but what about when the animal acquiesces?  Would sexual relations still be harmful then?

Answering that question would help us better answer the bigger question, is sex with an animal immoral.

454Report
at 19 May 2006: 19:18

>>453 very well thought out and well spoken *bows*

455Report
at 19 May 2006: 20:03

>>213

I laugh at you!  Ha ha ha ha ha!

Seriously, it is impossible to make with another animal and produce offspring of any sort.  It just can't happen.  The only exception could possibly be a chip/human hybrid, and I have heard rumors of such creatures existing in Africa, but they are just that, rumors.

The chromosomes and genetics are to different to be compatible.  This arrests development at an extremely early stage if development can begin at all.  It's just not possible to produce offspring, much less fertile ones.

456Report
at 19 May 2006: 21:18

>>253
"Animals, especially herding or pack animals, easily adopt humans into their pack mentality, and as such, will see them as potential sexual partners---for the purpose of procreation. To imply that your dog, cow, ect., simply wants sexual gratification for the sake of being pleasured is delusional.  Animals don't have recreational sex with the exception of 'higher' species, such as dolphins, humans, and some primates."

You’re absolutely right.  Animals have enough mental capacity to understand that, if they do not have sex, there species will become extinct.  Therefore, they have sex, not because if feels good, but because it is a good idea.  In fact, just the other day, my dog asked me to find her a husband.  She said she felt her biological clock ticking and wanted pupies.  Specifically, she wants me to order her a mail order pit bull to be her stud because she's really into muscles these days.

Of course, you should realize I am being sarcastic at your expense in order to demonstrate the fallacy of your argument.  Animals are simple and what could be simpler than doing something because it feels so fucking good!  Just because they only get in the mood during certain seasons or times of the year does not mean it isn't recreation to them when the biological switch turns them on and makes them horny.  The difference between humans and seasonally sexual animals is that our switch is turned on all the time 24/7 until you remove our gonads.  Of course, that's more akin to taking the batteries out of a toy than flipping a switch.

457Report
at 20 May 2006: 00:42

>>453

So, if you had sex with a child who was also a sociopath, and thus, not capable of psychological harm, then it's fine?  I'm sorry, but the exception disproves the absolute.  Psychological harm isn't key, it's just one of many components.  Here's one.  I can feed pork sausage to pigs, and it doesn't mess with their heads.  Does that mean I'm right to do it, or does that make me a twisted fuck who gets off on messing with animals that don't get it?  I'd go with the latter, but I guess the pig isn't traumatized or anything, so that makes me a good person for doing it.

458Report
at 20 May 2006: 01:09

>>397

Consent (intransitive verb) - to give permission or approval for something to happen; acceptance of or agreement to something proposed or desired by another

Acquiesce (intransitive verb) - to agree to or comply with something passively rather than expressing approval or support.

Synonyms: agree, comply accept, CONSENT, assent, give in, submit, go along with, yield, concede, concur.

Antonym: Resist
(Definitions and synonyms were taken from the Encarta English Dictionary.)

So, in other words, Animals can consent through "acquiescence".  Acquiescence has held up in court in cases of sexual harassment.  If you treat somebody sexually at the workplace, and the person you are treating sexually does not say no, but instead automatically silently files a suit, they have no case!  In order to win a sexual harassment case, you must make it clear that sexual advances are unwanted and unwelcome.  Only then does a sexual harassment victim have a case if the advances continue.  Legally, not saying “no” is the same as saying “yes”. 

Since animals lack a speech center in there brain, they are only able to communicate via body language.  Therefore, we can assume that “residence” which is negative also means “no” which is also negative.  “Acquiescence”, which is positive, can be equaled to “yes”, which is also positive.  Why is this so difficult to understand?

But what about this “informed consent” I keep hearing people talk about?  Let’s look at a definition of informed consent before I continue this discussion.

Informed Consent (noun) - agreement by a patient to undergo an operation or medical treatment or take part in a clinical trial after being informed of and having understood the risks involved. (Encarta English Dictionary)

Informed Consent n.  Agreement to do something or to allow something to happen only after all the relevant facts are known. In contracts, an agreement may be reached only if there has been full disclosure by both parties of everything each party knows which is significant to the agreement. A patient's consent to a medical procedure must be based on his/her having been told all the possible consequences, except in emergency cases when such consent cannot be obtained. A physician or dentist who does not tell all the possible bad news as well as the good, operates at his/her peril of a lawsuit if anything goes wrong. In criminal law, a person accused or even suspected of a crime cannot give up his/her legal rights such as remaining silent or having an attorney, unless he/she has been fully informed of his/her rights.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/informed+consent

From Wikipedia: Informed consent is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon an appreciation and understanding of the facts and implications of any actions. The individual needs to be in possession of all of his faculties, such as not mentally retarded or mentally ill, without an impairment of judgment at the time of consenting. Impairments include sleep, illness, intoxication, drunkenness, using drugs or other health problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent

Of these definitions, two of them pertain to medical procedures.  Sex is not a medical procedure, so it does not apply to the cases of rape or acts of bestiality.  But for the sake of the discussion, let’s toss out the medical connotations of informed consent for a moment.

Basically, informed consent is where all relevant parties are of sound mind and body, and understand the significant of the agreement being reached and all risks involved, if any.

Sex is a very basic function that even animals can understand.  It isn’t hard to figure out because it is so reflexive and automatic in many stages of its natural progression. 

Now, lets look at the two main halves of informed consent: physical condition and understanding and see if how well they apply to an animal’s perspective.

If one is to engage in sex with an animal one must first make sure that the animal is of sound mind and body.
1.    Does the animal have any mental handicaps or impairments?
2.    Has the animal been drugged (such as been given tranquilizers to make it more docile and compliant)?
3.    Does the animal suffer from a mental illness?
4.    Does the animal have any other health problems or issues that would impair its judgment?

If the answer to these questions is “no” then the first qualifying half of “informed consent” has been met.  Next, we need to look at the risk and significant of sexual relations with animals.

Risks
1.)    Injury could be incurred if the female’s vagina is too small to accommodate a male’s penis.  If the female is large enough, then this point is irrelevant.
2.)    If the human has a disease that could be transmitted to the animal, then the animal should know about that disease.  Since it is impossible to explain this to an animal, any human with such a disease should never have sex with an animal.  On the other hand, a human who is clean need not explain anything of this sort, which makes this point irrelevant.

Significance
1.)    Sex has the potential to create emotional bonds which may amplify separation anxiety.  (Actually, this may be more significant to the human than to the animal, since animals do not seem to exhibit the sentimentality that humans do.)
2.)    Sex with a human will never result in the production of offspring.  (To my knowledge, animals do not have any emotional ideals pertaining to the creation of offspring.  This is often pointed out by those who encourage spaying and neutering.  No need to inform the animal about this because the fact that sex is unproductive is not relevant to them.)
3.)    Sex has the potential to feel quite pleasurable.  (This point is both relevant and obvious to all parties involved.  No need to inform the animal because it is so obvious.)

Conclusion: Animals are capable of informed consent because sex is a very basic part of life, which means that it isn’t difficult to figure out.  Hell, even some bacteria can do it, and they don’t even have a cell nucleus! 

If sex is so hard and so difficult to understand, is it because we humans have complicated it so much.  We are the ones who have the hang-ups and the fetishes, not them.  Animals keep sex simple because it is simple.  Because sex is so simple, animals are informed by default.  So, as long as an animal remains receptive to a human’s advances, informed consent, not just regular consent is given through acquiescence.

This is ironically, very similar to what humans do with each other.  If the other party does not resist, is not under duress, and is a legal adult then the sex they have is not rape.  It does not become rape until one of the two people either resists or says “no”, or one of the individuals is under the age of 18 (legal minor).  This whole idea behind “informed consent” to qualify “animal rape” is really quite absurd because not even humans go through this ridiculous checklist to make sure that the sex they are having with each other isn’t rape.

459Report
at 20 May 2006: 01:20

>>405

Dude, it isn't like the gay political agenda where we are trying to convert the whole world into flaming butt-bandits.  The reason why this is such a hot topic is that so many people feel persecuted because The Law in many localities stands against them.  All they really want is be left alone, but when people say things like "you should go to jail because you abuse animals" by somebody who hasn't even a clue where the people they are attacking are coming from, it is a little difficult for them to stay silent.

Now, I can appreciate your disgust.  I truly hear you, but try to understand where they are coming from as well.

460Report
at 20 May 2006: 01:31

>>409

Most of my post have been pretty long winded but well though out.  For you, I will make an exception because of the emotional response you have elicited within me.

Once again, an Anti-Zoo demonstrates just how stupid they think animals really are.  Clearly, the view themselves as the grand protectorates of animal kind because animals are incapable of making any choices on there own and because they must be protected from evil h00manz and there evil cocks!

How the animals survived in the wild for millions of years without the Anti-Zoos protecting them is beyond me.  Somebody please explain this because I won't be able to sleep until I have the answer!

461Report
at 20 May 2006: 01:37

>>459 trully spoken, by the manner in which many in this speak of consent then very few humans regularly engage in consentual sex
most of it is rape.
(460 the size of a very good ford lima series engine)

462Report
at 20 May 2006: 01:45

>>412

"The kind of consent you're talking about isn't good enough. By your definition, cows consent to being slaughtered. They aren't smart enough to consent. Maybe dolphins and apes are, but dogs and horses aren't, and cows definitely aren't."

Do you mean to explain that we have bread animals to the point that they are complacent and compliant with us killing them?  Forgive me, but you speak from complete ignorance.  Cows very much fear death just like every other living creature does.  If they were not prone to fear, there wouldn't be such a thing as a stamped!  Why do you think that large scale slaughter houses funnel cattle into a "U" shaped corridor before they reach the killing room?  It's so that they can't see the other cattle in front of them getting killed, because when cows see other cows dying in front of them, they panic because there survival instincts tell them they are most likely to die next.  When cows panic en mass, you have a very dangerous situation on your hands.  Cows don't want to die, which is why I don't eat beef.

I'm beginning to thing that the Anti-Zoos have extremely limited contact and knowledge with and about animals.  Arguments based on false assumptions are a waist of time.

463Report
at 20 May 2006: 02:13

>>447
"Animals can't rape because they lack the capacity to be immoral, so consent isn't an issue on their side."

If I ever see you being ass raped by a dolphin I won’t come to your aid because what the dolphin is doing to you isn’t wrong.  In fact, I'll just sit there an laught at you like Nelson Muntz.

When was it established that non-human animals are incapable of morality/immorality?  I'm not saying that animals are capable of deep thoughts on moral issues, but it seems to me that they can develop at least a very rudimentary concept of right and wrong.  I’ve been around dogs my whole life and it seems to me that they do have a basic concept or morality. 

464Report
at 20 May 2006: 02:25

>>457
“So, if you had sex with a child who was also a sociopath, and thus, not capable of psychological harm, then it's fine?”

So, in order to shoot down my argument, you are going to resort to ridiculous hyperbole and straw man tactics?  Please!  Secondly, who says that having sex with a sociopathic minor does not bring them psychological harm?  I would argue that such an act would undoubtedly exacerbate there psychological derangement.    Can you explain to me how it would not bring harm or even give me any credible sources to back up your claim?  On second thought, don’t tell me because I don’t want to know which hole of your body you pulled it from.

“I can feed pork sausage to pigs, and it doesn't mess with their heads.  Does that mean I'm right to do it, or does that make me a twisted fuck who gets off on messing with animals that don't get it?  I'd go with the latter, but I guess the pig isn't traumatized or anything, so that makes me a good person for doing it.”

I don’t think you can logically conclude that it is morally wrong to feed pigs pork.  Yeah, it’s weird and unnatural, but it isn’t wrong per se.  As a matter of fact, the cattle industry feeds its cattle bovine bone meal, so this practice is going on as we speak. 

465Report
at 20 May 2006: 06:27

Alright, whatever, this "anti-zoo" has had enough of having himself villified for not accpeting all you enlightened super smart people out there.  Guess I'm just to ignorant and stupid to know what I'm talking about.  Do whatever the fuck you want.  It's not like I could stop you to begin with.

Oh god, I cursed... there's my ignorance showing again.  Damn me, I must be wrong because I'm not likable.

466Report
Bizzle at 20 May 2006: 08:24

>>419  Um....no.  That's called a joke, an attempt to lighten the discussion a bit.  It's amazing how emotional people get about such an amusing topic.

467Report
at 20 May 2006: 10:34

>>465 It's an intersting feeling being vilified for the way one believes...... wow, pot calling kettle what ?
welcome to what zoo's are exposed to consistantly.
now engage critical reasoning and at least 10% understanding.

468Report
Svansfall at 20 May 2006: 10:39

>>453

Well, I don't know who you are, but it is easy to tell which posts are written by you.  All I can say is: I wish I was as good at expressing myself as you are.  In my defence I can say that English isn't my native tongue, but to be honest, even though I express myself better in my native language, I am still  far from being able to explain something as good as you can.

Hats off to you!   :)  Look me up and say hi?

469Report
Svansfall at 20 May 2006: 10:55

>>465

I am not super smart.  But I don't have to be super smart to understand the body language of animals.  All there is to it, is to interract with a certain species over a long time, to watch them closely, to study them as they interract with each other, and then to study them as you interract with them.

Patience and a genuine interest to understand them is the key point.

And... I am repeating myself here, I respect every anti-zoo's right to be disgusted and feel repulsed by zoophilia and bestiality.  I do think it is a very understandable emotion. 

But if you really want to protect animals against people who treat animals bad, zoophiles are in general not the ones to attack, since zoophiles usually treat their animals with respect and give their animals good lives.

470Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 20 May 2006: 11:53

Why are so many bringing up all the old posts from the start of the thread?

>>458

Conclusion: Animals are capable of informed consent because sex is a very basic part of life, which means that it isn’t difficult to figure out.

How does that follow? It looks like you just leaped from one point to another. Yes, sex is a basic, *biological* part of life. What does that have to do with the *mental* act of informed consent?

The syntax for a conclusion is
[conclusion] is true because of [premise/facts], therefore [logic linking the two]

You went
[conclusion] is true because of [premise/facts]. The link is obvious.

>>459
But if you really want to protect animals against people who treat animals bad, zoophiles are in general not the ones to attack, since zoophiles usually treat their animals with respect and give their animals good lives.

And my side maintains that sex with an animal is rape, regardless of how the animal is treated outside of sex. Rape is "treating animals bad".

That's it.

471Report
at 20 May 2006: 13:38

>>470 the aspect of rape / consent in regards to animals has been thoughtfully and id suspect fairly well disected in these discusions.
if the angle of rape is the angle being used that should be hung up as it has been both logicly and emotionally shown to be untrue that animals are incapable of consent. 
you are taking the illogical leap of saying that sex with animals with rape.

472Report
at 20 May 2006: 13:39

sex with animals is rape rather

473Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 20 May 2006: 15:34

>>471
The point being made by my side is that sex without consent, or where the partner is not capable of informed consent, is rape. That help?

you are taking the illogical leap of saying that sex with animals with rape.

The leap from what? Are you talking about my asking you to make the connection between "sex is natural", and "animals are capable of informed consent"? Or the statement at the end of >>470? The latter is me simply restating what I see as my side's main argument.

if the angle of rape is the angle being used that should be hung up as it has been both logicly and emotionally shown to be untrue that animals are incapable of consent.

Would you please link to those posts, and optionally summarize them? In fact, please summarize your major points in >>458.

474Report
at 20 May 2006: 20:42

>>470

"Why are so many bringing up all the old posts from the start of the thread?"  How is this question relevant to the discussion at hand?  If this is how you are going to begin discrediting me, you have little hope of winning.  Seriously, did you come up with this attack all on your own or did your mommy help you?  Step aside and let somebody else more capable of defending your position hold the line while you go bring them hot coffee and donuts.

First, you do not understand the logic because you do not comprehend that sex is genetically programmed into all of our genes through hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary conditioning.  This is a critical part of my argument, so pay attention.

Everything we need to know about sex in order to have sex is already inside our brains by the time we are fully mature.  The rest is a matter of experience and practice. 

Did you even read how I reached my conclusion?  It's all right there in black and white.  I quoted definitions so that I could define, in a clear and concise manor, things like informed consent.  From these definitions I then derived a list of criteria to be met in order to qualify something as "informed consent". 

In most intelligent discussions, you don't attack the conclusion but the logic that was used to reach said conclusion.  I pointed out, for the sake of argument, that animals can meet the criteria for legal informed consent (on the basis that sex is universally understood by all sexual creatures who mature and of sound mind and body).  Did you bother attacking this logic?  If you were smart, you would have attacked me here because my saying that animals have defacto informed consent pulls the rug out from under your "it's rape" argument. 

Are you so unwilling to engage this discussion with an open mind that you ignore the body of what I wrote?  Please don't be so little.

Now, just in case you are still having trouble understanding this, I'll spoon feed it for you.  You define the syntax of a conclusion as:

"[conclusion] is true because of [premise/facts], therefore [logic linking the two]". 

Now, let us go test my original conclusion against your defined criteria for a proper conclusion.

The original quote:
"Animals are capable of informed consent because sex is a very basic part of life, which means that it isn’t difficult to figure out."

The quote dissected via your criteria:
[conclusion]:Animals are capable of informed consent
[premise/facts]: because sex is a very basic part of life,
[logic linking the two]: which means that it isn't difficult [for an animal] to figure out.

To reiterate, because sex is so basic and so easy to understand animals are able to comprehend it enough to have informed consent without the need for sex ed. classes, instruction in the proper use of a condom, signed contracts, or a medical examination to evaluate for mental and physical soundness.

If I have to spell this out for you to this extent, it's obvious to me that you either lack the mental capacity for this discussion or you are so closed minded that you are more concerned with finding evidence and reasoning to prove your point rather than reaching a conclusion based on facts.  Frankly, I think most of the people on your side have use an inverted method of reasoning on this matter.

"And my side maintains that sex with an animal is rape, regardless of how the animal is treated outside of sex. Rape is "treating animals bad"."

You miss the point entirely.  If a zoophile's interest is for the good of the animal, then why would he or she do something that is harmful to the animal?  For that matter, your side has not once talked about how having sex with an animal universally causes harm to that animal?  It looks to me that your side has actively dodged the question "does it cause harm?"  Unlike you, the zoos have actually worked closely with animals, so they actually can speak with some authority on this matter.  When you work with animals closely enough, you can learn enough about them to draw certain conclusions without impressing upon them human motivations and emotions.  Through years of close contact, you learn how to read animals in order to figure out what is going on in there brain.  When an animal comes back for something again and again, it is a clear sign that they like something.  If they avoid something again and again, it is a clear sign that they do not like it.  When a zoophile says that they pleasure there animal because they like it, the anti-zoo side says things like “you obviously trained your animal to do that” or “they don’t resist because there ability to resist humans has been bread out of them”.  Both responses are pure conjecture, yet they are being used as proof that sex with an animal is rape.  You can’t use conjecture as evidence!

But again, let’s look at both conjectures for the sake of the discussion.  The first one, “You obviously trained your animals to do that” suggest that the writer has enough experience in training animals to perform sexually that he or she is able to profile another writer well enough to reach this conclusion.  This is complete non-sense.  If training be the case, it is the animal that trains and teaches the human what the clues and signs are that say “pleasure me”; it’s not the other way around.  As a matter of fact, the human must use at least some trial and error to figure out what an animal likes best when stimulated.  I don’t think there is a zoophile here who would disagree with this conclusion.  Of course, if you have never experimented with animals (even with a genuine banner of science) you wouldn’t know this, which explains why your side sounds so ignorant to use when you make this conjecture.

The second conjecture, “they don’t resist because there ability to resist humans has been bread out of them.”  Please tell me how this conclusion was reached?  Are there any sources that you can find to back up this claim?  Nobody who works with animals would ever reach this conclusion.  Animals can be quite unpredictable at times and don’t always do as they were told.  Sometimes, believe it or not, domesticated animals will disobey or even attack with or without provocation! 

Instead of explaining why sex with an animal causes universal harm to them all, you couch your argument in legalese by using words like "informed consent" yet you never define what informed consent is and how it is impossible for an animal to have informed consent.  This is another gaping hole in your side's logic that must be patched up.  If you can't, then you force my side to view your side as full of puritanical conditioning and "because we say so" thinking.

I challenge your side to define informed consent using independent sources and then explain how an animal is incapable or capable of meeting the criteria of informed consent.  I've already done this on my side.  It is time for your side to do the same.

475Report (sage)
Kupok#BY.QtDIz06 at 20 May 2006: 21:51

>>475 GET!!!

476Report
at 20 May 2006: 22:08

>>475

Get...going?
Get...with it?
Get...a life?
Get...real?
Snine...Get?
Get...it on?
Get...moving?

I don't get it.

477Report
at 20 May 2006: 22:14

>>476
Get... da cool show shine!
Getting off topic now eh? xD

478Report
at 20 May 2006: 22:17

>>477

Apparently...

I guess with this heavy topic, everybody needs a break.  Just so we don't forget, this is about pro-zoo vs. anti-zoo.

479Report
at 20 May 2006: 22:32

*shoe shine. Darn it cant edit x-x

480Report
at 20 May 2006: 22:39

Here are my thoughts on this subject.

I don’t think it is wrong to pleasure an animal manually, because if it were wrong, it would be wrong for vets to collect semen from animals. 

I do think it is wrong to have sex with an animal, but not because an animal is harmed by it.  I feel that animals lack the mental complexity necessary to sustain psychological injury due to non-forced sexual encounters.  I do, however, feel that the act of bestiality (having intercourse with another species), creates an emotional pair bond between the human and animal, with the sentimentality of the relationship burdened almost entirely on the human.  Since companion animals do not live as long as we do, we suffer because we must watch them grow old and die.  When we have emotionally bonded to them through orgasmic stimulation, the pain we feel from there death is greatly amplified.  This is the only truly “dark” side of zoophilia, which all zoophiles must deal with.

It isn’t the animal that gets hurt, it’s the human.  But as long as a human who engages in bestiality knows that they will suffer terrible grief when they loose there companion and takes full responsibility for that consequence, who am I to tell them they shouldn’t behave in such a manor?  They already know the consequence, so badgering them will do little good.

The other downside to zoophilia is the fact that animals cannot be as emotionally intimate with us as another human can.  You can’t sit and hold a conversation with a horse or dog, much less plan a life together.  I think this leaves zoophiles unfulfilled, especially if they are exclusively zoo.

I thought it might be a good idea to stray away from the animal element of this topic and explore human element for a moment.

481Report
at 21 May 2006: 01:37

>>480 the pain of eventuall loss and ultimate willingness to face and accept the death of a loved one most often without the aid of a support group is a side that is seldomn touched upon nor seen.

482Report
at 21 May 2006: 04:19

>>474

I think his point was, go read the thread from post 1 through current, to see if the points you made may have already been addressed.  Is it really that offensive?

>>467

Uh... if you think animals are sexy, then it's a belief.  If you have sex with animals, that's an action.  Being villified for one's actions is kinda natural isn't it?  That's what villains are.  People who act on bad thoughts.  Think about stealing a bike = bad thought, steal a bike = bad person.  Think about giving to charity = good thought, give to charity = good person.  That kind of thing.

483Report
Wolfblade at 21 May 2006: 05:39

>>482

Thank god someone can tell the difference between a bad thought and a bad action. Very awesome, you understand that someone can only be judged a bad person if they actually DO bad things.

The problem is, there's obviously a difference of opinion of whether or not screwing da pooch is a bad thing.

So, explain why it is bad, without referencing anything involving religion or simple personal tastes or opinions. If something is wrong, there is a good solid simple reason of why it is wrong. So give us the reason why consentual sex between a person and an animal is wrong. Nobody's managed it yet.

Hurts the animal - not physically

They lack the mental capacity to consent on any level - then even animal/animal sex is unconsenting, so how is animal/human worse?

Hurts them mentally - if they have the capacity to be mentally hurt, they have the capacity to give consent.

484Report
at 21 May 2006: 06:02

>>483

Well, that depends if it's rape or not.  I've never met an animal that can talk, so I don't know if they can consent.  Animals grunt and do things, but I don't know what they mean.  I suppose I could slap an interpretation on what I see, but I don't have anything to base that on.  If I want the animal to be ignorant, it's ignorant, and if I want it to be sophisticated, it's sophisticated.

Anyhow, you're all way better at word play than I am, so I'm sure I said something that someone can use to make me look stupid, so I'll just end it there.

485Report
DragonFlame at 21 May 2006: 09:55

The other day we were near 400 now we are near 500 keep going.

This thread has been extremly repetative. We have been arguing about consent for so long that its just stupid.

One thing I must say. Having sex with a child is not wrong on the grounds of it hurts the child. It is wrong because when they eventualy grow to an age that they fully understand what has happened they will be affected by the ordeal. If you can agree with this then comparing a child to an animal is just stupid.

I think there would be a better reason for not having sex with an animal than they are stupid or they cant consent. I dont know what it is that is why I am here.

486Report
Svansfall at 21 May 2006: 11:00

>>484

To understand the body language of animals, you need to take the time to learn it.  It's very similar to learning a verbal language, but instead of learning syntax and grammar it involves learning subtle signals in eyes, ears, mouth, tail, general stance, which muscles are tense, etc.    I can say that because I don't understand what the Hungarians are saying, I don't know if they are ignorant or sophisticated.  But if I would learn Hungarian, I would know what they are saying.

If you learn the body language of a particular species, you will also know what they are saying.  Ask anyone who is working professionally with horses and dogs for instance.  They have a very varied and expressive body language.  Cows also have a big "vocabulary" in their body language, but since few people work with cows in that same way, a lot of people choose to not learn it.

487Report
at 21 May 2006: 11:06

Ok, my first viewing into /dis/ and I have to say the whole lot of you are fucking morons. Of course animals can conscent. If they don't conscent, they BITE with very large and sharp TEETH. Pull your heads out of your asses and figure this out. Good god.

If a bitch (that's a female dog or wolf) turns tail, playbows and hikes her tail to the side for your inspection and doesn't pull away when you touch, that's pretty much conscent right there.

If a dog (that's a male canine or wolf) pops a boner at what ever you're doing, I'd say that's conscent as well; males are horny, not much that needs conscent there.

Stop flogging a dead horse for fucks sake. 487 posts on a stupid subject.

488Report
at 21 May 2006: 11:11

Oh, and for those of you idiots who are going to argue that things like sheep and goats and horses have flat teeth and are not sharp; they make up for that with a powerful bite. Try getting bit by one ones. A horse will take a finger off easily, and smaller livestock such as goats, sheep, pigs, can break flesh. I was raised on a farm (long before I knew what furr was and long before I got corrupted by its darkness! Muahaha..), and have delt with plenty of livestock that didn't want to be moved into pens or on/off trailers. Now, again...

Stop flogging a dead horse for fucks sake. 488 posts on a stupid subject.

489Report
at 21 May 2006: 11:59

that is called sadobesteonecrophila  k?
the other usefull thought is this... presume that animals cant meet our terms of concent - so bleeding what??, how does that make it wrong? so long as they can meet their own terms of consent that is all that matters. most of these posts have balanced around the angle of is it bad for the animal or not. so this one is leaning in that direction as well. to many people are trying to apply their own ideals of consent that should only be applied to themselves to an animal that has its own means of consent. so in many ways the most basic premise of all this is comparing apples to oarnges.
487 has a damn good point, the twits with the ""but they have been domesticated"" havent spent enough time with 4 leggers .
I notice that has been stated before and none of them stepped up with "yes I have spent time with honest to goodness farm animals and such" so yah, that kinda responds to that comment.  and 489 rolls on'

490Report (sage)
at 21 May 2006: 16:09

I don't think I can say anything else on the 490th post that hasn't already been said.
I'm not reading 489 posts to find out, but.....  Why would you even have sex with an animal? I think if you need to have sex outside of the species than you need to get out and find a girlfriend.

491Report
at 21 May 2006: 16:10

>>487

Domestic animals a pretty docile, or else and such.  Why bring up a "new and good point" that's already been discussed and disputed.

>>486
I thought you needed an advanced temporal lobe (or whatever it's called) to learn a language.  I know some monkeys have it, which was a big deal for years.  I also heard that dolphins have it, but the people who tell me that are crazy zealots, so I'm waiting on a more reasonable source.

And, you're saying a lot of "I know this" and "in my experience".  Well... in my experience, animals don't talk, and their body language is kinda random.  We'll never reach a consensus on anything as long as we appeal to personal experience.

>>489
If they can't consent and you have sex with them, it's rape.  That's the whole point right?  Rape is, on a technical level, sex.  To us humans though, it's a bad thing, and if you do it, you're a bad person.  Animals don't sweat things like morality (except a few that really haven't been up for discussion), so it isn't an issue for them, but it is for people.

This whole discussion seems to be one group of animals rights advocates saying "Raping animals is bad", and the other advocates saying "It isn't rape".  I'm pretty sure it is rape, because there are situations that don't cause physical and psycological harm that are still rape.  You need to obtain consent, and I'm not sure that what people are calling consent is really consent.  I drive pass the feed lot at a meat packing plant on the way to work.  Those cows don't seem to be worried that they're about to die. Does that mean they're consenting to it, or does that mean they just don't understand what's happening to them?

Since both sides are effectively speaking for the animal, I gotta say that its a safer bet to just not have sex with animals in case they aren't consenting. To do otherwise just seems really selfish at the least.

492Report
at 21 May 2006: 16:50

>>491 "Since both sides are effectively speaking for the animal, I gotta say that its a safer bet to just not have sex with animals in case they aren't consenting. To do otherwise just seems really selfish at the least."

This is the first argument I've seen against it in a while that has a simple and valid point not based on personal morals and prejudice.

"better safe than sorry" is a much better argument than just flat out "it is wrong because I KNOW it is wrong" or vice versa.

493Report (sage)
at 21 May 2006: 18:30

IN a futile attempt to cut this thing off before it hits the magic 500 posts and causes the net to implode, try this instead. Kill the animal before you have sex with it. Everyone's pretty much okay with killing animals and lots are worried that having sex with the critter might "damage it", so remove any possibility of phsical  or psychological harm to the beastie and snuff it before you get down to the nasty. As a bonus, you get to have a barbeque afterwards.

Make sense? Sound reasonable? It's more reasonable than 99% of the stuff I've read in this thread.

494Report
at 21 May 2006: 18:46

Yes, replacing bestiality with necrophilia is obviously the answer. :P

495Report
at 21 May 2006: 18:46

ah killing the animal then having sex with it was a right of passage that my great grandmother spoke of when i was roughly 11
'explains why im kinda odd now doesent it?'

496Report
at 21 May 2006: 18:51

>>491 it has been pointed out that there is a reason that at the meat packing plants the animals are kept from seeing what is happening to them at teh end of the shute and also there is a valid reason for said shute being in place, taht is the same reason animals run from predators.  no it doesent mean consent it just means they cannot see nor have they previously experienced the fate awaiting them. for a large part your post made good logic but broke down badly by using that as example.

497Report
at 21 May 2006: 19:19

>>495 You're from Jersey? ;)

498Report (sage)
at 21 May 2006: 19:39

>>494
That's not necrophilia. Necrophilia requires a dead person. It's masturbating with meat.

499Report
at 21 May 2006: 19:52

>>498 Necro means dead. It doesn't mean "dead person."

500Report
at 21 May 2006: 19:53

>>498 Mmm! Meat! 500!

501Report
Kupok#BY.QtDIz06 at 21 May 2006: 20:00

>>500
Gah, I missed! Fail Get!

MY EMPOROR! I'VE FAILED YOU~~~~!

502Report
at 21 May 2006: 20:05

>>501 I started the thread, 500 is my birthright. ;)

503Report
at 21 May 2006: 21:19

Who said Animals can't talk?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iV6DQuEh4UQ&search=talking%20cat

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TNVRSO5YOQA&search=talking%20dog

>>502
It's okay, you still have post 1000 to make, and it all likelyhood, we'll make it.

504Report
at 21 May 2006: 21:39

They can do martial arts and beat up each other, too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmNrFO9xD2Q

>>503 This has got to be the longest thread in Fchan history!

505Report
at 21 May 2006: 22:24

>>496

Wait, so everything I said means nothing because you don't like my example?  That doesn't even make sense.

>>501
Why not just make a thread called 1000+ and post in it a thousand times?  That seems to mean a lot to you guys.

506Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 21 May 2006: 22:39

>>487

If a dog (that's a male canine or wolf) pops a boner at what ever you're doing, I'd say that's conscent as well; males are horny, not much that needs conscent there.

Why would an erection(arousal) be consent for a dog, but not for a human?
>>474
"Why are so many bringing up all the old posts from the start of the thread?"  How is this question relevant to the discussion at hand?

It's not. I'm just wondering.
In most intelligent discussions, you don't attack the conclusion but the logic that was used to reach said conclusion.

My point was that I couldn't see the logic. I saw "[a] is true, therefore [b]."
Are you so unwilling to engage this discussion with an open mind that you ignore the body of what I wrote?  Please don't be so little.

Open mindedness refers to *listening* to something, not necessarily agreeing with it.

Also; conclusions are *supposed* to summarize the entire argument.

>"Animals are capable of informed consent because sex is a very basic part of life, which means that it isn’t difficult to figure out."
The quote dissected via your criteria:

[conclusion]:Animals are capable of informed consent

[premise/facts]: because sex is a very basic part of life,

[logic linking the two]: which means that it isn't difficult [for an animal] to figure out.

Oh. I misunderstood you. I thought "it it isn't difficult to figure out" referred to the argument itself.

Of course, I still maintain that that means that the act of sex is not hard to figure out. The meaning is something else entirely.

>"And my side maintains that sex with an animal is rape, regardless of how the animal is treated outside of sex. Rape is "treating animals bad"."
>You miss the point entirely.
That was a summary of what I see of my side's main arguement. Not an arguement itself. No backup. For that argument to be true, animals have to be capable of informed consent, or communicating said consent. That is, largely, what's under dabate.
If a zoophile's interest is for the good of the animal, then why would he or she do something that is harmful to the animal? 

I hate to bring up the pedophilia comparison again, but many do think they's actually doing what's right for their victim. People harm others they're trying to help all the time. And people often help those whom they're trying to harm. There is a difference between intent and reality.

But again, let’s look at both conjectures for the sake of the discussion.  The first one, “You obviously trained your animals to do that” suggest that the writer has enough experience in training animals to perform sexually that he or she is able to profile another writer well enough to reach this conclusion.

No, it suggest that the accuser has experience, or knowledge, about training animals.

The second conjecture, “they don’t resist because there ability to resist humans has been bread out of them.”  Please tell me how this conclusion was reached?  Are there any sources that you can find to back up this claim?  Nobody who works with animals would ever reach this conclusion.

Um, you're ad populum-ing again. And ad verecundiam-ing. In fact, since you're asking for sources, what professionals are you quoting?

Wait, I didn't even make this point.
If you can't, then you force my side to view your side as full of puritanical conditioning and "because we say so" thinking.

Because we disagree? Gosh, that's open-minded of you.

507Report
at 22 May 2006: 00:27

>>506 Nice way of arguing absolutely nothing. You dumbass. So let me get this straight, when a human woman (or man, in this day in age) presents herself (or himself) on all fours, the male dog's cock gets harder than your thick skull, mounts her and and goes to town, that's not concent? ZOMG I want to be raped like that! Again, you're a fucking dumbass.

And who's the idiot who argued that dogs are domestic and docile? Doesn't stop them from sinking their teeth in to you if you hurt them or you do something wrong. I have a scar on my arm from being bit by the nicest, sweetest dog you could *ever* meet, because I accidently pulled his fur in the wrong place when I was younger.

Everyone needs to drop this subject and go stick their dicks in a horse or something; I've been told they've got amazing muscular control and can make it feel better than any nagging, preppy human bitch could even dream of.

STOP FLOGGING THE DEAD HORSE, THE MAGGOTS ARENT HAPPY!

508Report
at 22 May 2006: 02:30

>>505
Our point is We're amazed and in disbeleaf that this subject could be drawn out for THIS LONG. Plus by bringing these ultumatly meaningless numbers to attention, It slightly increases the likleyhood of a dedication flash animation.

509Report
Svansfall at 22 May 2006: 03:42

>>491

I wasn't saying anything about "I know this" and "in my experience" in the post you refer to.   I am saying that you can speak with anyone who works together with horses or dogs, as a team, like police with police dogs, horses with horse trainers, etc.  They will inform you that animals do communicate.  Also, ask any animal psychologist.

You say in your experience animals do not talk.  Then I have to ask you how much experience you have with working together with animals?   If you don't have much experience, maybe you haven't figured it out yet.  Learning a language takes a long time.

These are not opinions, they are facts.

510Report
at 22 May 2006: 06:52

>>510

They're not facts.  Facts are indisputably true.  The only thing I can find on google saying that animals can communicate are heavily opinionate pieces.  That says to me that it's under a lot of dispute.  People with PHDs don't agree, so I'm just going to assume that if people who study it don't agree, then it hasn't been proven yet.

Which means that it's an opinion.

>>507

A point isn't validly locked out just becuase you say it's locked out.  That'd be like me saying "animals don't feel lust because they can't say it, so anyone saying animals feel lust is bringing up a validly locked out point".  Nobod'y managed to really prove that the pedophile comparison doesn't hold water.  They've just refused to consider it, and so they completely discount it.

The problem is, it's important because if the "anti-zoos" are right, then zoophiles are sexual predators... like pedophiles.

>>508
Jeez, you're as bad as the 4Channers.

511Report
Svansfall at 22 May 2006: 09:37

>>511

There are a lot of things that well educated scientists never can agree on.   If the definition of a fact is that all scientists agree on it, then very few things we know as 'facts' are real facts in this world.

Most people with animal experience knows that animals are capable of interracting clearly by usage of their body language.  Isn't that good enough?

512Report
DragonFlame at 22 May 2006: 10:03

I hate to bring this up because I realy realy hate rapists but how do we know Rape is actually bad. How do we know that it isnt just some Religious ideal that has been forced on us for hundreds of years. If you look at animals in the wild they actively rape each other, that doesnt mean they always do it but they do it quite often. If this is supposed to be Natural Behaviour then how do we actually know what is right and wrong.

Like I said I realy hate rapists but it makes you think.

Also Juberu is back and he or she hasnt changed their tactics of trying to twist words and discredit others opinions instead of coming up with his own opinions on the subject. Maybe a little factual proof would work better than attacking people.

And yes I am attacking Juberu so dont bother pointing that out.

513Report
Svansfall at 22 May 2006: 12:24

>>514

I feel that rape is bad.  I must admit it is even revolting to me to hear someone even consider that rape would be anything but bad, even though you clearly point out that your opinion is also that rape is bad.   Doing things for your own sake, against someone else's will is bad by default, in my opinion.   I don't even want to do things if someone tolerates it, or shows indifference to it.   In order for me to feel okay with doing something, they have to actively show they enjoy it.

If I am stroking a cow's genitals, and she does not express either dislike or pleasure, I stop immediately.  They have to lean into me, raise their tail, give any of the other signs that they are truly enjoying it, otherwise I won't do it.  I give the same reaction to indifference as I do to active dislike.

What's the point of giving stimulation if they don't enjoy it?  No point at all.

514Report
Guan at 22 May 2006: 14:37

>>503 Did that cat just say Oh Long Johnson?  Jeez. and I thought that dogs were horny.  ;}

515Report
at 22 May 2006: 15:17

You'd have to be pretty desperate to go after a COW anyways. Ew. They're stinky and ugly. Go after a horse. A mare has muscles in her vigania that can litterally grab your little cock (lets face it, compared to a stallion, it IS little..) and give it a milking like you've never imagined.

516Report
Svansfall at 22 May 2006: 15:27

>>517

Thank You for the insult.  :)   And no, I am not desperate.  The cows I am with are not stinky, they smell great.  They are not ugly - they have a very beautiful shape.  Their fur is soft and pleasant to touch, and they are warm and nice to fall asleep beside in the green grass.

I have been with mares, and I find horses attractive also, but not nearly as attractive as cows are.  Just because YOU don't find cows attractive, don't assume you know what other people find attractive.  And FYI, I am not interested in having my cock inside.  I prefer having my tongue and my fingers.

I am thinking you must have met the wrong cows.

517Report
at 22 May 2006: 15:51

>>512
Well, the pedophile comparison seems to make sense to a lot of people.  Have you actually tried looking at it that way to see if we have a point that we may just not be articulating up to your standards?  I try looking at it from the "animals like it" side, but you can do things to an animal that they like that's bad for them, or at least degrading, so I don't think that's enough for consent.  As for "We do worse to animals".  Well, yeah... are you saying it's okay to do all that stuff then?  Just because there's other wrongs out there that are worse, doesn't make something right.  The last thing that the zoophiles refer to is personal experience, which I don't share.  That's basically like saying "Well, if you look at it MY way, it all makes sense".  Well, yeah, but I'm me.  If you looked at it my way, it's obviously wrong.  We kinda need to discount our personal experiences to meet any sort of consensus, and see if there's enough left over to come up with anything.  If those against are right, zoos are sexual predators, and their personal experiences are tainted as such.  If those for are right, then those against are closed minded and judgemental, so anything we say is tainted as such.  In other words, if I refer to personal experience, you're going to assume It's from a tainted perspective, thus false, and I do the same to you.

As far as I can tell, right now, it's all very confused at best.  There's facts, yes, but everyone's interpretting them differently, and there's nothing that PROVES that either side is right... which means, again, that those against are not having sex with animals, so either way they're doing nothing wrong, and zoos are going ahead anyway, which means they may well be doing something terrible, but refuse to consider that.

518Report
Hermie Hedgehog at 22 May 2006: 17:17

I once heard of a woman trying to get pregnant from her dog. O_O

I've heard of people doing cows... *looks up* We have one of those here. (Anyone hear the sone, "Mo, mo, mo, I'm so in love with you?" XD) Cowboys are infamous for sheep... Hell, this one guy did it with an ELEPHANT.

If the animal seems to be mutually enjoying it, I'm fine with it. Just be careful not to spread any STD's that can result from having sexual intercourse with other species.

(That doesn't mean I do that stuff... I'm engaged. There's only one girl that I'll do anything with... XD)


On anothr note... One time, I tried to give my rats a little pleasure with a finger... ^^; But that's it.

519Report
at 22 May 2006: 19:19

>>506

Maybe I'm just thick-headed, but could somebody please explain how zoophilia and pedophilia are analogous?  Please, step-by-step, show me how they parallel one another.  I can understand matching up pedophilia with sexually interacting with a sexually immature animal, but not sexually interacting with a sexually mature adult.

Pedophilia/Statutory Rape
Can a minor have informed consent?   A minor can verbally consent, however, verbal consent by a legal minor is non-binding because one of the requirements of informed consent is that the person giving the consent must be 18 years of age or older.  Some states allow parental consent if a minor over the age of 16 wishes to become married.

Zoophilia
Can an animal have informed consent?  In all fairness, this is a false question because informed consent is a LEGAL term that applies only to humans because the law assumes that all parties in questing are human!  The law requires that, in order for a person to give informed consent, they must be past the age of consent, which is 18 years of age.  Most dogs never even make it past 14, yet they would be considered adults by the age of 2 by most veterinarians!  “Dog years” don’t equal “people years”.

First of all, this debate is about the morality of zoophilia, not its legality, so why are we using legal terms such as “informed consent” in a debate of morality?  The only purpose this question serves is to derail the pro-zoo argument by transplanting this debate from a moral arena to a legal one, but still forcing the pro-zoos to debate under moral arena rules.  It's bate-and-switch, pure and simple.

This should put to rest the entire "informed consent" debate, but I'm sure some will still hold on to it even though the pro-zoos who have read this are now wise to this fallacious tactic.

Pedophilia/Statutory Rape
Can sexual relations with minors cause them harm?  I'm sure that most child psychologists would agree (and common sense would also dictate) that in most all cases adult sexual encounters with legal minors causes the minor to either have immediate or, at the very lease, latent psychological harm.  The only exceptions would be minors who developed sexual maturity early and had relations with a legal adult close to there age (i.e. a 15 or 16 year old with an 18 year old).  The "Golden Rule" applies excellently here, because I'm sure if most adults honestly asked themselves the question, would they have liked it if they were sexually interacted with as a child by an adult?  Most average people thinking back to there own childhoods would probably say "NO!".  I know I certainly would have disliked it if I had been touched improperly as an child, thus, I assume that sexual interactions with children is a form of abuse.  Sexual molestation was, in fact, something I greatly feared as a boy, but by the time I was an adolescent in high school, I was so horny there were even a few teachers that looked good to me!  To bad I didn’t know about Van Halen’s “Hot For Teacher” song.  Oh, what I would have done for sex at the age of 17!

Zoophilia
Can sexual relations with animals cause them harm?  This question is quite open for discussion because you have two angles to consider.  1.) Is it harmful for a sexually immature animal to be interacted with sexually?  I'm sure that most every pro-zoo and anti-zoo would agree that it probably is.  They have not yet psychologically or physically developed into sexual beings yet.  2.) Is it harmful to sexually interact with a sexually mature adult animal?  In order to answer this question, we need to consider the two main types of harm: physical and psychological.  I'm sure that most would argue that as long as the animal is not subject to prolonged or extreme physical stress (i.e. a penis too big for a small vagina) and experiences no pain, then no physical harm should come to them by a physical encounter.  But what about possible psychological harm caused by a sexual interaction?  This is the only real question left up for debate since “informed consent” does not apply to animals, nor has it ever in any moral or legal context.

520Report
at 22 May 2006: 20:10

>>511
"They're not facts.  Facts are indisputably true.  The only thing I can find on google [Sic.] saying that animals can communicate are heavily opinionate pieces.  That says to me that it's under a lot of dispute.  People with PHDs [Sic.] don't agree, so I'm just going to assume that if people who study it don't agree, then it hasn't been proven yet.  Which [sic.] means that it's an opinion."

Pull your head out of your ass for just five minutes and do some real research by using something other than Google.  Perhaps, maybe, an actually Mammalogy text book or even WikiFuckingPedia.  The very fact that you have to use Google for this subject shows just how little expertise you have. 

Taken from pages 349-352 in “Mammalogy: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology” Copyright 1999 George A. Felhamer, et al.  ISBN 0-697-16733-X

My mammalogy text book from my mammalogy class that I took in my fourth year in college lists the fallowing functions for communication: Spacing and coordination (i.e. “I’m lost, where is everybody”), Recognition (i.e. “I am-.”), Reproduction (i.e. “My reproductive state is-.” or “I’m a big strong male!”), Alarm (i.e. “Danger Will Robinson!”), Aggression and Social Status (i.e. “Please don’t hurt me.” or “Stand down, or I’ll beat the living shit out of you!”, Hunting for Food/Rallying (i.e. “Let’s all get together and find some prey!”), Giving and Soliciting Care (i.e. “I need help!”),  Soliciting Play (i.e. “Let’s Play!”, bowing of a dog). 

Animals do communicate, you dumb ass!  Yes, scientists don’t agree on everything, but this isn’t one of those instances.  The debate among scientists isn’t “Can animals communicate?” but in the fine details.  It is more than just an established fact; it is an entire field of study!  If ignorance were truly bliss, you would be high as a kite!

“A point isn't validly locked out just becuase [Sic.] you say it's locked out.”

No, it becomes “locked out” when discussing the subject further from your askew “perspective” constitutes intellectual suicide. 

“That'd be like me saying "animals don't feel lust because they can't say it, so anyone saying animals feel lust is bringing up a validly locked out point".  Nobod'y [Sic.] managed to really prove that the pedophile comparison doesn't hold water.  They've just refused to consider it, and so they completely discount it.”

You are bordering on incoherence in this paragraph, but I can at least tell you are talking about the comparison between zoophilia and pedophilia.  I’ve written my own take on this argument here:
>>521

521Report
at 22 May 2006: 20:11

Five-Twenty-Four Is No More!

522Report
at 22 May 2006: 20:12

Five-Twenty-Five Is Alive!

523Report
at 22 May 2006: 20:41

>>523

I got to where you told me to pull my head out of my ass, and stopped reading.  I hope you didn't have a point in there.

524Report
at 22 May 2006: 20:52

Has anybody ever considered if the use of rabbit skin condoms is a form of bestiality?

525Report
at 22 May 2006: 20:53

>>526
How could you start reading at all if your head was up your ass?

526Report
at 22 May 2006: 21:05

>>526

It doesn't matter to me if you read it or not; its your loss, not mine.  As long as the other people keeping track of this thread read it, I'll be happy because they will see what a fool I make of you, especially when they see the independently verifiable facts I bring to the table, demonstrating to all that you speak from ignorance and, thus, have no credibility.

Oh, and just so you don’t stop reading prematurely again (for your own good), I’m saving the insults for last.  You talk out of your ass because your head is up your ass!  Go give a hoot and read a fuck’n book!

527Report
at 22 May 2006: 22:11

Holy crap, is it really that hard to say "Here's some sources, and here's why they're credible".  Seriously, I've read stuff from .edu sites that I found on google that say animals can communicate, and some that say they can't, and some that say nobody knows.  In other words, I can find sources that "confirm" it as true, false, and undecided.  The experts don't agree!  Why the hell does that make me ignorant? O.o

As for not reading once I'm insulted... basically, if you open with an insult, I assume you're saying what you say out of anger, so you're probably just trying to bash me, not convince me.  As the cliche goes, I don't like what I see, so instead of reading the whole thing, I scroll past.  You're insulting me, okay, fine, you don't like me, and there's probably no way you'd even consider what I have to say, so there's no need to engage.  Man, I can't believe I'm being badgered about not getting into a pissing contest with someone.

528Report
#YgQRHAJqRA at 22 May 2006: 22:40

straightforward logic says the point is validly locked out

Um, I've noticed that you rarely, if ever, actually show everybody else this logic. You say it's so easy that it doesn't need to be explained, yet it's somehow not obvious to your opponents.

hmn how to put this .. oh yes,  so facts are not provabale.

What strange, Bizzaro-world dictionary are you using? A fact, by definition, is something provable.
   1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

  2.

        1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

        2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

        3. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.

  3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.

  4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.


>Also Juberu is back and he or she hasnt changed their tactics of trying to twist words and discredit others opinions instead of coming up with his own opinions on the subject. Maybe a little factual proof would work better than attacking people.
I haven't seen him attacking people at all. In fact, I haven't seen him get anything wrong that couldn't be a misunderstanding. He even _apoligized_ for getting something wrong. And you completely ignored that. Am I missing something?

And yes I am attacking Juberu so dont bother pointing that out.

What, that you're a self-confessed hypocrite? How is his 'attacking' wrong, but yours is right?

I was trying to be sympathetic, but I don't understand you at all.

529Report
Guan at 22 May 2006: 23:02

Regarding >>1 through >>532 , just for fun, I'd like to see someone eventually provide a brief yet *objective* summary of what we've all learned so far from this entire thread.  Yes, that is a dare.  Anyone crazy enough to actually try?  :D

530Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 22 May 2006: 23:31

-Communication means all communication.
-Informed consent is 'legalese'.
-If anyone disagrees with you, just accuse them of 'twisting your words'.
-If cornered, you can use imaginary definitions of words. No one on your side will disagree with you, and you can discredit your opponents.
-It's not hypocrisy if you're using it to point out hypocrisy.
-Being physically horny is an obvious sign of consent. Especially when it's of the being making the advances.
- If you *say* something is obvious, it doesn't need to be explained, and you can ignore any requests for an explaination.
- Nothing is wrong if it doesn't 'harm' anyone/thing.
- Coming back to a debate is morally reprehensible.
- An opinion that disagrees with yours is the same as twisting others words. You do not, ever, have to provide an example of said word-twisting, no matter how many times your opponent asked.
- 'Close-minded' means the same as 'doesn't agree with me'.

/tongue firmly in cheek

531Report
at 23 May 2006: 00:33

>>531
If you are going to give crap arguments, not show your sources, and post dubious information, of course I'm going to insult you.  It's because you’re a frustrating person to argue with, and it isn't because I'm not convincing you or because I'm not persuading you.  It's because you come off as ignorant.  It’s frustrating because I have to inform you of information before you can even begin to understand what I'm saying or from what perspective I'm coming from.  Basically, in order to argue with you, I have to work from the ground up. 

As for animal communication, I'd love to read your sources that say they can't communicate.  The very notion that animals don't communicate seems ridiculous to me.  If they didn't communicate, they wouldn't bark, roar, yelp, etc, or respond to such.

Pack member A gets hurt and yelps.  Pack member B hears yelp and goes to pack member A.  A makes noise, B hears noise and responds to it.  That's communication in a nut shell.

How a PhD could ever disagree with that is beyond me.

532Report
at 23 May 2006: 02:47

>>537

Basically, they say it's too primitive to be considered communication.  Making noise is making noise, communication requires language capability, etc.  I'd give you sources, but you're an asshole, so google it youself.

533Report
Svansfall at 23 May 2006: 04:22

>>538

If mammals wouldn't have been able to communicate, they would have died out long ago.  How do you think a pack of wolves hunt together if they don't communicate while hunting?   How do you think you can train a dog to be a guide dog for the blind if you cannot communicate with the dog, to teach him/her how to work?

534Report
DragonFlame at 23 May 2006: 09:11

>>532 Hello some one who suspiciously writes like Juberu. If you haven’t seen him attacking people then you must be blind or ignorant. Many people have been attacked by his comments and have expressed their dislike of them.

Also.
-Quote-
What, that you're a self-confessed hypocrite? How is his 'attacking' wrong, but yours is right?
-Quote-
Congratulations on point out the obvious dip shit. You can think of me as the type of person when punched punches back harder. So this way I am only giving him a taste of his own medicine. I have not attacked anyone else on this board and I have no intention too.

I really am sorry if this is a bit misunderstanding but to me most of his comments have been a direct attack on peoples opinions trying to point out their lack of proof or understanding while at the same time he brings no new facts to the table and very rarely brings any new opinions.
To me it seems that he is just trying to twist words around so that his beliefs are correct. Like I said I am sorry if this isn’t the case but maybe you should consider writing things more friendly.

>>521
Hello Unnamed. Thank you for expressing my opinion much better than I could my self. One thing to point out tho, You don’t have to attack and swear all the time, this is a discussion and even tho I believe your opinions have some grounding swearing just takes away your believability.

535Report
#YgQRHAJqRA at 23 May 2006: 11:15

Would you guys atleast use the tripcodes? You don't even have to use a name. Just put #whatever in the name box. It's really, really getting confusing.
>I really am sorry if this is a bit misunderstanding but to me most of his comments have been a direct attack on peoples opinions trying to point out their lack of proof or understanding
It's a debate. Isn't he supposed to do that?
>while at the same time he brings no new facts to the table and very rarely brings any new opinions.
...and so? What am I missing?

>Like I said I am sorry if this isn’t the case but maybe you should consider writing things more friendly.
I've heards lots of true things phrased rudely. Like George Carlin. Juber's blunt, sure, and direct, but very rarely outright rude.

Oh well, I hope you two can come to terms.

536Report
at 23 May 2006: 13:46

>>538
Communication does NOT require language or verbal ability.  Having such can make communication able to express abstract concepts and make it more complex/subtle, but it is not required to communicate.

Communication is very simple:  Assume two entites A and B, and A wants B to perform effect X.  Substitute any verb for "effect", such as "do this", "don't do this", "satisfy whatever instinct", "hear", "understand", etc.

Entity A performs an action while expecting/desiring/instinctively-needing effect X to occur.  Such action does not directly contribute to occurrence of effect X but has the property that it is easily observable by entity B.

Entity B observes such action, which causes entity B to do one of two things:
 A. make effect X happen.
 B. commit an action easily observable by entity A (again, not necessary contributory to effect X) to indicate successful receipt of communication, and then possibly bring about effect X, if entity B can or wants to.  (It is possible entity B doesn't want or can't bring about effect X.  Nontheless, acknowledgement is still necessary for successful communication)

If effect X doesn't happen or entity A receives no acknowledgement, retry a set number of times.

That's successful communication stripped down to it's most basic form.

The only difference in human communication is that we have the ability to deal with sophisticated abstract symbols; visual, verbal and otherwise.  So instead of having to use physical means of communication, we can use words.  However, despite our language ability, sometimes it is not enough, or sometimes we don't speak the same language, and we must resort to physical means of communication.

537Report
at 23 May 2006: 14:11

>>542
You're talking about communication the binary.  As in you either can, or you can’t, and if you can, it’s absolute or something.  Animals can communicate, but they don’t communicate sufficiently.  It isn’t another language, it’s a more primitive thought process with very, very few exceptions.  A dog makes noise to communicate it’s dog thoughts... it isn’t thinking human thoughts, so it isn’t communicating human thoughts, so we humans don’t understand it.  We TRY to interpret, but that’s it.

So the degree that animals communicate isn’t the same “communicate” that people use in casual conversation, which is a mix of communicate and articulate with the assumption of complex cognitive understanding.  Sheesh... why the sudden appeal to binaries anyway

>>514

If rape isn't wrong then zoophilia isn't wrong even if it is rape I guess... but... you know... rape is wrong.  In all seriousness, I'd actually physically fight someone over that one.  My aunt was raped.

538Report
Hermie Hedgehog at 23 May 2006: 16:32

Rabbit skin condoms?

Geez, they use rabbits for everything. O_o

No, I don't think that's bestiality. Becuase you aren't screwing the live animal- just using an animal's skin to have sex with. Like, would you consider having sex with a human wile wearing a leather jacket bestiality?

539Report
at 23 May 2006: 19:55

Necrobestiality? o.o

540Report
at 23 May 2006: 20:14

>>543
It goes back to an argument made way earlier around 100 or so, if an animal allows an action to be done to him/her without showing signs of resistance (which is communication, and note that by "showing resistance" i also mean any displays of fear, and not just physical/forceful resistance) we must assume the animal wants it to occur.

so, it's not rape if the animal allows it.

i'm sorry your aunt was raped, but it was probably obvious to her attacker that she didn't want to do whatever, and it sucks we live in a society (i do, anyway) that discourages the carrying of weapons for just these types of situations.

541Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 23 May 2006: 23:13

>>546

we must assume the animal wants it to occur.

Must we? Why?

542Report (sage)
at 23 May 2006: 23:20

>>547
 Ummm...  Observation and logical extrapolation? 

Oh, wait...  LOL

Your arguing just because you want to, that's so funny!  Haha... 

543Report
NotaGnome at 24 May 2006: 00:45

>>546
>>548

Uh, I think what Jeberu saying is that you're making a leap.  Just because the animal allows something to happen doesn't mean they consent to it happening.  Both the human and the animal would have to actually "want" the same thing for it to be a mutual consensus, and since you can't communicate with an animal to explain that sort of thing, what the human wants, and why, is going to be a mystery to the animal.  The best of zoos basically make a guess, and go ahead anyway... at least until an animal translator is invented... and that's assuming that the sounds and motions that animals make are sophisticated enough to translate into an actual language.

So... when you say that we "must" assume that the animal wants it, you're forcing a conclusion that you want to see.  The animal might not care, it might not know what's going on and just choose to tolerate, it might "want" it, but for different reasons (actual breeding, in which case the human is fooling the animal).  All of these are possibilities that are at least as valid as yours.

I'd say the most likely, given "zoo" material I've seen, is that animals are fooled into thinking that they're breeding.  Those that handle animals a lot would know what to do to simulate the feel for the animal, not to mention the enironment to keep them in.  Instead of providing a viable mate, the human surrogates themself.  With enough time, experience, and training, it seems to me that an animal sex slave is effectively produced.  I'd say that's definately morally wrong...

But then, we do a lot of things to animals that are morally wrong.  I guess adding to it hardly makes things worse for the animals in the end.

544Report
at 24 May 2006: 02:40

>>549
Let's see here.  I've owned two bitches.  One of which got into heat before we got her spayed (oops).  Yes, that's right Zoos, I said the magic word, spayed.  Anyhow, when a female goes into heat, a male inhales some of the pheromones in the air given off by this female.  This causes chemical arousal reactions.  The male uses scent and visual cues (female's actions) to determine which female it is that is in heat.  The male becomes eager to play as this is a pleasurable action.  If it were a completely forced action, based entirely on instinct, with no pleasure behind it, then I dare say that nature itself condones this "rape" of the male, as it is basically forcing the male to have sex with no real gain to itself.  If it is based around pleasure, well then it's soemthing that feels good to the male, and if the dog is as simple-minded as we say it is, it will seek out these pleasurable actions.  That being said, as males receive no benefit from sex other than the possible pleasure, if there were no pleasure they would not be so voraciously interested in taking on other males for the right to mate.  And someone will inevitably respond "But Testosterone-"... is a hormone(sp) linked directly to sexual activity.  It is ALSO linked directly to sexual responses, and sexual pleasure.  Also, if that weren't enough, dogs in mating patterns experienced heightened endorphin levels in tests.  Endorphins, children, are the hormones that equal good feelings.
Now, some males have been notably homosexual in studies.  They actually experience no reaction to female pheromonal scents, but when seeing another male acting even the slightest bit like a female will "go for it".  Now, there are those who claim this to be a dominance act, but I say nay nay.  Dominance humping by a male, nine times out of ten, does NOT involve penetration, and usually doesn't last for the full active period.  I've seen a male dominance-hump a female (not in heat) and not even get close to penetrating her, but after a few strokes stopped as the female submitted.  Same with a male.  Then I've seen a male much less interested in dominance and much more interested in the other male.  This has been evidenced by the fact that when presented with that same male the first will engage yet again.  We can only further solidify the argument that dogs receive pleasure from sexual encounters by the "leg-humping" actions exhibited by both males and females.  If you've ever seen a female hump a leg to get off, it's quite a curious sight, though her behavior makes it painfully obvious what she's doing.  There is a huge difference between that and dominance-humping.
On to my next topic, canine consent.  I've watched a female in heat literally bite a male's foreleg five times as she was QUITE uninterested in having HIM mate her.  He was driven off by the other males, one of which visibly won the right to mate her, and she seemed QUITE pleased with him.

So, to say that any attempt at action, when the canine does not resist or show fear or move away, must still be interpreted as a lack of consent and therefore possible rape IS ABSURD.  Keep in mind that canines will most DEFINITELY show a lack of consent if they do not desire an action to occur.  There is no "it's just instinct" involved here.  Just plain facts.

545Report
at 24 May 2006: 03:33


| Just because the animal allows something to happen doesn't mean they consent to it happening. 

As >>550 says more or less, yes it does.  Lack of dissent is consent.  It's fully backed by legal principle.  You will lose title to your land if you do not *actively* protect your property. 

Toleration is still a form of consent.  Entity X tolerates Y, entity X consents to Y. 

This is different than an animal submitting and enduring something out of fear, which is NOT toleration.  And making an animal submit and endure something whereby it does not resist out of fear IS wrong, and IS rape.

Animals do not think "Well, time for me to breed."  They fuck for the same reason we really do, because they get horny.  No human on this planet has had sex the number of times they have children.

Constriction of sexual behavior to it's basic utilitarian function (which it is arguable that in our species that sex is just for procreation) is something that came about out of arbitrary religious principles and is not of nature.

546Report
at 24 May 2006: 06:14

>>551

Lack of dissent is consent?  That right there is why zoophiles sound like sexual predators.  Lack of dissent is LACK OF DISSENT, not consent.  Consent is consent.

>>550
Um, since nobody said that animals can't feel pleasure, I have no idea who you're responding to.

547Report
Svansfall at 24 May 2006: 08:28

>>552

I don't agree with lack of dissent being equal to consent.  To me it is highly important that the animals actively show they enjoy it.  If they only show they tolerate something, without obvious pleasure, I don't do anything.

Animals has to enjoy things, otherwise it's wrong.  You don't use dogs for dogsledding unless the dogs enjoy it, do you?  You don't use a horse for horseback riding unless the horse enjoy it, do you?

Seriously, to anyone here who says they feel that it is wrong to give sexual stimulation to animals who show they enjoy it.

To those who feel the reason is that you don't believe the animals can communicate sufficiently, and therefor not show they agree with the action.

Can you tolerate things such as artificial insemination, breeding programs, dogsledding, horseback-riding?   Can you tolerate the usage of police dogs, police horses?   Can you justify why it is okay to separate dairy cows from their newborn calves?

Seriously, I want someone to answer this, and I want the answer to be clear and logical.

548Report
DragonFlame at 24 May 2006: 10:47

>>549
So an animal is not smart enough to understand consent but is smart enough to understand that having sex is a form of procreation?
The decision to have sex to have a child make it clear those animals can consent to sex. It is their decision to breed.

So hang on, if a Man and a Female have sex but the Female is sterile then according to what you said the Female is Raping the Man?

549Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 24 May 2006: 12:01

The amount of misunderstanding going on here is boggling.
Or maybe it's unconcious straw manning. I dunno. Pass the popcorn.

550Report
at 24 May 2006: 15:07

>>554

Holy shit! Are you serious? Jesus, there's just no way to argue against that kind of shit! Ha ha, priceless.  You probably think you have a point there too. Do the zoos a favor and switch sides there buddy.

>>553
Okay, some dude who doesn't think no dissent = consent.  Here's a shot at the thought for ya from my perspective.

I don't give a shit whether animals are inseminated, broken for riding, herded for butcher, etc.  I like eating mean, I think leather looks snazzy, and I like teasing my dog and making him do retarded shit in exchange for 5 cent treats and pettins.  I not only think police dogs and such should be used, but I figure they're the expendable ones.  Send them into the house first to be shot.  No need for a human to die if there's an animal that can do the dying instead.  I think animal testing is awesome.  Not only is there a lot of medicine out there that saves human lives, but that there are lots of fine luxury type products out there that make life more fun.

Basically, I think the whole world revolves around a "use it" base. Animals are inferior, so we use em, or they'd be the ones using us. Yeah yeah, emotions get involved, but that's cause they've got some value. I broke my TV remote the other day... broke me up inside until I got a new one. Buddy of mine had his car ratched by a falling tree branch, ruined his whole week.  Dog dies?  Aw man, time to get another one.

Mind you, I don't care if you do the bad touch on your cows. Truth be told, I think it's funny. Dumbass cows. Anything with perma diareha isn't sexy in my book, but I remember the good old days of cow tipping. You'd have thought they'd have learned after a while.

Anyhow, to your point. The reason I "tolerate" cruelty to animals is cause I don't have a problem with it. Fuck em, (literally in some of your cases), they're animals. I've got more important things to worry about than a bunch of walking meat. Guess in a lot of your eyes that makes me a bad person. Y'all seem to like me well enough when I'm installing water pipes though, so whatever. One thing though... jesus dude, your tongue? That's fucking gross. I hope you don't kiss your mother with that mouth, cause that's fucking dirty. This is a man who deals with clogged toilets cringing in disgust!

In short though, animals = property. Go ahead and finger fuck em till they bleed for all I care. In fact, take a picture and send it to 4Chan, they love that kinda shit. Or they love to hate it anyway.

551Report
Svansfall at 24 May 2006: 15:20

>>556

Well congratulations, because you managed to make me nauseus as well.  Everything you wrote was truly disturbing to me.  I hope that was the point, and it was all made up.  I find it hard to believe that anyone can truly have such a disturbed view of living beings.

552Report
Poster of >>550 at 24 May 2006: 15:45

In full view of legal precedent:  It only takes ONE time of saying NO... but it also only takes ONE time of saying YES.

I suppose that really means nothing, actually, in relation to this argument.  Let's hear it for taking a 300-post discussion/argument and dragging it out to 558!!

553Report
at 24 May 2006: 19:51

>>557

Nope, fully serious. Take your support where you can get it buddy. I'm saying it's okay for you to do what you want with your animals.

Disturbed view of living beings? Wha ha, that's hilarious! Was it the animal testing part, the I like Meat part, or the People before Animals part? Be thankful for people like me.  I'd run into a burning building and haul your ass out and leave the dog to burn, rather than sit there and deliberate. Hell, I could fucking hate your guts and I'd still pull you out first, cause I'm all about the human race, no matter how fucked up we are.

>>559
WTF? So your for animal fucking, or against it?

554Report
at 24 May 2006: 20:08

>>538
Wait just a sec!  Your the one trying to prove the point that the existence of animal communication is up for debate not me.  It's YOUR responsability to provide citations and credits for your work, not mine.  If you were my student, I'd fail you for not providing a bibliography!

In short, I don't have to google for it, and because you don't provide us with citations, you provide no solid basis for your opinion.  It isn't my job to prove your point.  It's your job to prove your own point, you retard!

557Report
at 24 May 2006: 22:39

>>561

Uh oh, a tough guy.

Anyhow, for a psychology class I had to read Animal Intelligence: Experimental Studies by Edward Thorndike. Not exactly on topic, but he did a lot of experiments that show differences between learning processes in animals, other animals, and humans. He talks about animals and their limited ability to communicate. Limited... if anyone quotes this line, note the limited part. He isn't saying they can talk, he isn't saying their as smart as rocks... limited.

It's a really boring book though, so I don't recommend the read over something like an internet argument. Just thought I'd point out that doctors (Not M.D.) are still studying it and trying to answer the question, so all of you who are saying they can or can't definately... well, that's just an opinion, and apparently, scientifically baseless, so not a fact either way.

Is limited communication enough? Maybe, maybe not, but out of curiosity, if you think animals are intelligent enough to be a lover, and you own them, doesn't that make you a kind of slave owner?

558Report (sage)
at 24 May 2006: 23:48

In an effort to reach 600 posts ASAP, everyone who can _actually_ read a book AND understand more than 50% of it, say 'aye'.  And anything from the childrens/juvinile section doesn't count.

I'll start:  Aye! 

(And I'd like to think this thread would be better if we were all PHD's, but I've seen a conference room full of PHD's all bickering like 4 year olds, so I know better...)

559Report
at 25 May 2006: 01:52

Manawolf's Essay on Bestiality

Cover Page: http://www.firstlight.net/~chythar/manawolf/articles/Underconst.html

Actual Page: http://www.firstlight.net/~chythar/manawolf/articles/zooessay.htm

I just thought I'd toss this into the mix since we are in need of fresh ideas.

560Report
Svansfall at 25 May 2006: 02:05

>>553

I am still awaiting an answer, to the question I raised in post 553, from the people who are against zoophilia for the reason they don't believe the animals can communicate sufficiently to show they agree with it or not.

561Report
at 25 May 2006: 02:53

Aye

562Report
at 25 May 2006: 02:57

>>567
Manawolf's a pedophile waiting for an opportunity.

563Report
Svansfall at 25 May 2006: 03:01

>>570

Instead of giving an insult, perhaps you could try and dissect and discuss the matters in Manawolf's essay you feel is not correct?

564Report
at 25 May 2006: 03:14

>>571

Okay, how's this. Manawolf said that she thinks exploring sexuality with her future young daughter would be wonderful. She wants to explore sexuality with a minor. That means that, if she ever went through with it (which she said she would) she would be a pedophile. Ergo: Pedophile waiting for an opportunity.

It's not an insult when it's true right?

565Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 25 May 2006: 11:01

>>566

In an effort to reach 600 posts ASAP, everyone who can _actually_ read a book AND understand more than 50% of it, say 'aye'.  And anything from the childrens/juvinile section doesn't count.

You have trouble understanding anything that's not kid lit?

566Report
at 25 May 2006: 13:28

>>573
He means to say that it doesn't count if you can ONLY understand the c/j section

567Report (sage)
at 25 May 2006: 13:53

>>574  Score one for reading comprehension.  Not sure what Juberu missed, but ah, well...  No shame there tho, really, since studies show even college students only grok half of what they read at an everage reading speed. 

568Report
at 25 May 2006: 14:13

>>572  The idea of children asexuality is a cultural construct and is largely considered untrue by anyone who looks at it objectively.  Despite that fact, the idea of an adult 'exploring sexuality' with a minor is generally seen solely as a nagative, exploitive thing, and even children themselves exploring sexuality has been stigmatized (even to the point of charging children with sexual offenses where the 'victim' is themselves).

In short, our cultures hysteria about anything related to children and sex has reached ridiculous proportions, so I don't blame you for your assumptions and bias.  However, maybe you'll actually think about it one day and realize it's unfair and inaccurate. 

Anyone who's interested might want to read Judith Levine's book "Harmful to Minors" just to get an idea of the 'state of the union' regarding children and sex and our cultural ideas about them from a perspecticve that isn't extremist or based in a knee-jerk cultural encoded response. 

hxxp://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/L/levine_harmful.html

569Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 25 May 2006: 16:45

>>576

The idea of children asexuality is a cultural construct and is largely considered untrue by anyone who looks at it objectively.

You do realize that it's hard to take anything you say credibly if you start out so verbose, right? Online, being o'erly pedantic comes off as trying to impress your readers.

That said, what's to say the cultural mores aren't actually right? Why couldn't the stigma be justified? I've never seen anyone who goes "It's just inbred societal norms" actually answer either of those questions. Please, be the exception.

570Report
Juberu at 25 May 2006: 16:56

>>574
My bad.

571Report
at 25 May 2006: 18:09

>>570
>>572
My CARL SAGAN BALONEY DETECTORS Are Tingling!

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

    * Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Any questions?

572Report
at 25 May 2006: 18:11

>>570
>>572
Odd, in the essay she talks about how pedophilia is damaging to children and, thus, is always immoral. 

573Report (sage)
at 25 May 2006: 19:15

>>577  Being verbose and pedantic is an annoying habit of mine, I'm sure.  I blame over-education, and being too smart/well read for my own good.  Sorry. 

And sorry to disappoint, but cultural mores *could* be 'right', and in this case they *are* certainly justified, but only to a certain extent. 

I fully agree that protecting children from negative sexual experiences/influences is a good and necessary thing.  I don't agree that all sexual experiences are _automatically_ negative for all children, or even most children.  I don't agree that children are essentially asexual automatons until some magical age is reached, and I believe that treating them as such is unfair, and often damaging. 

Objective observation of children left to their own devices lends support to the idea that children, even prepubescent children, DO experience an interest in, and curiousity about, sexual things.  Denying that in favor of what cultural norms wants you to believe is foolish...  Yet it's exactly what the 'authorities' in our society do.   

Our culture finds it comforting to believe all sexual behavior among children is the result of 'evil', outside influences, and as such, that all incidences of child sexual behavior is immoral and 'wrong'.  This is contrary to observed reality, and contrary to the personal experiences of almost ever person who's honestly considered the idea (at least if we can believe all written accounts of child sexual activity aren't writen by sneaky, evil pro-pedophillia advocates...). 

Our culture has chosen to uphold this contrary-to-reality belief  even to the extent of punishing children themselves for things they had no moral understanding of, nor even any moral association with.  In short, our culture takes what is natural, innocent behavior for sub-adult humans and deemed it as evil as any adult who's ever raped a child is.  It's normalized extremist behavior - Cultural hysteria at it's finest. 

I can't support that idea, nor believe it's 'right', but maybe you can.  I'm not going to try to convince you one way or the other, nor can I seriously give the discussion all the time and space it'd require to even try - At the very least it's 'off topic' and at root I just can't be bothered.  I'll be happy if I can think I made even one person reconsider the idea of 'children and sex' in any way outside of the culturally constructed paradigm that may or may not be 'right'. 

I believe it was Einstein who said "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."

(And sorry about any spelling errors, I tend to be a sloppy typer when I'm thinking, and my spellcheck isn't installed yet...)

574Report
at 25 May 2006: 19:17

>>579

I don't care about the points she makes about bestiality one way or another. I just truly despise the woman.

>>580
She also said she wanted to explore sex with a minor/her own daughter. She just twists the definition so that she's in the clear. In my mind, any adult engaging children in sexual activity is a pedophile. She isn't a pedophile, cause she hasn't done it yet. I hope she doesn't get the opportunity.

Besides, I don't think the zoophiles in this thread would appreciate having someone who was pro child molesting coming in on their side, even through association. It gives too much ammo to the anti-zoos.

>>576
Yeah, I'm closed minded... that's it. You can't possibly be the one who's wrong, so it must be everyone else. Everyone who thinks I'm right is a kneejerk culturally brainwashed drone, and everyone who think's your right is being reasonable and objective. No.

575Report (sage)
at 25 May 2006: 20:25

>>582
"She also said she wanted to explore sex with a minor/her own daughter."

Talk about deliberate misinterpretation... I guess when your Mom/Dad/Sex Ed teacher "explored sex" with you, they were actually abusing you?

576Report
at 25 May 2006: 20:59

I'd rather Manawolf be left out of this.

577Report
at 25 May 2006: 21:23

>>585 Hey, she posted it on the net,

578Report
at 25 May 2006: 21:37

>>585
Yeah, I agree.  Everybody knows she's she'll sleep with anybody (man, moman or beast, married or not, or what ever), especialy at a con.  What good does it do us to berate her character further.  We already know she's an odd one, even for a furry.

Seriously, this should be about her essay on zoophilia, not her sexual querks and deviancies, entertaining, though they may be.

579Report (sage)
at 25 May 2006: 22:01

>>582

"Yeah, I'm closed minded... that's it. You can't possibly be the one who's wrong, so it must be everyone else. Everyone who thinks I'm right is a kneejerk culturally brainwashed drone, and everyone who think's your right is being reasonable and objective. No."


Nope, but if you think that's what *I* said, you're just obtuse.   Unfortunate, but there's not much I can do about it. 

580Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 25 May 2006: 22:28

>>579
They're actually talking about Manawolf herself, not using it to discredit her essay. So, no, not ad Hom.

>>581

I fully agree that protecting children from negative sexual experiences/influences is a good and necessary thing.  I don't agree that all sexual experiences are _automatically_ negative for all children, or even most children.  I don't agree that children are essentially asexual automatons until some magical age is reached, and I believe that treating them as such is unfair, and often damaging.

Actually, I believe that the philosophy behind the age of consent is that a reasonable portion, if not all, children have reached maturity by said age. There may be some who are mature earlier, but it's *assumed* that most children can handle sex by then.

I'm speaking out of the top of my head. Anyone with sources, feel free to correct me.
Our culture finds it comforting to believe all sexual behavior among children is the result of 'evil', outside influences, and as such, that all incidences of child sexual behavior is immoral and 'wrong'.

Well, sexual maturity is considered one of the criteria for being an adult. So if a kid has (consentual)sex, they're not a kid. Something of a circular argument.

There are plenty of cases, however, where an adult had sex with someone under the AOC, did time, then went back and married them upon being released from jail.
In short, our culture takes what is natural, innocent behavior for sub-adult humans and deemed it as evil as any adult who's ever raped a child is.  It's normalized extremist behavior - Cultural hysteria at it's finest.

Point. Though I do think the cultural meanings and associations of sexual maturity are far oversimplified by both sides.

(And sorry about any spelling errors, I tend to be a sloppy typer when I'm thinking, and my spellcheck isn't installed yet...)

http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/
Also, open a new tab, and type "dict wordYouWantToCheck" in the address bar, in FireFox.

581Report
at 26 May 2006: 00:30

590.  Also, >>583 has a definite point here.  My parents "explored" sex in terms of explaining it to me, and I've heard that term used more than once in my (now-past) experiences in College in the form of "Let's explore this topic further, shall we?"  So who is to say that explore, in this context, without asking the writer herself, doesn't mean discuss?

582Report (sage)
at 26 May 2006: 01:07

>>589

Actually, I believe that the philosophy behind the age of consent is that a reasonable portion, if not all, children have reached maturity by said age. There may be some who are mature earlier, but it's *assumed* that most children can handle sex by then.


I have my doubts, and if it *is* ostensibly a factor in the idea behind the law, then it's reality is much different, given how many 'adults' (people well past the age of majority) seem incapable of handling sex - Ergo unwanted pregnancy stats, STDs spreading despite greater education and awareness, etc. 

Plus, there's been psychological studies (not that I'm a fan of psych and it's 'science') that suggest many adults aren't much more emotionally mature than the average 12 year old - Essentially, we're a culture of children with adult responsibilities and adult bodies. 

Point. Though I do think the cultural meanings and associations of sexual maturity are far oversimplified by both sides.


Agreed.  And thanks for the spellcheck link as well. 

583Report
NotaGnome at 26 May 2006: 01:29

Hey, I went to quote her essay on pedophilia and it's gone. Ah well, probably for the best.

584Report
at 26 May 2006: 02:52

>>589

Is somebody paying you to be a contrarian, because you seem to argue the most usless points.

585Report
at 26 May 2006: 04:21

>>593

Yeah Juberu, quit cluttering everything with those trivial points. We're trying to have a super serious dicussion about something extremely important here.

586Report
at 26 May 2006: 04:47

No matter which 'side' you are on, try to lift out the actual main issues of each well-worded post, instead of focussing on every little tiny detail that can be attacked.

Even people who cannot express themselves well can have valid points in their posts.  But it is so much easier to attack pointless mistakes.

587Report(capped) (sage)
Xenofur at 26 May 2006: 08:51

locking this for a bit while i'm editing something.

588Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 26 May 2006: 14:19

>>593
He seems well-informed, and I'm willing to talk about sexual maturity as a tangent discussion. It migfht actually help the main discussion to get a better handle on that.

>>594
I'm sorry. I'll let y'all get back to talking about boning your dog.
/see what I did there?

>>595
Talking to anyone in particular?

589Report
at 26 May 2006: 15:46

>>598

This thread is about the morality of zoophilia and beastiality.

It is not an oportunity for closet furry half-wits from 4chan to troll and spam us.

590Report
NotaGnome at 26 May 2006: 16:28

>>597

I saw wut u did thar! Sorry dude, was trying to be funny. I look at it now... I was tired, not funny. X(

>>595

Anyhow, good point there dude, but as Juberu and Dragon Flame (opposite sides of the same coin there sorta... almost... not really) said before, a lot of these good points have already been brought up, disputed, agreed on, disagreed on, and moved past. So a lot of these are kinda "refer to earlier post" points.

On the other hand, it's better than the posts that don't mean anything at all.

591Report
NotaGnome at 26 May 2006: 16:30

>>598

Hey yeah, this thing's starting to lean dangerously close to a pedophilia discussion. Maybe that line should go in a new thread.

592Report
at 26 May 2006: 16:42

>>600 600 posts and we're branching off into other threads! I so win for creating this one...

593Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 26 May 2006: 18:41

>>598
You're replying to yourself?

595Report
at 26 May 2006: 20:01

>>602

no there was a desu post that got deleted and it screwed up the numbering

596Report
Svansfall at 27 May 2006: 03:09

>>599

I think some of the good points have just been ignored, and the discussion moved away from them without barely touching them.  Especially some of the good points by the pro-zoo guy who wrote long posts, and provided links.  A lot of the best points in what he wrote was completely ignored, and the only points touched upon was the mistakes he did in the posts.   Also, he sadly used completely unnecessary insults, that does not belong in a discussion like this.

Another point that no one who's against zoophilia has replied to is the question I asked, how you can justify that you do anything at all together with animals, if you cannot give animals sexual stimulation, when the animals clearly show they enjoy it and come back for more.   I'm starting to get repetetive now, and I apologize for that, but as long as I don't get a good reply, I am starting to think that none of those against zoophilia have a good reason for why we can use dogs for dogsledding (when they seemingly want to), but we cannot bring them to orgasm (when they seemingly want to).

Or why it is okay that we can do things animals obviously find extremely distressing, such as removing newborn calves from their mothers, when it shouldn't be okay to give sexual pleasure to the same cow.

Unless all of you are vegans, but I think it is fair to guess that most of you are not.  So...  I wonder:  Why is it okay to do things that are distressing to the animals, but why is it not okay to do things that the animals enjoy?  (And show they enjoy it by coming back for more.)

597Report
at 27 May 2006: 05:23

>>605

It's been said before dude. None of it's okay. Forcing animals to pull a sled is bad too, but some people need to do that to survive where they live. If you don't need to do things like that you shouldn't, because it's demeaning.

598Report
Svansfall at 27 May 2006: 10:15

>>606

Do you also feel that horseback riding is wrong?

599Report
DragonFlame at 27 May 2006: 10:52

>>605
Hi Svansfall.

-Quote-
Another point that no one who's against zoophilia has replied to is the question I asked, how you can justify that you do anything at all together with animals, if you cannot give animals sexual stimulation, when the animals clearly show they enjoy it and come back for more.
-Quote-

I have a question for you and you may have answered it before but I will ask it anyway, when you sexualy stimulate your animals have they been learnt to use you as a sexual relief or did it just naturaly happen.

-Quote-
I am starting to think that none of those against zoophilia have a good reason for why we can use dogs for dogsledding (when they seemingly want to), but we cannot bring them to orgasm (when they seemingly want to).
-Quote-
It true that as Human's we force animals to do things that they would not want to do but we also know that sometimes things have to be done even if you dont want to do it. Animals serve a purpose for farmers and in return they are hopefuly treated well and looked after for their service. This should not be accociated with sex, even with human to human sex it is considered wrong to have sex for profit.

I really think the argument you should be making instead of this one is if having sex with an anmial is hurting it or not. Can the animal have Physical or mental damage from the encounter. Can it get some type of virus from the human.

Dont make that accociation of work and sex because they are two different things.

600Report
at 27 May 2006: 12:21

>>610
look around >>50 or >>80 or so, we've already established that animal pedophilia is wrong, it is wrong and bad to have sex with an animal before it is sexually mature.  when it attains such maturity though, sky's the limit.

601Report
Svansfall at 27 May 2006: 12:45

>>609
Hello DragonFlame, thanks for the well worded questions.

To start with, most cows absolutely love to be brushed, scritched, petted.  One almost universally well-known spot most cows love to be scritched over, is over their hips, and down the back of their hindlegs.  It does happen that some cows when I am scritching them there, deliberately move their rear towards me, so that I will touch their privates.

Most people who are caring about their cows will scritch over their hindlegs and hips, because the cows enjoy it.  I am guessing those who are not zoo will move their hand away in case the cow leans their genitals into the scritching.  Me, and other cow-loving zoos will just keep touching them, as long as the cow shows that she is enjoying it.  So, in a lot of cases, it's actually the cow herself making the first move.

Sometimes, I will instead make the first move, and gently move my hand closer to their genitals.  It's like asking a question: "Do you like this right now?"  They show extremely clearly wheter they enjoy the touch or not.  If they enjoy it, they raise their tail up to the side, allowing easier access, sometimes leaning into my touch.   If they don't enjoy it, they lower their tail, and/or step away from me.  It's very clear.  I don't even touch their genitals, just nearby.  And if they show they don't enjoy it, their will is always respected, and I will scritch them in the places they want to be scritched in at the moment.

So, I guess the answer to your question is both:  It just naturally happens, but they also know that if they want sexual stimulation, they can approach me and ask me for it.  They also know that if they want a back-scritch, or fresh water filled up, or some nice food, they can ask me for that also, and they will get what they ask for, nothing else.

Now on to the next part of your post.  I agree that sometimes it is right to force animals to do things they would not want to do, but only in the cases when the end-result is the wellbeing of the animal.  Such as when you have to give them medical treatment they don't want to take, etc.  Things that are for their best.

As for using dogs for dogsledding or horses for horseback riding, I am fine with that, because in most cases, the dogs and the horses find it highly entertaining.  As for using animals for meat.  I find it just as wrong and tasteless to use cows for meat, as most people would find it wrong to use cats, dogs or humans for meat.

I am seriously completely against the usage of cows and other animals for industrial purposes, for the sake of human profit.  We can survive just as well by just eating vegetable matter.  I am not the kind of person to usually speak up about this, though, because I don't like when people are trying to tell others that their beliefs are wrong.  So I am not telling you that your beliefs are wrong, but I personally feel it is wrong.

Cows in production are often stressed, no matter how good and caring their farmer is.  And most farmers don't have time to groom every single one of their cows on a regular basis.  If you read in books about animal care, they state that cows should be groomed just as often as a horse.  I don't know how it is in the US, but in the country where I live, it is now very difficult to make a living as a farmer.  You have to constantly produce more and more to survive, and the ones that suffer from that are the animals.

The reason for BSE (Mad Cow Disease) in most Western European countries was because the manufactured feed included protein from bone meal.  Why this was done in the first place, was that they had to boost the amount of milk produced.  Most manufactured feed these days ensure that the cows either produce more milk, or grow faster, just to be more profitable.  I'd never feed any kind of manufactured feed to my cows - it's bad for them, only good for production, and it really messes their metabolism up.  All of those who say cows are stinky...  Yeah, you have probably been close to cows who are part of some kind of production, eventually either to become meat, or to produce milk.  They get stinky from the manufactured feed, and from most kinds of silage.  There's no chance for a cow in production to live a 'normal' cow's life.  Cows who are not stressed, and cows who only eat natural food, they smell great (IMO).

And of course the issue wheter the animal could have physical or mental damage from a sexual encounter is a highly important issue, which is why one must always make sure to see that the animal is enjoying, and is not stressed.  To always treat the animal with respect, and always be very careful with everything you do together with the animal.  The same goes for any kind of interraction with animals, wheter it is sexual or not.

602Report
Benjamin at 27 May 2006: 13:07

Oh for the love of flying monkies people... well.. Actualy I don't love flying monkies or monkies in general. I find them kinda creepy.. But anyway that's not the point. What is the point, who cares? We've done ALOT worse things to animals. We still do, we always will. There's places where they crowd dolphins into small coves and procede to stab them todeath with blunted spears. This kind of thing happens. Always has, always will. We alter our animals anyway we want because we believe we're better than them. We kill millions of animals every hour of every day. We inbreed them to the point of crippling them. We beat them because we find it amusing. We slit their throats while they're still alive... But god help you if you stroke a horse to orgasm. That'll send you on a frieght train straight to hell in the eyes of thousands of people. You know what I think? I think alot of people on BOTH sides need to calm down, review thier lives, remove their biase, and enjoy the ideas of others. Are animals smart enough to consent in the human way? Aside from chimps and dolphins, who are the only other species to mate for pleasure and do seem to have a thing for humans by the way, probly not. But do they enjoy it? Yes, yes they do. Does the dog mind getting fucked? No, probly not. Does the dog ENJOY getting fucked? If done properly, yes, probly does. Will there be idiots who will harm the dog while fucking it and do it again anyway despite the animal's pain and fear? Yes, definately will be. Is it wrong to fuck the animal? Maybe. I think it depends on how its done. Is it unethical? Considering our ethics were built around a God that once had children mauled todeath by grizzly bears for making fun of an old man's bald head.... I'm not sure that's exactly the best example to take and run your life by. So your government says its wrong... Big fat hairy deal. Its still going to happen. Always has, always will. Everyone needs to drink deep from the well of apathy. Zoos or bests, I really don't care which you want to call yourselves, quit giving a shit what the "wholesome and good" people think... usualy while doing everything the preach against themselves in dark little rooms. Wholesome and Goods, get off the backs of the world because frankly, we don't care anymore. Control your own livess as you see fit but STOP trying to do it to others.

603Report
Svansfall at 27 May 2006: 13:32

>>614
The reason for me giving my views and thoughts on the subject is that I remember how I used to feel when I was young and immature, and unsure about myself.  I still encounter younger people now and then, who are new to the Internet, and new to the knowledge that they are not the only person in the world who is emotionally and physically attracted to animals.  Some of these people might be disturbed by their own feelings, and fear that what their innermost feelings are wrong.

It's for those people that I am participating in a discussion such as this one.  So that those people might not look at themselves in disgust because everyone claims that they are 'sick' or 'rapists'.  Of course it is good to question yourself, but some people question themselves too much already, especially sensitive younger people in the age around 18-20 years who have not had the time to come to terms with who they are yet.

604Report
at 27 May 2006: 14:27

>>608

It's wrong because giving them sexual pleasure is "demeaning" and anything that is "demeaning" is harmful.  You know, they used to say the same thing about masterbating yourself.  Some how it was "demeaning". 

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how plesureing an animal sexualy is "demeaning" or showing a lack of respect for the creature.  If anything, it shows the creature high reguard.  Look at it this way, a high and mighty human actualy taking the time to give a lowly animal some good feelings for a change (rather than bad), should be showing the animal respect and equality.

Of course, things like respect, equality and "demeaning" are all abstract concepts that animals are probably not able to understand anyway, making any points about pleasureing them moot. 

605Report
at 27 May 2006: 14:39

>>606

And if you eat meat, drink milk or wear leather shoes, your just as bad as a zoophile.  Why?  Because "meat, fur and leather are murder" and "milking them and having sex with them are forms of slavory".  Well, that is by your logic, at least.

Unless your a Vegan, you have no room to critisize zoophiles because you all are guilty of supporting even more vial things than having sex with them or plesureing them.  Go ahead, take a tour of a slaugher house and tell me sex with an animal is more repugnant.

The truth is, most of you to far removed from your food supply to  even consider this argument.  Your brains keep thingking "It's not a cow, it's a hamburger".  You may realize that it really does come from a cow, but until you actualy see a living cow turned into a hamburger and actualy eat that burger, your perspective will always be limited through your lack of experience.

606Report
at 27 May 2006: 14:55

>>614

What I don't understand is what are the "wholesome and good" people doing on Fchan?

607Report(capped) (sage)
Raven at 27 May 2006: 15:17

>>618

Not everything on the site is weird and deviant. We have a clean section, and /f, /s, and /m are mostly harmless. I don't see how it's that surprising to see people who aren't comfortable with everything they see.

608Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 27 May 2006: 16:45

>>616

Man... I don't have a problem with people doing crap to their animals, I just have a problem with the "I'm noble for doing it" attitude that keeps popping up. If you were THAT concerned about making sure animals would happy, you'd have gone to the animal shelter and bought some animals that were about to be put down instead of buying a computer and coming to a wank site. If you think what you're doing has actually crossed the bounds of being amoral, then you're either lying, or deluding yourself. At best, having sex with animals is harmless and not hurting anything, not an actual virtue.

>>617
WTF? So what, I jay walk and litter, so it's okay for you to vandalize? Jesus dude, that wouldn't even make it okay to jaywalk or litter. Ad hominem much there buddy?

>>609
Something else to worry about though, which has been largely ignored as far as I can see. Brought up, eluded to, but never answered: Can something that doesn't hurt anyone still be morally wrong?

If so, then bestiality could still be wrong, if not, then that's all you need to prove is that you aren't hurting the animal (signifigantly anyway, knock it off you "technically, everything hurts the animal" types).

So... can anyone come up with an example of something that doesn't physically or mentally harm someone or something, that is still wrong to do?  Hypotheticals welcome and all, this is a moral discussion after all.

609Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 27 May 2006: 17:04

>>620

At best, having sex with animals is harmless and not hurting anything, not an actual virtue.


Oh, and a preemptive explanation on my claims that people are making it sound noble. I'm trying my hand at reading tone here, and when people say "Bringing pleasure to animals" and the like, I'm getting the impression that you guys are trying to not only make yourselves sound better than people who think bestiality is bad, but also trying to make yourselves sound better than people who aren't bringing their animals this pleasure.

>>613
Yes, I eat meat, but seriously, I resent having that compared to having sex with animals for the purposes of building up your character. You want to think it's okay to have sex with animals because I kill and eat them? I don't think anyone needs to have the flaw in that logic spelled out for them.

610Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 27 May 2006: 18:10

>>608
You fail at pseudintellectualism, pretention, the universe, and everything.

>>616

It's wrong because giving them sexual pleasure is "demeaning" and anything that is "demeaning" is harmful.  You know, they used to say the same thing about masterbating yourself.  Some how it was "demeaning".

You speak in the past tense; it's still not accepted as "right" by all, and there are plenty of good arguments on both sides.

Of course, things like respect, equality and "demeaning" are all abstract concepts that animals are probably not able to understand anyway, making any points about pleasureing them moot.

Of course, one could argue that the human carries those human associations of sexual activity into the 'relationship', simply by virtue of being human.

>>623
I think it's wrong that people on your side keep dropping that particular red herring. See >>620 . Also, how do y'all know it brings them pleasure?

611Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 27 May 2006: 18:34

>>621
Hell, either or. If you can come up with a universal, great... but cultural norm works to a degree too, which I'll explain in a second.

>>623
Get bent! If what I'm doing is the most apocolyptic of evils, it doesn't make what you do right! If I kill babies with fire, and tell you stealing is bad, does that make stealing good, or just less bad than what I do? What I and other meat eaters do has absolutely no impact on the morality of what you do!

"Pleasurable for both"... yeah, you're just like jesus that way. Nothing selfish about what you're doing. (If you're not doing it, bear with the spirit of the post. People who do it = "you", people who don't = "us", visa versa when reversed)

>>621
Yeah, so basically, as far as I can tell, proving it to be sufficiently popular also works, because at best, this becomes a "don't force your views on me" argument, and if that ends up happening, you have a large group of people trying to force their views on a small group of people, and a small group of people trying to force their views on a large group of people, so both sides sorta lose that one to hypocricy.

Note, I'm not addressing everyone with that point. Those of you with the attitude "I make no excuses for what I do, I just want to be left alone", I can deal with that. It's the ones who want a step past tolerance that bug me. You can't reasonable expect people to accept things like this, especially if you're thumbing your nose at them and calling them immoral. There are WAY better ways to approach this than "Well, I may fuck animals, but at least I'm not killing them like YOU: murderer". This isn't a "Morality of animal slaughter" thread, it's a "morality of bestiality" thread.

Just go by the assumption that slaughtering animals is either right, wrong, or morally uncommitted, but is a completely seperate issue from bestiality!

612Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 27 May 2006: 18:46

>>625
Damn, too vague on the cultural norm/popularity part.

What I mean is, given the rhetoric that we, as a culture, openly claim that our honor is based on. Our concepts of justice, our concepts of rights and how far they go, in theory and in practice, as well as common critiques of the flaws of that system. Can it be justified given the society we opperate in without forcing compliance or reform in other words.

Personal morals don't make a lot of sense to discuss. If personal morals hold too much weight, then Manson was justified in what he did, so yeah, large scale, or again, universal if you think you can do the undoable.

613Report
at 27 May 2006: 19:12

Prepare for an invasion.  A link to this thread was posted on 4chan.

614Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 27 May 2006: 19:21

God damnit, not again!

615Report(capped)
Xenofur at 27 May 2006: 19:22

already averted, thanks for the note. :)

616Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 27 May 2006: 19:25

Ah, much better.

>>627

Yeah, arguing about personal morals would be like arguing about favorite colors, and arging about universals would be like arguing about... I don't know, the color smeg, or the 600th element or something like that. It might be there, but we have no way of knowing.

617Report(capped)
Xenofur at 27 May 2006: 19:57

@ the guy with the orang tan comment: bravo for sounding like a troll from the beginning of your post, now i accidently nuked your posts. ^^;

618Report
at 27 May 2006: 20:03

If furries believe they are part/all animal, when will it be legal to hunt them?

619Report
at 27 May 2006: 20:05

>>618
only a few freaks believe that, now go back home.

620Report
at 27 May 2006: 23:08

well shoot - that was supposed to be funny and a play on the grape tang nick, I  will avoid doing so again in the future if it was seriously veiwed as a trollish thing to do.
and perfectly understandable with teh timing of the posting of such.
oh and dont worry to much not many of them had umn earth shattering veiwpoints just various thoughtfull bits of umn my mind lint being said to others. *chuckle*
peace out man. I'll just have to come up with some new worthy stuff to add back into the fray.

621Report
Svansfall at 28 May 2006: 01:54

>>609
Hello GrapeTang.

I am not meaning that I am better than people who don't bring their animals this kind of pleasure.  No one should be asked to do things they do not feel comfortable with.  I am not asking anyone to change their personal opinions wheter zoophilia is wrong or not.  What I am asking is that people who are against zoophilia stop telling others that they are wrong for doing it.

In post 608 you say "So what, I jay walk and litter, so it's okay for you to vandalize?"  Am I interpreting you correctly, if I think you're comparing slaughtering and mistreatment of animals to littering, and giving sexual stimulation to animals to vandalism?

So pleasure is wrong...  and cruelty is less wrong?

Back to post 609, you say:  "You want to think it's okay to have sex with animals because I kill and eat them? I don't think anyone needs to have the flaw in that logic spelled out for them."

I am sorry, but I do need to have the flaw in that logic spelled out for me.  Please spell it out for me, so that I can understand what you mean.

Yes, I seriously think it is okay for me to have sex with animals, because I know that the animals enjoy it, and that they are not harmed by it.   It's not okay BECAUSE you kill and eat animals, it is okay DESPITE you killing and eating animals.

But in killing and eating animals you are causing mental stress, physical pain and obvious harm to the animals.   And at the same time you are criticising someone who are doing the exact opposite.

So, in short: The fact that you are causing pain and harm to animals does not justify that I give harmless pleasure to the animals.  BUT: It does lessen your own credibility to critise those who have sex with animals.

There was a guy in the beginning of this thread, Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ.  He is a vegan, and I feel he has full credibility in criticising what I do.  I am sad that he is not participating in this debate right now.  But wheter anyone is criticising me or not, I know that the animals enjoy to spend their time with me, and I know that I am not harming them.  I know that I am not wrong for giving them pleasure.

622Report
at 28 May 2006: 05:15

>>621

I am not meaning that I am better than people who don't bring their animals this kind of pleasure.  No one should be asked to do things they do not feel comfortable with.  I am not asking anyone to change their personal opinions wheter zoophilia is wrong or not.  What I am asking is that people who are against zoophilia stop telling others that they are wrong for doing it.


I don't have a problem with you doing it really, as long as I don't have to accept it. I'm willing to tolerate here. Look the other way. Some people have a bit more of a problem with it though... a lot more usually it seems, and they don't just look the other way, they try to stop you. I feel they're in their rights to do this really, as long as they don't physically attack you or something.

I mean, let's be fair here. They think you're BAD for doing it. If you really want to convince them, you're going to need to try something else, other than what's been done. What's simple to you is beyond them, and what's simple to them is beyond you. Restating the same opinions again and again isn't going to change minds. If your goal isn't to change minds, but instead is to make yourself look sharp to your peers, or anger people you don't like, then the zoophiles here are doing a good job, because as far as I can tell, it's a lot of jeering and taunting done from behind a shield of anonymity and free speech laws. Not you so much... but a lot of your supporters are as annoying as the 4Channers.

In post 608 you say "So what, I jay walk and litter, so it's okay for you to vandalize?"  Am I interpreting you correctly, if I think you're comparing slaughtering and mistreatment of animals to littering, and giving sexual stimulation to animals to vandalism?


So pleasure is wrong...  and cruelty is less wrong?


Okay let me rephrase then. So let's say I break into people's houses and murder them in their sleep. Does that make it okay for you to steal cars? The point is that MY morals don't have anything to do with the morality of what you do. You may not like to hear it from me, but the truth (such as it is) remains the truth, regardless of my own wrong doings.

Think about it this way at least. When you say that someone's words are diminished in value because they eat meat, it would be like someone saying that your words are just a lot of hot air because you rape animals. First of all, you're projecting and attacking, which is uncool if nothing else. Second of all, that's not the point. The point isn't whether eating meat is good, it's whether having sex with animals is wrong or not.  Whenever you link them together as you've been doing, you make it sound like the two are mutually inclusive.

They're not. The wrongness of eating meat is another issue. Maybe you can start a discussion for that.

Back to post 609, you say:  "You want to think it's okay to have sex with animals because I kill and eat them? I don't think anyone needs to have the flaw in that logic spelled out for them."


I am sorry, but I do need to have the flaw in that logic spelled out for me.  Please spell it out for me, so that I can understand what you mean.


Aw come on!  Alright, even though I just said it and all.

Basically, if I eat meat, and it's wrong, then that makes me wrong for eating meat. It hasn't now, nor has it ever had anything to do with you having sex with animals, unless you're having sex with animals BECAUSE I eat meat. In other words, what you're doing is the equivilant of saying "It's okay for me to steal that guy's wallet, cause that other guy over there is assaulting someone".  Both crimes remain crimes regardless of their relative seriousness, because they have NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. (Caps for emphasis, not intensity... damn lack of underline).

Yes, I seriously think it is okay for me to have sex with animals, because I know that the animals enjoy it, and that they are not harmed by it.   It's not okay BECAUSE you kill and eat animals, it is okay DESPITE you killing and eating animals.


Hey! You said you didn't get it!

But in killing and eating animals you are causing mental stress, physical pain and obvious harm to the animals.   And at the same time you are criticising someone who are doing the exact opposite.


You see that... that right there!  That's why I'm here.  Not because I think bestiality is wrong as such, but because THIS is bullshit! You're villifying a LOT of people in order to elevate what you do! You don't want tolerance, you want recognition and praise. What you do to your animals isn't GOOD.  It may not be bad, but it's not good.

Jesus, so I eat meat. Not only are you saying I'm a bad person because I eat meat, but you're using that to justify what you do! That translates to me as you saying "I'm better than you".  You imply again that somehow you're a good person BECAUSE you have sex with animals, and you alienate us meat eaters as murderers.  You want to argue vegetatianism, fine, start a thread for it, but quit trying to use meat eating as an excuse for what you do.

So, in short: The fact that you are causing pain and harm to animals does not justify that I give harmless pleasure to the animals.  BUT: It does lessen your own credibility to critise those who have sex with animals.


No it doesn't. Third time and all... but yeah, that's a logical fallacy.

There was a guy in the beginning of this thread, Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ.  He is a vegan, and I feel he has full credibility in criticising what I do.  I am sad that he is not participating in this debate right now.  But wheter anyone is criticising me or not, I know that the animals enjoy to spend their time with me, and I know that I am not harming them.  I know that I am not wrong for giving them pleasure.


Wait... seriously, just tweak your words a bit and read them aloud to yourself.  Insert, say, a religious theme, or a political theme, whatever.  Maybe you didn't mean it, but it sounds to me like you're saying "I don't care what any of you think; I know I'm right no matter what, and I'm going to keep doing what I do."

Not a good attitude to come to a discussion with. That kind of attitude creates a tendency to ignore or trivialize valid points, which you've complained about enough times that it be lame if you start doing it to.

Anyhow, you like the anonymous guy because he's a vegan or whatever...

So, quoted from him:

Okay, I fully agree that animals are treated in an cruel manner, but in all seriousness, we aren't talking about having sex with animals instead of killing them, we're talking about having sex with them as WELL as killing them, and so forth.  Just because they have the collective plagues of humanity's heartlessness to contend with doesn't mean adding one more is justified by not being as bad as some of them.  That's like saying it's okay to steal because it isn't murder.  Well... sure, murder is worse, but that hardly makes stealing right.  Also, by this reasoning, I have no right to protest is I see someone lighting a bag of puppies on fire because I drive a car which harms the environment, and thus, animals.  Even if that makes sense on a purely mechanical level, you;ll have to forgive me for dropping the idea as utterly impractical.

There you go.  The same thing I've been trying to say from someone "credible".

And...

It's all a matter of relative position.  I'm not saying that bestiality is unnatural, I'm saying it's selfish, and done utterly without regard for the animal's benefit, which, as far as I can tell, is being dictated by the owner of the animal, either because it makes them happy to believe that, or because they're not an evil person as such, and don't want to abuse an animal, yet they don't want to not have sex with the animal, hence, the excuse.  Sex IS natural... so is theft.  Indulging yourself without regard for others is a natural urge, but it's often wrong to give into that.  This may be clear cases, like hitting people for fun or stealing.  Then there are others, like saying mean things about people behind their backs.  Sure, they never find out, never know, and are never "hurt", but that doen't make you morally sound for doing it.  It's still a rotten thing to do.


Same guy, same post. >>158

Actually, have you gone through his posts and answered his points?  Since he's the only thing from the anti zoo side (which includes me now I guess) you respect, maybe it's his posts that you should be reading and not "ours".  He, Juberu, Janglur, and Dragonflame seem to have gone over a lot of the stuff brought up here. He even came up with the hypothetical I asked about in an earlier post... (sorry for not reading everything before posting before. It's a lot to read).

623Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 28 May 2006: 05:16

>>622

Yeah, that's me.  Damn forgetting to put the name in.

624Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 28 May 2006: 05:20

>>620

Not really all that complicated dude. I used to hang out with a bunch of people at RWC BBS (Red Wood Castle... though nobody seems to have heard of it... damn obscurity), and we were the Tang club. Orange Tang was the founder, Me, Lime, Cherry, and Apple sorta took the names as a tribute.

Weird thing to post about though.

625Report
at 28 May 2006: 10:48

>>624  aye it was and I know it was :p,  The whole debate here (regarding the morality of zoo) revolves around something simple, and that is that there are some of us who believe x is okay and some who think x is bad.
and oddly enough neither can trully prove we are right. and its also highly doubtfull either side is right, that is just the way things tend to work (leaving out arguing abought details here on purpose) for the most part its only things that do an inherant hurt or denial of happyness / health that can be to any reasonable degree classified as not right. pretty simple huh?
it is ultimatly the responsability of any people who follow the zoo way to make sure they are keeping their animals happy and healthy, and so long as they do so they dont overstep the bounds.

626Report
DragonFlame at 28 May 2006: 10:55

>>601
Hey its me again. Many times I have run into people calling them selves Zoo's but they force their animals or trick them into having sex but in your case you are not. You are one of the few people I have met that dont force animals. And as long as what you have told me is true I have no problem with what you are doing.
One thing to understand tho is that most people will not accept this as normal behaviour and even tho sex is a natural part of life what you are doing is not natural. This doesnt mean I think your bad or evil for doing it, it just means that dont expect people who come from religious and other cultural backgrounds to accept what you are doing.

Back to the eating Meat subject. First off I may be one sided on this subject because I am as far from a Vegan as you can get without becoming unhealthy. You may think me evil but remember that this is exactly what most people think of you. You seem to think that eating meat is wrong and evil while a much larger majority of people think it to be a normal everyday thing.
Eating meat is a natural thing for humans to do. Many animals them selves kill other animals for food. Thinking people evil because they do what comes naturaly to them is not a fair thing to do. After all you think pleasuring your animals is natural to you. I am glad you have come up with a better way to survive than to eat meat but many people can not do what your doing and dont see a problem with what they are doing. I look at it this way. An animal is killed so I and my family can live another day. That is a natural way of life. If I had to kill a person to keep My family alive I would do the same. It does not mean that I enjoy doing it, it is only the natural thing to do.

Try to understand that I am not telling you that you are wrong I am only saying that if you want people to accept what you are doing then you must be willing to accept what they do especially if their opinion is more widely accepted.

>>622
Even tho I dont agree with every single thing you have said you have brought up some really good points.

Im also glad that a few people have remembered some of my earlier posts, it means a lot to me that at least some one belives that I have constructively contributed to this discussion.

627Report
Svansfall at 28 May 2006: 15:37

>>622

I am thankful that you are willing to tolerate and look the other way.  That is all I ask for, of anyone.

My goal is not to anger anyone, and it is not to look like a great person or whatever.  Seriously, my goal is to try and make people to see that even if they may feel it is disgusting, or that it may seem unnatural to them, that it is unfair of them to use unkind words towards people who seriously would never do anything to harm an animal, mentally or physically, and whose only goal is to share pleasure with an animal who enjoys this very thing.

And of course you can compare the treatment of animals with the treatment of animals.  The animals don't care WHY they are being treated with pleasure or pain, they just care about being treated good.  If they are being treated good or bad for the reason of production, or for the reason of someone enjoying to spend time with the animals, it is the exact same question.  So how animals are abused and mistreated for the sake of production is a highly valid point, and easily comparable with how the animals are treated good/bad by someone who enjoys to spend time with the animals.

The cow will only know either that her calf was removed from her, and she doesn't know why, and she is very upset about it.   Or she will know that this same person that she knows treats her well, will spend time with her if she comes up to him to show him what she wants at the time.

I will quote myself in post 601: "I am not the kind of person to usually speak up about this, though, because I don't like when people are trying to tell others that their beliefs are wrong.  So I am not telling you that your beliefs are wrong, but I personally feel it is wrong."

So again, I repeat: I, personally, feel that it is wrong to use animals in production, because the animals are mentally and physically harmed from it.  I feel it is wrong, but I am not saying that you are wrong for eating meat.  It is just the same that everyone who feels it is wrong to have sex with animals, they have the right to feel that it is wrong, but I feel they shouldn't tell us that we're wrong.   If I rubbed a magic lamp or whatever, and got one wish, it would be that people all over the world would suddenly treat all living beings with respect.  But it's not going to happen, and I seriously feel it is wrong to try and force my own personal beliefs upon someone.   Why am I posting in this discussion, then, because in it I am clearly expressing my personal beliefs?  Well apart from the reasons I've already mentioned in another post, it is because people tried to force their own personal beliefs of zoophilia being wrong, upon others.

So, as for you eating meat, I am also willing to tolerate and look the other way.  Even though deep down inside, a part of me just wishes I could make everyone treat animals good.

QUOTE: "That's why I'm here.  Not because I think bestiality is wrong as such, but because THIS is bullshit! You're villifying a LOT of people in order to elevate what you do! You don't want tolerance, you want recognition and praise. What you do to your animals isn't GOOD.  It may not be bad, but it's not good."

Few people would dislike recognition and praise, but that's not what I am after here.  If I was looking for that, I would only post in forums where everyone are zoophiles.  But please explain to me, what is NOT good about making someone feel pleasure, while making sure that they don't get any physical or mental harm?

Is there any part of giving harmless pleasure that is not good?

QUOTE: "Not only are you saying I'm a bad person because I eat meat, but you're using that to justify what you do! That translates to me as you saying "I'm better than you"."

Again, I didn't say you were a bad person because you eat meat.  I said I think it is wrong to eat meat, it is not the same as thinking you're a bad person.  And being kind to an animal is still a good thing in my eyes, wheter other people are unkind to animals or not.  It doesn't "justify" being kind to an animal, but it is an important comparison to make.

QUOTE: "You imply again that somehow you're a good person BECAUSE you have sex with animals, and you alienate us meat eaters as murderers."

With all due respect, I am sorry if this offends you, but I honestly feel that it is a good thing to make an animal happy, and I honestly feel that it is a bad thing to cause stress and pain to animals.

As for the points that Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. made, I would have preferred to continue discussing with him.  He chose to disappear from the discussion, and I came into the discussion a bit late, and he only had time to reply to one or two of my posts.  The points made early on in this thread were for the most part extremely bad points that I do not agree with at all, especially from the bestiality side.

The thing is that I agree almost completely with most things Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. says.  He is also all about respect for animals, and that people must make sure to restrain their own desires for the wellbeing of the animals.  There are sadly people who do have sex with animals, without caring about the animals' happiness or wellbeing.  I am completely against that, and that is what he mostly spoke of.   One thing he says that you are quoting is "Indulging yourself without regard for others is a natural urge, but it's often wrong to give into that."   I fully agree with him.

And please do not feel that Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. would be the only one who I respect in this discussion. What I said was: "It does lessen your own credibility to critise those who have sex with animals."

It does not mean that you don't have credibility to criticise me, of course you do.  I said that it LESSENS your credibility, not that it removes your credibility.

I am very happy that you are discussing this with me in a calm and polite manner, despite the fact that you feel that I am calling you wrong, etc.  I am sorry for expressing myself in clumsy ways that could easily be misinterpreted, I am seriously trying my best, sitting here with a dictionary since English is a foreign language to me.

628Report
Svansfall at 28 May 2006: 15:43

>>626
Yes, I've also met people who call themselves Zoophiles, who does not place the wellbeing of the animals before their own personal pleasure.  They're sadly all too common, and what they are doing is no better than any other kind of animal abuse.

Thankfully, I do know a lot of Zoophiles who truly does care about their animals.  There are for example several dogzoos who are deeply emotionally and sexually attached to their female dogs, but where the female dog is not interested in sexual stimulation at all, and those people accepting this, and living in celibacy out of respect for their animal.  For a lot of zoos, the animals' wellbeing are always the highest priority, keeping the zoos from travelling or doing other things they would have otherwise done.  But for us, to feel the happiness of sharing your life together with animals you feel a strong emotional attachment to, is seriously not surpassed by many things.

I am not trying to sound like a really great person for saying this, but we seriously do get pleasure from making sure the animals have a good life.  So, it's selfish in a sense, yeah?  Because we want to feel good, we make sure to give the animals a good life.

And yes, DragonFlame, I understand that you are not telling me that I am wrong, and I am also not feeling that you are wrong.

The fact that I feel that an action is wrong, does not mean that I feel that the person committing the action is wrong, even if the person feels the action to be right, and committing the action repeatedly.

So, I feel that eating meat is wrong.  But I do not feel that you (or GrapeTang) are wrong.

That is just how it works in life: Often, we do have to accept things that we feel are wrong.

629Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 28 May 2006: 18:48

>>627

It does not mean that you don't have credibility to criticise me, of course you do.  I said that it LESSENS your credibility, not that it removes your credibility.

Calling Mr. Hominem, Mr. A.D. Hominem.

Often, we do have to accept things that we feel are wrong.

Tolerate, yes, Accept, never.

630Report
at 29 May 2006: 02:39

Sadly I have to agree that there are horridd people out there that use animals without caring for them.
to address the above thought
if someone lies one time in front of a judge the judge considers the rest of their testamony tainted.
so wouldent it stand to reason that if somones credability is shown less` in one area then the same things that lead them to have reduced credability in one area would also lead them to having reduced credability in all areas ?
for the whole thread....
today at the dog park i watched one dog tell another no in a fairly obvious manner (no not with words). seems pretty simple to me, they can say yes and no providing one actually pays attention.

631Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 29 May 2006: 11:33

so wouldent it stand to reason that if somones credability is shown less` in one area then the same things that lead them to have reduced credability in one area would also lead them to having reduced credability in all areas ?

Nope. I don't know much about sewing, but just ask me about Photoshop's layer modes.

Or did I miss something/

632Report
at 29 May 2006: 15:41

>>Nope. I don't know much about sewing, but just ask me about >>Photoshop's layer modes.
>>Or did I miss something/

 (what follows is something of a generalization but still valid so not aimed at any one individual)


  you also wouldent be stating a opinion on sewing would you?
thereby avoiding that dreadfull little issue of attempting to apply apples to oranges.
 when one steps out and makes a statement upon something that can be shown to be deeply flawed then that raises honest questions abought the rest of their statements - 
    (to simplify that if someone is willing to make a false statement - either lack of research or just plain false then what is to say they bother to take the time or effort to make sure the rest of their statements are in any way correct.)
which is almost totazlly of topic but still valid when we are trying to so narrowly define how we interact in text and such as part of the conversation.

633Report
at 29 May 2006: 20:57

>>608
The idea of getting another dog or cat from the pound to sexualy satisfy your current pet doesn't work because most pounds require those who get the new pets to sign a waver saying that they will spay or neuter.  Often reputable kennels make you do the same.

The fact that you little or jay walk does not legitimize my vandalizm.  It just means that you have no ground to critizise me.  Havne't you ever heard the saying, "People in glass houses shoudln't through stones."?

634Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 29 May 2006: 22:32

>>632

(to simplify that if someone is willing to make a false statement - either lack of research or just plain false then what is to say they bother to take the time or effort to make sure the rest of their statements are in any way correct.)

You seem to be confusing a falsehood-something that isn't true-with active deceit. The speaker may, unless informed to the contrary, fully believe they're right. They may have formed their belief based on false statements or information which they did no t know were false.

>>633
Yes, I have, and it's wrong. Condemning the actions of others when you have performed same or worse yourself simply means that you are condemning the actions in yourself. If one says said actions are right, then one is a hypocrite, which does not necessarily invalidate your earlier statement.

It's called an "Ad Hominem", or attacking the arguer(instead of the argument), and it's probably the oldest Logical Fallacy in the book. It's still easily the most popular one.

635Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 30 May 2006: 01:18

>>633

What? By that token, since you just used a logical fallacy, you lost your grounds to criticize me because you just screwed up in the discussion. Jesus, it's not hard to figure out if you think about it. My character has no impact on the truth, unless it's some sort of actual investigation about MY character. Unless the discussion is about my character, bringing my character into it is diverting from the issue, impeding the path to the truth, and if nothing else, a dipshit thing to do.

>>627
I don't know what to say to you man. I can't agree with you though. for whatever reason you've decided to mesh the issue of having sex with animals with the issue of eating meat... but maybe I screwed up in reading what you said.

Just so I can get an idea where you're coming from,
You're saying that eating meat is a bad thing to do, and you know I eat meat, but you AREN'T saying I'm a bad person even though I do a bad thing. (???)
You're saying that having sex with animals is a good thing, and that it should be accepted.
You're saying that you want me to tolerate you and people like you.
You're saying you're willing to tolerate me and people like me.
You're saying that because I eat meat, my position and opinion is partially compromised.
You're saying that if I were a Vegan, that my opinion would be more relevant.

...
Am I off base with any of that, cause that's what I get from your post there.

Also, that anonymous guy that you seem to admire. You know he sees you in the same light as any zoophile right? He basically says that all zoophiles are animals rapists. The "vegan" is against you, so at the very least, consider it in that light. At least one person you recognize as being as credible as you says your wrong.

I am very happy that you are discussing this with me in a calm and polite manner, despite the fact that you feel that I am calling you wrong, etc.  I am sorry for expressing myself in clumsy ways that could easily be misinterpreted, I am seriously trying my best, sitting here with a dictionary since English is a foreign language to me.


I'm trying to stay civil, but it's seriously hard. Let's just say I'm not used to having someone who's double clicking his cow look over at me in disgust. You think it's wrong for me to eat meat, and I'm sorry that bothers you, but you seem pretty adamant about that. You don't accept it. You don't think it's okay. It BOTHERS you.

Some people are bothered about you being a zoophile. I think they're well within their rights to express that disgust if they feel like doing so, just as you're within your rights to express your disgust of meat eating. Now, there's a LOT of people who don't like zoophiles, so any zoophile is going to run into a LOT of disgust. Consider it part of the choices made... but don't expect things to change. People are still in the process of accepting homosexuality, in in those cases, it's adult, emancipated humans who are clearly articulating their consent. Your cows will never be able to explain to someone that what you're doing to them is okay. Never. At best, you can demonstrate in front of people, and I promise you that they won't see what you see. They'll see a cow, just sitting there, being jacked by some guy. They won't see consent. They won't see love. For what you want, you'd have to be able to SHOW them that you're right... prove it, if you will, to skeptics.

It's not difficult to convince people already on your side. It's easy to get sympathy from people who already have one foot in the door, or are in the same boat as you. Ordinary people (who do exsist, even in the furry fandom), will maybe accept your opinion on the matter, but not your actions. Even as you choose to sexually engage your cows, some people will choose to intervene, and since they're the ones with that power, they DON'T have to justify themselves to you for doing so. Maybe that's not "fair", but that's sort of too bad. This is the world we live in, and if you want it to change, you have to be willing to do something that's difficult.

You're making this difficult on yourself because you're trying two methods at once. You're trying to seem reasonable (arguing that what you're doing isn't that bad), and you're trying to make us think we're unreasonable (criticizing us for eating meat). You're not going to gain acceptance by doing this. Hell, you're probably going to Lose tolerance for trying to rub our noses in it like that.

Anyway, winding down.

If you want tolerance, then keep a low profile and don't let people find out about what you do. This, as far as I can tell, is what you SAY you want.

If you want acceptence, then you have to be prepared to actually change people's minds. Unsympathetic people. Convincing radicals of your radical ideas brings you no closer to acceptance. Hell, it probably makes it harder, since then you having even MORE to justify. If you want acceptance, you have to justify it. People aren't going to just accept something they don't like because you say so, and skeptical people are going to be hard to convince.  Acceptance is, as far as I can tell, what you actually want.

AND!

All of this is going to be much more difficult if you aren't willing to look at your own actions and accpet the possibility that you might be wrong.  Speaking for myself, when you said you won't change your mind no matter what, half of me just stopped considering what you say seriously and got pissed off instead, because as anyone who's ever been on the shit end of a religious lecture can tell you, it isn't a lot of fun to have some closed minded jackdaw harp on you about what you're doing when they aren't willing to listen.

636Report
at 30 May 2006: 01:41

>>635

Don't you understand?  If you are guilty of an offense, you have neither the moral grounds nor the authority to condemn, accuse or otherwise, for the same or similar offense lest you condemn yourself. 

Get rid of your own imperfections first, then you may condemn the actions of others.

Doesn't the word "hypocrit" mean anything to you people?

Eating meat causes animal stress, psycological harm, physical harm and death.  This is an undeniable fact.

Those who are against zoophilia and bestiality say that having sex with an animal also causes the animal stress as well as psycological and physical harm.

If anybody agrees that eating meat contributes to animal suffering and agrees that zoophilia does as well, you must first give up eating slaughtered animals before you start telling zoophiles they can't fuck fiddo.

Let's turn the litter-bug/vandal analogy around.  Does a litter-bug have the right to tell a vandal he can't litter?  Of course he doesn't; not until he reforms himself.  Otherwise, he may as well be pointing a finger at himself, because both the litterbug and the vandal are making the town ugly.

Logicaly, I cannot see how somebody could aprove of using an animal for food but disaprove of using an animal for sex unless you argue from a cultural norms standpoint vs. a philosophical standpoint.

637Report
at 30 May 2006: 06:27

>>636

I'm an arsonist. Don't light things on fire folks, cause that would be bad.

In all seriousness, none of what you said makes any sense. It doesn't matter if you're also accusing yourself, and it doesn't matter if you're a hypocrit, if it's wrong, it's still wrong whether or not the person doing it is credible, and if it's right, it's still right whether or not the person's credible.

The way you've constructed this means that if a vandal says that vandalism is wrong, then he's wrong, where as if someone who isn't a vandal says vandalism is wrong, he's right. That literally makes NO sense. It's practically a non sequitur.

638Report
Svansfall at 30 May 2006: 07:31

>>635

QUOTE: "for whatever reason you've decided to mesh the issue of having sex with animals with the issue of eating meat..."

Yes, because the issue is how we treat animals.  As I said before: The animal does not care about the reason for the way they are being treated, they care about being treated good, and to not have harm caused to them.   Wheter the person who treats them good/bad views them as productive income, or wheter the person who treats them good/bad views them as beautiful individuals to spend time together with.

(WARNING: the next two paragraphs include disturbing descriptions, that those of you who are vegetarian or vegans may wish to not read.)

If the animal is a cow in a dairy, she will have her calf taken away from her at a young age, and this is mentally harmful to the cow, as well as to the calf.  If the animal is to become meat, it will be sent on a stressful trip mashed together with other animals on their way to the slaughter house.  Often, there are cows who don't know each other being pressed tightly together, which is highly stressful in itself.  The trips may take endless hours because often they don't ship them to the closest slaughterhouse.  Many animals are often dead when they reach the slaughterhouse, because of the stresslevel getting too high and so they die painfully of heartfailure.  Having other cows die around them does not lessen the stress for the other animals still alive in the lorry.

If you've visited a slaughterhouse, seen what's going on there, and talked to some of the people who work there, you know that most often the routines aren't as 'clean' in reality as they are made out to be on legal papers.  The fact that they have to be productive and slaughter as many animals as possible in as short time as possible, makes sure that they're often being sloppy with the anaesthesia.  Most often the animals are fully conscious and fully aware of the physical pain and the mental agony as their throats are slit open.

Okay, I am sorry for those horrible descriptions, but since maybe not all of you have visited slaughterhouses in person, I had to describe some of what is actually going on.

The point is that using animals in production is harmful to the animals, mentally, as well as physically.   Sex with animals can also be harmful to the animals, mentally and physically.  The act of having sex with animals without care of the animal's wellbeing is just as bad as actively supporting the meat industry by eating meat, IMHO.

QUOTE: "You're saying that eating meat is a bad thing to do, and you know I eat meat, but you AREN'T saying I'm a bad person even though I do a bad thing. (???)"

Correct.  Most people I know IRL eat meat, and most of them are really good people.  The fact that they have chosen not to sit down to contemplate what's going on in the slaughterhouses, and drawn the connection between this and what's on their plate, does not necessarily make them bad people.  Good people can do bad deeds, and does do bad deeds.  I am doing bad deeds also, but I still consider myself at least a fairly good person, although not as good person as some other people I know.   From your sensible manner of discussion, it seems to me that you're a good person also.

QUOTE: "You're saying that having sex with animals is a good thing, and that it should be accepted."

I believe that sex with animals is wrong if the animals' wellbeing isn't highest priority for the person engaging in sex with the animal.  I believe that sex with animals is wrong if the animal is physically or mentally hurt, if the animal gets stressed or uncomfortable by the act.   This should not be accepted.

I believe that sex with animals is good in the cases when the animal is actively enjoying it, when the animal is desiring the sexual stimulation, and when the animal does not suffer physically or mentally from the experience.  I feel that this should be accepted.

QUOTE: "You're saying that you want me to tolerate you and people like you.
You're saying you're willing to tolerate me and people like me."

Correct.

QUOTE: "You're saying that because I eat meat, my position and opinion is partially compromised.
You're saying that if I were a Vegan, that my opinion would be more relevant."

I know I expressed myself clumsily in this matter.  Your opinion is relevant in itself, but I just don't fully understand where you are coming from.  I find it very strange how someone who is actively supporting harmful acts to animals (by supporting meat industry), can disapprove of acts to animals, which are harmless and gives pleasure to the animals.  I do not fully understand the logic between this connection.

QUOTE: "Also, that anonymous guy that you seem to admire. You know he sees you in the same light as any zoophile right? He basically says that all zoophiles are animals rapists. The "vegan" is against you, so at the very least, consider it in that light. At least one person you recognize as being as credible as you says your wrong."

Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. showed a willingness, to take in information and carefully consider it, that I admire.  He was met with arguments from people who completely disregarded his own valid points, and he still tried patiently to discuss with those people.

I am also against some people who are bestialists, or who call themselves zoophiles.  I feel it is wrong to engage in sex with animals without treating the animal with respect.  It is up to Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. what he believes.  He has the right to believe anything he wishes.  Even if he does believe that I am an animal rapist, I know that I am not, and I still value him as being a good individual on this planet, because he cares for the wellbeing of animals.  I believe that if he knew me IRL, he would not consider me an animal rapist.  Maybe I believe wrong, but that is still what I believe.

639Report
Svansfall at 30 May 2006: 07:32

>>635
(Had to split my reply up, it was too large.)

QUOTE:  "I'm trying to stay civil, but it's seriously hard. Let's just say I'm not used to having someone who's double clicking his cow look over at me in disgust. You think it's wrong for me to eat meat, and I'm sorry that bothers you, but you seem pretty adamant about that. You don't accept it. You don't think it's okay. It BOTHERS you."

Yes, you're fully correct that it bothers me a lot, more than a lot.  But I am hoping I managed to explain properly above that it is the act that I am against, not the people committing the act.  If people couldn't get along with people who had different views, then nobody could get along in this world.  I don't think many people have ever met someone who agreed 100% upon everything.

QUOTE:  "Some people are bothered about you being a zoophile. I think they're well within their rights to express that disgust if they feel like doing so, just as you're within your rights to express your disgust of meat eating. Now, there's a LOT of people who don't like zoophiles, so any zoophile is going to run into a LOT of disgust."

Yes, we have freedom of speech, and everyone are entitled to say what they feel like.  But with every right comes the need for using the right responsibly.  I would prefer if people used this freedom of speech a little sensibly, with care about other people's feelings.  I seriously usually shut up completely about my feelings of meat-eating, because I feel it is unnecessary for me to make people uncomfortable.

Yes, I did bring it up right here, right now, in this discussion, but it is because I feel it is an essential valid and necessary point to make in this discussion.  I don't go and rub my zoophilia in the faces of people around me either, unless asked about it.

To me, it is no longer-lasting harm if someone tells me I am disgusting or an animal rapist. I feel sad for a moment, and I feel that it is not right for them to call me that, but it doesn't creep into my mind to make me bothered for any longer periods of times.  But as I say in post 603, some young people who are zoophiles are already sensitive and I believe if they get too much hostility and intolerance showed towards them, that it can lead to long-lasting depressions or possibly harm that might last the rest of their lives.

Again, there are acts that are disgusting, but that does not make the people who commit the acts disgusting.  So, because I am disgusted with the thought of people going to the toilet, should I be disgusted with them for that?    And because someone is disgusted by me giving pleasure to my cows, should you be disgusted with me for that?

I fully and wholly understand that the very thought is revolting to people who are not sexually attracted to animals.  I am disgusted by every single sexual act that does not turn me on, actively repulsed.  But as long as no one is harmed, I do not care what others are turned on by.  It does not make them disgusting in my eyes, even if the act itself may be disgusting.  It's when someone is coming to harm by the sexual act that I feel it is wrong, no matter what sexual act it is.

So, I completely understand, respect, and accept that people are disgusted by what I do.  But I still feel people should choose their words carefully and sensibly, and not verbally assault people who may or may not be sensitive to the insults.

QUOTE: "All of this is going to be much more difficult if you aren't willing to look at your own actions and accpet the possibility that you might be wrong.  Speaking for myself, when you said you won't change your mind no matter what, half of me just stopped considering what you say seriously and got pissed off instead, because as anyone who's ever been on the shit end of a religious lecture can tell you, it isn't a lot of fun to have some closed minded jackdaw harp on you about what you're doing when they aren't willing to listen."

When I was a teenager and became sexually mature, I realized that I was attracted to animals.  Of course this made me think and carefully consider things, especially topics of what is right and what is wrong.  I took courses in Philosophy and Psychology, just to read up on general things that could be helpful in my own striving to find out what is right and what is wrong.  I hade friends who were interested in the same subjects, and we would have long discussions of what was ethical and not.

When I grew older, I "came out of the closest" to several close friends.  Three of them tolerated it, the rest of them (about ten or so) accepted it, and most of them were intrested and wanted to discuss it with me.  But in 1996 I found other people who were also zoophiles on the Internet, before that I had thought I was the only one in the world who were emotionally and physically attracted to animals.  I was aware of animal porn existing, so I knew that people thought it to be arousing as a kink, but I seriously thought I was the only one in the world who felt the way I do.

So after 1996 I didn't come out to more people around me, but instead made RL friends who were also zoophiles.  The fact that some people who claim to be zoophiles still treat their animals without respect gives us reasons to discuss and ponder what is right and what is wrong on a regular basis even now, even after having long since come to terms with our sexuality and emotions for animals.

Actually, just a few days ago, when I was visiting one of my zoophile friends, I showed him some of this discussion here on Fchan, and as result, him and me sat and spontaneously discussed morality of bestiality for a few hours.

So, believe me, I have looked at my actions, more than carefully, I have extensively considered wheter what I am doing is right or wrong.  I have considered the possibility that what I am doing might be wrong.  It has taken more than half of my life, but I have seriously thought about all of it, and I have reached the conclusion that I am not wrong.  What more can you ask of me?  I think about it every day, and when you ask me the question if I believe I am wrong or not, and I answer that I know that I am right, because I know I have carefully and slowly thought about it for so long. I am sorry if that isn't enough.

I see that the animals are happy, I see that they enjoy what I do, I see that no one is coming to harm.  I reach the conclusion that it is right for me to make them happy.  I carefully consider most things I do in everyday life, and I do things that I realize are not good, so I am actively trying to change those things.  But since I consider what I am doing with the animals on a regular basis, and reach the conclusion that it is not wrong, why should I change it?  I'll change it if I realize it is bad of me to do it.  But so far I know I am right.

When I was a teenager, I did a lot of general things that I would condemn now.  Why don't I do those things now?  Because I have carefully considered everything I do, and trying to change what I feel I am doing wrong.  You are right that one should never stop to think about ones own actions and beliefs.  Everyone should question their own actions and opinions on a regular basis.

Are you still upset at me when I say that I know it is right for me to make the animals happy?

640Report
Svansfall at 30 May 2006: 07:51

Oh, and since this point in post 627 has been overlooked, can someone answer it to me?

But please explain to me, what is NOT good about making someone feel pleasure, while making sure that they don't get any physical or mental harm?

Is there any part of giving harmless pleasure that is not good?

641Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 30 May 2006: 10:06

>>636

Let's turn the litter-bug/vandal analogy around.  Does a litter-bug have the right to tell a vandal he can't litter?  Of course he doesn't; not until he reforms himself.  Otherwise, he may as well be pointing a finger at himself, because both the litterbug and the vandal are making the town ugly.

That would be exactly my point. Condemning actions in others doesn't mean you aren't condemning them in oneself.

Those who are against zoophilia and bestiality say that having sex with an animal also causes the animal stress as well as psycological and physical harm.

*Undue* stress and harm.

Logicaly, I cannot see how somebody could aprove of using an animal for food but disaprove of using an animal for sex unless you argue from a cultural norms standpoint vs. a philosophical standpoint.

Please, explain the correlation between food and simple pleasure. We can survive without sex, but not food. And test-tube hamburgers are still some way off.

Your "logic" seems to consist of attacking your *opponent*, rather than their *claims*. That is not how to debate. As said by someone else; unless the person's character is what's under discussion, it's not relevant. You cannot discount a statement based on who's saying it.

642Report (sage)
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 30 May 2006: 10:13

>>640
I asked back in >>610 ; how do you know it's pleasure?

643Report
DragonFlame at 30 May 2006: 10:50

>>632
I have to agree with Juberu’s statement in 634. To add to it a bit, even if the person in question has knowingly given false information, that in no way means that they will do it in the future. If for some reason they continue to give false information well then you can do the obvious thing, prove them wrong. But until you find something false about it give them the benefit of the doubt.

>>636
In what fucked up world do you come from? In what way does Eating Meat really have anything to do with Having Sex With Animals. You talk about Animals suffering if you eat meat so why do anti beasts criticise pro beast when they do the same. The answer is because Anti Beasts have more than one reason for condemning bestiality. And the fact that you are using an argument that has been brought up by a Pro Beast supporter just proves that you have not been reading the posts. In no way have they used the “But the Animal is distressed when you have sex with it” argument.

>>637
Well said.

>>638
You are coming close to losing your credibility and I will be sorry to see it happen. Like I have said before do not make the comparison of Sex and Food it will not work in your favour. People will argue that you are using the excuse of people eating meat for you to have sex with animals. In my opinion that is not true but if you continue down this path you better be prepared for the consequences. You can say that you don’t mentally or physically harm your animals but there is no way for you to prove this to anyone. I will give you the benefit of the doubt but most people wont. Remember that it is not only the harm caused to the animal that they have a problem with. It could be religious or cultural beliefs or disgust or many other arguments that have been brought up.
Besides this is the morality of bestiality not the morality of eating meat. It would be in your best interest to get back on track.
This is just some friendly advice.

644Report
Svansfall at 30 May 2006: 13:44

>>642

How do I know it is pleasure?

Well, it helps if you know the bovine body language, which can be studied easily if you spend all your days interracting with bovines for a few decades.  Actually, you can learn the hints of it in just a few days, but to learn all the minor details of it, takes anything from months to years.

If you don't feel like doing spending all this time with cows, pick up the books on animal behaviour and animal body language that the agricultural colleges use for teaching the farmer-students how to best interract with the animals.  I have several books on this subject, but sadly none of them exist in English, so I cannot recommend any specific books.  But I am sure that agricultural colleges must have those kind of books in the US, just like they do in my country.  It's vital to every farmer to know the body language of their animals.

But even if you have not studied their body language, some things are rather easy to tell, even though you're going to miss the subtle messages.

I'll tell you the easy things, although I know I've already mentioned those things before.  One way they show that they find your touch pleasant, is that they lean themselves heavily against you, trying to get you to touch them more.  The more they enjoy something, the more they relax... they lower their head a bit, they close their eyes completely or slightly.  They exhale deeply, just like I am sure you've witnessed dogs do soon after they've curled up to relax somewhere.   If there is a sexual touch, and they want more, they will raise their tail high up and to the side.

An easy way to tell that they find things pleasurable, is to stop and walk away from them, in the middle of touching them.   If they come back after you, and urgently press themselves up against you, they do not want you to stop.   If they don't bother coming after you, they didn't enjoy it.  But this is really only needed if you are novice to their body language, which you really shouldn't be if you want to spend time with animals.  I still have to walk away sometimes, and that is only because I have things to do and I simply will not have the time to spend forever with the cows, as much as I would love to.   So, in this way, I can always confirm if they were indeed enjoying it or not.

It is really difficult to walk away from a cow who keeps trying to get you to touch her.

If they don't get pleasure from something, they will not relax.  They will not close their eyes and lower their head.  They will not raise their tail, they will not lean into you.  They'll start grazing or just walk away.

Does this answer your question for how I know it is pleasure?

645Report
Svansfall at 30 May 2006: 14:06

>>643

So, what you are saying is that the wellbeing of the animals is not the issue that those against zoophilia is after?  Then why do they raise those questions?

I am seriously finding it very confusing that people who don't care about the wellbeing of animals, are questioning the wellbeing of the animals in a zoophiliac relationship.

Why is it so difficult to accept that some people want to treat animals good?

But sure, since this discussion is suddenly not about the wellbeing of animals, we can leave that, even though it saddens me, because that is what I care about the most.

As for people who have religious, cultural or disgust as a reason of being against zoophilia.  I totally respect their reasons for feeling that it is wrong, but they should also tolerate those that do not share their religion, culture or feelings of disgust, and respect them.

646Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 30 May 2006: 16:17

>>644

It is really difficult to walk away from a cow who keeps trying to get you to touch her.

But even if you have not studied their body language, some things are rather easy to tell, even though you're going to miss the subtle messages.

I'll take your word for it.
Seriously, dude, that sounds a little creepy, even within the context of this debate.

What makes you think that they know sex for sex? It may be that all they can understand is that one's doing something to give them pleasure, and you can't do it if you're not there. So they want you to stay. How would a cow understand the concept of masturbation, anyway?

647Report
at 30 May 2006: 17:59

>>637

Oh geez, you people still don't get it.  I'm not debating the rightness or wrongess of something.  That is completly out of the discussion.  What I'm talking about is credibility and the right to point figers.  That is different than absolute judgments, rationalizations or justifications.

Basicly, what I am saying is, law abiding citizens and honorable cops have a right to acuse, law breaking criminals do not.  How hard is that to understand?

648Report
at 30 May 2006: 18:27

>>646
"How would a cow understand the concept of masturbation, anyway?"

Simple!  It's called "Beef Strok'noff" in Eastern Europe, but here in the States, we call it "Beef Jerkey".

649Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 30 May 2006: 21:37

>>647
You seem to be confusing "understanding" with "agreement".

If a criminal stole something, and was later robbed of their legitimately obtained possesions, reported it to the police, and later confessed to the original crime, would that mean that they can't press charges?

Credibilty refers to the believability of a statement or the person making it. It has nothing, oddly enough, to do with the validity of the statement.

>>648
Win.

650Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 30 May 2006: 21:53

>>647

Aw for christ's sake man, grow up.

>>638

I'll take a crack at this.

Okay, I am sorry for those horrible descriptions, but since maybe not all of you have visited slaughterhouses in person, I had to describe some of what is actually going on.


Aw christ, now I've got to admit that my credibility is even "lower" in your opinion, but I worked at a meat packing plant just getting out of highschool. (Lakeside, Brooks Alberta, for those of you who think I'm just saying that). I wasn't a day shifter, I did the night stuff... and the place was a nightmare. The rendering trap was especially gross... but you know what, that was the aftermath.

Heavy heavy heavy regulations were the key there. Animals were killed instantly with a bolt through the brain, not drugged and having their throats slit. Animals are stored in facilities that are inspected weekly to make sure storage conditions are humane. No cows arrived dead, and if they did, the driver would be charged, the farmer could be charged (if he was at fault), and we wouldn't do business with them again (but again, it never came up). When being transported, there's guidelines and regulations to make sure the cows don't overheat, suffocate, get battered around, etc.

The grisly images you portray just don't happen where I come from. Where the hell do you live? What you described is just medieval.

I know I expressed myself clumsily in this matter.  Your opinion is relevant in itself, but I just don't fully understand where you are coming from.  I find it very strange how someone who is actively supporting harmful acts to animals (by supporting meat industry), can disapprove of acts to animals, which are harmless and gives pleasure to the animals.  I do not fully understand the logic between this connection.


Slow down there chief. I'm here because you dragged meat eating into it. I didn't disapprove of what you did with your animals. I didn't really care to tell you the truth. I came into this because you started hiding behind the "It's not as bad as people who eat meat" defense, which targets me, and probably a whole lot of other neutrals in this.

I didn't think you were morally wrong for doing it. I just don't think you're morally right, and it bugs me that you play the "meat is murder" card.

Yes, you're fully correct that it bothers me a lot, more than a lot.  But I am hoping I managed to explain properly above that it is the act that I am against, not the people committing the act.  If people couldn't get along with people who had different views, then nobody could get along in this world.  I don't think many people have ever met someone who agreed 100% upon everything.


What? I don't get along with people who do things that I think are bad. Hell, I've protested a couple of times, I've fought a bully, I've reported crimes, I've shunned people. If I think what you're doing is bad, I try to stop you. It's sort of the responsible thing to do. I can't imagine just sitting there and looking away if someone was doing something I truly had a problem with.  Maybe if it was just annoying... but even then I tend to say things.

I don't think what you're doing is that big a deal, but others DO, and that's why they get in your face about it. They aren't just "sort of annoyed" or "a little disgusted". Think about it. For whatever reason, a lot of people think you should go to jail for what you do. That says to me that their convictions are pretty strong. The fact that some of them are animal rights activists can't make things easy either...

To me, it is no longer-lasting harm if someone tells me I am disgusting or an animal rapist. I feel sad for a moment, and I feel that it is not right for them to call me that, but it doesn't creep into my mind to make me bothered for any longer periods of times.  But as I say in post 603, some young people who are zoophiles are already sensitive and I believe if they get too much hostility and intolerance showed towards them, that it can lead to long-lasting depressions or possibly harm that might last the rest of their lives.


Again man, I seriously doubt these people are just hating on zoophiles just to hear themselves talk. They have reasons for what they think. If I were to identify my biggest problem with it (explaining why I'm neutral at best rather than a supporter), I would quote some guy from way earlier in this thread. "Why sex?" You can bring pleasure to animals without touching their genitals, so I don't think it's on the animal's behalf that you're doing that. It's an unreasonable jump for a lot of us to go between petting and masturbation.

I don't think you're doing it because the animal likes it, I think you're doing it because YOU like it. The animal liking it is just a good excuse for you... but that's my opinion, and even though I think that, I don't think it's a big deal... not enough to want terrible things to happen to you. I don't think you're a victim though. You know what you're doing, and you know people are against it, some of them violently. Old and young zoos are just going to have to put up with that unless you actually step up to the task of explaining it seriously.

And since you play the meat eater card... you'd also be explaining it to people who make their livlihood off of what you describe as torture. The entire meat industry, including shipping, testing, preparing and cooking, selling... how many million people would lose their jobs if you got your way?  How many people would be much less happy?

From where I'm sitting, all the anti-zoos are asking you is to give up sex with cows. I can't see that ruining your life like giving up meat would ruin so many others.

Crap, I'm babbling.

651Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 30 May 2006: 21:54

Message too long? Cut and paste will fix that...

So, believe me, I have looked at my actions, more than carefully, I have extensively considered wheter what I am doing is right or wrong.  I have considered the possibility that what I am doing might be wrong.  It has taken more than half of my life, but I have seriously thought about all of it, and I have reached the conclusion that I am not wrong.  What more can you ask of me?  I think about it every day, and when you ask me the question if I believe I am wrong or not, and I answer that I know that I am right, because I know I have carefully and slowly thought about it for so long. I am sorry if that isn't enough.


Well... it's enough that I'm willing to discuss things with you, but not with much of an open mind. "You're not listening to me, so why should I listen to you" would be the reaction, which is shitty, I know, but again, it's like talking to a really religious guy.  He's convinced you're wrong, because they KNOW they're right... and it's really, really annoying.

I mean, take a look man. Most of the time, people who disagree with you have disagreed with the premise od the questions you keep asking... and you respond by saying "I know I'm right". Well, how can they answer:

what is NOT good about making someone feel pleasure, while making sure that they don't get any physical or mental harm?


if you won't listen when they answer?  Maybe they aren't complete hedonists. Maybe they think there's more to life than "feels good" and "doesn't feel good", and they think that what you're doing is wrong DESPITE the pleasure it brings. Maybe they don't believe you when you say you're bringing pleasure.

I'm not them, but I'll take a crack at your question.
Because it's unnecessary, and it MIGHT be wrong. To survive, people need to eat, and animals are edible. They eat each other, we eat them, and every now and then, they eat us. To survive, people need to have sex with each other, or the reign of humanity will come to a rather abrupt end.

Now, you;ve gone on and on about how eating meat isn't very nice... and though you ignore a TON of important details while making this moral claim, the bottom line is yeah, it's not exaclty friendly, especially from the animal's perspective I'd imagine. Everything tries to survive, so by that token, even plants don't want to be eaten... but again, there are a LOT of details you're just glosssing over when stating its morality as an absolute.

Sex... take a look around man. Sex isn't the cute, romantic business that a lot of people want to believe it is. Lives are ruined all the time by irresponsable, selfish sex. Hard feelings form, feelings are manipulated, unwanted pregnancy, diseases, deviant behaviour that can, and has escalated into cases of rape and molestation. You aren't allowed to just go out and grab women by the genitals until you find one that likes it. You'd be thrown in prison, or possibly killed if you did it in front of certain people.

Sex isn't just innocent pleasure. If nothing else, we MAKE it that way.

But, sex is necessary to procreate, so of course, it's tolerated, accepted, and encouraged... and at the same time, it's firmly controlled, and if you break the rules, you're punished, sometimes brutally.

Sex with animals? Yeeeeah... you don't need to do that, you just want to... and you're doing it even though it's extremely widely unnaccepted, even openly hated, and often illegal, so there's nothing noble going on there. You're a harmless deviant... but some people don't see it that way. Some people abviously think you're a dangerous, or at least disturbed deviant, and, it seems to me, are largely uncool with the idea that you've somehow managed to see consent where they can't see it.

Now, a lot of people in this thread on the zoo side are just assholes who say "If you can't see it, you're just stupid and closed minded".  Can't imagine why they haven't managed to convince anyone...

You... you seem to be saying "Nope, you're wrong: this is how it is, and I know this, because I know this, and all these like-minded people know this."

Now, I don't blame you for that part... because, basically, unless you have a cow-to-english translator hidden away, that's all you can have. Your cow can't talk, so you have to speak for the cow... but I can't see that ever working to convince anyone. It wouldn't make sense if they WERE convinced based on that.

So you can't prove to them that there's consent... which means that they think you're raping those cows. So in other words, it isn't about how your cow feels, because the cow can't argue for herself. It's about you, and other zoos, and what you're doing, and why... and again, why sex? (Just because the cow raises its tail doesn't mean you have to go there, and if you don;t go there, they won't come to expect it).

Are you still upset at me when I say that I know it is right for me to make the animals happy?


No, I'm upset with you because you implied that I have less credibility because I eat meat.

So, what you are saying is that the wellbeing of the animals is not the issue that those against zoophilia is after?  Then why do they raise those questions?


I am seriously finding it very confusing that people who don't care about the wellbeing of animals, are questioning the wellbeing of the animals in a zoophiliac relationship.


Why is it so difficult to accept that some people want to treat animals good?


But sure, since this discussion is suddenly not about the wellbeing of animals, we can leave that, even though it saddens me, because that is what I care about the most.


Seriously... you can eat meat and discuss bestiality as a moral issue. They aren't actually linked, again, unless the reason you're having sex with animals is BECAUSE people eat meat. Otherwise, you're mixing the issues, and it's fugging frustrating when you imply that by eating meat, I have to accept zoophiles because they aren't as bad as me.

>>648
Awesome! XD

652Report
at 31 May 2006: 00:13

for the person who suggested eating meat is a requirment for human survival, let me introduce you to a little thing called vegan and or vegatarianism .
try to speak of things that are within your range of true expertise. becuase by using that as a way of example why  slaughtering an animal  with a nail into its brain (the prefered method last i heard and the way the farmers where i grew up did because a nail cost less than a bullet) was better than having sex, it well kinda failed miserably.
we no more need meat than a rock needs sunlight.

653Report
Svansfall at 31 May 2006: 04:07

>>646

Thanks Juberu.

What makes me think that they know sex for sex?   Well, I am sure they are unaware that sex might lead to becoming pregnant.  However, nature's way of making sure to get mammals to procreate is to make them feel pleasure from the sexual act.  Because of this, the genitals of a mammal are erogenous zones.  So, those erogenous areas are extra sensitive to touch, and when the animal is "in the mood" to be touched in those erogenous areas, the pleasure they express is a more intense kind of pleasure, compared to the pleasure they show when having their backs scritched, etc.

Cows masturbate, but not as often as mares do.  They tend to mostly do it when they are in heat, and they do this by pressing themselves back against a tree-trunk or similar, and they rub their genitals back and forth against the tree.  Often, it doesn't ease their need fully, which leaves them frustrated and antsy.

So... I don't know that they know sex for sex.  But I know that the sexual pleasure they feel is a more intense pleasure than the non-sexual pleasure they feel, as well as that when they are in heat, they do feel the need to be stimulated there.

As I mentioned somewhere before, some cows prefer to have their genitals stimulated even if they are not in heat, and those are generally the cows I stimulate when they are in heat as well.

654Report
Svansfall at 31 May 2006: 04:10

>>650
Okay, I admit it was 15 years ago since I last visited a slaughterhouse.  Not exactly medieval, but still not recent.  I am sure that some slaughterhouses have good routines and heavy regulations, but I think this varies greatly from one place to another.  My country has extremely heavy regulations for how animals are to be treated, but things are still not satisfactory in my opinion.  We had even more harsh rules before, but since my country joined the EU, the EU forced us to change the rules to become less harsh, in order to make the competition more equal between the countries in the EU.  I live in Sweden, and everyone here likes to think we're so extremely humane to the animals here, believing that we're treating the animals better than they are in other countries.  When I speak to people in other countries, everyone believes the same about their own country.  The general opinion in all countries are: "Buy meat from your own country - then you know the animals have been treated better than in your neighbouring country."

I think it is best to buy locally produced meat anyway, not for the above mentioned reason, but because the long transports are really bad for the animals.  And I do believe that the grisly images you portray happen a bit of everywhere, in every country, because there are always companies who manage to slip away from under the authorities' scrutinizing gaze.

QUOTE: "What? I don't get along with people who do things that I think are bad. Hell, I've protested a couple of times, I've fought a bully, I've reported crimes, I've shunned people. If I think what you're doing is bad, I try to stop you. It's sort of the responsible thing to do. I can't imagine just sitting there and looking away if someone was doing something I truly had a problem with.  Maybe if it was just annoying... but even then I tend to say things."

Okay, sure, I have reported crimes also, but as for people who do things I don't agree with, I prefer to have a calm discussion with them, or ignore it and leave them to it.  With all the strange religious cults that exist, there are so many people in this world that would find a reason for finding anything at all bad.  Wouldn't it be horribly annoying if everyone would constantly confront everyone about everything they thought was bad?

If you shared my opinion that eating meat was bad, would you truly confront everyone about it?   Or would you do like me, give up, and resign with the knowledge that it seems a futile attempt to get people to see things the way you do?

But if I would be unable to get along with people who ate meat, then I would be terribly lonely.  Nothing good could come from that.

QUOTE: "For whatever reason, a lot of people think you should go to jail for what you do. That says to me that their convictions are pretty strong. The fact that some of them are animal rights activists can't make things easy either..."

I think a lot of those people's anger towards zoophilia is that they think we don't care about the animals, and they have not seen us interract with our animals.  If they would be able to get to know us in person, and see how the animals are doing, they could see for themselves that the animals are very happy to be in our company.

If I hadn't been a zoophile, and if I didn't know anything about how zoophiles interract with their animals, I think there is a great possibility that I would have been against it also, in the same way that I now am against all the irresponsible people who have sex with their animals without caring of the animal's wellbeing.

So, if I hadn't been a zoophile myself, I might not have known that there were responsible and caring zoophiles.  I might have thought that everyone who had sex with animals were not caring about what the animal wants or needs.

The sad thing is that the caring zoophiles are almost invisible to the public. Few of us put up personal ads to get to know others, most people are happy with their current human friends, and are already living happily with our animals.  Few caring zoophiles are interested in porn, and does not produce pictures or movies of their interraction with animals.  We feel that such things belong in private, not for everyone to see.

The people who put up personal ads on the net, like: "Does anyone have a female dog I can screw?", or "I have a male dog, is there a sexy young girl who wants to visit me, so I can watch my dog screw you?"

I mean, this seriously disgusts me and revolts me, and I think it is utterly wrong.  So, if I believed everyone who were into animals were like this, I would be against it also.

But it compares easily to heterosexual relationships.  There are rape and abuse among heterosexuals.  That doesn't mean that every heterosexual person would feel it is right to rape and abuse their partners.  It's the exact same thing with those who are attracted to animals.

655Report
Svansfall at 31 May 2006: 04:12

>>650

part 2.

QUOTE: "If I were to identify my biggest problem with it (explaining why I'm neutral at best rather than a supporter), I would quote some guy from way earlier in this thread. "Why sex?" You can bring pleasure to animals without touching their genitals, so I don't think it's on the animal's behalf that you're doing that. It's an unreasonable jump for a lot of us to go between petting and masturbation."

There are several reasons why we give sexual pleasure to the animals, as well as non-sexual pleasure.  One reason is that we are sexually attracted to the animals, we get aroused by giving them sexual stimulation.  Another reason is that the sexual pleasure the animal feels is a more urgent, more intense kind of pleasure, than what the non-sexual pleasure is.  As I just explained above in my reply to Juberu, the animal clearly express more pleasure from the sexual stimulation, than from the non-sexual stimulation.

When they are in heat, the animals are actively looking for sexual relief, trying their best to rub their genitals against trees, etc.  But a tree does not sufficiently stimulate them the way my fingers and hand can do.  Their restless, annoyed and antsy behaviour ceases after they have been stimulated.

QUOTE: "I don't think you're doing it because the animal likes it, I think you're doing it because YOU like it. The animal liking it is just a good excuse for you... but that's my opinion, and even though I think that, I don't think it's a big deal."

Of course I am doing it because I like to do it.  But I see that it gives pleasure to both her and me at the same time, and that is the reason why I like it.   If I was doing something for my own pleasure, that did not bring pleasure to the cow at the same time, I would feel terribly disgusted with myself, and I would never do it again.  I have done that, BTW...  when I was a teenager, I was with a cow, who did not find it enjoyable, and I did carress her genitals.

She did not find it unpleasant, but she clearly showed indifference.  She was grazing at the time, not raising her tail to show that she liked it, but she didn't lower her tail to stop me either.  She didn't walk away from me, like they do when they find something unpleasant, but she didn't lean into me either.

I have felt bad for doing this, and I have promised myself to never do it again.  Even though she tolerated my touch, I still feel very uncomfortable about it.  So, I don't get pleasure, if I don't give pleasure at the same time.

Isn't this the same with most heterosexual people?  Don't you also require the knowledge that your partner enjoy the sex, in order for you to enjoy it also?  Or do you enjoy it despite knowing that your partner is indifferent and would rather just sleep?

QUOTE: "From where I'm sitting, all the anti-zoos are asking you is to give up sex with cows. I can't see that ruining your life like giving up meat would ruin so many others."

Me giving up sex with cows, would ruin my life in the same way that it would for a heterosexual man to give up sex with women.  I believe all the people in the meat industry could work in the plant industry instead, so I don't think any jobs or income would be lost.

QUOTE: "Well... it's enough that I'm willing to discuss things with you, but not with much of an open mind. "You're not listening to me, so why should I listen to you" would be the reaction, which is shitty, I know, but again, it's like talking to a really religious guy.  He's convinced you're wrong, because they KNOW they're right... and it's really, really annoying."

Yes, I see it is a dilemma.  But I am listening to you, and I am contemplating what you're saying.  I am not feeling that "I am right because I am right".  I am feeling that I am right because I have carefully pondered everything I can think of, multiple times over a long period of time, and changed my views when I thought I was wrong, until I reached the conclusion that I am right.

So when someone says, for example: "Animals cannot show that they feel pleasure.", I feel I have to say that I know they can.  It seems some people who posted earlier in this thread, has very limited experience in interracting with animals, which is one problem why it is difficult to explain something to someone who doesn't know something from experience, and they have chosen to believe something that they would need to re-evaluate once they had had more experience in the matter.

656Report
Svansfall at 31 May 2006: 04:12

>>650
Part 3.
On the question of what could be wrong with giving pleasure.

QUOTE: "Maybe they aren't complete hedonists. Maybe they think there's more to life than "feels good" and "doesn't feel good", and they think that what you're doing is wrong DESPITE the pleasure it brings. Maybe they don't believe you when you say you're bringing pleasure."

Yes, to me, there are more to life than what feels good and what doesn't feel good.  But I am pretty sure that the cows mainly care about this.  You're right that some people maybe not believe me when I say I am bringing pleasure.  There's no way they can believe me unless they watch someone give pleasure to an animal whose body language they can understand.

QUOTE: "Because it's unnecessary, and it MIGHT be wrong. To survive, people need to eat, and animals are edible. They eat each other, we eat them, and every now and then, they eat us. To survive, people need to have sex with each other, or the reign of humanity will come to a rather abrupt end."

Yes, I agree it is unnecessary to give pleasure. I don't have to give the cows stimulation when they desire it.  But they are happy that I am doing it, and I am happy that I am doing it.  As for it MIGHT be wrong, there are so many things in this world that are fully accepted that also MIGHT be wrong.  If I start mentioning some, some people would say that I am going off-topic, but I am sure most of you can think of a few things that we all do every day that stand a fair chance of being wrong if looked closely at.

I am sure that it is not wrong as long as it does not harm anyone, either on a long-term or a short-term basis.

QUOTE: "Now, you;ve gone on and on about how eating meat isn't very nice... and though you ignore a TON of important details while making this moral claim, the bottom line is yeah, it's not exaclty friendly, especially from the animal's perspective I'd imagine."

I don't see which important details I am missing out on.  But, I will not focus on the meat-eating issue, since I've already spoken so much of it, and you already know where I am standing on this.

QUOTE: "Sex... take a look around man. Sex isn't the cute, romantic business that a lot of people want to believe it is. Lives are ruined all the time by irresponsable, selfish sex. Hard feelings form, feelings are manipulated, unwanted pregnancy, diseases, deviant behaviour that can, and has escalated into cases of rape and molestation. You aren't allowed to just go out and grab women by the genitals until you find one that likes it. You'd be thrown in prison, or possibly killed if you did it in front of certain people.

Sex isn't just innocent pleasure. If nothing else, we MAKE it that way."

We humans can hopefully control our urges to try and make the best out of the sex.  Yes, there is a lot of truly ugly and disturbing things going on, all because of sex.  But I seriously believe that if we want to, we can make sex into innocent pleasure, and I know a lot of people who do.  Sex was meant for procreation, but unless you are a fundamental catholic, you can use sex for giving and getting pleasure.

QUOTE: "Sex with animals? Yeeeeah... you don't need to do that, you just want to... and you're doing it even though it's extremely widely unnaccepted, even openly hated, and often illegal, so there's nothing noble going on there. You're a harmless deviant... but some people don't see it that way. Some people abviously think you're a dangerous, or at least disturbed deviant, and, it seems to me, are largely uncool with the idea that you've somehow managed to see consent where they can't see it."

Yeah, I don't need to do it.  I can choose to live in celibacy for the rest of my life.  But I feel my life will lack essential quality if I have to remain in celibacy.

QUOTE: "You... you seem to be saying "Nope, you're wrong: this is how it is, and I know this, because I know this, and all these like-minded people know this.""

QUOTE: "Now, I don't blame you for that part... because, basically, unless you have a cow-to-english translator hidden away, that's all you can have. Your cow can't talk, so you have to speak for the cow... but I can't see that ever working to convince anyone. It wouldn't make sense if they WERE convinced based on that."

Yes, that is my dilemma.  The only way for people to find out, is to find out by themselves, and actively, with an open mind study animals interracting with each other, and interracting with humans.  So, my words of my experiences are the only thing I have to back up my claims.

QUOTE: "So you can't prove to them that there's consent... which means that they think you're raping those cows. So in other words, it isn't about how your cow feels, because the cow can't argue for herself. It's about you, and other zoos, and what you're doing, and why... and again, why sex? (Just because the cow raises its tail doesn't mean you have to go there, and if you don;t go there, they won't come to expect it)."

And again, why not sex?  If the animal wants it, and I want it, and we both enjoy it during the stimulation, and she is noticably relieved and happy afterwards.  But no, I cannot prove it until anyone watches me do it, which I'd feel uncomfortable with, since I am not an exhibitionist.  But if it was needed to convince someone important, I might do it for that sake.

QUOTE: "No, I'm upset with you because you implied that I have less credibility because I eat meat."

I am sorry you feel that way.  I hope you're not taking it personally, but I can see it is difficult to take it any other way.  I am not upset with you for anything, because I feel that you're discussing this in an absolutely great and polite manner, and I am very happy discussing with you.

QUOTE: "Seriously... you can eat meat and discuss bestiality as a moral issue. They aren't actually linked, again, unless the reason you're having sex with animals is BECAUSE people eat meat. Otherwise, you're mixing the issues, and it's fugging frustrating when you imply that by eating meat, I have to accept zoophiles because they aren't as bad as me."

Again, I am sorry that we see things differently here.  Of course I don't feel that sex or eating are linked in THAT sense, but I feel that the issue of wellbeing of animals is the same core issue, no matter which field is branching off from that issue.  I'll try to not focus on the issue of meat-eating in the future.

657Report
DragonFlame at 31 May 2006: 13:45

>>652
Holy flying fuck. You are an arse. I never ever in this whole 657 post thread said eating meat was better than having sex with animals. DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
I dont know about you but I have had three friends get extremely sick because they decided to become a vegetarian. Meat has always been a part of our natural diet and you can complain and winge all you like but that is a fact. Next you will say well you can survive by eating the right fruits, vegetables, nuts and ohter non meat products but remeber this it is not normal for the human body to take on these diets and a lot of people are allergic to nuts and other products that you will bring up. Me I prefer to eat my meat I enjoy it and I enjoy living a healthy and enjoyable life not one where I am only just living becasue I eat exssesive amounts of rabit food.
Everything is bad for you if you eat to much of it. Eat in moderation and live a healthy life.

Also im jumping to the Anti Beast side for a sec because this is really shitting me. Lets put it this way you can justify having sex with animals because we eat meat. How bout this we will continue eating meat until you stop having sex with animals. Are you gonna do it .... Hell no you wont. You like it to much and you think there is nothing wrong with it. Just like we dont see anything wrong with eating meat.


And Svansfall these multi post replys are getting out of control. You are just reapeating your self now and I and probably a lot of other people are finding it tiresome. You dont need to write a 1000 word essay to prove your point.

658Report
Svansfall at 31 May 2006: 14:02

>>657
I am sorry about being too long-winded, DragonFlame.  I just don't wish to overlook anything that I am replying to, in case I'll skip a point that the one I am replying to wanted to have my views on. 

I am aware that I am not able to express myself very concisely or clearly.  It's a flaw of mine.

659Report
DragonFlame at 31 May 2006: 14:22

>>658
No Problem. I realise that you may think this whole board is agianst you and you need to reply to everything on your own and I think that may be one of the rasons why I have defended many of your point but there are many ohters that do support your view of sex. There is something you must understand, you do not need to justify yourself to have sex with animals and by this I am talking about this Meat issue. If you use a justification then deep down you know it is wrong and you need an excuse to make it right. Do not use something which you consider wrong to justify your actions. I think in your case that isnt true and what you have said so far is just an opinion and not a justification but everyone doesnt see it that way. Do you see where im going with this.

PS: I think you have been fairly clear and concise in your posts thats why I have been enjoying your replys.

660Report
arjuna at 31 May 2006: 21:27

>>657
"Next you will say well you can survive by eating the right fruits, vegetables, nuts and ohter non meat products but remeber this it is not normal for the human body to take on these diets and a lot of people are allergic to nuts and other products that you will bring up."

Wtf?  it sounds like you're saying that you can't subsist without meat?  Am i hearing this right?

Oh btw.  please continue to fuck animals, if sadistic people that would rape an animal don't procreate maybe they'll eventually get wiped out.

661Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 31 May 2006: 22:45

>>655

Me giving up sex with cows, would ruin my life in the same way that it would for a heterosexual man to give up sex with women. 

Ever hear of the priesthood?
Sexual 'urges' are biological desires, not needs. Remember?
We humans can hopefully control our urges to try and make the best out of the sex.

-------
Yes, I agree it is unnecessary to give pleasure. I don't have to give the cows stimulation when they desire it.  But they are happy that I am doing it, and I am happy that I am doing it.  As for it MIGHT be wrong, there are so many things in this world that are fully accepted that also MIGHT be wrong.

Oh, no you don't. I thought we discussed this.

And again, why not sex?  If the animal wants it,

That's exactly what's under discussion. You can't argue using the points under contest.

662Report
at 31 May 2006: 22:47

>>649

"If a criminal stole something, and was later robbed of their legitimately obtained possesions, reported it to the police, and later confessed to the original crime, would that mean that they can't press charges?"

Legaly or moraly?  If legaly, yes, they can.  Moraly, I'd say no, he has no right to complain.

663Report
at 1 Jun 2006: 00:01

*chuckle* and this thread is abought morality not legality.

664Report
at 1 Jun 2006: 00:50

Why eating meat became part of the debate:

Firstly, I want to say that I am a vegitarian and not a vegan.  I do eat dary and eggs.  For personal reasons, I abstain from eating meat, however, I do not think that it is wrong for anybody to eat meat.  In fact, it can be quite nessesary in order to survive given certain situations.  I view humans as a form of life higher than that of any other living thing on Earth.  Because of our supiriority of mind (yes, humans really are smarter than animals), all wild beasts are literaly fair game.  That's the way nature works.  Those who can kill and eat do, and those who can run fast and suvive do also.

So, how did meat become part of this issue?  Looking back, we will find a number of anti-zoo post about how fucking an animal causes them harm, thus, making sex with animals immoral.

Since the key to this anti-zoo argument is the fact that animals are harmed universialy harmed by beastiality, the pro-zoos used meat as a counter argument.  If zoophilia is wrong because it hurts animals, then meat must also be wrong because it ends an animal's life and likely results in psycological trauma to some degree or another.

This pro-zoo argument should have continued by saying that if eating meat is okay, then causing animals a degree of harm is okay.  How high that degree may get before it is not okay anymore is open for debate, however.  If causing animals a degree of harm is okay, then zoophilia is probably okay, too, since any degree of harm seems to be quite minimal, if any.

The goal was to derail the anti-zoo harm = immoral argument without having to undertake the difficult task of proving fucking an animal does not nessesarily cause harm.

Many pro-zoos seem to think that, when done properly, the animal being fucked (or the animal doing the fucking), is caused no harm and may in fact benifit from the sexual release. 

In truth, it is just as difficult to prove that zoophilia causes harm to animals as it is to prove that it doesn't.  Both sides will obviously disagree with that statment.  This isn't suprising because both sides are so biased.

Unfortunatly, the point of meat consumption got way.  It is almost as if it got hijacked by vegan nitwits from PeTA.  BTW, I highly recomend seeing the Pen and Teller: Bullshit episode that exposes PeTA's true intentions.

This never should have become about meat being murder.  The conclusion should have been "If meat is generaly okay, fucking animals should generaly be okay, too."  Note that I say "generaly", because neither case can be said absolutly. 

BTW, I've got a news flash for you vegans out there.  It's only murder when it is a human killing another human for reasons other than self defence. Oh, and I be sure to take your calcium.  Vegans are at risk for Osteoperosis at all ages because so few vegitables are rich in the element.  Drink your milk, to your good health!

665Report
at 1 Jun 2006: 00:51

>>663
There have been about a gazzillion times when you could have said that.  Why now?

666Report
at 1 Jun 2006: 01:21

oh just the way the post was phraised that i responded to.
bah i do have some pertinate thoughts, but to tired to be coherant - so will post them 15 or so hours from now
mwaaaahahaha i got post 666

667Report
Svansfall at 1 Jun 2006: 02:42

>>661
QUOTE: "Ever hear of the priesthood?
Sexual 'urges' are biological desires, not needs. Remember?"

What I meant was: "it would ruin my life/not ruin my life" in the same way that it would for a heterosexual man to give up sex with women.  I.e. it translates to the same feelings, and would affect me in a similar way.

QUOTE: "Oh, no you don't. I thought we discussed this."

The context this was in, was of the basic absolute needs for survival, such as it is necessary in a biological sense to eat, and it is necessary in a biological sense to procreate (for the species at whole).   In the biological sense it is not necessary to give pleasure.   In an emotional sense, it is however necessary for some people's mental health to be able to give pleasure.

QUOTE: "That's exactly what's under discussion. You can't argue using the points under contest."

Are you saying that unless everyone involved in a discussion agree upon the points of the discussion, it is impossible to explore and go in depth about those points?  If I am not misunderstanding you here, that would mean that no discussion could ever get past the point of skimming the surface and never reaching any kind of point at all.

I have explained in detail how we see that the animals show that they feel pleasure, and show how they want it.  If you wish to debate this, feel free to meet each part of their behaviour and interpret it in another logical way.

668Report
Svansfall at 1 Jun 2006: 03:12

>>659

Thanks for understanding me, DragonFlame.

I realize that some people may misunderstand what I mean, even though I have explained as good as I can.

I do not see a need to justify giving pleasure, becasue I believe that giving pleasure is a good thing.

In my personal opinion, giving pleasure = good.   Giving harm = bad.

So, with this in mind, when I see someone who eats meat criticising someone for giving pleasure to an animal, it is in my view, someone who is giving harm, criticising someone for giving pleasure.

So, I know some people don't believe that the animals feel pleasure, and I know some people don't believe that the meat industry harms animals, and if someone reading this feels like this, I hope you can look at how I feel about it, and at least understand why it seems so strange to me.

669Report
at 1 Jun 2006: 05:42

>>668

"So, I know some people don't believe that the animals feel pleasure, and I know some people don't believe that the meat industry harms animals, and if someone reading this feels like this, I hope you can look at how I feel about it, and at least understand why it seems so strange to me."

Some people, even today, believe that that animals aren't able to feel pain because there level of conciousness isn't high enough.  It's really just rediculous nonsense meant to rationalise cruelty.

Animals do indeed feel pain.  We know this because they have the stress hormones and behavioral changes to prove it when in bad situtations.  Interestingly enough, they react to pain and stress just like humans do.  They even have the mental power to associate certain objects or events with pain and take corrective actions to avoid pain when they think it's going to happen.  So, if an animal can feel pain and react inteligently to avoid it, maybe they can feel pleasure, too.  Maybe, just maybe, they may even seek pleasure out, much like people do.

670Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 1 Jun 2006: 05:43

>>664

Right on to a couple of points. The first point being (sorry for repeating myself) that people need to eat, and animals are edible, but people don't need to have sex with animals. It creates a situation that excuses people who eat meat, but it doesn't explain why you need to stick it in an animal. Unless you're a pervert, but there's worse things.

The second point being that even if eating meat is the most insanely evil thing you can do, it still doesn't justify having sex with animals. Ultimately, the two actions are separate, and since one doesn't cause the other, one doesn't have anything to do with the other.

>>662

So since you're annoying people, you don't get to complain when people annoy you then? Grow up kid.

>>657

Totally.

>>654

Wouldn't it be horribly annoying if everyone would constantly confront everyone about everything they thought was bad?


Well... last time I checked, that's exactly what's happening. Locally it's called laws and taboos. Break them and suffer. On a global scale, there's more tolerance, but only a little. Sanctions, wars... turn a blind eye to it all if you think that's going to solve something, but don't act surprised when someone shows a willingness to act on their beliefs that you're doing something wrong.

But it compares easily to heterosexual relationships.  There are rape and abuse among heterosexuals.  That doesn't mean that every heterosexual person would feel it is right to rape and abuse their partners.  It's the exact same thing with those who are attracted to animals.


Hold it there buddy. I could sit my girlfriend down in front of a bunch of people and ask her to explain what she sees in me, why she consents, and the little quirks about sex, relationships, and their meaning. She'd probably be pissed that I made her do it, but there's that assurance there that she can speak for herself, and nobody has to strain to understand.

Your cows can't do that, and who knows if they would even if they could. Your relationship is totally different than a heterosexual relationship between people. Other issues too. My gf can LEAVE me if she wants to. You own your cows. They aren't going anywhere. My gf gets equal say in our relationship, sleeps in bed in our apartment, sits at the dinner table with me, gets to go out and buy stuff for herself, gets to go out and make friends, etc. Your cows sleep in a barn, eat what you feel like giving them, go out when you let them out... do I really need to elaborate on that?

No. Your relationship with your cows may mean something to you, but don't compare it to human/human relationships. Not only is that ignorant, and more than a little freaky, but it's insulting to those of us who HAVE a significant other.

Me giving up sex with cows, would ruin my life in the same way that it would for a heterosexual man to give up sex with women.  I believe all the people in the meat industry could work in the plant industry instead, so I don't think any jobs or income would be lost.


To the first point... no it wouldn't. The bond you've developed is one where you have complete control. The reason your cows are treated well is cause you choose to treat them well, not because they're entitled to it. You are the MASTER in that relationship. If a couple (humans) split up, you lose a partner in your life. If you stop messing around with your cows, you'd lose your fix, probably feel annoyed whenever you got horny, and that'd depress you, but not for the same reasons.

Well, I can't back up the psychoanalysis parts that I'm claiming about you, but as far as I can tell, if you're comparing your relationship with animals with an actual human coupling, you're way overattatched, but still, it isn't even true friendship. You just like the animals a lot. Hey, I like my dog and cat... if anything happens to them, I'd be messed up for a while, but that'd be NOTHING compared to my gf dying.

And as for the meat industry going to plants... that's just uninspired dude. I can't even hazard a guess at the resources, labor, and time that would take to make the switch. You're completely underestimating how many people you're saying should give up a huge part of their lives. (I've seen vegan diets. You need to take vitamins to supplement what you lose by giving up meat and dairy, and like Dragonflame said, some people are allergic to nuts and other protein supplements, so they need special pills and powders.) To grow that many vegetables, you'd need a lot of space and labor. Space taken up by animals, and labor directed to tending animals. That'd mean saying goodbye to cows, chickens, and pigs for the most part, and saying hello to many many bean fields and nut groves... and through all of this, insane amounts of money would need to be dug up from somewhere.

Do you have lots of money? If you and your zoo peers have a few trillion laying around, by all means, start buying up the land and making the vision come true. Make sure to set a bit aside for the people who'd lose their jobs though, because losing jobs causes PEOPLE a lot of undue stress and harm.

I am feeling that I am right because I have carefully pondered everything I can think of, multiple times over a long period of time, and changed my views when I thought I was wrong, until I reached the conclusion that I am right.


Okay, maybe it's a mess-up in my reading here, but you just said that you've been wrong repeatedly in the past, but you know you're right now.  Well... just no. Unless some sort of deity came down and told you that you're right, you just THINK you're right, based on your opinion. In this way, you have NOTHING on the people against you.

It seems some people who posted earlier in this thread, has very limited experience in interacting with animals,


Not having sex with animals doesn't mean they're inexperienced dude. If a lot of them are Americans, I promise you that most of them have probably been around at least a dog their whole life. Just because they haven't come to the same conclusions you have doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about.

As for it MIGHT be wrong, there are so many things in this world that are fully accepted that also MIGHT be wrong.


And again dude, it doesn't matter how many other things MIGHT be wrong, it doesn't justify anything.

Seriously, for the purposes of this discussion, your side has to assume that right and wrong are separate from people, because if you go by what's popular, then you're wrong, because bestiality is widely frowned on. Since you're assuming what's right and what's wrong isn't up to people, then either you think it's just up to you (an elitist punk who needs to grow up), or you've got to accept that what other people do, good or bad, doesn't make what you do right or wrong. Your actions are weighed independently, not comparatively.

But I seriously believe that if we want to, we can make sex into innocent pleasure, and I know a lot of people who do.


Yeah maybe, but as long as you’re part of this world, you’ve got to face the fact the other people will react to the decisions you make, no matter how innocent you feel they are. You want people to stop saying cruel things to young zoophiles. Well, why would they do that? Especially since you do something that bugs them with no intention of stopping... why should they listen to you? You’ve brought up a lot of excuses not to listen to them, but why should they listen to you?

Yeah, I don't need to do it.  I can choose to live in celibacy for the rest of my life.  But I feel my life will lack essential quality if I have to remain in celibacy.


Man you've really talked yourself into this haven't you? Do you even know what a Furry is? Just because I can't have sex with an anthromorphic vixen doesn't mean my life is diminished... not in any sense that anyone who pines for something they can't have. Some people want super models, some people want rich and famous stars, but their lives aren't wrecked when they can't have it. I would never say that my life is lesser for settling for a human lover. I'm vaguely offended that you seem to think that giving up cows for a woman would be disgusting to you.

No dude, if you stopped having sex with cows, unless you're completely obsessed with getting absolutely everything you want all the time, you'd find that life would go on. You're living your kink, but your kink isn't your life... and if you think it is, you should seriously see a therapist or something. I'm not trying to be mean with that remark, but I'm reasonably sure that if you can't see yourself having a life without sexual contact with animals, that it's not just you enjoying something, it's you immersing yourself in it dangerously.

671Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 1 Jun 2006: 05:50

>>669

Yeah, some people feel that animals don't feel pain, but those people are retarded crazies. Nobody in this thread has said that animals can't feel pain. Even the 4channers didn't go there, so there's nobody representing that school of thought, so no reason to go there.

As for "how do you know they feel pleasure". Read the spirit of it. A) how do you know the animals likes it: as in, is there the possibility that you're misinterpreting or forcing your interpreatation. B) How do you know that the animal feels is the same as what we feel: as in maybe you're fooling their body into thinking that it's mating, so triggering the mating responce, and not erotic desire or love.

Read the spirit of the posts people. It doesn't solve anything to respond to something that wasn't meant that way.

672Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 1 Jun 2006: 06:03

>>668

HOLY SHIT! Verrimgard??? The Zoo who directed you here was Verrimgard!? I KNOW Him!!

What the hell are you trying to pull man! Get your ass on Vent! I'll email you the info! Dude, when Chris finds out about this he's gonna punk your ass! Ha ha! Oh man...

(Sorry dudes, I won't jack this thread or anything. The rest'll be in chat... but yeah, turns out I DO know a zoo then. XD)

673Report
Couger at 1 Jun 2006: 08:27

I'm pretty sure everyone knows at least one zoo we as a "species" tend to lay somewhat low and mostly not be noticed its eisier that way.
im apreciating this thread in that regards immensly as at the very least its showing people we do exist
morals are ultimatly a device we create to feel superior to another.

674Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 1 Jun 2006: 09:35

>>667

I have explained in detail how we see that the animals show that they feel pleasure, and show how they want it.  If you wish to debate this, feel free to meet each part of their behaviour and interpret it in another logical way.

Fine. I don't think animals are intelligent enough to have knowledge of human sexual meaning and connotations. Since zoos are human, they are, whether they like it or not, bringing said associations into their 'relationship' with an animal. One of these associations is a need for consent. Since the animal can't understand the human meanings of 'sex' in general, much less 'consent' in particular, how can they show it?

Also, the quote code is an arrow followed by a space, with a line break at the end of the quote.

>>673
morals are ultimatly a device we create to feel superior to another.

Like yours?
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/17861612/

675Report
Svansfall at 1 Jun 2006: 15:17

>>670
Okay, I am going to try and write a brief post for a change, and I apologize for therefor not replying to absolutely everything.

No. Your relationship with your cows may mean something to you, but don't compare it to human/human relationships. Not only is that ignorant, and more than a little freaky, but it's insulting to those of us who HAVE a significant other.


Why is it insulting?  Of course there are things I cannot share with the cows, that I can share with my close human friends.   That does not mean that I am less emotionally attached to the cows, and in no sense does it mean that I treat them less good for that, or any other reason.  I have been deeply involved in loving, non-sexual relationships with close human friends, with everything that an ordinary loving relationship contains, with the sole exception of sex.  I am fully aware of what a human/human relationship means, and I am also fully aware of what a human/animal relationship means.  For natural reasons, there are things you cannot share with the animals, but the human/animal relation is not less rewarding in the emotional sense.  It's equally rewarding in the emotional sense.

Just like I can sit beside a close human which means a lot to me, and we can just peacefully share the moment, I can also sit beside a cow in the grass, carress her as she's relaxing, and we're relaxing together.  She's showing that she is feeling safe in my company, and she enjoys the fact that I am there.

I am a mostly non-sexual person anyway.  Close contact, cuddling and petting means a lot more to me than sex, and it sometimes goes long periods between me ever doing anything sexual at all.

I am out as a zoophile to many of my close non-zoo friends as well, and I must admit you're the first person I have ever heard who felt that my emotions to the animals, would be insulting to their emotions to their loved ones.  My non-zoo friends thinks my relation with the cows is sweet.

I hope you do not really feel that it is insulting, becasue it is no deliberate insult from my part.

I'll choose to not comment any further on the point of meat eating.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on this part.  I've already mentioned so much of how I feel about the subject.

Not having sex with animals doesn't mean they're inexperienced dude. If a lot of them are Americans, I promise you that most of them have probably been around at least a dog their whole life. Just because they haven't come to the same conclusions you have doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about.


That's not how I meant it.  Most animal owners I know are not zoophiles, and most of the animal owners I know are well aware of how to communicate with their animals, and can easily read their animals' body language.  Some comments earlier on in this thread, seemed to come from people who were completely unaware of the behaviour of animals.

You want people to stop saying cruel things to young zoophiles. Well, why would they do that? Especially since you do something that bugs them with no intention of stopping... why should they listen to you? You’ve brought up a lot of excuses not to listen to them, but why should they listen to you?


They can completely ignore us.  They don't have to listen to me, and they don't have to say anything cruel and mean to people.

They can say cruel and mean things to the people who DO abuse and mistreat their animals, sexually or non-sexually, but they don't have to say anything to nice people who treat their animals well.

Man you've really talked yourself into this haven't you? Do you even know what a Furry is? Just because I can't have sex with an anthromorphic vixen doesn't mean my life is diminished... not in any sense that anyone who pines for something they can't have. Some people want super models, some people want rich and famous stars, but their lives aren't wrecked when they can't have it. I would never say that my life is lesser for settling for a human lover. I'm vaguely offended that you seem to think that giving up cows for a woman would be disgusting to you.


No dude, if you stopped having sex with cows, unless you're completely obsessed with getting absolutely everything you want all the time, you'd find that life would go on. You're living your kink, but your kink isn't your life... and if you think it is, you should seriously see a therapist or something. I'm not trying to be mean with that remark, but I'm reasonably sure that if you can't see yourself having a life without sexual contact with animals, that it's not just you enjoying something, it's you immersing yourself in it dangerously.


There's a lot of dreams that I would be happy with having come true, but I cannot get it, and I am not obsessed with getting absolutely everything I want.

There are really only 3 things I want in life: I want to live in the spot where I feel at home.  I want to share my life with close human friends around me.  I want to devote my life to making sure that some cows get the absolutely best possible life I can give them.

That's what I am asking for in life, and those three things mean the most to me of anything. Having emotional and physical intimate relationship with cows is not a kink for me.  Zoophilia is a valid sexual orientation - not a kink.  More than one psychologist and sexologist has reached this conclusion in their studies.  Look up the book "Understanding Zoophilia and Bestiality" by Dr. Hani Miletski, for her detailed description of her studies, in case you are interested.

I know what furries is, and I also have sexual fantasies about beings that does not exist.  It does not diminish my life either.  But the emotional relationship I have with the cows is far more rewarding than any fantasy I could think of.

As far as giving up cows for a woman.  When I was young, I became sexually mature roughly around the same time as most other guys in school did.  I noticed that they were getting sexually attracted to the girls.  I tried to get sexually attracted to the girls as well, because I didn't want to be different.  I'd get aroused by beautiful cows, horses or dogs that I'd see, but I always had to hide it.

For a few years, I tried to actively make myself attracted to girls, but it never worked.  I tried to fantasize about girls, but nothing ever happened.  But everytime I started fantasizing about being with certain animals, I was instantly aroused.

I have had to decline sex from people, who I really liked, and would have been happy if I could have had sex with them, but I have never been able to conjure up any kind of sexual attraction towards a human.

I've tried in later years also, several times, because I really hate to make people sad, and as I mentioned before, I have been in loving relationships with humans, lacking the sex-part.  Well, those people wanted to have sex with me.

So, I am sorry if you feel offended by people who cannot get sexually aroused by humans.  It's just never been anything but animals that has aroused me, since the first day I was sexually mature.

So, my sexual orientation is zoophilia.  To ask me to give up cows and have sex with women, is just like telling a homophile to give up guys and have sex with women.

>>672

Sorry?  Now, I am confused.  Where in post 668 is Verrimgard mentioned?  Who is he?  WHo is Chris?   All that I know is that there was a post on Beastforum, from someone called Verrimgard, and in the post, he talked about this discussion here on Fchan.  So, I followed the link he provided and got here.  That's all I know.

And I think I failed in writing a brief post.

676Report
Svansfall at 1 Jun 2006: 15:42

>>674
Thanks for showing me how I use the quotes properly.

Fine. I don't think animals are intelligent enough to have knowledge of human sexual meaning and connotations. Since zoos are human, they are, whether they like it or not, bringing said associations into their 'relationship' with an animal. One of these associations is a need for consent. Since the animal can't understand the human meanings of 'sex' in general, much less 'consent' in particular, how can they show it?


No, animals are not intelligent enough to have knowledge of human sexual meaning and connotations.  They do however have the sense of their own pleasure, and they know when they like something, or when they don't like something.  They know how to ask for it, and they know enough to read my body language in return to see if I'll give it to them or not.

Did you know that dogs learn that when humans pull their lips up and show their teeth, it means happiness and not aggression?  It takes a while for each young puppy to figure this out though.  So, in communication with the animals, the animals are learning the human body language, as well as we learning the animal body language.  And no, I am not making it up.  Talk to your local dog-trainer, or read a book on "how to understand your dog", etc.  But how animals learn human body langauge goes for horses and cows also.

The need for the human definition of 'consent' is completely besides the point in any relationship, sexual or non-sexual, with an animal.  There is the need that the animal understands you, that you understand the animal, that you make absolutely sure you understand what the animal is meaning, when they show what they want or do not want, and that you respect what they are showing.

So, as I mentioned in posts 644 and 653, the animals show very clearly when they want something, or not.  You just have to make sure you respect it.

677Report
at 1 Jun 2006: 19:34

>>676

"The need for the human definition of 'consent' is completely besides the point in any relationship, sexual or non-sexual, with an animal.  There is the need that the animal understands you, that you understand the animal, that you make absolutely sure you understand what the animal is meaning, when they show what they want or do not want, and that you respect what they are showing."

Exactly.  Animals operate within a certain sphere of intelect and knowlege, which is much smaller than the sphere in which a human operates.  The concept of consent or informed consent is too complex for them to understand, thus, it cannot possibly be a relivant concept to them.  Animals operate in terms that are much more simple and direct that that.  With them, it is either "I like this", "I don't like this" and "I don't care either way".  Persuit shows desire, aversion shows dislike, and lack of reaction shows apathy.

678Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 1 Jun 2006: 19:38

>>673

Oh come on man, that's just simple. Morals also keep people from going out and stealing or killing and such. Not everyone doesn't rape people because they're afraid of punishment... some of them actually think it's wrong, and they aren't thinking that way just to feel superior.

Morals exist for plenty of reasons, and they generally do a lot of good, all said and done. The lack of morals is what causes the bulk of problems I'd say.

>>675

For natural reasons, there are things you cannot share with the animals, but the human/animal relation is not less rewarding in the emotional sense.  It's equally rewarding in the emotional sense.


Dude, your relationship with your cows isn't even in the same ballpark as people's relationship with each other. It's more like a relationship with a pet. If you think they're similar, it's because you're discounting a lot of stuff; stuff that I happen to think is really important. My girlfriend can say "I love you", and I don't need to banter with people about interpreting the body language properly or anything. That's just ONE of the reasons.

But seriously, don't go there. I do not want you or anyone comparing my relationship with my girlfriend with your relationship with a cow. In all honesty, I'd smack you right in the mouth if you said something like that to my face, so if you want me to stay even remotely resonable, just don't.

Most animal owners I know are not zoophiles, and most of the animal owners I know are well aware of how to communicate with their animals, and can easily read their animals' body language.  Some comments earlier on in this thread, seemed to come from people who were completely unaware of the behaviour of animals.


Careful with the assumptions there. Again, they probably have as much experience as you, but have interpretted that experience differently.

They can completely ignore us.  They don't have to listen to me, and they don't have to say anything cruel and mean to people.


They can say cruel and mean things to the people who DO abuse and mistreat their animals, sexually or non-sexually, but they don't have to say anything to nice people who treat their animals well.


But dude... they think zoophiles rape animals. To them, you aren't treating your animals well if you're having sex with them. They believe you ARE mistreating your animals. Well, some of them are just griefers looking for a reaction, but a lot of these people say those mean and hurtful things because they think you're a bad person. Why would they just ignore you if they thought you were bad? Especially when there's enough of them to force the issue (laws and such).

So, my sexual orientation is zoophilia.  To ask me to give up cows and have sex with women, is just like telling a homophile to give up guys and have sex with women.


Okay, I'm not gay, but I'm reasonably sure if I was, I wouldn't appreciate that comparison. A homosexual's lover isn't comparable to a cow. Again, you're really reaching here, and it doesn't even make sense anymore.

Sorry?  Now, I am confused.  Where in post 668 is Verrimgard mentioned?  Who is he?  WHo is Chris?   All that I know is that there was a post on Beastforum, from someone called Verrimgard, and in the post, he talked about this discussion here on Fchan.  So, I followed the link he provided and got here.  That's all I know.


Well, Verrimgard's a really unique name that only one guy has ever used as far as I can tell. If a guy going by Verrimgard directed you here, then it's the same guy (I hope to confirm anyway). Chris is his best friend... and let's just say that he doesn't like animal abuse, and he probably doesn't think highly of zoophiles as a result.

>>676

The need for the human definition of 'consent' is completely besides the point in any relationship, sexual or non-sexual, with an animal.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the anti-zoos completely disagree with you on that one. If sex without consent equals rape when humans are involved, then it seems pretty much central to their points that if the animal isn't consenting, then it's rape.

Man... you're kinda bouncing back and forth a bit there. I thought you were insisting that your animals CAN consent... now it seems like you're saying that they can't, but they don't need to. Have you thought about a different approach? >>664 has a good point there. Maybe the point isn't whether or not sex with animals is wrong... maybe you should be going from the angle that while it may be wrong, it's not as bad as people think so doesn't merit as much hate as it draws.

Hell, like he said, you could even bring the meat eating argument back into play if you go from that angle... but I guess the best you could hope for that way is bare bones tolerance, not acceptance.

On one note I can sympathize though. You zoophile types have some seriously bad stereotypes attached to you. We furries get that a lot too. Most of us are pretty ordinary, but people SEE the worst of us, and that's what gets attached to the term. With you guys, it looks like you have the same problem, with a hitch. It seems to me that a lot of the zoophiles there are, are the kind that you don't like. You know... the ones who ass fuck their dogs and videotape it so they can sell it or show it to people, etc.

Which actually reminds me... what the hell are you doing on the beast forum site anyway? A bit of reading, and I could tell in a hurry that if you're the kind of guy you claim to be, that isn't the kind of site you'd normally associate with. Jesus dude, there's all kinds of links to commercial animal porn on that site. (and a furry section, but they won't let me look at the pictures without registering. I'm surprised Bernal hasn't come down on you guys actually... but whatever).

Still, I'll give you the benifit of the doubt and just assume that you're there because there's precious few places where zoophiles are welcome, not because you endorse what's done on that site.

679Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 1 Jun 2006: 19:41

>>677

Well, yeah... but the discussion isn't about whether the animal is moral or not, it's the person, and consent is a relivant concept to people. Is what zoophiles do defined as rape by humans? That's the question involving consent.

Man... that's been said what, like 20 times now?

680Report
at 1 Jun 2006: 21:31

  Is what zoophiles do defined as rape by humans. unknown abought all humans of course.  by most humans?, again unknown, no hard data , by some humans?, well of course otherwise we wouldent be having this discusion.
   my experienece says animals are perfectly capable of consent many peoples experiences say the exact same thing, are they the sole experts, hell no, but they are also the only ones who have stepped up with reasonable sounding evidence as well as personal opinions saying the same thing, "here is study x with research links and data" "here is my personal reasoning why i think this is so."
  unless I somehow missed something, through these posts i havent seen the "they cant consent" crowd toss out here is study a b or c saying "animals are incapable of consent"  nor have i seen any of them say (paraphraised) "well in x number of years I have spent with animals I have seen them not be able to make choices etc etc".....
 


  It hopefully is understand that animals operate diferently than we do, and only the most inane would insist that animals meet our standerds of interacting, so long as we have made sure we are at the very least understanding of the jointly created interaction space that is created by humans living with animals
then so long as we meet the type of consent that is displayed within such verses the consent that is only apropriate between humans  of the same launguage and culture then we are able to gain consent
  the current consent argument is basicly trying to force the colour purple to
be divisable by blue. human standerds and morals are not aplicable to a non human relationship or interaction. we can chose to apply them in individual cases, however attempting to apply them as a universal rule that would be rather silly.
otherwise we are suddenly murdering many many cows goats sheep and other beings.

681Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 1 Jun 2006: 22:05

>>676

The need for the human definition of 'consent' is completely besides the point in any relationship, sexual or non-sexual, with an animal.

I'm making the claim that it is necessary. Because you're a human. You're bringing into any 'relationship' automatically. Debate that part of the post; I'd like some feedback.
  There is the need that the animal understands you, that you understand the animal,

So the animal doesn't need to understand *consent*?
that you make absolutely sure you understand what the animal is meaning, when they show what they want or do not want, and that you respect what they are showing.

What about the animal understanding what *you're* meaning?

>>677
Animals operate within a certain sphere of intelect and knowlege, which is much smaller than the sphere in which a human operates.  The concept of consent or informed consent is too complex for them to understand, thus, it cannot possibly be a relivant concept to them.

So it's not relevant because they can't understand it. Got it. I am *really* tempted to make another pedophilia comparison at this point.

>>680
my experienece says animals are perfectly capable of consent many peoples experiences say the exact same thing, are they the sole experts, hell no, but they are also the only ones who have stepped up with reasonable sounding evidence as well as personal opinions saying the same thing, "here is study x with research links and data" "here is my personal reasoning why i think this is so."

I did precisely that. Post >>674 .
human standerds and morals are not aplicable to a non human relationship or interaction.

Not even when a human is involved? Odd.

I'm arguing, again, that even if the animal doesn't understand consent, the human in the 'relationship' does, and they're dominant. Also, just because a lack of understanding exists doesn't mean that it makes going without right.

otherwise we are suddenly murdering many many cows goats sheep and other beings.

No, we're largely killing them for food. Not boning them for pleasure. Also, we've been over this.

682Report
at 1 Jun 2006: 23:42

Personally I think a dog mounting -you- is not "animal cruelty" or "rape" because clearly, you're letting the animal decide whether or not he wants to proceed. Clearly, he most likely will(especially if you're a female) but it's not rape if you give someone an option. And for those who say "Dogs can't decide, it's instinct," I've been in several scenarios where a dog will get "horny" and start humping my leg, I'll get ready for some action and he'll become uninterested. It's ludicrous to say that an animal such as the dog cannot express their non-consent or disinterest of a certain situation. If you stick a big thing up a dog's butt, they'll fucking bite you. Is that not showing consent?

However: The way I see it, as long as you give the animal a way to "escape" or move away, it's not rape. Rape implies struggle and use of force. I've seen some rather non-forecful matings between human males and female dogs, as well as male or female humans with male dogs. Usually speaking, they are(for female dogs) in a normal mating position, and with male dogs, they're on top.

Now, there are a few things I've seen of dogs being lied on their backs and yiffed, and while it didn't appear that they were wanting to get away, they couldn't have if they wanted to. That's the only area I see a problem. That's the only time it's non-consentual.

Think of it as if the dog were a human, "I wanna fuck you. Yes or no?"  "Well, it would feel good. w00t." OR "I wanna fuck you. Yes or no?"  "Back the fuck off before I bite your face open."

Anyhoo, since I have really nothing else to say, I simply hope I offered an insightful and interesting opinion on the topic of the morality of bestiality...

...

683Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 1 Jun 2006: 23:50

>>682

However: The way I see it, as long as you give the animal a way to "escape" or move away, it's not rape.

So we've dropped the discussion of consent entirely? Or are you someone new?

Rape implies struggle and use of force.

You're confusing "implication" with "entailment". There is such a thing as a non-violent rape.

Usually speaking, they are(for female dogs) in a normal mating position, and with male dogs, they're on top.

It's humans. Not "normal" by any stretch of the word.

Now, there are a few things I've seen of dogs being lied on their backs and yiffed, and while it didn't appear that they were wanting to get away, they couldn't have if they wanted to. That's the only area I see a problem. That's the only time it's non-consentual.

Buh?

684Report
at 2 Jun 2006: 01:11

>>678

"Dude, your relationship with your cows isn't even in the same ballpark as people's relationship with each other. It's more like a relationship with a pet. If you think they're similar, it's because you're discounting a lot of stuff; stuff that I happen to think is really important. My girlfriend can say "I love you", and I don't need to banter with people about interpreting the body language properly or anything. That's just ONE of the reasons."

For once, I'm going to agree with you.  As a pro-zoo, I can say that the relationship between an animal and a human will never have the same level of depth or quality that can be had with another human.  Animals are just to limited for that kind of intimacy.  At best, animals are companions and friends, nothing more. 

"But dude... they think zoophiles rape animals."

This goes to show how little this debate has acomplished.

"Okay, I'm not gay, but I'm reasonably sure if I was, I wouldn't appreciate that comparison. A homosexual's lover isn't comparable to a cow. Again, you're really reaching here, and it doesn't even make sense anymore."

Again, I must agree.  Zoophilia is more of an accessory to an existing sexual orientation, rather than a sexual orientation unto itself.  Any zoo who thinks they are exclusivly attracted to animals is either ignorant of what they are missing, or 2, is damaged in the head.  I get the feeling that Svansfall has convinced himself that his relationships are far more significant than they really are. 

>>679
But I'm not talking about animals and there lack of ability to make moral judgments.  My ultimate point was that "informed consent" may not even be relivant to animals in the first place.  If it isn't appart of there world, why should we care?

Of course, the reply always is, "But the animal always suffers because you are raping them." 

Okay, then let's define rape.

Forcing somebody (or some thing) to have sex with you against there will.

Okay, I'll agree to that.  So what if the animal doesn't resist?  What if the animal appears to like what I'm doing to them?

And then they say, "It doesn't matter because you never got informed consent."

But informed consent is beyond the ability of animals, right?

"Exactly,"  They would say.  "Which is why sex with animals is always rape."

But I thought rape had to be forced?

"Not in the case of statutory rape."  They would say.  "We are comparing sex with animals to statutory rape.  Sex with minors, in other words."

But that applies to PEOPLE under the age of 18?  Wait a sec, this is turing into a legal argument!  Unfair, unfair!

"No, really."  They would say.  "Animals are a lot like children if you think about it."

Since when did animals have the same status as children?

"Uh..."  They would say.  "Like children, animals are not as smart as adults and they lack wisdom."

Okay, fair enough, but that still doesn't explain how sex with minors mirrors sex with animals.  Sex with minors causes real psycological harm with negative long term effects including behavioral problems, sexual disfuction, and social ineptitude.  What evidence can you give to show me that having sex with an animal will cause them harm?

"Who needs evidence when you have common sense!"  They would say.  "Sex with animals is rape!  That's how I know it is harmful.  That's how I know it is a lot like pedophilia."

Wait just a sec.  That's a circular argument.  You can't do that!

"It's not circular if you think about it."  They would say.

We keep going in circles because we are dealing with circular arguments! 

685Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 2 Jun 2006: 03:57

>>684

For once, I'm going ot agree with you.


Uh? Anonymous agrees then?

Yeah, babbling the other side's arguments so you can smash them doesn't mean you've beaten them. Read back man, the anti-zoos that bother to explain themselves are a lot more clear than you're pretending.

My argument would be that animals don't have enough rights to be raped, because in my opinion, rape is ingoring someone's right to consent. If animals had those kind of rights, I imagine it would be rape.

Forcing somebody (or some thing) to have sex with you against there will.


Sex without consent dude. What you're describing is Violent Rape, which is a KIND of rape. Sex with minors is considered rape because even though they can technically consent, it's not good enough because it isn't informed. It protects them from agreeing to things (sex, contracts, etc) that they aren't savvy enough to understand yet, and last time I checked, the 18 year mark is there because most people are mature/educated/wise enough by then.

"Who needs evidence when you have common sense!"  They would say.


Yeah, cool there buddy. Cause only the anti-zoos are doing this right? Take a look back. The zoophiles do it just as much. "They obviously consent" vs "They obviously don't". Doesn't seem so obvious to me.

We keep going in circles because we are dealing with circular arguments!


No, the circles are because people don't read before they post. They maybe skim, or read the last few, then they come up with some "stunning idea", which has already been gone over before, usually a few times.

No really, go back in the first 300 and read all the posts by Dragonflame, Juberu, Janglur, and that tripcode anon guy. They pretty much covered the basics and identified the point, before a bunch of asshats came in and just started posting the early arguments again. But if you ignore the anti-zoo 4chan /b/tards and the offended "what right do you" and "how can you say" types, you'll see some reasoning.

Well, excpet when the tripcode anon guy got pissed at janglur, and dragonflame got pissed at juberu... things kinda slow down there.

And for the record, I don't think animals are even remotely like children. Children are WAY more intelligent than any animal. They're little people, not animals.

That, and now that meat eating is ebbing out of this thing, I'm leaning back toward neutrality again. I still don't think bestiality is right; I just don't think it's a big deal. It's more humiliating than evil from my perspective... like when Jim was caught fucking the pie type thing. I suppose I might feel different if I ever caught someone with my dog or something though.

686Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 2 Jun 2006: 04:16

>>682

Now, there are a few things I've seen of dogs being lied on their backs and yiffed, and while it didn't appear that they were wanting to get away, they couldn't have if they wanted to. That's the only area I see a problem. That's the only time it's non-consentual.


What? Seriously... what the hell? It's only wrong to fuck dogs in the missionary position? Where the hell did you get that from?

>>683

Hey Juberu, I'm gonna hop to the other side for a second for a quick question. Now, some (not many, but some) animals have shown IQ levels that are comparable to extremely low IQ humans. Washu the Chimp for instance. In those cases, are animals able to consent in your opinion? And if not, are the extremely low IQ humans able to/not able to?

687Report
DragonFlame at 2 Jun 2006: 11:42

>>685
Hey dude awsome post. I was about to reply to >>684 my self but you got there before me.
Just to make it clear I was annoyed at Juberu for a while because of his approach to my opinions but after reading the post back at a later date I have realised that there was just a big misunderstanding between us. I currently have no grudge agians Juberu and find a lot of his points quite valid.
Sorry if I have writen anything which caused you to misunderstand me Juberu I have a habit of writing things in a strange way especialy when im tired.

I think we should add you too that list GrapeTang, you have obviously read through this thread and have rasied some very good points.

>>686
The IQ question is a dificult one. Most anti-zoo's think (and im generalising) that consent can only be given through verbal comunication. I dont really agree with this but if it is true then yes it would be called rape.

Heres a hypothetical question for you guys. If a girl is lying naked on a bed and a male comes up and tries to have sex with her, but the female does nothing to indicate that she does not want sex (She doesnt say no, She doesnt try to get away). Is this considered rape? If so it seems a bit odd to me. If a human doesnt care if its having sex how is that rape. It is only when they dont want to have sex is it called rape.

Why does consent have to mean Yes. For consent to be related to rape the victim must be able to say No and from an anti-zoo point of view animals are unable to do this, thats why anti-zoo's think that its wrong. From a pro-zoo point of view consent is not verbal but done using body language, through body language they think they can determine if an animal is saying No.
Consent should not be determined by the person or animal saying Yes to sex but the opposite, if the animal or human is saying No. The question is can an anmial cominicate No through body language?

I am talking about the basic concept of consent here not the inteligence of the human or animal. I think we should work out what consent is before we even go into that.

688Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 2 Jun 2006: 12:46

>>684

But I'm not talking about animals and there lack of ability to make moral judgments.  My ultimate point was that "informed consent" may not even be relivant to animals in the first place.  If it isn't appart of there world, why should we care?

Because it's a part of our world.

Forcing somebody (or some thing) to have sex with you against there will.

No. It's sex without consent. Force need not necessarily be involved.
But I thought rape had to be forced?

Nope. There is such a thing as rape by coercion.(sp)
Since when did animals have the same status as children?

Wait, you're contradicting your hypothetical opponent's argument.
Okay, fair enough, but that still doesn't explain how sex with minors mirrors sex with animals.

Because neither are considered intelligent enough to have an idea what 'consent' is, nor to give it. We've been over this, and I wish you would stop misrepresenting your opponent.
Sex with minors causes real psycological harm with negative long term effects including behavioral problems, sexual disfuction, and social ineptitude.  What evidence can you give to show me that having sex with an animal will cause them harm?

We don't have to. We just have to show that it's rape. The 'harm' part is secondary.

>>686
Hey Juberu, I'm gonna hop to the other side for a second for a quick question. Now, some (not many, but some) animals have shown IQ levels that are comparable to extremely low IQ humans. Washu the Chimp for instance. In those cases, are animals able to consent in your opinion?

That depends on whether it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they understand consent, on an individual basis. IQ is no real guarantee of understanding.

689Report
Svansfall at 2 Jun 2006: 13:27

>>678

Dude, your relationship with your cows isn't even in the same ballpark as people's relationship with each other.


You don't seem to think very highly of cows.  I still don't see why it could be even vaguely insulting, but out of respect for you I will not say anything.

Well, Verrimgard's a really unique name that only one guy has ever used as far as I can tell.


Yes, but how did this name suddenly pop up in this thread?  I did not mention the name.

Man... you're kinda bouncing back and forth a bit there. I thought you were insisting that your animals CAN consent... now it seems like you're saying that they can't, but they don't need to.


No, I didn't say they can 'consent' in the human defintion.  I said that they can clearly express in body language how they feel about things.  What they like, what they don't like, when they like something, when they don't like something.  That they can clearly communicate with us, and that we can read their body language and understand when they are saying "yes", or "no."  That they can clearly come up to someone and request something.  This is not the human definition of 'consent' and I feel the human definition of 'consent' is not valid at all here.  What is valid is that the animal gets its meaning across and that it is respected by the human.

what the hell are you doing on the beast forum site anyway?


I went there to try and make contact with some new zoofriends, which I luckily found, and through their help I have found some good porn-free forums for more serious discussions.  For a while, there was some pretty decent discussions on beastforum also, but not lately.

And your assumptions are correct, I've actually been very upset and disturbed with a lot of the things on beastforum.

>>681
I'm making the claim that it is necessary. Because you're a human. You're bringing into any 'relationship' automatically. Debate that part of the post; I'd like some feedback.


Yes, I am human.  But when the animal's wants and needs are respected, and the human does nothing except what the animal has clearly showed that they want, and as long as the human stops as long as the animal shows that they don't want something.  Seriously what more could you ask for?   The animal signing a document, stating that: "Yes, I do indeed really feel like having my genitals stimulated right now."?  Sorry, it's not going to happen.

So the animal doesn't need to understand *consent*?


The animal needs to understand what they enjoy and what they don't enjoy, and wheter they want it at the moment or not.   And they do know this.  They don't raise their tail in the 'mating-way' if they don't wish to be touched there, and in case you touch them there and they don't like it, they make sure to lower their tail and get away from you immediately and clearly.

What about the animal understanding what *you're* meaning?


This is why it is important to know your animal well, and for the animal to know you well.

>>684
Again, I must agree.  Zoophilia is more of an accessory to an existing sexual orientation, rather than a sexual orientation unto itself.  Any zoo who thinks they are exclusivly attracted to animals is either ignorant of what they are missing, or 2, is damaged in the head.  I get the feeling that Svansfall has convinced himself that his relationships are far more significant than they really are.


Have you read Hani Miletski's book?  It's not the only study that researched the question of wheter zoophilia is a sexual orientation or not.  Page 168 to 172 in the book explores this in a very detailed way.  Unfortunately, it is far too much for me and sit and type into the computer.  Her study included 82 men and 11 women, who has had sexual contact with animals. Hani reaches the conclusion that zoophilia is a sexual orientation.

I'll quote a brief passage from Hani's book, where she reviews other studies made on the subject of zoophilia and bestiality:

"Fox (1994) believes that sexual relations with animals is as valid a sexual preference as homosexuality is.  Cauldwell (1948 & 1968) relates that bestiality is a result of an inherent passion, and Donofrio (1996) reports that the concept of zoophilia being a sexual orientation was supported by his doctoral study.  He, therefor, suggests using a scale resembling Kinsey's sexual orientation scale, which was also offered by Blake (1971).  Donofrio's model suggests that those who have no interest whatsoever in sexual contact with animals woukd appear at the Zero point of the scale.  Those individuals whose sole sexual outlet and attraction are animals, would be assigned the Six position. Along that continuum, between these two extremes, would be individuals who include animal sexual contact in their fantasy, or have had incidental experiences with animals, have had more than incidental contact with animals, place their sexual activity with animals equal to that involving humans, prefer animal contact but engage in more than incidental contact with humans, and those who engage primarily in contact with animals, with only incidental human sexual contact."

690Report
Svansfall at 2 Jun 2006: 13:57

Did any of you even read how I honestly actually have tried to make myself attracted to humans?

Ever tried to force yourself to become attracted to something that you don't feel the slightest of hints of attraction towards?

Some people are bi, and they can choose wheter they wish to lean more towards the hetero or the homo aspect.  But if you are fully hetero... tough luck trying to force yourself to become attracted to someone of the same gender.

Same with animals.  If you are attracted to humans as well as animals, then I can see they have the possibility to make a choice.  But if you are solely attracted to animals...  tough luck trying to make yourself attracted to a human.

691Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 2 Jun 2006: 14:24

>>689

Yes, I am human.  But when the animal's wants and needs are respected, and the human does nothing except what the animal has clearly showed that they want, and as long as the human stops as long as the animal shows that they don't want something.  Seriously what more could you ask for?   The animal signing a document, stating that: "Yes, I do indeed really feel like having my genitals stimulated right now."?  Sorry, it's not going to happen.

If the 'partner' in incapable of adequately understanding and/or expressing consent, then it's not consent. Sorry.
This is why it is important to know your animal well, and for the animal to know you well.

Clarification, "what one means by sex". As opposed to just rutting; an activity with more meaning than stick tab A into slit B.

Did any of you even read how I honestly actually have tried to make myself attracted to humans?

Tried therapy and mental counselling? A peer group?

Ever tried to force yourself to become attracted to something that you don't feel the slightest of hints of attraction towards?

Yes, and I love fried plantain. I do, however, have an illogical dislike of seafood, and can barely tolerate mushrooms. Point?

Same with animals.  If you are attracted to humans as well as animals, then I can see they have the possibility to make a choice.  But if you are solely attracted to animals...  tough luck trying to make yourself attracted to a human.

And? How does that make it "right"?

692Report
semi-anon-zoo-7 at 2 Jun 2006: 15:39

*If the 'partner' in incapable of adequately understanding and/or expressing consent, then it's not consent. Sorry.*
that is solely your opinion based upon your understanding of consent, as soon as one is dealing with a being tha has a different udnerstanding of consent then the definition of consent changes as their is point somewhere between teh animals understanding of consent and our understanding of consent that becomes what consent is defined as in such a relationship.

**Tried therapy and mental counselling? A peer group?**
  Actually scince you implied im sick and in need of help by what you have said to others, Yes I have sought out counceling through many different venues and eventualy the various therapists all said the same thing - "your fine and this falls under the same heading as a fetish or sexual orientation"
and no it dident """cure""" me.

**Same with animals.  If you are attracted to humans as well as **animals, then I can see they have the possibility to make a **choice.  But if you are solely attracted to animals...  tough **luck trying to make yourself attracted to a human.
*And? How does that make it "right"?*
  and how does that make it inherantly wrong?... You have failed so far` at showing inherant wrongness try again.

My relationship with an animal is very very much the same as that with my GF. they just speak different launguages.
and im stinking sorry if you have a problem with that but jeez
quit being so sodden narrow minded.
 
  Come on Jubero your job is to either show me im wrong or get me to think on how im wrong, so far you are failing.
 
  Picking at what ive said doesent win points, illistrate with clairity why its inherantly wrong wiothout relying on the tired argument of they cant consent. 

693Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 2 Jun 2006: 17:28

>that is solely your opinion based upon your understanding of consent, as soon as one is dealing with a being tha has a different udnerstanding of consent then the definition of consent changes
Hold everything. Why does it change *toward the animal*? What if it's two humans with different cultural ideas of 'consent'? What then?

as their is point somewhere between teh animals understanding of consent and our understanding of consent that becomes what consent is defined as in such a relationship.

All I've heard is based on the *animal's* probable definition of consent. The human side is generally dismissed, because it 'doesn't apply in a non-human relationship'. Which is technically correct, in relationships between non-humans.

"your fine and this falls under the same heading as a fetish or sexual orientation"

Which has what to do with making it 'right''? Some people have a fetish for stomping small animals to death, others have a fetish for certain types of soda pop.
and no it dident """cure""" me.

1. Are you trying to sound intellectual?
2. If they think there's nothing wrong with it, why would they try to "cure" it?

and how does that make it inherantly wrong?... You have failed so far` at showing inherant wrongness try again.

1. I think I've done a bang-up job. You don't. Clearly, you are obviously right.
/sarcasm
2. He's failed at showing inherent "rightness". Try again.

  Picking at what ive said doesent win points, illistrate with clairity why its inherantly wrong wiothout relying on the tired argument of they cant consent.

I'm not trying to "win points", I'm trying to argue my position. And I don't recall seeing you in the debate before; I would've remembered your quote and phrasing style, as well as the lack of proper grammar and spelling.

Oh, and the "tired" argument of lack of consent? Consent-or lack thereof-is what defines a sexual act as rape. It's central to the discussion.

quit being so sodden narrow minded.

That's "sodding", and I'm not being "narrow-minded", I simply don't agree. Narrow minded would be not listening to your opponent. I've been listening, and I still find their position flawed.

http://tinyurl.com/8ty32

694Report
semi-anon-zoo-7 at 2 Jun 2006: 20:57

  I have been in this discusion for a signifigant amount of time.
  I just had been posting as anon previously. Most definatly not all the anons, you may verify this with xenofur if he/she is so inclined.
xeno had enlightened myself in how anon grants one more respect in the long run so for the most part I post anon.
 this nick is here for the length of this discusion then shall go away. therby maintaining the same effect of being relativly anon while keeping my postings clumped together. I do not find the deep inherant need to build an image of what I think or a following, so that also plays in not continuing using the same nick long term.
thinking that I havent been interacting in this thread by posting is seemingly a display of your inherant abillity to notice subtlty and details at play? perhaps that is the best display of how one can be oblivious to the obvious.
  Sodden as in wet. as in dreary grey or damp.
to listen well you would be able to recognise my broken grammer
in the previous posts. this is perhaps at the seat of  your disbelief that animals are capable of consent.
(The broken grammer is the result of a head injury at twelve and sadly irreversable)
that however did not break my ability to add 2+2 in logical situations.
  You have indeed failed at showing inherant wrong by not being able to support well and with logic and data what you are proposing.
  The nice people with the hug me jackets never tried to cure me of zoo, they cured me of thinking zoo was bad.
 A relationship between an animal and a human is a non human relationship..... get it?  two humans in a relationship is a human relationship.
now please attack the logic behind what ive posted instead of attempting to personally attack either my grammer or supposed illness/wellness (see cure commentary) factor
show me how you pay attention to subtilties and deatils.
now, see, that was bad on my part I just jumped all over what is obviously a small mistake on your part.


*peace out people*
"the road less traveled often opens ones eyes to the smell of roses"

695Report
at 2 Jun 2006: 21:42

5 sub 700.

Wow, how quickly and often this thread has repeated itself.

696Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 2 Jun 2006: 21:52

>>694

to listen well you would be able to recognise my broken grammer in the previous posts. this is perhaps at the seat of  your disbelief that animals are capable of consent.

Congratulations. For the first time in 600 posts, I have facepalmed. With both hands.
that however did not break my ability to add 2+2 in logical situations.

Aparrently, it *did* impair your ability to refrain from ad hominem.
  You have indeed failed at showing inherant wrong by not being able to support well and with logic and data what you are proposing.

I wasn't trying to prove him wrong, just asking him to support his argument.
A relationship between an animal and a human is a non human relationship..... get it?  two humans in a relationship is a human relationship.

By the same token, a relationship between two animals is a *non-human* relationship. One involving a human and animal isn't either. It's a human-animal relationship. Also, I think you dropped your petard.

Would someone explain to me why the human associations of "sex" go out the window in a 'relationship' with an animal? It's equivalent (not equal) to saying an adult needs not a child's consent because the child cannot understand sex, therefore it isn't relevant.

697Report
semi-anon-zoo-7 at 2 Jun 2006: 23:45

  My intent was not to make you facepalm. my apologies for that
Simply understand that just because a person doesent seem capable dont presume that they are not by default.
  Also my apologies for misinterpreting your ongoing debate with one person for the overall debate that is happening.
unless ive overlooked details ive seen the zoo side post
much info with data and pics to back up: gay animals, animal intellect, animal choice, and animals having sex simply for pleasure. now with that said im "asking" *you* to provide links and data saying just the oposite (to support your seeming claim that animals are incapable of many things.(which is a large part of what this all hinges around) aka show me something to back up  your assertation.
 We are both guilty of ad hominum.
oh... congrats on having me look up a word (The French used pétard, “a loud discharge of intestinal gas,” for a kind of infernal engine for blasting through the gates of a city.) courtsy of dictionary.com
  I do hope I've avoided large disharges of intestonal gas but then we both may be guilty of that as well.
""By the same token, a relationship between two animals is a *non-human* relationship. One involving a human and animal isn't either. It's a human-animal relationship.**
 
  Precisily  my point, its a human animal relationship not a human human relationship therefore it cant be judged by the same qaulifiers. so consent in a human animal relationship can be obtained in other ways than the "yes dear you can bone me" way.
  you thereby gave an example of why the rules become different.
**Would someone explain to me why the human associations of "sex" go out the window in a 'relationship' with an animal? It's equivalent (not equal) to saying an adult needs not a child's consent because the child cannot understand sex, therefore it isn't relevant.**
  I recognise and accept that you qualified that
with not equal.
  Not quite equivalant either - the difference is that an animal is sexually mature and ready for sex, while a child is most assuradly not. that has also been discused at various lengths before and roughly the same reply was stated (what was that abought going on and on?)
the comparison between zoophiles and pedophiles has been used enough in the past that the logical differences tween the two have been seriously thought through both by zoophiles themselves and by the previously mentioned "profesional" white happy jacket guys.


  Is it possible to leap beyond the small banalities and discusion of inanely trival points that have been relativly well charted so far?  or should we continue to spar with details of how we word things?
dammit lotsa text for a simpole idea.
*peace out people.*
may the road not give you big hairy blisters of doom.

698Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 00:32

>>681

Informed consent is a legal term and, thus, has no place in a debate about morality.  Simple consent (aquessense to be exact) is all that is nessesary.  Quit trying to mix legalism in a debate on morality.  We've already been over this many times, so quit with this stupid argument and come up with something new.

"So it's not relevant because they can't understand it. Got it. I am *really* tempted to make another pedophilia comparison at this point."

Don't you dare make comparisons to pedophilia.  That's an apples-to-oranges argument.  Go back and read this thread.  The differences have been stated several times and you keep ignoring them.

I don't need consent in order to swiftly kill and feast upon my prey.  Why should I need consent to have sex with them?  Even if it is rape by your definition?  So what?  Big deal.  They are animals and are here for my use.  I'm not causing them to cry out in pain or even act like they are in pain.  If they do not appear to suffer, what do you care?

You (or maybe it was somebody else, I don't remember) seem to think that a need justifies an action.  People need to eat, so the slaughter of animals is justified.  People need to have sex with the oposit sex in order for our species to survive, thus it is justified (under the right conditions).  Sex with an animal is not a need, but a want.  Since humans can survive without sex with animals, it isn't justified based on need.  However, just because something is a want and not a need does not make it wrong.  There are many things in this world that we enjoy that are wants and never needs.  Are those wants unjustified or illegitimate, too?    You are getting dangerously close to adopting a philosophy of Stoicism, my friend.

Here's a quandry for your noodle.  Let's say you are starving to death and you must eat in order to survive.  There is no food available, so you turn to canibalizm as a last resort.  Were you justified to become a canibal even though you had no other choice to survive?  Was the moral option to abstain and die?

Need does not automaticaly justify an action nor is something automaticaly unjustified because it is want.  Issues like this or eating meat are to complex for such simple reasoning.

699Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 00:43

>>687


"Why does consent have to mean Yes. For consent to be related to rape the victim must be able to say No and from an anti-zoo point of view animals are unable to do this, thats why anti-zoo's think that its wrong. From a pro-zoo point of view consent is not verbal but done using body language, through body language they think they can determine if an animal is saying No.
Consent should not be determined by the person or animal saying Yes to sex but the opposite, if the animal or human is saying No. The question is can an anmial cominicate No through body language?"

The word you are looking for (and the anti-zoos keep ignoring) is "acquiescence".

700Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 00:49

aye, indeed. verbal != the only way to say yes or no.

701Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 00:53

>>688

"Because neither are considered intelligent enough to have an idea what 'consent' is, nor to give it. We've been over this, and I wish you would stop misrepresenting your opponent."

Wrong!  We do not set he age of consent to 18 years because of intelligence.  Should the law be changed to accomodate people's IQ level?  Is it okay for a 20 year old to have sex with a 15 year old if the 15 year old is smarter than the 20 year old?  Of course not!

We set the age of consent to 18 years because of the assumed maturity level people have by that age.  You are ready to have sex by that age because you are a biological adult, not because you can score higher on an IQ test than somebody younger.

702Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 01:47

>>689

"No, I didn't say they can 'consent' in the human defintion.  I said that they can clearly express in body language how they feel about things.  What they like, what they don't like, when they like something, when they don't like something.  That they can clearly communicate with us, and that we can read their body language and understand when they are saying "yes", or "no."  That they can clearly come up to someone and request something.  This is not the human definition of 'consent' and I feel the human definition of 'consent' is not valid at all here.  What is valid is that the animal gets its meaning across and that it is respected by the human."

Be very carful that you don't fall into any word traps here, because there are different types of consent.  The one that "Juberu#3LrT5NRVks" keeps using is "informed consent".  JuberGoober loves using that form of consent because animals cannot qualify for it.  "Acquiescence" is all you need because common sense tells us that animals will flee what they do not enjoy.

Next time, call it "Juber's definition of consent".

"And your assumptions are correct, I've actually been very upset and disturbed with a lot of the things on beastforum."

I haven't been on that board in a while.  What's going on that you don't like?

>>693
"Which has what to do with making it 'right''? Some people have a fetish for stomping small animals to death, others have a fetish for certain types of soda pop."

You said your self that "harm" was only secondary to your argument, yet you now make the implication that zoophilia is like stomping on a puppy's head.  The point is that his fetish is "harmless" like a foot fetish or a leather fetish.  If you are going to say that the fellow in question was not justified by his psychotherapist, then you must show me why having sex with an animal brings them harm, an agument that you won't touch.

"1. Are you trying to sound intellectual?"

What's your point?

"2. If they think there's nothing wrong with it, why would they try to "cure" it?"

He was being sarcastic about "curing" himself.  Apparently, you were unable comprehend that zoophilia was an issue he wrestled with for a long time.  His conclusion that there was nothing wrong with it only happend after he worked out this isssue.

Quit being a foolish contrarian!

"I'm not trying to "win points", I'm trying to argue my position. And I don't recall seeing you in the debate before; I would've remembered your quote and phrasing style, as well as the lack of proper grammar and spelling."

Once again, you pick out things that aren't relivant and you run with them.  Bravo!

"Oh, and the "tired" argument of lack of consent? Consent-or lack thereof-is what defines a sexual act as rape."

Wait, I thought you had to have more than just consent.  According to you, a zoophile must have "informed consent" in order to not be raping an animal.  But hey, if all you need is generic consent, which includes "acquiescence" under it's umbrella, then I'm okay with that.

"It's central to the discussion."

No it isn't.  It's only central to your argument.  You keep acting like you've discoverd this great thing.  Well I've got news for you.  It's only great to you.  To me, it's irrelivant.  Prove to me why it is and maybe I won't marginalize you so much.

"That's "sodding", and I'm not being "narrow-minded", I simply don't agree. Narrow minded would be not listening to your opponent. I've been listening, and I still find their position flawed."

I don't know if anybody has ever told you this before, but you are a pedantic asshole.

>>696

"Would someone explain to me why the human associations of "sex" go out the window in a 'relationship' with an animal? It's equivalent (not equal) to saying an adult needs not a child's consent because the child cannot understand sex, therefore it isn't relevant."

The reason we have anti-pedophilia laws is because pedophilia causes harm to children.  It doesn't matter if a child can consent or not.  Sex isn't good for them.

Sexualy mature animals are not analogous to sexualy immature children.  Adult animals are developed and ready for sex, just like adult humans.  Children have yet to grow up into there sexualy mature selves.

The morality behind the pedophilia laws is based on "protecting the child [from harm]".  Sexualy mature animals do understand sex as far as there sphere of relivance is conserned.  You are, once again, comparing apples to oranges.

703Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 3 Jun 2006: 04:14

>>687

Yo man, yeah no worries, people get angry, but they come out of it too.

Yeah, the ability to say "no" is the important one to be sure, but the reason informed consent is part of rape is cause somethimes you aren't allowed to say no, aren't able to, that kinda thing. Otherwise it wouldn't be rape if you got her drunk or drugged or caught her sleeping, etc.

Course, it gets worse there. Nambla types love to use the whole "But they DO consent" line of bullshit, so the definition moved to encompass children, and informed consent is used in courts for this kind of thing.

So in other words, it's important because otherwise people find ways around it... but that's all legal stuff. I happen to think it's moral too. If you get consent because you tricked or manipulate someone, you're a scumbag, legal or not. I suppose now that I think of it, I probably should have more of a problem with bestiality, but I just don't think about it that much. At least not until recently.

As for your hypothetical, that's what I would call a dangerous gray area, and you'd be better off erring on the side of caution. I see it this way: If you don't obtain consent, but she doesn't struggle, then you haven't raped her "yet", because she hasn't decided yet. She'd be within her rights to say later that "yeah, I didn't struggle, but I didn't say it was okay either". And that can be taken further too. Stuff like "Yeah, I agreed, but you never told me you had an STD" or "Yeah, I agreed, but only because I was drunk out of my mind; you took advantage of me".

This is where the legal/moral marks split. I'd say having sex with someone without complete consent is always wrong, but obviously it's not always illegal. And while you wouldn't need it, say, written every time obviously, the ability for her to be ABLE to if necessary is what would be important I think. If she's asked, does she say "Yeah, I consent", or does she squint and say "con...sent? What dat?" In one, she consents, in the other, she probably didn't struggle, but she didn't consent either, since she obviously doesn't get it.

>>688

That depends on whether it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they understand consent, on an individual basis. IQ is no real guarantee of understanding.


OH! Dude, I think I get where you're coming from now! Basically, you're saying that even if, say, Washu the chimp can consent, that doesn't mean all chimps can consent, just Washu.

So in other words, it's not the base intelligence, it's the education right! If you bother to teach a chimp about sex, what it means to people, and what they'd be getting themselves into if they signed "yes", AND they understood, then they can consent.

I can see why the zoos get pissed off at you if that's the case, cause seriously, I don't even think anyone's educated Washu with that kind of stuff, let alone whatever animal they get involved in. Duuude, no wonder you think it's creepy, and I get the child comparison now! It's not that children are animal-like, or that animals are child-like! It's that animals have little or no education on the matter!

Or maybe I missed it, but I'm closer at least! Rad!

704Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 3 Jun 2006: 04:46

>>689

Yes, but how did this name suddenly pop up in this thread?  I did not mention the name.


Sorry dude, I got it from that beastfurum site. You said you were pointed here, so I went there to see what was being said in there. Yeah, you didn't rat him out or anything. ;)

This is not the human definition of 'consent' and I feel the human definition of 'consent' is not valid at all here.


Well... don't know what to tell you man. I can see why it's a valid concern, but I kinda apply it to humans only out of a harsh bias. I don't think it's evil, I just think it's gross, and I don't really sweat those kind of issues with animals. If you're claiming to care though, I'd suggest giving it a try to look at it "their" way, since you want them to change... cause lets face it, most people against bestiality aren't going to discuss it with you or justify their position, they're just going to verbally, socially, possibly legally, and maybe even physically attack you, and there probably aren't enough zoophiles to return in kind.

Not fair really, but yeah, it's kind of a one way thing here. They're on the accepted "popular" side, so they don't need to justify themselves to you. If you need to compare it to something closer to home, think of the struggle (ongoing struggle) for racial equality. What, did black activists just say "No, you guys are wrong, so you should all just leave me alone"? Well, some probably did, but I bet you it didn't really get them anywhere. Then there were the violent ones... and, well they kinda caused more harm than good really, as they "confirmed" all the prejudice against them. Then there were the ones who wouldn't back down, wouldn't be ignored, and FORCED people to look at it their way... but they had to explain themselves. Grown men and women had to explain why being born with a certain skin color didn't mean they deserved bad treatment.

Now... zoophiles... not really like the race struggles as far as I can tell. I mean, not every group vying for fair treatment is right. Nambla, creepy cults, the A.L.F., those kinds of people. They have a cause, but they're wrong... so just because you're an oppressed minority doesn't immediately mean that the majority are being unreasonable bullies. Not sure where zoophiles are really. Some of you don't seem terrible... most of you are creepy as hell if this thread is an indicator...

Have you read Hani Miletski's book?


Man, the only thing I can say to this, for both sides, is be careful. Just because it's written in a book by some scholar or scientist doesn't mean it's right, or even valid. Two people from the same university can look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions. Just look at the psychology Nature/Nurture debate for evidence there.

>>690

Actually, yes. I used to think I was a bad person because I was a furry, and I tried to NOT be a furry... and then eventually came to the conclusion that being a furry isn't hurting anything, because all it really meant is I was looking at something. Yeah, it's damn near impossible to just completely deny a kink.

But seriously, that doesn't mean you shouldn't. What if your kink was snuff? I don't care how hard it is to deny yourself, you deny it or you're a murderer.

Now, zoophiles are aren't THAT bad... not even close... but the point is, just because it's hard to deny doesn't absolve you of any responsibility. The right or wrong of it aren't swayed in other words.

>>697
Dude, I have no idea what your points are. Well, I get that you're apparently for bestiality, but you kinda seem to be demonstrating the "fuck animal rights, I'll do what I want, when I want" argument, which lends to it being "wrong" as far as this discussion goes. Beyond that though, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Maybe you've had some sort of accident that makes it hard for you to type... but that doesn't make it easier to understand you, and I don't see it as "our" responsibility to shovel through it.

Jub seems up for the challenge though... for some reason.

705Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 3 Jun 2006: 05:04

>>698

Aw god damnit, every time this thread starts to go somewhere, someone like you pops up and just decides that a point (THE central point for the anti-zoos) just doesn't count. Well, you gonna say WHY informed consent doesn't count? If your answer is "animals can't do it", then that's the whole POINT isn't it?

Jesus... it doesn't count?

You (or maybe it was somebody else, I don't remember) seem to think that a need justifies an action.  People need to eat, so the slaughter of animals is justified.  People need to have sex with the oposit sex in order for our species to survive, thus it is justified (under the right conditions).  Sex with an animal is not a need, but a want.  Since humans can survive without sex with animals, it isn't justified based on need.  However, just because something is a want and not a need does not make it wrong.  There are many things in this world that we enjoy that are wants and never needs.  Are those wants unjustified or illegitimate, too?    You are getting dangerously close to adopting a philosophy of Stoicism, my friend.


Yeah, I'm not even going to explain myself if you aren't even going to paraphrase me properly. That isn't what I said, that isn't what I was getting at, and as a result, you don't have a point. You defeated an argument you imagined. Well done.

>>699
The word you are looking for (and the anti-zoos keep ignoring) is "acquiescence".


Naw man, it's consent. I know it's a pisser to deal with, but rape is nonconsensual sex. Acquiescence isn't enough unless you're using a personalized definition of rape, which is basically a "Well, in MY world it isn't rape" type argument.

>>701

You can have an IQ of 200 and fail at math dude. If your gonna try to wow people with your intelligence... well, just don't dude, we're not idiots, and these "strong forceful statements" still need some reasoning to back them up before they make any sense.

>>702
Next time, call it "Juber's definition of consent".


So what, should people call your definition the "No means yes" definition? I mean, I can't back that up, but it sure would make it easy to dismiss everything you say. JuberGoober? Jesus...

706Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 3 Jun 2006: 08:44

>>697

Not quite equivalant either - the difference is that an animal is sexually mature and ready for sex, while a child is most assuradly not. that has also been discused at various lengths before and roughly the same reply was stated (what was that abought going on and on?)

Did you just say something is "obvious" without stating how? Yes, the animal is mature enough for sex; with other animals. How does that make them mature enough for humans?

We are both guilty of ad hominum.

Except that I did it as secondary, as a direct criticism of your grammar. You didn't even get to the subject at hand until the last four lines of >>694.
  I do hope I've avoided large disharges of intestonal gas but then we both may be guilty of that as well.

As in "hoist by one's own...".
the comparison between zoophiles and pedophiles has been used enough in the past that the logical differences tween the two have been seriously thought through both by zoophiles themselves and by the previously mentioned "profesional" white happy jacket guys.

And?

>>702
You said your self that "harm" was only secondary to your argument, yet you now make the implication that zoophilia is like stomping on a puppy's head.

No, my implication was that being a "fetish" doesn't make something right or wrong.
/mmm, Sprite

Informed consent is a legal term and, thus, has no place in a debate about morality.  Simple consent (aquessense to be exact) is all that is nessesary.

Consent to something they don't reasonably understand. Got it.
Quit being a foolish contrarian!

I love how everyone who disagrees with an opponent is a "contrarian". A contrarian is someone who takes positions flouting conventional wisdom, and attempts to show people there's something wrong with their limited worldview.  Conventional wisdom states that bestiality is wrong. Therefore, I am not a contrarian. You are.

Be very carful that you don't fall into any word traps here, because there are different types of consent.  The one that "Juberu#3LrT5NRVks" keeps using is "informed consent".  JuberGoober loves using that form of consent because animals cannot qualify for it.  "Acquiescence" is all you need because common sense tells us that animals will flee what they do not enjoy.

Doesn't that also call for animals to understand what sex with a human implies?
No it isn't.  It's only central to your argument.

Rape (n); 1 : a crime defined as sexual intercourse or penetration without valid consent by both parties.
I don't know if anybody has ever told you this before, but you are a pedantic asshole.

Not in so many words, no.
If the debate is-and it is-largely over whether bestiality=rape, then it's central.
Sexualy mature animals are not analogous to sexualy immature children.  Adult animals are developed and ready for sex, just like adult humans.  Children have yet to grow up into there sexualy mature selves.

Very good. Now answer the actual question, not attack the illustration.

>>703
Duuude, no wonder you think it's creepy, and I get the child comparison now! It's not that children are animal-like, or that animals are child-like! It's that animals have little or no education on the matter!

That, and they'd probably wouldn't "get it" anyway. Thank you. Can we move from there?

>>704
Now... zoophiles... not really like the race struggles as far as I can tell.

http://www.journalfen.net/community/jurisimprudence/79957.html
Jub seems up for the challenge though... for some reason.

I have no life. :D
Acquiescence isn't enough unless you're using a personalized definition of rape, which is basically a "Well, in MY world it isn't rape" type argument.

It also isn't enough unless the acquiescer knows what they're getting into. And I've heard the argument that animals can't understand consent from zoos, therefore it isn't relevant to them. (Which makes little to no sense, but I'll leave it be for the moment.) But if they don't understand it, doesn't it mean they can't acquiesce?

707Report
semi-anon-zoo-7 at 3 Jun 2006: 08:57

mostly in responce/ agreement to grape tang.
agreed some zoos/bestialists  are not only creepy as hell but probably shouldent be allowed to own animals (if any of you actually take that personally you probably either fall into
the first catagory or the "im to sensative to be on the internet" catagory)
good lord of course you and some others find it icky, yay for having individual choices and tastes.
those that step forward and go "you are raping that animal"
or "you are abusing that animal"
get real ... gory squicky details follow.
first time I had sex and what started me fully down the road to zoo..
i was roughly 12 had grown up on a farm  knew what the animals did and was curious so therefore kneeled in front of the st bernard new foundland male we had. (he had been bugging me for sex for at least 2 years prior) well next thing I know im part of a siamesed at the but dog and human.  I was hooked... at 14 i got caught and thrown out of the house for good, hence my search to ""cure"" myself. and also why my opinion on this is neither rape nor wrong can be inherantly swayed.
^begin sarcasm
(*gasp* was that first hand personal experience showing how that sure the hell wasant me raping the dog? nah it must be my imagination or me trying to find a way to make it seem right)
^end sarcasm
again I can undersatnd how it can squick people, hell for years it squicked me even tho I was more drawn to them than humans.
comparing animals to children - again puhhhlease.
If one continues to compare animals to children at any level one should have neither as one trully fails to grasp the inherant diffrences between the two.
wow i think i said something relativly new that hasent been repeated extensivly.
attacking ones nick or such, like has been recently done, is actualy lower than charecter attack, at least charector attack can prove a point (one doesent live up to what they say etc)
but nick attacking.... cmon people act slightly less like 11 year olds other wise this 40 year old grouch will likely ignore you as there is no inherant way to intimidate you into behaving online.
peace out people.

708Report
semi-anon-zoo-7 at 3 Jun 2006: 09:06

>>706
As in "hoist by one's own
that doesent fit within your sentance use before where you used dropping my petard to early. c'mon at least be comsistant.
if you had used hoist then i wouldent have went and looked it up.
 I missed where i said obvious in regards to children do not equal animals. perhaps you could enlighten me?

709Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 09:37

correction due to to stupid typo - droppage of a few important words.
"and also why my opinion on this is neither rape nor wrong can be inherantly swayed."

should be

 and also why my opinion on why this is neither rape nor wrong can not be inherantly swayed.

710Report
Svansfall at 3 Jun 2006: 09:40

>>702

I haven't been on that board in a while.  What's going on that you don't like?


That is too much to mention here, and I will not go into details.

>>704
Man, the only thing I can say to this, for both sides, is be careful. Just because it's written in a book by some scholar or scientist doesn't mean it's right, or even valid. Two people from the same university can look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions. Just look at the psychology Nature/Nurture debate for evidence there.


No, it doesn't have to be valid just because it is written in a book.  But a majority of recent studies on the subject has all defined zoophilia as a sexual orientation.  Hani Miletski's study is only one of the most in-depth studies on the topic, and she has extensive research behind her study.  http://www.drmiletski.com/about_hani.html

The reason why she started researching the subject was that one of her clients came to her and wanted to be 'cured' from zoophilia.  She was trying to find information about it, and found no recent studies, so she started doing her own research.  She eventually came to the conclusion that her client could not be cured from zoophilia, because you cannot cure someone from a sexual orientation.

Actually, yes. I used to think I was a bad person because I was a furry, and I tried to NOT be a furry... and then eventually came to the conclusion that being a furry isn't hurting anything, because all it really meant is I was looking at something. Yeah, it's damn near impossible to just completely deny a kink.


The difference is that zoophilia is not a kink, nor is it a fetish.  It's a sexual orientation.  A fetish is when you are aroused by an object or by an action.  I.e. snuff, foot-fetish, etc.  A sexual orientation is when you feel emotionally and physically attracted to another living being.  The animal is not an object, nor is it an action.

The reason why I mentioned that zoophilia is a sexual orientation was not to explain why it would be "right", but why it is upsetting when someone says: "Go find a woman instead of a cow."  I guess a kink or a fetish would be more easy to ignore even if you're unhappy with them, but a sexual orientation is rooted deep down.  It's like in the old days when they tried to force left-handed people to become right-handed, by forbidding them to use their left hand.

Sexologists and therapists who have researched zoophilia are aware of that you cannot "cure" a sexual orientation or make it go away.  So to tell someone to "Go find someone you are not sexually attracted to!" isn't a very kind thing to say.

Now on to the issue of so-called 'consent'.

The reason why I don't feel the human definition of 'consent'applies to human/animal relationships is because the term is not constructed wide enough to fit with clear and absolute non-verbal communication.

As I have explained earlier, an animal will show very clearly what they want and what they don't want.  No matter how clear this is, it still falls out of the human definition of 'consent'.

I am not going to participate much in this discussion anymore, because I am getting a bit too many things that need to urgently be done IRL, and my time to sit by the computer is limited.  It takes me a while to write those posts, because of having to use the dictionary and look up a lot of English words all the time.

Another reason is that I have basically already said most of what I can say on the subject, and the rest will just be repeating myself.  I'll most likely slip in a few comments now and then anyway, though.

So, to sum up what I really mean:  As long as the animal and human know each other, and feel comfortable and safe in each others company.  As long as the human makes sure to read the clear and direct body language of the animal, and respect it.  As long as no one is coming to harm, I do not see anything that could be wrong with a human and an animal both enjoying sexual contact with each other.

Human definition of 'consent' does not even come close to being relevant here.  Juberu may think it is valid, but an animal who tries to rub her genitals against a tree in a futile attempt of getting stimulation, will be noticably relieved once she has recieved the stimulation from a human, and if I would instead stand before her and say: "Sorry, you cannot give me human 'consent', so therefor I cannot touch you", she'd just get more frustrated, turning around and exposing her genitals to me. Not because she understands my words, but because I am not helping her find relief.

I've had to ignore cows who try to get me to stimulate them, when I have had to go to work in the morning, or having other things that I must attend to.  To expect me to not stimulate her, when she wants to, when I want to, and when both have time, solely for the reason that she cannot meet the human definition of 'consent'.   Sorry, no.  It harms none of us, and both of us like it.

In short: If everyone involved enjoys it, and no one gets any harm from it, do what you please.  Giving harmless pleasure can never be wrong.

That's my opinion, and feel free to disagree if you like, but don't be mean to people who treat animals good.

711Report
semi-anon-zoo-7 at 3 Jun 2006: 10:24

totally understood abough the "just because its written in a book" part, but there are enough various different books and sources that all say a variant upon the same idea and also aproach it from enough diferent angles with simaler conclusions for myself to accept such as a logical thing.
Svansfall thank you for another supporting link, that is what i was hoping the anti zoo people would do, give us some links.

712Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 3 Jun 2006: 13:24

>>710

Not because she understands my words, but because I am not helping her find relief.

Did you just say that you touch your dog because she's horny?
I am not going to participate much in this discussion anymore,

Actually, I meant to leave without announcement somewhere in the 300s, but I came back, just to contest some points of logic, on both sides. Just when I thought that I was out, they pull me back in. I think I and others have argued this to as close to a conclusion as it's going to come: the sticking point.

Those on my side say the human definition of consent matters because there's a human in the relationship, and the animal doesn't know any better. Zoos say it's irrelevant precisely *because* the animal doesn't, and never will, understand the human idea of "consent". While I'm probably missing the subtleties, I think both sides can agree that there's not an inch to be given here. unless I'm missing something important. Anyone?

713Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 14:18

   Pretty good summing up.

 Perhaps refine it by  "never will be able to give consent in the manner in which some people understand consent." that of course is your choice on how you word such.

  What im at something of a loss on is why alternative forms of consent *HAVE* to equal rape so far as some are concerned.

714Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 3 Jun 2006: 15:51

We're arguing that they're not valid forms of consent for humans, but for other animals. Sex without valid consent is rape, as far as we're concerned. Your side thinks those forms of consent are valid, therefore it is not rape.

Are we done here?

715Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 16:19

>>706

"Did you just say something is "obvious" without stating how? Yes, the animal is mature enough for sex; with other animals. How does that make them mature enough for humans?"

Why doesn't it?  You have yet to show how "animal" sexual maturity and "human" sexual maturity are different; I use quoats because humans are technicaly animals.  The only difference I have ever seen demonstrated is complexity, which we humans have in spades.  But is that really enough to make a difference, and if so, why?

"Except that I did it as secondary, as a direct criticism of your grammar. You didn't even get to the subject at hand until the last four lines of >>694."

Let this be a lesson to you, then.  Avoid trivial matters like this and refrain from humiliating your oponents with cheap shots like pointing out errors in there spelling, grahmar, etc.  People will be most inclined to listen to you and be less inclined to dismiss you as a contrarian and trollish asshat.  And I don't mean to sound insulting to you, I really don't.  I'm just saying that's how you come off some times.

"/mmm, Sprite"

You are the first "spritesexual" I've ever met.

"Conventional wisdom states that bestiality is wrong. Therefore, I am not a contrarian. You are."

That's conventional morality, not wisdom.  You just love to twist things to suit you.  Your very good at being a contrarian.

"If the debate is-and it is-largely over whether bestiality=rape, then it's central."

The debate is on the morality of bestiality, not if it bestiality = rape.  The rape issue more of a sub-heading.  There are other issues regarding the morality of bestiality besides of it is the same as rape. For example, does sex with animals cause the human in the relationship any harm.  I've seen only one post make the case that it could be harmful to the human emotionaly, but this avenue has yet to be fully explored.  This entire debate has been far to animal centric.  The human side should not be so ignored.

>>707
"wow i think i said something relativly new that hasent been repeated extensivly."

Actualy, the differences between children and animals has been stated many times.  It's just that nobody on the anti-zoo side listens.

>>710

"That [stuff on Beastforum] is too much to mention here, and I will not go into details." 

Can't you at least "reader's digest" it for me?  You can spare me the details.

>>712

"Did you just say that you touch your dog because she's horny?"

First, he's talking about cows, not dogs.  All he ever talks about are his cows.  Secondly, yes, hid did say that he relives his cows' sexual tenssion.

>>712

"While I'm probably missing the subtleties, I think both sides can agree that there's not an inch to be given here. unless I'm missing something important. Anyone?"

No, you aren't mising anything besides the subtleties; neither side is willing to budge an inch.  I would like to refine your summation about the zoo argument.  The pro-zoos belive that informed consent is outside an animal's sphere of relivance because it does not exist in animal to animal relationships.  Informed consent is important to humans because it is an intergal part of human sexuality. This, informed consent is nessesary for the animal to have sex with the human, rather than the other way around.  In order for a human legitimatly have sex with an animal, consent must be obtained in what ever manor is spesific to the particular species, gender, and even individual.  This is why the more responsible zoos say how important it is to know your animal and build as much trust as possible first before anything sexual is even thought about.  Some animals actualy do say "no" in there own way and when they say "no" there wishes must be respected. 

I'll admit it, I've read essays and articles on how to have sex with animals, and some will honestly state that the zoo should be prepared for rejection, as this often happens.  Some less scropulous articles ofer methods that are absolutly coercive and wrong.  For example, smearing penut butter on your genitals so a dog will lick them.  A dog may lick and sniff at a person's genitalia a little bit, but they don't do it for very long or that often.  In order to sustain the licking, the zoo must trick the dog into it.  Now that is not right.  I also disagree with reward systems or training methods to get animals to do what you want.  If anybody needs special techniques in order to get there animals to perform the sexual relationsip is one-sided and wrong.  Sex should be it's own reward. 

Zoos should ask themselves this quesiton:  "Does the animal have sex with me because I give him/her a reward or because they like the sex?  To me, this is the purity test for whether or not the sexual relationship is consentual.

716Report
semi-anon-zoo-7 at 3 Jun 2006: 18:19

>>715  *bows*
  That last question that zoos should ask themselves. awsome and totally agreed.
  On a semi intersting thought, by the same argument the anti zoos are using then if a male dog mounts a human, Is the dog (insert any animal capable of mounting) raping the human as the dog cannot possibly understand that the human has said yes.

  This seems to be an inherant implication of the informed consent argument. if no comunication is able to happen at least on the level of conveying consent then it cant go either way,
and then the active party becomes the raper and the pasive party the rapee. (there is a reason i drag this out and double explain things)
 
  To adress the question of harm to humans. that is going to depend on a lot of things - partly does the human use the relationship with an animal to replace the relationship they desire with a human, or do they simply prefer the animals.
  Is said relationship likely to cause them harm in their peer group if such knowledge becomes commenly known.
  Does their locality have some type of blue laws regarding such interactions. and thereby they face some form of legal repercusions.
  That is just touching the tip of the iceberg in regards to possible harm towards humans
of course there is possible physical harm- witness the poor sap in washington - witness myself getting kicked in the head by a horse (utterly non zoo related) paniced horse that was tangled in a lead rope.

717Report
semi-anon-zoo-7 at 3 Jun 2006: 18:22

>>715 dont worry im non humilatable by cracks against my spelling and grammer. I'm used to them *chuckle*
severe head trama is fun boys and girls :p
peace out people

718Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 18:59

>>716

"On a semi intersting thought, by the same argument the anti zoos are using then if a male dog mounts a human, Is the dog (insert any animal capable of mounting) raping the human as the dog cannot possibly understand that the human has said yes."

Oh, but you see, that wouldn't be rape.  Why?  Because animals do not have a sense of morality.  Thus, morality does not apply to them.  It only applies to humans.  But why, then, must we insist upon informed consent when that isn't appart of there world either.  This is a contradiction in the anti-zoo argument and I'm glad you pointed it out.  Very good, sir.  Bravo! 

Oh, but I'm sure this will be explained away by the anti-zoos by saying that I'm not making sense or that I'm "contradicting" myself when I'm not or that there is a "flaw" in my logic (which they won't point out directly).  They are so focused on there own agument that they never take the time to understand ours.  That is why it is so "obvious" that we are wrong.

The one great harm I see zoos most prone to feeling is the loss of there animal lover.  Over the human life-time, a man could watch three horses be born and die, or about 7 to 14 dogs, depending on there highly veriable life span.  That's a lot of greif for one person to lose all of those lovers.

This is actualy the main reason why I think having sex with an animals is a bad idea for people.  Masterbating them to releave there sexual tension is another mater entirely.  In that case, the human does not have to deal with the increased bonding that orgasm brings.  Only the animal is subject to orgasmic bonding.

719Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 19:29

  Intersting point to bring up, the loss of a loved one.
each zoo has to deal with that on their own for the most part,
although with the internet at least now we know others to help share the burden of the pain. I have had many dogs, some have just been dogs they are there and dont connect at some level.
they get the same awsome treatment all of them that I've had do.
  the loss is less with those that do not connect tho. its like loosing a friend to old age or accident or ilness it sucks badly.
 To loose one of the ones that ive formed a trully deep attachment to and vice versa hurts more than anything else aside from loosing a human partner, which is on par on the scale of
trama inducing things that can happen, Yes I have lost a human lover roughly 20 years ago to a car accident.
the loss of the human was eisier as I had freinds and people who gave me certain amounts of comfort and understanding.
however with loss of an animal (principly dogs in my case)
there was no support group in any manner as the normal thing id hear is "get over it, It was just a dog"
 After coming out to my freinds and close people I gained enough
people who were either zoo or zoo freindly that at least I was no longer alone (this was actually before the internet was a big thing) out of probably 100 people that i knew relativly closely
I lost two freinds for that and discoverd that roughly 49 were or had some of contact with animals in that way and the remainder were quite understanding.
  I suspect that was becuase like minds attracted - although its also possible the level of zoo or past zoo is much higher than most think.
currently im in a nice stable relationship with a calm sane gf who understands. (i am intentionally leaving out details as somethings are indeed private)
 I've never ponderd if a animal bonds further through the act of pleasure and orgasm although id highly suspect they may or do.
it is something indeed worthy of pondering late at night watching the stars or such.

(btw no im not hovering around waiting for new posts I'm renovating my shop to get it in shape as a wood working and metal working shop I just have been checking for new posts each time I come inside this is starting to get interesting finally)

720Report
at 3 Jun 2006: 23:27

It's such an odd thing.  Wow.  How much discussion can come here.

721Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 4 Jun 2006: 02:07

Yeeeah...

Anyhow, to those of you who think quoting sources makes it valid... are you out of your god damned minds? Are you telling me that you grew up in a western culture, and you haven't been exposed to ideas like "animals can't communicate" and "sex with animals is bad"? It's common knowledge. It's the underlying assumption. People are trying to DISPROVE those, and that's why there sources.

>>715
Okay buddy, rape is morally wrong, so if it's rape, then it's morally wrong, and that's WHY it's morally wrong. It isn't hard to understand. That's why consent is the issue, and that's why comparisons to children are made. If you can't understand THAT, then there's no way in hell you'll ever convince anyone on the anti side, because you literally don't get it. I only just figured out the child/animal comparison a bit ago, but now that I see what they're getting at, it seems pretty important.

Anyhow, new batch of people, same old arguments, I'm outies.
I'm still a fence sitter, I still don't fully get it, but right now, I'm pretty much convinced that 9/10 zoos are creepy little self serving sadists who can't be satisfied with just a picture, and the other 10% are kinda burried beneath it, so I don't know WHAT they are.

722Report
Svansfall at 4 Jun 2006: 04:48

>>721

I know I said I wouldn't post much further, but...

Anyhow, to those of you who think quoting sources makes it valid... are you out of your god damned minds? Are you telling me that you grew up in a western culture, and you haven't been exposed to ideas like "animals can't communicate" and "sex with animals is bad"? It's common knowledge. It's the underlying assumption. People are trying to DISPROVE those, and that's why there sources.


I grew up in Sweden, and here it is common knowledge and the underlying assumption that animals CAN communicate.  It's the foundation for all animal-human interraction in horseback-riding, the usage of herding-dogs, the usage of other specialized dogs, etc.  All vets learn about it, and all agricultural collages teaches their students on how to understand their animals' body language and how they should act to communicate in return.

So, it seems to me that you are saying that all vets and all professionals who work with animals are out of their, quote, god damned minds, unquote.

As for finding sources who claim that "sex with animals is bad".  You're going to find loads of them, they are pretty old, and when you look up other reports written by the same people, you'll see that the same authors also credit homosexuality as being wrong, bad and immoral.

You're also going to find studies that show that zoophilia is bad, where every participant they used in the research was imprisoned sex-criminals.  Oh, yes... very representative of every zoophile.   A study on 'furries' based upon the worst examples of furries would probably show that being furry was bad also.

"The world is flat", was also common knowledge and the underlying assumption, before Galileo came along.   So, recent studies bare no importance against common knowledge?

Those recent studies on Zoophilia was not conducted to disprove the underlying assumption anyway, they were conducted to find more information about it, since almost no information was to be found in the archives of scientific material at all.

723Report
Svansfall at 4 Jun 2006: 05:22

Here's a link to a good book about animal behaviour, which includes how they socially interract with each other and communicate, and how we should communicate with them.

http://www.cabi-publishing.org/bookshop/BookDisplay.asp?PID=1565

724Report (sage)
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 4 Jun 2006: 07:12

>>722

Don't be simple dude, that's not what I meant. Western culture opperates on an assumption that animals are inferior to humans. The only thing under discussion by any signifigant demographic is HOW inferior animals are. Hell, all cultures probably opperate under this assumption. And anyone who isn't aware of this conceit has been living under a rock.

When I said "communicate", I meant on a human level, so take off with your binary definitions already.

Yeah, the world isn't flat... but that had to be proven before it was accepted. Somehow, I don't think zoophiles are going to be able to get anti-zoos to look through a telescope and show the world that fucking animals is morally sound. And as for homosexuals, those are humans, and all you need to do is ask them how they feel. They can write it up in an essay if necessary, so again, NOTHING like animals.

And yeah, a lot of people think furries are bad... but furries don't DO anything to anyone. For the most part, we look at art, get involved with each other, etc. All human or fantasy, so either there's consent, or nothing's happening.

Jeez, quit trying to drag everyone into the mess with zoophiles. There may be a lot of problems with furries, but we don't have THOSE problems. Hell, even the plushies and suiters don't do anything morally confusing. We're more like anime fans, or trekkies. Zoophiles are on their own branch.

725Report
Svansfall at 4 Jun 2006: 07:25

Somehow, I don't think zoophiles are going to be able to get anti-zoos to look through a telescope and show the world that fucking animals is morally sound.


No, because some people will refuse to look through the telescope, i.e they will refuse to read what the scientists have found in the recent studies.

So people will refuse to look through the telescope because they are convinced that the old common knowledge is correct, so they'll do anything to disregard the new knowledge, because it is more convenient to believe that everything is the way it used to be, back in the good old days when mummy told me what was good and what was bad.

726Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 4 Jun 2006: 08:11

>>718

Oh, but you see, that wouldn't be rape.  Why?  Because animals do not have a sense of morality.  Thus, morality does not apply to them.  It only applies to humans.  But why, then, must we insist upon informed consent when that isn't appart of there world either.  This is a contradiction in the anti-zoo argument and I'm glad you pointed it out.  Very good, sir.  Bravo!

Oh, but I'm sure this will be explained away by the anti-zoos by saying that I'm not making sense or that I'm "contradicting" myself when I'm not or that there is a "flaw" in my logic (which they won't point out directly).

I'm not sure I need to, but let me try.
A does not understand rule B. Therefore, rule B does not apply to him.

Got it? This may be part of the sticking point.

>They are so focused on there own agument that they never take the time to understand ours.  That is why it is so "obvious" that we are wrong.
Funny, I rarely, if ever, see anyone on my side using the "obvious" claim. It's more often your side. Also, and I'm tired of saying this, there is a gap between *understanding* and *agreement*. Also, we need proper bold and italics.

>>722
"The world is flat", was also common knowledge and the underlying assumption, before Galileo came along.

Which is strange, because it meant ignoring several pieces of evidence. Like trees or poles of equal height in a straight line, when viewed at a right angle from a distance, don't have even tops.

Why I can remember obscure points from a five-year-old Geography lesson, but not the stuff I took last semester, I'll never know.
>>724
Hell, even the plushies and suiters don't do anything morally confusing.

Except freak people out. :D
>>725
because it is more convenient to believe that everything is the way it used to be, back in the good old days when mummy told me what was good and what was bad.

And there are people who are going to look and still dislike it.

727Report
semi-anon-zoo-7 at 4 Jun 2006: 08:31

  Informed consent: the idea of informed consent exists because we as humans have been known to drug each other and a myrid of other things simply to allow ourselves to have sex with another human and keep them from being aware. 
  so it has a reason for existing and a scope of when its relevant.
we can get informed consent from other humans who do not speak our launguage by their actions (please dont attempt to argue that or im going to presume you are dence as rocks)

1 we are able to surpass a launguage barrier.
2 animals are capapable of showing yes and no.
3 animals are sexually mature during interaction. (hopefully)

so the idea of informed consent could be applied to animals
A no pheromenes or other enticents are used.
B no drugs are used to remove the ability to show "no".
C no threats are used.

 If so, and an animal still persues sex, then is that not informed consent, just simply not within that oh so carefully defended and narrow definition of what we want informed consent to be?

728Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 4 Jun 2006: 09:03

You seem to have forgotten the entire "informed" part; the animal needs to be capable of understanding "sex". The question is whether to use the human or animal definition, or some hybrid of the two.

729Report
at 4 Jun 2006: 09:28

  "informed" so far as informed consent, means aware and agreeing to have sex. not informed as in taught or understanding the implications of sex.
  One cannot cry rape by saying X raoed me because I dident understand that sex could get me preganant or that later it would bother me.
  which is very well the human definition. and reasonably aplicable to animals
  wheather it needs to be applied to animals is also at question.
(this is verging into aurguing fine definitions)

730Report
at 4 Jun 2006: 09:36

I decided to do some refernce checking as well as simply speaking from knowledge. informed consent falls well within the midground of the way it was represented above - might be worthy to ponder that aspect as well.

731Report
Svansfall at 4 Jun 2006: 10:09

>>726

Which is strange, because it meant ignoring several pieces of evidence. Like trees or poles of equal height in a straight line, when viewed at a right angle from a distance, don't have even tops.


I don't think they even looked for evidence, or maybe they wanted to ignore the evidence, since it is difficult to re-evaluate such mind-boggling facts.

If the anti-zoo people would at least read the books that show the latest research on the subject, they might also see the evidence of zoophilia not being bad by default, or maybe they wouldn't see.  It might take a generation for zoophilia to become accepted.  Simply because it is disturbing to people, they don't want to believe it can be good.

I am quite sure that a lot of people who were alive at the same time as Galileo also simply chose to refuse to believe that the world was round, despite the evidence.  It probably took a generation to accept that the world was round, if not longer in those un-enlightened times.

732Report
at 4 Jun 2006: 16:16

>>731

Zoophilia will become more tollerated in the future, I am sure.  Before homosexuality became generaly tollerated, it was made fun of.  Maybe most people could not talk about homosexuality with any degree of comfort, but making fun of it was within there comfort zone.  Eventualy, this made everybody more comfortable with homosexuality, even if some disagreed with it on religious grounds.  Next, more and more people started "comming out" on TV and in the movies which got people even more comfortable with homosexuality.  And so, things evolved to they point they are today.

Tooday, TV shows and movies are making fun of zoophilia and I'm betting that the same pattern of mass-desensitization we experienced with homosexuality will occur with zoophilia over the next 20 to 40 years.  I don't this process will go as fast as it did for homosexuals, however, because, to my knowlege, this aren't any zoophile activist groups or a mysterious "zoophile agenda" working for political and social change. 

Switching gears, the idea behind showing your sorces in science and philosophy is so that other people can check them out for themselves to veryify proper interpretation and representation, and over-all validity.  The oposition owes it to themselves to examine your source because that is the only way they can invalidate it. Any thing outside of that is a hollow argument.

733Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 4 Jun 2006: 16:49

I love how you guys keep acting like homosexuality is near-universally accepted, and that zoophilia will necessarily become the same.

734Report
at 4 Jun 2006: 17:05

Is that simaler to how being a minority is near universally accepted?

735Report
at 4 Jun 2006: 17:36

>>733

Oh, now look who's missrepresenting there aponent!  Go read the post again. >>732

Dude, I never said homosexuality is near universaly accepted.  You are putting words in my mouth. I said that homosexuality is "tolerated" and much more so than in times past.  Tolerence differs from acceptence, much less "near-universal acceptence". Once again, you prove your self to be contrarian!  Bravo! 

I'll say this, conservative groups who stand against homosexuality preach a "slipery slope" doctrine, saying that homosexuality is our societies "gateway" to other deviancies such as polygamy and polyandry, zoophilia, pedophilia, and geriophilia[sp?].  I am inclined to agree with them in this reguard.

Right now, I think Polyamory is next in line, fallowed by zoophilia.

736Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 4 Jun 2006: 17:39

>>735

Dude, I never said homosexuality is near universaly accepted.  You are putting words in my mouth. I said that homosexuality is "tolerated" and much more so than in times past.

Ah, my mistake. Not a straw man, I simply read it wrong.

conservative groups who stand against homosexuality preach a "slipery slope" doctrine,

Not all of them, no. That's a stereotype. It's mostly fundies.
I'm also concerned about how being a "conservative" has almost reached insult status in the world. And no, that wasn't at you.

737Report
at 4 Jun 2006: 18:34

well conservative seems to be pretty synonomous with greedy selfish and money hungry, at least in the eyes of so much of the world including a large amount of non conservative USA.
just remember there are liberals that arent all abought peace and non agression and be carefull of who you allow to know you are a conservative.  an awfull lot like gays need to be carefull who they let know they are gay or like zoos really need to be carefull of who they let know as well. so congradulation and welcome to the crowd.

738Report
at 4 Jun 2006: 18:36

>>736

"I'm also concerned about how being a "conservative" has almost reached insult status in the world. And no, that wasn't at you."

It was my impression that being called a "liberal" was almost like an insult, as it implies a "sinful" hedonistic lifestyle.  That's why some political types have tried using the word "progressive" in place of liberal.  It's a much softer and much more positive word.  It's even the name of an insurance company.

739Report
at 4 Jun 2006: 18:57

ive been called a liberal as an insult on fchan before - twas funny.
cant remember what it had to do with tho....
ps- working out how to say what is clear in my head regarding the people who want to imply animals should equal children.

740Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 4 Jun 2006: 19:43

>>738
"Thissss is hoooowwww/liiiiife should beeeee...."
Huh.

>>739

ps- working out how to say what is clear in my head regarding the people who want to imply animals should equal children.

Not equal, *equivalent*. And only in certain situations. And didn't we get over that, like, two hundred posts back?

741Report
at 4 Jun 2006: 20:24

>>740

"Thissss is hoooowwww/liiiiife should beeeee...."

Beeee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!  Bee! Bee!

Okay, I'll quit it with the Dash Billions reference.

"Not equal, *equivalent*. And only in certain situations. And didn't we get over that, like, two hundred posts back?"

Other good words to use besides equivalent, depending on the situation, are: "homologous" and "analogous".  I.e. "The clitoris is the female homolouge to the penis", or "his quick movements were analogous to lightening".

This is the Walrus saying "That's all for now!"  "GooGooJaJoob" Everybudy!  I need sleep.

742Report
at 4 Jun 2006: 20:26

it was brought back up and seemingly it isnt setteled to any degree.
shifts to equivalant. subtle subtle there. never knew that hairs could be split so minutely, we must be into the sub quark range by now.

743Report
at 4 Jun 2006: 20:40

>>742

Splitting hairs is what Juberu is good at.  He learned this dark art while attending the prestigious Bobo Taneimas Furry Ninja High School in Okanawa, Japan.  Consequently, he can kill people in seven different languages without uttering a single word!  Amazing!  What ever you do, do not let your "lack of faith" disturb him!

744Report
at 5 Jun 2006: 20:57

Okay, time for me to confess, anonymously, my first experience.  It happend at the age of 7, which was three years before I learned what sex was.  Our family had rescued a stray dog and it her in to keep as a pet.  She was a frendly gall, but rather shy on brains. 

One day she started sniffing at my crotch.  Being a perverted little 7 year old, I exposed myself to her.  To my amazment and delight, she to my organ into her mouth.  I thought that she would just sniff it, so I was taken completly off guard. 

She sort of did a suck/lapping motion with her tongue and mouth, but occationaly, I'd get nipped by her mollars.  It hurt, but only a little.  I honestly had no idea what I was doing.  All I knew was that it felt good, really good.  I never orgasmed or anything like that, mostly because I would only let her do that to me for a few moments at a time so I wouldn't get caught.

I view this interaction I had with her as the reason why I became interested in fury and why I see animals as a viable sexual outlet.

Even so, I do not feel that it is good for somebody to seek out a dog or any other animal as there companion, which is why I will refrain from gratifying myself with an animal.  Animals cannot talk to you, so they can't be emotionaly intimate with you.  They don't grow old together with you, and they don't have the imagination to make things interesting in bed.  Beyond matters of preference, humans are supirior lovers in comparison to animals.  Yes, you can have a two-way emotional bond between yourself and an animal, but the nuance and intricasy of that relationship is limited by the animal's lack of ability.

It's like with computers.  A computer is only as fast as it's slowest part.  Likewise, a relationship is only as intricate as its least complex individual.

On the other hand, I do see it fit to provide for an animals sexual needs, either by providing them a mate (and giving them approrpate sterilization surgery such as tubal ligation and vasectomy), or by manualy stimulating them when a mate cannot be provided.  BTW, masterbating an animal is no less unethical or no more immoral than a vet who jerks off a dog or inseminates a bitch in a professional setting.  And for those who don't know, vets do figer bitches after they inseminate them to so that the natural muscular contractions of the bitch's vagina and uterus will help propell the sperm to where it needs to be.  Vets also use an electoric tooth brush or a glass rod to stimulate queens since cats are orgasmic ovulators.

We do know that intact dogs who are allowed to mate have both less prostate cancer and testicular cancer.  It, therefore, stands to reason that bringing dogs or orgasm benifits there health.

Bitches, on the other hand, do not have any percived health benifits from sexual stimulation other than possible immunological and psycological benifits orgasm.  However, a bitch left intact will have a reduced risk of bone cancer and geriatric urinary incontinance as aposed to one that was "fixed".  They do, however, benifit from having a littler of puppies.  A single litter of puppies will significantly reduce a bitch's risk of breast cancer and pyometra later in life.  Of course, the obvious problem with a litter of puppies is finding homes for every one (unless you are willing to take care of them all).

745Report
at 5 Jun 2006: 21:46

>>744 Now I'm confused... You see animals as a viable sexual outlet, but you think it's bad for someone to have sex with animals? Does that make you a bad person in your own eyes? And are you for or against bestiality?

746Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 5 Jun 2006: 21:59

>>744
For some reason, I knew someone was going to bump this. I just expected it to take longer.

Bitches, on the other hand, do not have any percived health benifits from sexual stimulation other than possible immunological and psycological benifits orgasm.  However, a bitch left intact will have a reduced risk of bone cancer and geriatric urinary incontinance as aposed to one that was "fixed".  They do, however, benifit from having a littler of puppies.  A single litter of puppies will significantly reduce a bitch's risk of breast cancer and pyometra later in life.  Of course, the obvious problem with a litter of puppies is finding homes for every one (unless you are willing to take care of them all).

What are you getting at?

>>745
You see animals as a viable sexual outlet, but you think it's bad for someone to have sex with animals? Does that make you a bad person in your own eyes?

He just said he was a pervert at seven. I'm *inclined* to believe him.

And are you for or against bestiality?

No, just jerking animals off.
Seriously, I have no idea what he's trying to say either.

747Report
at 5 Jun 2006: 22:21

>>745

I can understand how you would be confused, but that is because I left out an important bit of information.  I believe I have undergone a sort of sexual and social imprinting on dogs.  At a very early age, mammals and birds imprint not only on there parents but they also imprint on what there species is.  If you are interacting with animals as well as people during this time, you will identify at a very deep level both the humans and the animals as your "species".  Dogs who grow up around people and dogs view both dogs and people as there own species, while a dog who was raised around just people will treat other dogs as a species different from his or her own. 

Because of my higher brain functions, I am able to reason that dogs are not my species, but because of my exposure to animals at very early stages of my life (before the insident I discribed in the last post), I have a tendency to treat dogs as I would people.  Thus, I am able to feel sexual towards them.  In other words, my hardware tells me dogs are people, but my software tells me they are not.

Really, it is not that I'm against bestiality so much as I think it is a bad IDEA for any human to have that sort of relaitonship with any animal not just because I view it as an inferior relationship to what you can have with a human, but also because of the negative consequences for the human involved.  *Calling bestiality a bad idea is not the same as calling it an immoral activity.*  Consequently, I think that bringing an animal to orgasm is best viewed as routine maintainence, much in the same vein as feeding and grooming.  We do know that humans get an immunity boost from at least three orgasms per week and men who frequently orgasm in there 20's are at much lower risk of developing prostate cancer later in lafe.  It stands to reason that bringing your pet to orgasm is probably as good for them as it would be for a human partner.  Why deny them something good that they would have gotten if they were wild?

Most anti-bestiality laws define bestiality as penitration of an animal in a sexual way, not jerking them off or rubbing external to the vulva.  As long as the dog isn't inserting himself into you or you aren't inserting anything into the dog, your golden.  However, if you do get caught, you may still get busted for lewd behavior.

748Report
at 5 Jun 2006: 22:38

>>746

"He just said he was a pervert at seven. I'm *inclined* to believe him."

It's called self-defamating humor.  Get it?  I was making fun of myself.  Boy, you just take the oddest things and run with them.

"Seriously, I have no idea what he's trying to say either."

I'm kaing a sort of compromised view.  See post >>747 as I explain my self further.

749Report
at 6 Jun 2006: 03:27

imprinting . *nods* seems like an old freind.
ive never been exclusivly zoo, however untill roughly 5 years ago
no one including my human SO knew -  nowadays both my human SO and my close freinds know = ( along the lines of, btw you might hear this abought me, it is true) that dor the most part addresses the lacking in a zoo relationship of the ability to speak in words.
 

750Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 6 Jun 2006: 08:35

>>748

It's called self-defamating humor.  Get it?  I was making fun of myself.  Boy, you just take the oddest things and run with them.

It wasn't clearly a joke. I've heard much more extreme things said in all seriousness.

Consequently, I think that bringing an animal to orgasm is best viewed as routine maintainence, much in the same vein as feeding and grooming.

Now I'm imagining Midas encouraging you to take your dog in. Every ten checkups, you get a free handjob.

"Trust the Midas touch..."

751Report
at 6 Jun 2006: 11:00

I want that job. :)

752Report
at 6 Jun 2006: 11:21

>>744

I feel compelled to comment on your assumption that dogs benefit, physically, from breeding, and also that you erroneously believe that a female dog having a litter before being spayed is a good idea and will prevent reproductive-related cancers.

It's quite the opposite actually. Female dogs should be spayed at 5-6 months of age and should NOT be allowed to have a litter, nor go through a heat cycle because estrogen is stored in the body and thus it increases the chances for mammary and uterine cancers later in life. There is no benefit to having a female dog have a litter before spaying, and to encourage the mentality that there is some sort of benefit just foolish.

Also, there's no evidence which suggests that dogs receive some kind of physical boost (immune boost included) by obtaining an orgasm. You're referencing a human biological trait. Humans are hard-wired to have sex at any given time because humans have sex for recreational purposes. Canids don't have recreational sex and are not hard-wired to breed that often on a continuous basis (you figure a female dog comes into heat only once every 6 months or so, and is only receptive for a few days).

Maintaining a dog by jerking him, or her, off isn't benefiting the dog in any way. Rather, it displays to the dog that you are a willing, and receptive partner with whom he or she can reproduce with, so naturally the behavior continues.

I have to say, I thought about this for a good deal. I'm curious how many self-proclaimed zoos are having sex with neutered and spayed animals...animals which are NOT acting based on the instinct [need] to reproduce. It would seem to me that, with the desire to reproduce gone, an animal that continued to have sex with his or her partner, is truly doing so because they enjoy the activity, whereas the unnetuered or unspayed animal is acting solely because of instinct and the drive to reproduce.

But that's getting off-topic for my particular response...which is simply to inform that allowing a female to have a litter before spaying is NOT beneficial to her health, nor does it prevent reproductive cancers later in life. Likewise, allowing a male dog to ejaculate a few times a week doesn't benefit his health nor prevent cancers either. The only thing that prevents reproductive cancers and diseases is the removal of the hormones which trigger them...testosterone and estrogen, respectively, and the only way to remove those hormones is through neutering and spaying -before- they're prominent in the body (sexual maturity).

753Report
DragonFlame at 6 Jun 2006: 11:32

I have been thinking about this for the past few days and I hate to do this to the Pro Zoo's but sex with Animals is Moraly wrong. Before you jump up calling me a traitor or something hear me out. I have made a lot of arguments over the past few months and I still agree with all of them but we are arguing about the Morality of beastiality and because of this there is no way the Pro-Zoo's can win. Morality are the Rules that define right and wrong and are detetermined by the General Population at the time. Gay's in the early 19th century were Moraly wrong because the General Population would not accept this as being acceptable behaviour, this changed by the end of the century where Gay's where accepted by the General Population (Moraly Accepted). At the moment Sex with animals is not accepted by the General Population thus is Moral Wrong.
Now before you all jump up and start ripping apart what ive said remeber that I was a Pro-Zoo supporter but when talking about the Morality of Animal Sex it is a no win situation.

Of course there are other Morality issues such as self Morality which is your own decision of right and wrong but that would be stupid to argue because everone thinks there right and it only applies to ones self.

Morality is right (Correct Behaviour) and wrong (InCorrect Behaviour) determined by the General Population.

754Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 6 Jun 2006: 11:47

>>753

Morality is right (Correct Behaviour) and wrong (InCorrect Behaviour) determined by the General Population.

So you, personally, think it's *ethically* right, but not *morally* right?
Of course there are other Morality issues such as self Morality which is your own decision of right and wrong but that would be stupid to argue because everone thinks there right and it only applies to ones self.

You're thinking of personal "ethics", not self-morality.

755Report
at 6 Jun 2006: 16:17

>>750

"Trust the Midas touch..."

Now that's what I call a lube job!

756Report (sage)
at 6 Jun 2006: 18:28

Beaatiality is bad/

Beastiality is good/

Geez moral or not, how many times can you say it and still not get anywhere?

757Report
at 6 Jun 2006: 20:04

>>753
If morality is merely what the "General Population" says is right and wrong, that means there is no true morality.  For something to be "moral", "true" and "correct", it must be so in ALL CASES in ALL TIMES, and not just at the whim of a particular group at a particular time.

What gives any General Population the right to say what is right or wrong?  If it is something impermanent, such as the General Population's size, ability to force, etc., that still doesn't make the General Population's morality a true morality, it is just a way of life they enforce and get away with because of their ability to enforce it.  True morality should not be able to change depending upon who is in control.  It should apply in all instances, all times.

758Report
at 6 Jun 2006: 20:55

>>752
Part 1

"I feel compelled to comment on your assumption that dogs benefit, physically, from breeding, and also that you erroneously believe that a female dog having a litter before being spayed is a good idea and will prevent reproductive-related cancers."

Of course you feel compelled.  I just contradicted a lie that you have been fed your entire life.

"It's quite the opposite actually. Female dogs should be spayed at 5-6 months of age and should NOT be allowed to have a litter, nor go through a heat cycle because estrogen is stored in the body and thus it increases the chances for mammary and uterine cancers later in life. There is no benefit to having a female dog have a litter before spaying, and to encourage the mentality that there is some sort of benefit just foolish."

Actualy, there is growing evidence that spay/neuter should be done later in life and not during pre-puberty.  http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html  Also, from what I understand about oncology, estrogen "buildup" is not the cause of cancer.  On the contrary, estrogen mearly stimulates certain tissues to grow, and any time  you have tissue growth, there is a cancer risk.  Cancer doesn't develop is tissues where cell division does not take place.  Interesting, as you wil