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

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. :/

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.

at 30 Apr 2006: 22:33

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

at 30 Apr 2006: 22:52

Uh-huh, sure you did.

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.

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

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

>"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.

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

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

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

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

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

DragonFlame at 1 May 2006: 01:17

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.

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.

DragonFlame at 1 May 2006: 01:22

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.

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.

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


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.

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

DragonFlame at 1 May 2006: 11:04

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.

"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"

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.

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.

at 1 May 2006: 11:58


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.

at 1 May 2006: 12:12

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

at 1 May 2006: 13:14

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

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

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

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?

Completely missing the point. What a surprise.

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

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.

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

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? ^_^


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.

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.  :)

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


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.


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.


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.

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.

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.

at 1 May 2006: 18:56

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.

at 1 May 2006: 19:12

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.

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.

at 1 May 2006: 19:28

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.

at 1 May 2006: 20:12

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

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.

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.

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. 

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

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

So Bestiality is classified as a fetish. And?

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

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


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.

at 2 May 2006: 03:15


-whistles innocently-

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


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.

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. :)

at 2 May 2006: 09:32

>>193  OH PLEASE

Petting =/= sexual intercourse

*rolls eyes*

1003Add Reply This thread is threadstopped. You can't reply anymore.

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.