fchan

>>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. ^_^

>>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.

>>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.

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'.

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.

>>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?

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

>>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.

>>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.  :)

>>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.

>>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.

>>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...

>>264

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

>>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

>>269 Because you say so?

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.

>>269

>>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.

Sorry, missed to add my name.  Post 277 was made by Svansfall.

>>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.