fchan

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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/...

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.

that explains your part - what abought all the rest?

>>453 very well thought out and well spoken *bows*

>>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.

>>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.

>>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!

>>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.

>>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. 

>>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.

>>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?

Why are so many bringing up all the old posts from the start of the thread?

>>458

sex with animals is rape rather

>>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.

>>475

Get...going?
Get...with it?
Get...a life?
Get...real?
Snine...Get?
Get...it on?
Get...moving?

I don't get it.

>>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.

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.