fchan

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>620

>>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!

Prepare for an invasion.  A link to this thread was posted on 4chan.

already averted, thanks for the note. :)

@ 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. ^^;

>>618
only a few freaks believe that, now go back home.

>>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.

>>622

Yeah, that's me.  Damn forgetting to put the name in.

>>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.

>>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.

>>627

>>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."?

>>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.

>>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.

>>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?