fchan

discussion

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

Pages:1 41 81 121 161 201 241 281 321 361 401 441 481 521 561 601 641 681 721 761 801 841 881 921 961 1001
641Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 30 May 2006: 10:06

>>636

Let's turn the litter-bug/vandal analogy around.  Does a litter-bug have the right to tell a vandal he can't litter?  Of course he doesn't; not until he reforms himself.  Otherwise, he may as well be pointing a finger at himself, because both the litterbug and the vandal are making the town ugly.

That would be exactly my point. Condemning actions in others doesn't mean you aren't condemning them in oneself.

Those who are against zoophilia and bestiality say that having sex with an animal also causes the animal stress as well as psycological and physical harm.

*Undue* stress and harm.

Logicaly, I cannot see how somebody could aprove of using an animal for food but disaprove of using an animal for sex unless you argue from a cultural norms standpoint vs. a philosophical standpoint.

Please, explain the correlation between food and simple pleasure. We can survive without sex, but not food. And test-tube hamburgers are still some way off.

Your "logic" seems to consist of attacking your *opponent*, rather than their *claims*. That is not how to debate. As said by someone else; unless the person's character is what's under discussion, it's not relevant. You cannot discount a statement based on who's saying it.

642Report (sage)
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 30 May 2006: 10:13

>>640
I asked back in >>610 ; how do you know it's pleasure?

643Report
DragonFlame at 30 May 2006: 10:50

>>632
I have to agree with Juberu’s statement in 634. To add to it a bit, even if the person in question has knowingly given false information, that in no way means that they will do it in the future. If for some reason they continue to give false information well then you can do the obvious thing, prove them wrong. But until you find something false about it give them the benefit of the doubt.

>>636
In what fucked up world do you come from? In what way does Eating Meat really have anything to do with Having Sex With Animals. You talk about Animals suffering if you eat meat so why do anti beasts criticise pro beast when they do the same. The answer is because Anti Beasts have more than one reason for condemning bestiality. And the fact that you are using an argument that has been brought up by a Pro Beast supporter just proves that you have not been reading the posts. In no way have they used the “But the Animal is distressed when you have sex with it” argument.

>>637
Well said.

>>638
You are coming close to losing your credibility and I will be sorry to see it happen. Like I have said before do not make the comparison of Sex and Food it will not work in your favour. People will argue that you are using the excuse of people eating meat for you to have sex with animals. In my opinion that is not true but if you continue down this path you better be prepared for the consequences. You can say that you don’t mentally or physically harm your animals but there is no way for you to prove this to anyone. I will give you the benefit of the doubt but most people wont. Remember that it is not only the harm caused to the animal that they have a problem with. It could be religious or cultural beliefs or disgust or many other arguments that have been brought up.
Besides this is the morality of bestiality not the morality of eating meat. It would be in your best interest to get back on track.
This is just some friendly advice.

644Report
Svansfall at 30 May 2006: 13:44

>>642

How do I know it is pleasure?

Well, it helps if you know the bovine body language, which can be studied easily if you spend all your days interracting with bovines for a few decades.  Actually, you can learn the hints of it in just a few days, but to learn all the minor details of it, takes anything from months to years.

If you don't feel like doing spending all this time with cows, pick up the books on animal behaviour and animal body language that the agricultural colleges use for teaching the farmer-students how to best interract with the animals.  I have several books on this subject, but sadly none of them exist in English, so I cannot recommend any specific books.  But I am sure that agricultural colleges must have those kind of books in the US, just like they do in my country.  It's vital to every farmer to know the body language of their animals.

But even if you have not studied their body language, some things are rather easy to tell, even though you're going to miss the subtle messages.

I'll tell you the easy things, although I know I've already mentioned those things before.  One way they show that they find your touch pleasant, is that they lean themselves heavily against you, trying to get you to touch them more.  The more they enjoy something, the more they relax... they lower their head a bit, they close their eyes completely or slightly.  They exhale deeply, just like I am sure you've witnessed dogs do soon after they've curled up to relax somewhere.   If there is a sexual touch, and they want more, they will raise their tail high up and to the side.

An easy way to tell that they find things pleasurable, is to stop and walk away from them, in the middle of touching them.   If they come back after you, and urgently press themselves up against you, they do not want you to stop.   If they don't bother coming after you, they didn't enjoy it.  But this is really only needed if you are novice to their body language, which you really shouldn't be if you want to spend time with animals.  I still have to walk away sometimes, and that is only because I have things to do and I simply will not have the time to spend forever with the cows, as much as I would love to.   So, in this way, I can always confirm if they were indeed enjoying it or not.

It is really difficult to walk away from a cow who keeps trying to get you to touch her.

If they don't get pleasure from something, they will not relax.  They will not close their eyes and lower their head.  They will not raise their tail, they will not lean into you.  They'll start grazing or just walk away.

Does this answer your question for how I know it is pleasure?

645Report
Svansfall at 30 May 2006: 14:06

>>643

So, what you are saying is that the wellbeing of the animals is not the issue that those against zoophilia is after?  Then why do they raise those questions?

I am seriously finding it very confusing that people who don't care about the wellbeing of animals, are questioning the wellbeing of the animals in a zoophiliac relationship.

Why is it so difficult to accept that some people want to treat animals good?

But sure, since this discussion is suddenly not about the wellbeing of animals, we can leave that, even though it saddens me, because that is what I care about the most.

As for people who have religious, cultural or disgust as a reason of being against zoophilia.  I totally respect their reasons for feeling that it is wrong, but they should also tolerate those that do not share their religion, culture or feelings of disgust, and respect them.

646Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 30 May 2006: 16:17

>>644

It is really difficult to walk away from a cow who keeps trying to get you to touch her.

But even if you have not studied their body language, some things are rather easy to tell, even though you're going to miss the subtle messages.

I'll take your word for it.
Seriously, dude, that sounds a little creepy, even within the context of this debate.

What makes you think that they know sex for sex? It may be that all they can understand is that one's doing something to give them pleasure, and you can't do it if you're not there. So they want you to stay. How would a cow understand the concept of masturbation, anyway?

647Report
at 30 May 2006: 17:59

>>637

Oh geez, you people still don't get it.  I'm not debating the rightness or wrongess of something.  That is completly out of the discussion.  What I'm talking about is credibility and the right to point figers.  That is different than absolute judgments, rationalizations or justifications.

Basicly, what I am saying is, law abiding citizens and honorable cops have a right to acuse, law breaking criminals do not.  How hard is that to understand?

648Report
at 30 May 2006: 18:27

>>646
"How would a cow understand the concept of masturbation, anyway?"

Simple!  It's called "Beef Strok'noff" in Eastern Europe, but here in the States, we call it "Beef Jerkey".

649Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 30 May 2006: 21:37

>>647
You seem to be confusing "understanding" with "agreement".

If a criminal stole something, and was later robbed of their legitimately obtained possesions, reported it to the police, and later confessed to the original crime, would that mean that they can't press charges?

Credibilty refers to the believability of a statement or the person making it. It has nothing, oddly enough, to do with the validity of the statement.

>>648
Win.

650Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 30 May 2006: 21:53

>>647

Aw for christ's sake man, grow up.

>>638

I'll take a crack at this.

Okay, I am sorry for those horrible descriptions, but since maybe not all of you have visited slaughterhouses in person, I had to describe some of what is actually going on.


Aw christ, now I've got to admit that my credibility is even "lower" in your opinion, but I worked at a meat packing plant just getting out of highschool. (Lakeside, Brooks Alberta, for those of you who think I'm just saying that). I wasn't a day shifter, I did the night stuff... and the place was a nightmare. The rendering trap was especially gross... but you know what, that was the aftermath.

Heavy heavy heavy regulations were the key there. Animals were killed instantly with a bolt through the brain, not drugged and having their throats slit. Animals are stored in facilities that are inspected weekly to make sure storage conditions are humane. No cows arrived dead, and if they did, the driver would be charged, the farmer could be charged (if he was at fault), and we wouldn't do business with them again (but again, it never came up). When being transported, there's guidelines and regulations to make sure the cows don't overheat, suffocate, get battered around, etc.

The grisly images you portray just don't happen where I come from. Where the hell do you live? What you described is just medieval.

I know I expressed myself clumsily in this matter.  Your opinion is relevant in itself, but I just don't fully understand where you are coming from.  I find it very strange how someone who is actively supporting harmful acts to animals (by supporting meat industry), can disapprove of acts to animals, which are harmless and gives pleasure to the animals.  I do not fully understand the logic between this connection.


Slow down there chief. I'm here because you dragged meat eating into it. I didn't disapprove of what you did with your animals. I didn't really care to tell you the truth. I came into this because you started hiding behind the "It's not as bad as people who eat meat" defense, which targets me, and probably a whole lot of other neutrals in this.

I didn't think you were morally wrong for doing it. I just don't think you're morally right, and it bugs me that you play the "meat is murder" card.

Yes, you're fully correct that it bothers me a lot, more than a lot.  But I am hoping I managed to explain properly above that it is the act that I am against, not the people committing the act.  If people couldn't get along with people who had different views, then nobody could get along in this world.  I don't think many people have ever met someone who agreed 100% upon everything.


What? I don't get along with people who do things that I think are bad. Hell, I've protested a couple of times, I've fought a bully, I've reported crimes, I've shunned people. If I think what you're doing is bad, I try to stop you. It's sort of the responsible thing to do. I can't imagine just sitting there and looking away if someone was doing something I truly had a problem with.  Maybe if it was just annoying... but even then I tend to say things.

I don't think what you're doing is that big a deal, but others DO, and that's why they get in your face about it. They aren't just "sort of annoyed" or "a little disgusted". Think about it. For whatever reason, a lot of people think you should go to jail for what you do. That says to me that their convictions are pretty strong. The fact that some of them are animal rights activists can't make things easy either...

To me, it is no longer-lasting harm if someone tells me I am disgusting or an animal rapist. I feel sad for a moment, and I feel that it is not right for them to call me that, but it doesn't creep into my mind to make me bothered for any longer periods of times.  But as I say in post 603, some young people who are zoophiles are already sensitive and I believe if they get too much hostility and intolerance showed towards them, that it can lead to long-lasting depressions or possibly harm that might last the rest of their lives.


Again man, I seriously doubt these people are just hating on zoophiles just to hear themselves talk. They have reasons for what they think. If I were to identify my biggest problem with it (explaining why I'm neutral at best rather than a supporter), I would quote some guy from way earlier in this thread. "Why sex?" You can bring pleasure to animals without touching their genitals, so I don't think it's on the animal's behalf that you're doing that. It's an unreasonable jump for a lot of us to go between petting and masturbation.

I don't think you're doing it because the animal likes it, I think you're doing it because YOU like it. The animal liking it is just a good excuse for you... but that's my opinion, and even though I think that, I don't think it's a big deal... not enough to want terrible things to happen to you. I don't think you're a victim though. You know what you're doing, and you know people are against it, some of them violently. Old and young zoos are just going to have to put up with that unless you actually step up to the task of explaining it seriously.

And since you play the meat eater card... you'd also be explaining it to people who make their livlihood off of what you describe as torture. The entire meat industry, including shipping, testing, preparing and cooking, selling... how many million people would lose their jobs if you got your way?  How many people would be much less happy?

From where I'm sitting, all the anti-zoos are asking you is to give up sex with cows. I can't see that ruining your life like giving up meat would ruin so many others.

Crap, I'm babbling.

651Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 30 May 2006: 21:54

Message too long? Cut and paste will fix that...

So, believe me, I have looked at my actions, more than carefully, I have extensively considered wheter what I am doing is right or wrong.  I have considered the possibility that what I am doing might be wrong.  It has taken more than half of my life, but I have seriously thought about all of it, and I have reached the conclusion that I am not wrong.  What more can you ask of me?  I think about it every day, and when you ask me the question if I believe I am wrong or not, and I answer that I know that I am right, because I know I have carefully and slowly thought about it for so long. I am sorry if that isn't enough.


Well... it's enough that I'm willing to discuss things with you, but not with much of an open mind. "You're not listening to me, so why should I listen to you" would be the reaction, which is shitty, I know, but again, it's like talking to a really religious guy.  He's convinced you're wrong, because they KNOW they're right... and it's really, really annoying.

I mean, take a look man. Most of the time, people who disagree with you have disagreed with the premise od the questions you keep asking... and you respond by saying "I know I'm right". Well, how can they answer:

what is NOT good about making someone feel pleasure, while making sure that they don't get any physical or mental harm?


if you won't listen when they answer?  Maybe they aren't complete hedonists. Maybe they think there's more to life than "feels good" and "doesn't feel good", and they think that what you're doing is wrong DESPITE the pleasure it brings. Maybe they don't believe you when you say you're bringing pleasure.

I'm not them, but I'll take a crack at your question.
Because it's unnecessary, and it MIGHT be wrong. To survive, people need to eat, and animals are edible. They eat each other, we eat them, and every now and then, they eat us. To survive, people need to have sex with each other, or the reign of humanity will come to a rather abrupt end.

Now, you;ve gone on and on about how eating meat isn't very nice... and though you ignore a TON of important details while making this moral claim, the bottom line is yeah, it's not exaclty friendly, especially from the animal's perspective I'd imagine. Everything tries to survive, so by that token, even plants don't want to be eaten... but again, there are a LOT of details you're just glosssing over when stating its morality as an absolute.

Sex... take a look around man. Sex isn't the cute, romantic business that a lot of people want to believe it is. Lives are ruined all the time by irresponsable, selfish sex. Hard feelings form, feelings are manipulated, unwanted pregnancy, diseases, deviant behaviour that can, and has escalated into cases of rape and molestation. You aren't allowed to just go out and grab women by the genitals until you find one that likes it. You'd be thrown in prison, or possibly killed if you did it in front of certain people.

Sex isn't just innocent pleasure. If nothing else, we MAKE it that way.

But, sex is necessary to procreate, so of course, it's tolerated, accepted, and encouraged... and at the same time, it's firmly controlled, and if you break the rules, you're punished, sometimes brutally.

Sex with animals? Yeeeeah... you don't need to do that, you just want to... and you're doing it even though it's extremely widely unnaccepted, even openly hated, and often illegal, so there's nothing noble going on there. You're a harmless deviant... but some people don't see it that way. Some people abviously think you're a dangerous, or at least disturbed deviant, and, it seems to me, are largely uncool with the idea that you've somehow managed to see consent where they can't see it.

Now, a lot of people in this thread on the zoo side are just assholes who say "If you can't see it, you're just stupid and closed minded".  Can't imagine why they haven't managed to convince anyone...

You... you seem to be saying "Nope, you're wrong: this is how it is, and I know this, because I know this, and all these like-minded people know this."

Now, I don't blame you for that part... because, basically, unless you have a cow-to-english translator hidden away, that's all you can have. Your cow can't talk, so you have to speak for the cow... but I can't see that ever working to convince anyone. It wouldn't make sense if they WERE convinced based on that.

So you can't prove to them that there's consent... which means that they think you're raping those cows. So in other words, it isn't about how your cow feels, because the cow can't argue for herself. It's about you, and other zoos, and what you're doing, and why... and again, why sex? (Just because the cow raises its tail doesn't mean you have to go there, and if you don;t go there, they won't come to expect it).

Are you still upset at me when I say that I know it is right for me to make the animals happy?


No, I'm upset with you because you implied that I have less credibility because I eat meat.

So, what you are saying is that the wellbeing of the animals is not the issue that those against zoophilia is after?  Then why do they raise those questions?


I am seriously finding it very confusing that people who don't care about the wellbeing of animals, are questioning the wellbeing of the animals in a zoophiliac relationship.


Why is it so difficult to accept that some people want to treat animals good?


But sure, since this discussion is suddenly not about the wellbeing of animals, we can leave that, even though it saddens me, because that is what I care about the most.


Seriously... you can eat meat and discuss bestiality as a moral issue. They aren't actually linked, again, unless the reason you're having sex with animals is BECAUSE people eat meat. Otherwise, you're mixing the issues, and it's fugging frustrating when you imply that by eating meat, I have to accept zoophiles because they aren't as bad as me.

>>648
Awesome! XD

652Report
at 31 May 2006: 00:13

for the person who suggested eating meat is a requirment for human survival, let me introduce you to a little thing called vegan and or vegatarianism .
try to speak of things that are within your range of true expertise. becuase by using that as a way of example why  slaughtering an animal  with a nail into its brain (the prefered method last i heard and the way the farmers where i grew up did because a nail cost less than a bullet) was better than having sex, it well kinda failed miserably.
we no more need meat than a rock needs sunlight.

653Report
Svansfall at 31 May 2006: 04:07

>>646

Thanks Juberu.

What makes me think that they know sex for sex?   Well, I am sure they are unaware that sex might lead to becoming pregnant.  However, nature's way of making sure to get mammals to procreate is to make them feel pleasure from the sexual act.  Because of this, the genitals of a mammal are erogenous zones.  So, those erogenous areas are extra sensitive to touch, and when the animal is "in the mood" to be touched in those erogenous areas, the pleasure they express is a more intense kind of pleasure, compared to the pleasure they show when having their backs scritched, etc.

Cows masturbate, but not as often as mares do.  They tend to mostly do it when they are in heat, and they do this by pressing themselves back against a tree-trunk or similar, and they rub their genitals back and forth against the tree.  Often, it doesn't ease their need fully, which leaves them frustrated and antsy.

So... I don't know that they know sex for sex.  But I know that the sexual pleasure they feel is a more intense pleasure than the non-sexual pleasure they feel, as well as that when they are in heat, they do feel the need to be stimulated there.

As I mentioned somewhere before, some cows prefer to have their genitals stimulated even if they are not in heat, and those are generally the cows I stimulate when they are in heat as well.

654Report
Svansfall at 31 May 2006: 04:10

>>650
Okay, I admit it was 15 years ago since I last visited a slaughterhouse.  Not exactly medieval, but still not recent.  I am sure that some slaughterhouses have good routines and heavy regulations, but I think this varies greatly from one place to another.  My country has extremely heavy regulations for how animals are to be treated, but things are still not satisfactory in my opinion.  We had even more harsh rules before, but since my country joined the EU, the EU forced us to change the rules to become less harsh, in order to make the competition more equal between the countries in the EU.  I live in Sweden, and everyone here likes to think we're so extremely humane to the animals here, believing that we're treating the animals better than they are in other countries.  When I speak to people in other countries, everyone believes the same about their own country.  The general opinion in all countries are: "Buy meat from your own country - then you know the animals have been treated better than in your neighbouring country."

I think it is best to buy locally produced meat anyway, not for the above mentioned reason, but because the long transports are really bad for the animals.  And I do believe that the grisly images you portray happen a bit of everywhere, in every country, because there are always companies who manage to slip away from under the authorities' scrutinizing gaze.

QUOTE: "What? I don't get along with people who do things that I think are bad. Hell, I've protested a couple of times, I've fought a bully, I've reported crimes, I've shunned people. If I think what you're doing is bad, I try to stop you. It's sort of the responsible thing to do. I can't imagine just sitting there and looking away if someone was doing something I truly had a problem with.  Maybe if it was just annoying... but even then I tend to say things."

Okay, sure, I have reported crimes also, but as for people who do things I don't agree with, I prefer to have a calm discussion with them, or ignore it and leave them to it.  With all the strange religious cults that exist, there are so many people in this world that would find a reason for finding anything at all bad.  Wouldn't it be horribly annoying if everyone would constantly confront everyone about everything they thought was bad?

If you shared my opinion that eating meat was bad, would you truly confront everyone about it?   Or would you do like me, give up, and resign with the knowledge that it seems a futile attempt to get people to see things the way you do?

But if I would be unable to get along with people who ate meat, then I would be terribly lonely.  Nothing good could come from that.

QUOTE: "For whatever reason, a lot of people think you should go to jail for what you do. That says to me that their convictions are pretty strong. The fact that some of them are animal rights activists can't make things easy either..."

I think a lot of those people's anger towards zoophilia is that they think we don't care about the animals, and they have not seen us interract with our animals.  If they would be able to get to know us in person, and see how the animals are doing, they could see for themselves that the animals are very happy to be in our company.

If I hadn't been a zoophile, and if I didn't know anything about how zoophiles interract with their animals, I think there is a great possibility that I would have been against it also, in the same way that I now am against all the irresponsible people who have sex with their animals without caring of the animal's wellbeing.

So, if I hadn't been a zoophile myself, I might not have known that there were responsible and caring zoophiles.  I might have thought that everyone who had sex with animals were not caring about what the animal wants or needs.

The sad thing is that the caring zoophiles are almost invisible to the public. Few of us put up personal ads to get to know others, most people are happy with their current human friends, and are already living happily with our animals.  Few caring zoophiles are interested in porn, and does not produce pictures or movies of their interraction with animals.  We feel that such things belong in private, not for everyone to see.

The people who put up personal ads on the net, like: "Does anyone have a female dog I can screw?", or "I have a male dog, is there a sexy young girl who wants to visit me, so I can watch my dog screw you?"

I mean, this seriously disgusts me and revolts me, and I think it is utterly wrong.  So, if I believed everyone who were into animals were like this, I would be against it also.

But it compares easily to heterosexual relationships.  There are rape and abuse among heterosexuals.  That doesn't mean that every heterosexual person would feel it is right to rape and abuse their partners.  It's the exact same thing with those who are attracted to animals.

655Report
Svansfall at 31 May 2006: 04:12

>>650

part 2.

QUOTE: "If I were to identify my biggest problem with it (explaining why I'm neutral at best rather than a supporter), I would quote some guy from way earlier in this thread. "Why sex?" You can bring pleasure to animals without touching their genitals, so I don't think it's on the animal's behalf that you're doing that. It's an unreasonable jump for a lot of us to go between petting and masturbation."

There are several reasons why we give sexual pleasure to the animals, as well as non-sexual pleasure.  One reason is that we are sexually attracted to the animals, we get aroused by giving them sexual stimulation.  Another reason is that the sexual pleasure the animal feels is a more urgent, more intense kind of pleasure, than what the non-sexual pleasure is.  As I just explained above in my reply to Juberu, the animal clearly express more pleasure from the sexual stimulation, than from the non-sexual stimulation.

When they are in heat, the animals are actively looking for sexual relief, trying their best to rub their genitals against trees, etc.  But a tree does not sufficiently stimulate them the way my fingers and hand can do.  Their restless, annoyed and antsy behaviour ceases after they have been stimulated.

QUOTE: "I don't think you're doing it because the animal likes it, I think you're doing it because YOU like it. The animal liking it is just a good excuse for you... but that's my opinion, and even though I think that, I don't think it's a big deal."

Of course I am doing it because I like to do it.  But I see that it gives pleasure to both her and me at the same time, and that is the reason why I like it.   If I was doing something for my own pleasure, that did not bring pleasure to the cow at the same time, I would feel terribly disgusted with myself, and I would never do it again.  I have done that, BTW...  when I was a teenager, I was with a cow, who did not find it enjoyable, and I did carress her genitals.

She did not find it unpleasant, but she clearly showed indifference.  She was grazing at the time, not raising her tail to show that she liked it, but she didn't lower her tail to stop me either.  She didn't walk away from me, like they do when they find something unpleasant, but she didn't lean into me either.

I have felt bad for doing this, and I have promised myself to never do it again.  Even though she tolerated my touch, I still feel very uncomfortable about it.  So, I don't get pleasure, if I don't give pleasure at the same time.

Isn't this the same with most heterosexual people?  Don't you also require the knowledge that your partner enjoy the sex, in order for you to enjoy it also?  Or do you enjoy it despite knowing that your partner is indifferent and would rather just sleep?

QUOTE: "From where I'm sitting, all the anti-zoos are asking you is to give up sex with cows. I can't see that ruining your life like giving up meat would ruin so many others."

Me giving up sex with cows, would ruin my life in the same way that it would for a heterosexual man to give up sex with women.  I believe all the people in the meat industry could work in the plant industry instead, so I don't think any jobs or income would be lost.

QUOTE: "Well... it's enough that I'm willing to discuss things with you, but not with much of an open mind. "You're not listening to me, so why should I listen to you" would be the reaction, which is shitty, I know, but again, it's like talking to a really religious guy.  He's convinced you're wrong, because they KNOW they're right... and it's really, really annoying."

Yes, I see it is a dilemma.  But I am listening to you, and I am contemplating what you're saying.  I am not feeling that "I am right because I am right".  I am feeling that I am right because I have carefully pondered everything I can think of, multiple times over a long period of time, and changed my views when I thought I was wrong, until I reached the conclusion that I am right.

So when someone says, for example: "Animals cannot show that they feel pleasure.", I feel I have to say that I know they can.  It seems some people who posted earlier in this thread, has very limited experience in interracting with animals, which is one problem why it is difficult to explain something to someone who doesn't know something from experience, and they have chosen to believe something that they would need to re-evaluate once they had had more experience in the matter.

656Report
Svansfall at 31 May 2006: 04:12

>>650
Part 3.
On the question of what could be wrong with giving pleasure.

QUOTE: "Maybe they aren't complete hedonists. Maybe they think there's more to life than "feels good" and "doesn't feel good", and they think that what you're doing is wrong DESPITE the pleasure it brings. Maybe they don't believe you when you say you're bringing pleasure."

Yes, to me, there are more to life than what feels good and what doesn't feel good.  But I am pretty sure that the cows mainly care about this.  You're right that some people maybe not believe me when I say I am bringing pleasure.  There's no way they can believe me unless they watch someone give pleasure to an animal whose body language they can understand.

QUOTE: "Because it's unnecessary, and it MIGHT be wrong. To survive, people need to eat, and animals are edible. They eat each other, we eat them, and every now and then, they eat us. To survive, people need to have sex with each other, or the reign of humanity will come to a rather abrupt end."

Yes, I agree it is unnecessary to give pleasure. I don't have to give the cows stimulation when they desire it.  But they are happy that I am doing it, and I am happy that I am doing it.  As for it MIGHT be wrong, there are so many things in this world that are fully accepted that also MIGHT be wrong.  If I start mentioning some, some people would say that I am going off-topic, but I am sure most of you can think of a few things that we all do every day that stand a fair chance of being wrong if looked closely at.

I am sure that it is not wrong as long as it does not harm anyone, either on a long-term or a short-term basis.

QUOTE: "Now, you;ve gone on and on about how eating meat isn't very nice... and though you ignore a TON of important details while making this moral claim, the bottom line is yeah, it's not exaclty friendly, especially from the animal's perspective I'd imagine."

I don't see which important details I am missing out on.  But, I will not focus on the meat-eating issue, since I've already spoken so much of it, and you already know where I am standing on this.

QUOTE: "Sex... take a look around man. Sex isn't the cute, romantic business that a lot of people want to believe it is. Lives are ruined all the time by irresponsable, selfish sex. Hard feelings form, feelings are manipulated, unwanted pregnancy, diseases, deviant behaviour that can, and has escalated into cases of rape and molestation. You aren't allowed to just go out and grab women by the genitals until you find one that likes it. You'd be thrown in prison, or possibly killed if you did it in front of certain people.

Sex isn't just innocent pleasure. If nothing else, we MAKE it that way."

We humans can hopefully control our urges to try and make the best out of the sex.  Yes, there is a lot of truly ugly and disturbing things going on, all because of sex.  But I seriously believe that if we want to, we can make sex into innocent pleasure, and I know a lot of people who do.  Sex was meant for procreation, but unless you are a fundamental catholic, you can use sex for giving and getting pleasure.

QUOTE: "Sex with animals? Yeeeeah... you don't need to do that, you just want to... and you're doing it even though it's extremely widely unnaccepted, even openly hated, and often illegal, so there's nothing noble going on there. You're a harmless deviant... but some people don't see it that way. Some people abviously think you're a dangerous, or at least disturbed deviant, and, it seems to me, are largely uncool with the idea that you've somehow managed to see consent where they can't see it."

Yeah, I don't need to do it.  I can choose to live in celibacy for the rest of my life.  But I feel my life will lack essential quality if I have to remain in celibacy.

QUOTE: "You... you seem to be saying "Nope, you're wrong: this is how it is, and I know this, because I know this, and all these like-minded people know this.""

QUOTE: "Now, I don't blame you for that part... because, basically, unless you have a cow-to-english translator hidden away, that's all you can have. Your cow can't talk, so you have to speak for the cow... but I can't see that ever working to convince anyone. It wouldn't make sense if they WERE convinced based on that."

Yes, that is my dilemma.  The only way for people to find out, is to find out by themselves, and actively, with an open mind study animals interracting with each other, and interracting with humans.  So, my words of my experiences are the only thing I have to back up my claims.

QUOTE: "So you can't prove to them that there's consent... which means that they think you're raping those cows. So in other words, it isn't about how your cow feels, because the cow can't argue for herself. It's about you, and other zoos, and what you're doing, and why... and again, why sex? (Just because the cow raises its tail doesn't mean you have to go there, and if you don;t go there, they won't come to expect it)."

And again, why not sex?  If the animal wants it, and I want it, and we both enjoy it during the stimulation, and she is noticably relieved and happy afterwards.  But no, I cannot prove it until anyone watches me do it, which I'd feel uncomfortable with, since I am not an exhibitionist.  But if it was needed to convince someone important, I might do it for that sake.

QUOTE: "No, I'm upset with you because you implied that I have less credibility because I eat meat."

I am sorry you feel that way.  I hope you're not taking it personally, but I can see it is difficult to take it any other way.  I am not upset with you for anything, because I feel that you're discussing this in an absolutely great and polite manner, and I am very happy discussing with you.

QUOTE: "Seriously... you can eat meat and discuss bestiality as a moral issue. They aren't actually linked, again, unless the reason you're having sex with animals is BECAUSE people eat meat. Otherwise, you're mixing the issues, and it's fugging frustrating when you imply that by eating meat, I have to accept zoophiles because they aren't as bad as me."

Again, I am sorry that we see things differently here.  Of course I don't feel that sex or eating are linked in THAT sense, but I feel that the issue of wellbeing of animals is the same core issue, no matter which field is branching off from that issue.  I'll try to not focus on the issue of meat-eating in the future.

657Report
DragonFlame at 31 May 2006: 13:45

>>652
Holy flying fuck. You are an arse. I never ever in this whole 657 post thread said eating meat was better than having sex with animals. DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
I dont know about you but I have had three friends get extremely sick because they decided to become a vegetarian. Meat has always been a part of our natural diet and you can complain and winge all you like but that is a fact. Next you will say well you can survive by eating the right fruits, vegetables, nuts and ohter non meat products but remeber this it is not normal for the human body to take on these diets and a lot of people are allergic to nuts and other products that you will bring up. Me I prefer to eat my meat I enjoy it and I enjoy living a healthy and enjoyable life not one where I am only just living becasue I eat exssesive amounts of rabit food.
Everything is bad for you if you eat to much of it. Eat in moderation and live a healthy life.

Also im jumping to the Anti Beast side for a sec because this is really shitting me. Lets put it this way you can justify having sex with animals because we eat meat. How bout this we will continue eating meat until you stop having sex with animals. Are you gonna do it .... Hell no you wont. You like it to much and you think there is nothing wrong with it. Just like we dont see anything wrong with eating meat.


And Svansfall these multi post replys are getting out of control. You are just reapeating your self now and I and probably a lot of other people are finding it tiresome. You dont need to write a 1000 word essay to prove your point.

658Report
Svansfall at 31 May 2006: 14:02

>>657
I am sorry about being too long-winded, DragonFlame.  I just don't wish to overlook anything that I am replying to, in case I'll skip a point that the one I am replying to wanted to have my views on. 

I am aware that I am not able to express myself very concisely or clearly.  It's a flaw of mine.

659Report
DragonFlame at 31 May 2006: 14:22

>>658
No Problem. I realise that you may think this whole board is agianst you and you need to reply to everything on your own and I think that may be one of the rasons why I have defended many of your point but there are many ohters that do support your view of sex. There is something you must understand, you do not need to justify yourself to have sex with animals and by this I am talking about this Meat issue. If you use a justification then deep down you know it is wrong and you need an excuse to make it right. Do not use something which you consider wrong to justify your actions. I think in your case that isnt true and what you have said so far is just an opinion and not a justification but everyone doesnt see it that way. Do you see where im going with this.

PS: I think you have been fairly clear and concise in your posts thats why I have been enjoying your replys.

660Report
arjuna at 31 May 2006: 21:27

>>657
"Next you will say well you can survive by eating the right fruits, vegetables, nuts and ohter non meat products but remeber this it is not normal for the human body to take on these diets and a lot of people are allergic to nuts and other products that you will bring up."

Wtf?  it sounds like you're saying that you can't subsist without meat?  Am i hearing this right?

Oh btw.  please continue to fuck animals, if sadistic people that would rape an animal don't procreate maybe they'll eventually get wiped out.

661Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 31 May 2006: 22:45

>>655

Me giving up sex with cows, would ruin my life in the same way that it would for a heterosexual man to give up sex with women. 

Ever hear of the priesthood?
Sexual 'urges' are biological desires, not needs. Remember?
We humans can hopefully control our urges to try and make the best out of the sex.

-------
Yes, I agree it is unnecessary to give pleasure. I don't have to give the cows stimulation when they desire it.  But they are happy that I am doing it, and I am happy that I am doing it.  As for it MIGHT be wrong, there are so many things in this world that are fully accepted that also MIGHT be wrong.

Oh, no you don't. I thought we discussed this.

And again, why not sex?  If the animal wants it,

That's exactly what's under discussion. You can't argue using the points under contest.

662Report
at 31 May 2006: 22:47

>>649

"If a criminal stole something, and was later robbed of their legitimately obtained possesions, reported it to the police, and later confessed to the original crime, would that mean that they can't press charges?"

Legaly or moraly?  If legaly, yes, they can.  Moraly, I'd say no, he has no right to complain.

663Report
at 1 Jun 2006: 00:01

*chuckle* and this thread is abought morality not legality.

664Report
at 1 Jun 2006: 00:50

Why eating meat became part of the debate:

Firstly, I want to say that I am a vegitarian and not a vegan.  I do eat dary and eggs.  For personal reasons, I abstain from eating meat, however, I do not think that it is wrong for anybody to eat meat.  In fact, it can be quite nessesary in order to survive given certain situations.  I view humans as a form of life higher than that of any other living thing on Earth.  Because of our supiriority of mind (yes, humans really are smarter than animals), all wild beasts are literaly fair game.  That's the way nature works.  Those who can kill and eat do, and those who can run fast and suvive do also.

So, how did meat become part of this issue?  Looking back, we will find a number of anti-zoo post about how fucking an animal causes them harm, thus, making sex with animals immoral.

Since the key to this anti-zoo argument is the fact that animals are harmed universialy harmed by beastiality, the pro-zoos used meat as a counter argument.  If zoophilia is wrong because it hurts animals, then meat must also be wrong because it ends an animal's life and likely results in psycological trauma to some degree or another.

This pro-zoo argument should have continued by saying that if eating meat is okay, then causing animals a degree of harm is okay.  How high that degree may get before it is not okay anymore is open for debate, however.  If causing animals a degree of harm is okay, then zoophilia is probably okay, too, since any degree of harm seems to be quite minimal, if any.

The goal was to derail the anti-zoo harm = immoral argument without having to undertake the difficult task of proving fucking an animal does not nessesarily cause harm.

Many pro-zoos seem to think that, when done properly, the animal being fucked (or the animal doing the fucking), is caused no harm and may in fact benifit from the sexual release. 

In truth, it is just as difficult to prove that zoophilia causes harm to animals as it is to prove that it doesn't.  Both sides will obviously disagree with that statment.  This isn't suprising because both sides are so biased.

Unfortunatly, the point of meat consumption got way.  It is almost as if it got hijacked by vegan nitwits from PeTA.  BTW, I highly recomend seeing the Pen and Teller: Bullshit episode that exposes PeTA's true intentions.

This never should have become about meat being murder.  The conclusion should have been "If meat is generaly okay, fucking animals should generaly be okay, too."  Note that I say "generaly", because neither case can be said absolutly. 

BTW, I've got a news flash for you vegans out there.  It's only murder when it is a human killing another human for reasons other than self defence. Oh, and I be sure to take your calcium.  Vegans are at risk for Osteoperosis at all ages because so few vegitables are rich in the element.  Drink your milk, to your good health!

665Report
at 1 Jun 2006: 00:51

>>663
There have been about a gazzillion times when you could have said that.  Why now?

666Report
at 1 Jun 2006: 01:21

oh just the way the post was phraised that i responded to.
bah i do have some pertinate thoughts, but to tired to be coherant - so will post them 15 or so hours from now
mwaaaahahaha i got post 666

667Report
Svansfall at 1 Jun 2006: 02:42

>>661
QUOTE: "Ever hear of the priesthood?
Sexual 'urges' are biological desires, not needs. Remember?"

What I meant was: "it would ruin my life/not ruin my life" in the same way that it would for a heterosexual man to give up sex with women.  I.e. it translates to the same feelings, and would affect me in a similar way.

QUOTE: "Oh, no you don't. I thought we discussed this."

The context this was in, was of the basic absolute needs for survival, such as it is necessary in a biological sense to eat, and it is necessary in a biological sense to procreate (for the species at whole).   In the biological sense it is not necessary to give pleasure.   In an emotional sense, it is however necessary for some people's mental health to be able to give pleasure.

QUOTE: "That's exactly what's under discussion. You can't argue using the points under contest."

Are you saying that unless everyone involved in a discussion agree upon the points of the discussion, it is impossible to explore and go in depth about those points?  If I am not misunderstanding you here, that would mean that no discussion could ever get past the point of skimming the surface and never reaching any kind of point at all.

I have explained in detail how we see that the animals show that they feel pleasure, and show how they want it.  If you wish to debate this, feel free to meet each part of their behaviour and interpret it in another logical way.

668Report
Svansfall at 1 Jun 2006: 03:12

>>659

Thanks for understanding me, DragonFlame.

I realize that some people may misunderstand what I mean, even though I have explained as good as I can.

I do not see a need to justify giving pleasure, becasue I believe that giving pleasure is a good thing.

In my personal opinion, giving pleasure = good.   Giving harm = bad.

So, with this in mind, when I see someone who eats meat criticising someone for giving pleasure to an animal, it is in my view, someone who is giving harm, criticising someone for giving pleasure.

So, I know some people don't believe that the animals feel pleasure, and I know some people don't believe that the meat industry harms animals, and if someone reading this feels like this, I hope you can look at how I feel about it, and at least understand why it seems so strange to me.

669Report
at 1 Jun 2006: 05:42

>>668

"So, I know some people don't believe that the animals feel pleasure, and I know some people don't believe that the meat industry harms animals, and if someone reading this feels like this, I hope you can look at how I feel about it, and at least understand why it seems so strange to me."

Some people, even today, believe that that animals aren't able to feel pain because there level of conciousness isn't high enough.  It's really just rediculous nonsense meant to rationalise cruelty.

Animals do indeed feel pain.  We know this because they have the stress hormones and behavioral changes to prove it when in bad situtations.  Interestingly enough, they react to pain and stress just like humans do.  They even have the mental power to associate certain objects or events with pain and take corrective actions to avoid pain when they think it's going to happen.  So, if an animal can feel pain and react inteligently to avoid it, maybe they can feel pleasure, too.  Maybe, just maybe, they may even seek pleasure out, much like people do.

670Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 1 Jun 2006: 05:43

>>664

Right on to a couple of points. The first point being (sorry for repeating myself) that people need to eat, and animals are edible, but people don't need to have sex with animals. It creates a situation that excuses people who eat meat, but it doesn't explain why you need to stick it in an animal. Unless you're a pervert, but there's worse things.

The second point being that even if eating meat is the most insanely evil thing you can do, it still doesn't justify having sex with animals. Ultimately, the two actions are separate, and since one doesn't cause the other, one doesn't have anything to do with the other.

>>662

So since you're annoying people, you don't get to complain when people annoy you then? Grow up kid.

>>657

Totally.

>>654

Wouldn't it be horribly annoying if everyone would constantly confront everyone about everything they thought was bad?


Well... last time I checked, that's exactly what's happening. Locally it's called laws and taboos. Break them and suffer. On a global scale, there's more tolerance, but only a little. Sanctions, wars... turn a blind eye to it all if you think that's going to solve something, but don't act surprised when someone shows a willingness to act on their beliefs that you're doing something wrong.

But it compares easily to heterosexual relationships.  There are rape and abuse among heterosexuals.  That doesn't mean that every heterosexual person would feel it is right to rape and abuse their partners.  It's the exact same thing with those who are attracted to animals.


Hold it there buddy. I could sit my girlfriend down in front of a bunch of people and ask her to explain what she sees in me, why she consents, and the little quirks about sex, relationships, and their meaning. She'd probably be pissed that I made her do it, but there's that assurance there that she can speak for herself, and nobody has to strain to understand.

Your cows can't do that, and who knows if they would even if they could. Your relationship is totally different than a heterosexual relationship between people. Other issues too. My gf can LEAVE me if she wants to. You own your cows. They aren't going anywhere. My gf gets equal say in our relationship, sleeps in bed in our apartment, sits at the dinner table with me, gets to go out and buy stuff for herself, gets to go out and make friends, etc. Your cows sleep in a barn, eat what you feel like giving them, go out when you let them out... do I really need to elaborate on that?

No. Your relationship with your cows may mean something to you, but don't compare it to human/human relationships. Not only is that ignorant, and more than a little freaky, but it's insulting to those of us who HAVE a significant other.

Me giving up sex with cows, would ruin my life in the same way that it would for a heterosexual man to give up sex with women.  I believe all the people in the meat industry could work in the plant industry instead, so I don't think any jobs or income would be lost.


To the first point... no it wouldn't. The bond you've developed is one where you have complete control. The reason your cows are treated well is cause you choose to treat them well, not because they're entitled to it. You are the MASTER in that relationship. If a couple (humans) split up, you lose a partner in your life. If you stop messing around with your cows, you'd lose your fix, probably feel annoyed whenever you got horny, and that'd depress you, but not for the same reasons.

Well, I can't back up the psychoanalysis parts that I'm claiming about you, but as far as I can tell, if you're comparing your relationship with animals with an actual human coupling, you're way overattatched, but still, it isn't even true friendship. You just like the animals a lot. Hey, I like my dog and cat... if anything happens to them, I'd be messed up for a while, but that'd be NOTHING compared to my gf dying.

And as for the meat industry going to plants... that's just uninspired dude. I can't even hazard a guess at the resources, labor, and time that would take to make the switch. You're completely underestimating how many people you're saying should give up a huge part of their lives. (I've seen vegan diets. You need to take vitamins to supplement what you lose by giving up meat and dairy, and like Dragonflame said, some people are allergic to nuts and other protein supplements, so they need special pills and powders.) To grow that many vegetables, you'd need a lot of space and labor. Space taken up by animals, and labor directed to tending animals. That'd mean saying goodbye to cows, chickens, and pigs for the most part, and saying hello to many many bean fields and nut groves... and through all of this, insane amounts of money would need to be dug up from somewhere.

Do you have lots of money? If you and your zoo peers have a few trillion laying around, by all means, start buying up the land and making the vision come true. Make sure to set a bit aside for the people who'd lose their jobs though, because losing jobs causes PEOPLE a lot of undue stress and harm.

I am feeling that I am right because I have carefully pondered everything I can think of, multiple times over a long period of time, and changed my views when I thought I was wrong, until I reached the conclusion that I am right.


Okay, maybe it's a mess-up in my reading here, but you just said that you've been wrong repeatedly in the past, but you know you're right now.  Well... just no. Unless some sort of deity came down and told you that you're right, you just THINK you're right, based on your opinion. In this way, you have NOTHING on the people against you.

It seems some people who posted earlier in this thread, has very limited experience in interacting with animals,


Not having sex with animals doesn't mean they're inexperienced dude. If a lot of them are Americans, I promise you that most of them have probably been around at least a dog their whole life. Just because they haven't come to the same conclusions you have doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about.

As for it MIGHT be wrong, there are so many things in this world that are fully accepted that also MIGHT be wrong.


And again dude, it doesn't matter how many other things MIGHT be wrong, it doesn't justify anything.

Seriously, for the purposes of this discussion, your side has to assume that right and wrong are separate from people, because if you go by what's popular, then you're wrong, because bestiality is widely frowned on. Since you're assuming what's right and what's wrong isn't up to people, then either you think it's just up to you (an elitist punk who needs to grow up), or you've got to accept that what other people do, good or bad, doesn't make what you do right or wrong. Your actions are weighed independently, not comparatively.

But I seriously believe that if we want to, we can make sex into innocent pleasure, and I know a lot of people who do.


Yeah maybe, but as long as you’re part of this world, you’ve got to face the fact the other people will react to the decisions you make, no matter how innocent you feel they are. You want people to stop saying cruel things to young zoophiles. Well, why would they do that? Especially since you do something that bugs them with no intention of stopping... why should they listen to you? You’ve brought up a lot of excuses not to listen to them, but why should they listen to you?

Yeah, I don't need to do it.  I can choose to live in celibacy for the rest of my life.  But I feel my life will lack essential quality if I have to remain in celibacy.


Man you've really talked yourself into this haven't you? Do you even know what a Furry is? Just because I can't have sex with an anthromorphic vixen doesn't mean my life is diminished... not in any sense that anyone who pines for something they can't have. Some people want super models, some people want rich and famous stars, but their lives aren't wrecked when they can't have it. I would never say that my life is lesser for settling for a human lover. I'm vaguely offended that you seem to think that giving up cows for a woman would be disgusting to you.

No dude, if you stopped having sex with cows, unless you're completely obsessed with getting absolutely everything you want all the time, you'd find that life would go on. You're living your kink, but your kink isn't your life... and if you think it is, you should seriously see a therapist or something. I'm not trying to be mean with that remark, but I'm reasonably sure that if you can't see yourself having a life without sexual contact with animals, that it's not just you enjoying something, it's you immersing yourself in it dangerously.

671Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 1 Jun 2006: 05:50

>>669

Yeah, some people feel that animals don't feel pain, but those people are retarded crazies. Nobody in this thread has said that animals can't feel pain. Even the 4channers didn't go there, so there's nobody representing that school of thought, so no reason to go there.

As for "how do you know they feel pleasure". Read the spirit of it. A) how do you know the animals likes it: as in, is there the possibility that you're misinterpreting or forcing your interpreatation. B) How do you know that the animal feels is the same as what we feel: as in maybe you're fooling their body into thinking that it's mating, so triggering the mating responce, and not erotic desire or love.

Read the spirit of the posts people. It doesn't solve anything to respond to something that wasn't meant that way.

672Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 1 Jun 2006: 06:03

>>668

HOLY SHIT! Verrimgard??? The Zoo who directed you here was Verrimgard!? I KNOW Him!!

What the hell are you trying to pull man! Get your ass on Vent! I'll email you the info! Dude, when Chris finds out about this he's gonna punk your ass! Ha ha! Oh man...

(Sorry dudes, I won't jack this thread or anything. The rest'll be in chat... but yeah, turns out I DO know a zoo then. XD)

673Report
Couger at 1 Jun 2006: 08:27

I'm pretty sure everyone knows at least one zoo we as a "species" tend to lay somewhat low and mostly not be noticed its eisier that way.
im apreciating this thread in that regards immensly as at the very least its showing people we do exist
morals are ultimatly a device we create to feel superior to another.

674Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 1 Jun 2006: 09:35

>>667

I have explained in detail how we see that the animals show that they feel pleasure, and show how they want it.  If you wish to debate this, feel free to meet each part of their behaviour and interpret it in another logical way.

Fine. I don't think animals are intelligent enough to have knowledge of human sexual meaning and connotations. Since zoos are human, they are, whether they like it or not, bringing said associations into their 'relationship' with an animal. One of these associations is a need for consent. Since the animal can't understand the human meanings of 'sex' in general, much less 'consent' in particular, how can they show it?

Also, the quote code is an arrow followed by a space, with a line break at the end of the quote.

>>673
morals are ultimatly a device we create to feel superior to another.

Like yours?
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/17861612/

675Report
Svansfall at 1 Jun 2006: 15:17

>>670
Okay, I am going to try and write a brief post for a change, and I apologize for therefor not replying to absolutely everything.

No. Your relationship with your cows may mean something to you, but don't compare it to human/human relationships. Not only is that ignorant, and more than a little freaky, but it's insulting to those of us who HAVE a significant other.


Why is it insulting?  Of course there are things I cannot share with the cows, that I can share with my close human friends.   That does not mean that I am less emotionally attached to the cows, and in no sense does it mean that I treat them less good for that, or any other reason.  I have been deeply involved in loving, non-sexual relationships with close human friends, with everything that an ordinary loving relationship contains, with the sole exception of sex.  I am fully aware of what a human/human relationship means, and I am also fully aware of what a human/animal relationship means.  For natural reasons, there are things you cannot share with the animals, but the human/animal relation is not less rewarding in the emotional sense.  It's equally rewarding in the emotional sense.

Just like I can sit beside a close human which means a lot to me, and we can just peacefully share the moment, I can also sit beside a cow in the grass, carress her as she's relaxing, and we're relaxing together.  She's showing that she is feeling safe in my company, and she enjoys the fact that I am there.

I am a mostly non-sexual person anyway.  Close contact, cuddling and petting means a lot more to me than sex, and it sometimes goes long periods between me ever doing anything sexual at all.

I am out as a zoophile to many of my close non-zoo friends as well, and I must admit you're the first person I have ever heard who felt that my emotions to the animals, would be insulting to their emotions to their loved ones.  My non-zoo friends thinks my relation with the cows is sweet.

I hope you do not really feel that it is insulting, becasue it is no deliberate insult from my part.

I'll choose to not comment any further on the point of meat eating.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on this part.  I've already mentioned so much of how I feel about the subject.

Not having sex with animals doesn't mean they're inexperienced dude. If a lot of them are Americans, I promise you that most of them have probably been around at least a dog their whole life. Just because they haven't come to the same conclusions you have doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about.


That's not how I meant it.  Most animal owners I know are not zoophiles, and most of the animal owners I know are well aware of how to communicate with their animals, and can easily read their animals' body language.  Some comments earlier on in this thread, seemed to come from people who were completely unaware of the behaviour of animals.

You want people to stop saying cruel things to young zoophiles. Well, why would they do that? Especially since you do something that bugs them with no intention of stopping... why should they listen to you? You’ve brought up a lot of excuses not to listen to them, but why should they listen to you?


They can completely ignore us.  They don't have to listen to me, and they don't have to say anything cruel and mean to people.

They can say cruel and mean things to the people who DO abuse and mistreat their animals, sexually or non-sexually, but they don't have to say anything to nice people who treat their animals well.

Man you've really talked yourself into this haven't you? Do you even know what a Furry is? Just because I can't have sex with an anthromorphic vixen doesn't mean my life is diminished... not in any sense that anyone who pines for something they can't have. Some people want super models, some people want rich and famous stars, but their lives aren't wrecked when they can't have it. I would never say that my life is lesser for settling for a human lover. I'm vaguely offended that you seem to think that giving up cows for a woman would be disgusting to you.


No dude, if you stopped having sex with cows, unless you're completely obsessed with getting absolutely everything you want all the time, you'd find that life would go on. You're living your kink, but your kink isn't your life... and if you think it is, you should seriously see a therapist or something. I'm not trying to be mean with that remark, but I'm reasonably sure that if you can't see yourself having a life without sexual contact with animals, that it's not just you enjoying something, it's you immersing yourself in it dangerously.


There's a lot of dreams that I would be happy with having come true, but I cannot get it, and I am not obsessed with getting absolutely everything I want.

There are really only 3 things I want in life: I want to live in the spot where I feel at home.  I want to share my life with close human friends around me.  I want to devote my life to making sure that some cows get the absolutely best possible life I can give them.

That's what I am asking for in life, and those three things mean the most to me of anything. Having emotional and physical intimate relationship with cows is not a kink for me.  Zoophilia is a valid sexual orientation - not a kink.  More than one psychologist and sexologist has reached this conclusion in their studies.  Look up the book "Understanding Zoophilia and Bestiality" by Dr. Hani Miletski, for her detailed description of her studies, in case you are interested.

I know what furries is, and I also have sexual fantasies about beings that does not exist.  It does not diminish my life either.  But the emotional relationship I have with the cows is far more rewarding than any fantasy I could think of.

As far as giving up cows for a woman.  When I was young, I became sexually mature roughly around the same time as most other guys in school did.  I noticed that they were getting sexually attracted to the girls.  I tried to get sexually attracted to the girls as well, because I didn't want to be different.  I'd get aroused by beautiful cows, horses or dogs that I'd see, but I always had to hide it.

For a few years, I tried to actively make myself attracted to girls, but it never worked.  I tried to fantasize about girls, but nothing ever happened.  But everytime I started fantasizing about being with certain animals, I was instantly aroused.

I have had to decline sex from people, who I really liked, and would have been happy if I could have had sex with them, but I have never been able to conjure up any kind of sexual attraction towards a human.

I've tried in later years also, several times, because I really hate to make people sad, and as I mentioned before, I have been in loving relationships with humans, lacking the sex-part.  Well, those people wanted to have sex with me.

So, I am sorry if you feel offended by people who cannot get sexually aroused by humans.  It's just never been anything but animals that has aroused me, since the first day I was sexually mature.

So, my sexual orientation is zoophilia.  To ask me to give up cows and have sex with women, is just like telling a homophile to give up guys and have sex with women.

>>672

Sorry?  Now, I am confused.  Where in post 668 is Verrimgard mentioned?  Who is he?  WHo is Chris?   All that I know is that there was a post on Beastforum, from someone called Verrimgard, and in the post, he talked about this discussion here on Fchan.  So, I followed the link he provided and got here.  That's all I know.

And I think I failed in writing a brief post.

676Report
Svansfall at 1 Jun 2006: 15:42

>>674
Thanks for showing me how I use the quotes properly.

Fine. I don't think animals are intelligent enough to have knowledge of human sexual meaning and connotations. Since zoos are human, they are, whether they like it or not, bringing said associations into their 'relationship' with an animal. One of these associations is a need for consent. Since the animal can't understand the human meanings of 'sex' in general, much less 'consent' in particular, how can they show it?


No, animals are not intelligent enough to have knowledge of human sexual meaning and connotations.  They do however have the sense of their own pleasure, and they know when they like something, or when they don't like something.  They know how to ask for it, and they know enough to read my body language in return to see if I'll give it to them or not.

Did you know that dogs learn that when humans pull their lips up and show their teeth, it means happiness and not aggression?  It takes a while for each young puppy to figure this out though.  So, in communication with the animals, the animals are learning the human body language, as well as we learning the animal body language.  And no, I am not making it up.  Talk to your local dog-trainer, or read a book on "how to understand your dog", etc.  But how animals learn human body langauge goes for horses and cows also.

The need for the human definition of 'consent' is completely besides the point in any relationship, sexual or non-sexual, with an animal.  There is the need that the animal understands you, that you understand the animal, that you make absolutely sure you understand what the animal is meaning, when they show what they want or do not want, and that you respect what they are showing.

So, as I mentioned in posts 644 and 653, the animals show very clearly when they want something, or not.  You just have to make sure you respect it.

677Report
at 1 Jun 2006: 19:34

>>676

"The need for the human definition of 'consent' is completely besides the point in any relationship, sexual or non-sexual, with an animal.  There is the need that the animal understands you, that you understand the animal, that you make absolutely sure you understand what the animal is meaning, when they show what they want or do not want, and that you respect what they are showing."

Exactly.  Animals operate within a certain sphere of intelect and knowlege, which is much smaller than the sphere in which a human operates.  The concept of consent or informed consent is too complex for them to understand, thus, it cannot possibly be a relivant concept to them.  Animals operate in terms that are much more simple and direct that that.  With them, it is either "I like this", "I don't like this" and "I don't care either way".  Persuit shows desire, aversion shows dislike, and lack of reaction shows apathy.

678Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 1 Jun 2006: 19:38

>>673

Oh come on man, that's just simple. Morals also keep people from going out and stealing or killing and such. Not everyone doesn't rape people because they're afraid of punishment... some of them actually think it's wrong, and they aren't thinking that way just to feel superior.

Morals exist for plenty of reasons, and they generally do a lot of good, all said and done. The lack of morals is what causes the bulk of problems I'd say.

>>675

For natural reasons, there are things you cannot share with the animals, but the human/animal relation is not less rewarding in the emotional sense.  It's equally rewarding in the emotional sense.


Dude, your relationship with your cows isn't even in the same ballpark as people's relationship with each other. It's more like a relationship with a pet. If you think they're similar, it's because you're discounting a lot of stuff; stuff that I happen to think is really important. My girlfriend can say "I love you", and I don't need to banter with people about interpreting the body language properly or anything. That's just ONE of the reasons.

But seriously, don't go there. I do not want you or anyone comparing my relationship with my girlfriend with your relationship with a cow. In all honesty, I'd smack you right in the mouth if you said something like that to my face, so if you want me to stay even remotely resonable, just don't.

Most animal owners I know are not zoophiles, and most of the animal owners I know are well aware of how to communicate with their animals, and can easily read their animals' body language.  Some comments earlier on in this thread, seemed to come from people who were completely unaware of the behaviour of animals.


Careful with the assumptions there. Again, they probably have as much experience as you, but have interpretted that experience differently.

They can completely ignore us.  They don't have to listen to me, and they don't have to say anything cruel and mean to people.


They can say cruel and mean things to the people who DO abuse and mistreat their animals, sexually or non-sexually, but they don't have to say anything to nice people who treat their animals well.


But dude... they think zoophiles rape animals. To them, you aren't treating your animals well if you're having sex with them. They believe you ARE mistreating your animals. Well, some of them are just griefers looking for a reaction, but a lot of these people say those mean and hurtful things because they think you're a bad person. Why would they just ignore you if they thought you were bad? Especially when there's enough of them to force the issue (laws and such).

So, my sexual orientation is zoophilia.  To ask me to give up cows and have sex with women, is just like telling a homophile to give up guys and have sex with women.


Okay, I'm not gay, but I'm reasonably sure if I was, I wouldn't appreciate that comparison. A homosexual's lover isn't comparable to a cow. Again, you're really reaching here, and it doesn't even make sense anymore.

Sorry?  Now, I am confused.  Where in post 668 is Verrimgard mentioned?  Who is he?  WHo is Chris?   All that I know is that there was a post on Beastforum, from someone called Verrimgard, and in the post, he talked about this discussion here on Fchan.  So, I followed the link he provided and got here.  That's all I know.


Well, Verrimgard's a really unique name that only one guy has ever used as far as I can tell. If a guy going by Verrimgard directed you here, then it's the same guy (I hope to confirm anyway). Chris is his best friend... and let's just say that he doesn't like animal abuse, and he probably doesn't think highly of zoophiles as a result.

>>676

The need for the human definition of 'consent' is completely besides the point in any relationship, sexual or non-sexual, with an animal.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the anti-zoos completely disagree with you on that one. If sex without consent equals rape when humans are involved, then it seems pretty much central to their points that if the animal isn't consenting, then it's rape.

Man... you're kinda bouncing back and forth a bit there. I thought you were insisting that your animals CAN consent... now it seems like you're saying that they can't, but they don't need to. Have you thought about a different approach? >>664 has a good point there. Maybe the point isn't whether or not sex with animals is wrong... maybe you should be going from the angle that while it may be wrong, it's not as bad as people think so doesn't merit as much hate as it draws.

Hell, like he said, you could even bring the meat eating argument back into play if you go from that angle... but I guess the best you could hope for that way is bare bones tolerance, not acceptance.

On one note I can sympathize though. You zoophile types have some seriously bad stereotypes attached to you. We furries get that a lot too. Most of us are pretty ordinary, but people SEE the worst of us, and that's what gets attached to the term. With you guys, it looks like you have the same problem, with a hitch. It seems to me that a lot of the zoophiles there are, are the kind that you don't like. You know... the ones who ass fuck their dogs and videotape it so they can sell it or show it to people, etc.

Which actually reminds me... what the hell are you doing on the beast forum site anyway? A bit of reading, and I could tell in a hurry that if you're the kind of guy you claim to be, that isn't the kind of site you'd normally associate with. Jesus dude, there's all kinds of links to commercial animal porn on that site. (and a furry section, but they won't let me look at the pictures without registering. I'm surprised Bernal hasn't come down on you guys actually... but whatever).

Still, I'll give you the benifit of the doubt and just assume that you're there because there's precious few places where zoophiles are welcome, not because you endorse what's done on that site.

679Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 1 Jun 2006: 19:41

>>677

Well, yeah... but the discussion isn't about whether the animal is moral or not, it's the person, and consent is a relivant concept to people. Is what zoophiles do defined as rape by humans? That's the question involving consent.

Man... that's been said what, like 20 times now?

680Report
at 1 Jun 2006: 21:31

  Is what zoophiles do defined as rape by humans. unknown abought all humans of course.  by most humans?, again unknown, no hard data , by some humans?, well of course otherwise we wouldent be having this discusion.
   my experienece says animals are perfectly capable of consent many peoples experiences say the exact same thing, are they the sole experts, hell no, but they are also the only ones who have stepped up with reasonable sounding evidence as well as personal opinions saying the same thing, "here is study x with research links and data" "here is my personal reasoning why i think this is so."
  unless I somehow missed something, through these posts i havent seen the "they cant consent" crowd toss out here is study a b or c saying "animals are incapable of consent"  nor have i seen any of them say (paraphraised) "well in x number of years I have spent with animals I have seen them not be able to make choices etc etc".....
 


  It hopefully is understand that animals operate diferently than we do, and only the most inane would insist that animals meet our standerds of interacting, so long as we have made sure we are at the very least understanding of the jointly created interaction space that is created by humans living with animals
then so long as we meet the type of consent that is displayed within such verses the consent that is only apropriate between humans  of the same launguage and culture then we are able to gain consent
  the current consent argument is basicly trying to force the colour purple to
be divisable by blue. human standerds and morals are not aplicable to a non human relationship or interaction. we can chose to apply them in individual cases, however attempting to apply them as a universal rule that would be rather silly.
otherwise we are suddenly murdering many many cows goats sheep and other beings.

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.
Manage