fchan

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

>>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?

>>644

>>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".

>>647

Aw for christ's sake man, grow up.

>>638

I'll take a crack at this.

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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

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!

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

>>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.

>>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

>>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)

>>667

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

>>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

  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.