| 689Report |
Svansfall at 2 Jun 2006: 13:27
>>678
Dude, your relationship with your cows isn't even in the same ballpark as people's relationship with each other.
You don't seem to think very highly of cows. I still don't see why it could be even vaguely insulting, but out of respect for you I will not say anything.
Well, Verrimgard's a really unique name that only one guy has ever used as far as I can tell.
Yes, but how did this name suddenly pop up in this thread? I did not mention the name.
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.
No, I didn't say they can 'consent' in the human defintion. I said that they can clearly express in body language how they feel about things. What they like, what they don't like, when they like something, when they don't like something. That they can clearly communicate with us, and that we can read their body language and understand when they are saying "yes", or "no." That they can clearly come up to someone and request something. This is not the human definition of 'consent' and I feel the human definition of 'consent' is not valid at all here. What is valid is that the animal gets its meaning across and that it is respected by the human.
what the hell are you doing on the beast forum site anyway?
I went there to try and make contact with some new zoofriends, which I luckily found, and through their help I have found some good porn-free forums for more serious discussions. For a while, there was some pretty decent discussions on beastforum also, but not lately.
And your assumptions are correct, I've actually been very upset and disturbed with a lot of the things on beastforum.
>>681
I'm making the claim that it is necessary. Because you're a human. You're bringing into any 'relationship' automatically. Debate that part of the post; I'd like some feedback.
Yes, I am human. But when the animal's wants and needs are respected, and the human does nothing except what the animal has clearly showed that they want, and as long as the human stops as long as the animal shows that they don't want something. Seriously what more could you ask for? The animal signing a document, stating that: "Yes, I do indeed really feel like having my genitals stimulated right now."? Sorry, it's not going to happen.
So the animal doesn't need to understand *consent*?
The animal needs to understand what they enjoy and what they don't enjoy, and wheter they want it at the moment or not. And they do know this. They don't raise their tail in the 'mating-way' if they don't wish to be touched there, and in case you touch them there and they don't like it, they make sure to lower their tail and get away from you immediately and clearly.
What about the animal understanding what *you're* meaning?
This is why it is important to know your animal well, and for the animal to know you well.
>>684
Again, I must agree. Zoophilia is more of an accessory to an existing sexual orientation, rather than a sexual orientation unto itself. Any zoo who thinks they are exclusivly attracted to animals is either ignorant of what they are missing, or 2, is damaged in the head. I get the feeling that Svansfall has convinced himself that his relationships are far more significant than they really are.
Have you read Hani Miletski's book? It's not the only study that researched the question of wheter zoophilia is a sexual orientation or not. Page 168 to 172 in the book explores this in a very detailed way. Unfortunately, it is far too much for me and sit and type into the computer. Her study included 82 men and 11 women, who has had sexual contact with animals. Hani reaches the conclusion that zoophilia is a sexual orientation.
I'll quote a brief passage from Hani's book, where she reviews other studies made on the subject of zoophilia and bestiality:
"Fox (1994) believes that sexual relations with animals is as valid a sexual preference as homosexuality is. Cauldwell (1948 & 1968) relates that bestiality is a result of an inherent passion, and Donofrio (1996) reports that the concept of zoophilia being a sexual orientation was supported by his doctoral study. He, therefor, suggests using a scale resembling Kinsey's sexual orientation scale, which was also offered by Blake (1971). Donofrio's model suggests that those who have no interest whatsoever in sexual contact with animals woukd appear at the Zero point of the scale. Those individuals whose sole sexual outlet and attraction are animals, would be assigned the Six position. Along that continuum, between these two extremes, would be individuals who include animal sexual contact in their fantasy, or have had incidental experiences with animals, have had more than incidental contact with animals, place their sexual activity with animals equal to that involving humans, prefer animal contact but engage in more than incidental contact with humans, and those who engage primarily in contact with animals, with only incidental human sexual contact."
|