| 710Report |
Svansfall at 3 Jun 2006: 09:40
>>702
I haven't been on that board in a while. What's going on that you don't like?
That is too much to mention here, and I will not go into details.
>>704
Man, the only thing I can say to this, for both sides, is be careful. Just because it's written in a book by some scholar or scientist doesn't mean it's right, or even valid. Two people from the same university can look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions. Just look at the psychology Nature/Nurture debate for evidence there.
No, it doesn't have to be valid just because it is written in a book. But a majority of recent studies on the subject has all defined zoophilia as a sexual orientation. Hani Miletski's study is only one of the most in-depth studies on the topic, and she has extensive research behind her study. http://www.drmiletski.com/about_hani.html
The reason why she started researching the subject was that one of her clients came to her and wanted to be 'cured' from zoophilia. She was trying to find information about it, and found no recent studies, so she started doing her own research. She eventually came to the conclusion that her client could not be cured from zoophilia, because you cannot cure someone from a sexual orientation.
Actually, yes. I used to think I was a bad person because I was a furry, and I tried to NOT be a furry... and then eventually came to the conclusion that being a furry isn't hurting anything, because all it really meant is I was looking at something. Yeah, it's damn near impossible to just completely deny a kink.
The difference is that zoophilia is not a kink, nor is it a fetish. It's a sexual orientation. A fetish is when you are aroused by an object or by an action. I.e. snuff, foot-fetish, etc. A sexual orientation is when you feel emotionally and physically attracted to another living being. The animal is not an object, nor is it an action.
The reason why I mentioned that zoophilia is a sexual orientation was not to explain why it would be "right", but why it is upsetting when someone says: "Go find a woman instead of a cow." I guess a kink or a fetish would be more easy to ignore even if you're unhappy with them, but a sexual orientation is rooted deep down. It's like in the old days when they tried to force left-handed people to become right-handed, by forbidding them to use their left hand.
Sexologists and therapists who have researched zoophilia are aware of that you cannot "cure" a sexual orientation or make it go away. So to tell someone to "Go find someone you are not sexually attracted to!" isn't a very kind thing to say.
Now on to the issue of so-called 'consent'.
The reason why I don't feel the human definition of 'consent'applies to human/animal relationships is because the term is not constructed wide enough to fit with clear and absolute non-verbal communication.
As I have explained earlier, an animal will show very clearly what they want and what they don't want. No matter how clear this is, it still falls out of the human definition of 'consent'.
I am not going to participate much in this discussion anymore, because I am getting a bit too many things that need to urgently be done IRL, and my time to sit by the computer is limited. It takes me a while to write those posts, because of having to use the dictionary and look up a lot of English words all the time.
Another reason is that I have basically already said most of what I can say on the subject, and the rest will just be repeating myself. I'll most likely slip in a few comments now and then anyway, though.
So, to sum up what I really mean: As long as the animal and human know each other, and feel comfortable and safe in each others company. As long as the human makes sure to read the clear and direct body language of the animal, and respect it. As long as no one is coming to harm, I do not see anything that could be wrong with a human and an animal both enjoying sexual contact with each other.
Human definition of 'consent' does not even come close to being relevant here. Juberu may think it is valid, but an animal who tries to rub her genitals against a tree in a futile attempt of getting stimulation, will be noticably relieved once she has recieved the stimulation from a human, and if I would instead stand before her and say: "Sorry, you cannot give me human 'consent', so therefor I cannot touch you", she'd just get more frustrated, turning around and exposing her genitals to me. Not because she understands my words, but because I am not helping her find relief.
I've had to ignore cows who try to get me to stimulate them, when I have had to go to work in the morning, or having other things that I must attend to. To expect me to not stimulate her, when she wants to, when I want to, and when both have time, solely for the reason that she cannot meet the human definition of 'consent'. Sorry, no. It harms none of us, and both of us like it.
In short: If everyone involved enjoys it, and no one gets any harm from it, do what you please. Giving harmless pleasure can never be wrong.
That's my opinion, and feel free to disagree if you like, but don't be mean to people who treat animals good.
|