You should spend less time preemptively apologizing and just ask your question.

We are many single individuals all over the world so there will be very different opinions.

I'll make a start, even if it's not a very good one. :)

When gay marriage was approved, people started saying that some other groups would come behind them, among those: Zoos

Well, I question the premise of "coming behind" them. I don't want to be criminalized, whether gays are approved or not. Well, considering myself to also be pansexual with a preference for men, I happen to have a personal interest in both.

¿Do you wish/plan to get the rights as recently gay activist earn with hard work? ¿What are you plans?

I personally would like to have legal protection from discrimination and obviously I don't want to be criminalized by the state. That's about it for me.

¿What differentiates Zoophilia from other "philias" such as "pedophilia"? Isnt the same a dog as a kid?

Is the sexuality of an adult dog and that of a human child considered to be the same? I don't think so. Adult dogs have sex with members of their species all the time and nobody thinks anything about it. Human children on the other hand are still developing and they may experiment more or less, but as far as I know it's considered to cause quite some harm to have sex with them in that state.

Im particulary shocked in this one, because in some posts Ive read, some users seem to have a "gray" line with it, even having sexual contact with "boy" and "girl" dogs, and cats...

Well, we are a lot of individuals. I happen to also find it disturbing when people do sexual stuff with animals that are not sexually mature. E.g. this disturbs me.

What differentiates Zoophilia from Pedophilia? In both cases, animals and kids could feel pleasure, in the later they could even say "yes", in both even "search" for that pleasure source, but does not mean they fully understand what is going on. Putting in count that none animals or kids get harm. ¿what truly makes the difference? Other than the obvious species one.

Most people will say something like "Consent. Period. End of discussion.". But most likely they'll not say much more. What does fully understand mean? A handwavy argument for the children would be that they'd need to be aware of how their sexuality will develop and how they'll feel about this with their fully developed sexuality later on... What does a dog has to understand? I think a dog that fucks a human understands about as much about it as a dog that fucks another dog...

Same with sex with mentally disable person, a person who does not understand the meanings of their acts, who might enjoy the sexual pleasure, but can't have the mental function to give a full consent?

That's interesting too. There seems to be a little bit more public debate than about zoophilia. You can google intellectual disability sexuality and will probably find a few different view points.

What similarity has Zoophilia to Homosexuality, or bisexuality etc, that you think it gives you right to be as accepted as them? To initiate or expect any "social recognition".

I do not feel I need to be "given" these rights anymore than I feel I need human rights to be "given" to me. I do not think any similarity is necessary.

In the same subject ¿Do you plan to change the term from "zoophilic" to "zoosexual"?

I honestly don't care. Zoosexual sounds a little bit nicer I guess.

¿Do you intend to normilize the idea and introduce it as a normal/natural/safe/healthy human behaviour?

"normal behavior" is a difficult word. It's not normal, because only a small minority engages in it. But it is normal that there is such a small minority that engages in it.

It does happen "naturally": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Cross_species_sex. But that's not really important. What's natural is not necessarily good and what's unnatural isn't necessarily bad.

Safe and healthy honestly depends on scientific research. I do want that research to happen in the first place.

¿What if your tough of adoption, family definition? Or do you only see them as sexual/romantic companions? Would you like to create a family, have children, adopt with your pet companion?

Uhm... my opinion is that the state shouldn't be too involved in such definitions what a family. It should ensure that when adoption is considered that there is some evidence that the environment in which the child would end up is not bad for the child and that's about it... But I must say, I personally do not see that working out...

I'm not a practicing zoophile but I have tendencies that tell me I probably fall into the category of zoophilic to some degree, and I have a great connection with the community and an understanding of the perspectives of many from years of conversations on the topic, so I apologize to anyone who might not agree with me, I just want to convey some very general perspectives, mostly my own and a few anecdotal that I've gathered from reading a lot of boards and talking to people.

For one, I really don't like seeing zoophilia and homosexuality blanketed together. For the simple reason that I have a lot of respect for LGBT rights and issues and I don't want to see their progress hampered by a group who will possibly never gain widespread acceptance. I think a lot of zoophiles are accepting of this fact also.

We can debate about consent arguments, special rights and circumstances, biology and evolution until we turn blue but at the end of the day, most normal people are going to have a much harder time accepting zoophila than most people can accept homosexuality, and certainly won't want to see it "out" in public culture. For this reason I have no intentions or motivation. I am not an activist and would rather be able to simply discuss the topic with like-minded individuals in private without fear or prosecution.

A lot of zoophiles I talk to would really rather just be left alone and at most, not criminalized for their choice in who or what they share love and intimacy with.

And on that note:

What differentiates Zoophilia from other "philias" such as "pedophilia"? Isnt the same a dog as a kid?

Probably the most common "back against the wall" argument against zoophilia I've seen. But the premise of the argument is flawed, in that a sexually mature animal is NOT a child in any fashion other than what human's project on them. We see animals are helpless and shoe-horn them into our human society and culture, often removing their own free will, their sexuality and their own natural environment, so it can be hard to see that somewhere inside that cute, gentle retriever is a wolf, with all the same drives and abilities and attitudes that allowed that creature and its own society to be more than a match for humans at a distant point in history.

Meanwhile, an actual human child is in the midst of a very complicated development process which can be harmed beyond repair if the wrong kinds of sexual associations are made at an early age. Humans become highly complicated over a long period of time with a vastly complex system of conscious thought towards associations and memories. Animals work on a very different system and don't have the same attitude towards their sexuality, for most animals it's purely a function or a body part or a drive, and they would only create a negative association with a sexual act or physical intimacy if that act was associated with pain or trauma in some way. If they actually were child-like in nature then we shouldn't allow them to have sex with each other either for the same reasons outlined above.

A common, general principle to raising animals in a healthy, responsible way is to understand that they are not children. Many people do far more harm to their adult pets' behavior by treating them like babies instead of fully functional, mature creatures that need to be respected for the culture they come from and the instincts that drive them, be it pack or herd mentality.

Also, an adult animal has a sense of "self" that is not developed in either a child or immature animal. It may be different than an adult human's sense of self, but it does exist. You only have to be around animals to understand that they do make choices about their environment and their needs and wants. Many zoophiles feel close to this way of being and are highly respectful and make a point to connect with an animal on its own level. It may not necessarily be sexual either. Many zoos do not have sexual contact with animals for fear of mistreatment or "taking advantage" of their partners. The ones who are sexual delight in sharing intimacy and affection as well as the animal's pleasure and comfort.

On the other end of the spectrum, I am aware that abuse does take place. In a small segment, and I'm not even talking about zoo-sadists, which make up a tiny, tiny fraction of zoophiles, I'm talking about exploitative acts, filming for profit and excitement, training animals to engage in certain behavior and other areas that really are grey. I'm personally apposed to the commercial production of bestiality porn and the culture that views it as only an exciting, degrading act. For these reasons I have the sometimes unpopular stand that I think some kind of regulation is actually a good idea to curb our human nature to exploit everything around us. I just don't like to see people who have loving relationships face prosecution that ruins their lives, and have their beloved animals taken away and put to death for it.

Do you plan to change the term from "zoophilic" to "zoosexual"?

Makes no difference to me personally.

Do you intend to normilize the idea and introduce it as a normal/natural/safe/healthy human behaviour?

Personally I know full well that it's not in way "normal" and have no intentions at all, but I'd like to see the message spread that it's not necessarily harmful or abusive. Zoophiles have close, loving and sometimes sexually intimate relationships with animals that love them back. Everyone is happy ideally, and I feel people should live-and-let-live, and not judge quickly or see these relationships as something on par with pedophilia.

What if your tough of adoption, family definition? Or do you only see them as sexual/romantic companions? Would you like to create a family, have children, adopt with your pet companion?

I cannot speak for all zoos on this, but I know that many wish they could connect closer to their companions and communicate, but that's just fantasy or fiction. Most zoophiles know realistically what the limitations of their relationship are, but simply enjoy being able to touch another world, to be close to another creature, no less amazing or emotional than us, simply different and alien on a certain level and to feel a trusting, loving connection with this entity that may be so foreign to people normally. I think many exclusive zoos would even prefer the life of an animal over their human life if such a thing were possible.

Community note: I'm downright tired of telling you all not to downvote things because you disagree with them. It happens on practically every post that dares broach a topic that criticises us. I know I'm not speaking to the majority of you, but whoever it is that feels they have to validate themselves by downvoting the good content of others should criticise themselves for a change.

</rant>

Right, sorry about that.

Firstly, Equality For All doesn't have the best reputation and they're not generally where to look for a group that represents what most zoophiles feel. ZETA is somewhat closer.

¿Do you wish/plan to get the rights as recently gay activist earn with hard work? ¿What are you plans?

Personally, no. Although rights and recognition would be nice, I tend to be of the belief that pushing for additional rights would only jeopardise what liberties we already have, considering we are so few in number. Yes, laws are unjust and soceity heavily frowns upon it, but between the power of denial and privacy in one's own home, it is perfectly possible to love and have sex with your animals partners and have nobody interfere, encroach or reproach. I fear an extended push for rights may cause some form of "witch hunt", which will only strip away what we have right now. It may not be much, but it's something that we can't afford to lose for a hypothetical gain.

¿What differentiates Zoophilia from other "philias" such as "pedophilia"? Isnt the same a dog as a kid?

Essentially, it comes down to a few key factors: biological differentiations and consent, the propensity of coercion and the propensity for harm. Let me break this down.

Firstly, animals are adults, whereas children are not. Animals are fully developed, both physically and psychologically, and have sex amongst themselves. Children, being undeveloped or at the very best only partially developed, do not have the physical or psychological maturity to have consensual sex. What's more, animals, as sexual and developed beings have a set of nonverbal consent cues that they use for sex between themselves that a human can learn to read. A female dog will stand square with her tail held to the side on an angle used only for sex to indicate her willingness and ability, while denial takes the form of growling and biting if respect is not afforded. Any similar word or indication of a child would not be an acceptable form of consent because they are not mature enough to have sex in the first instance.

The other issue here is that of control and coercion. Children are biologically predisposed to acting in a manner which is subservient to adult humans, which includes but is not limited to following through and putting up with an adult's demands, simply because it is asked of them. This invalidates their consent and means that all indications of "yes" as given by a child (which would not hold water anyway, given my first point) cannot be accepted as a valid form of permission. On the other hand, animals don't have these vices - even traditionally biddable animals (such as dogs) place their needs not to be used or abused above their wish to please humans. As someone who has been told to fuck off by dogs, they do so in no uncertain terms.

Lastly, we must question harm. Human children, under the best conditions possible, still suffer later in life due to the social stigma and/or mental trauma of being a victim of childhood sexual abuse. Many have issues with sexuality and trust, and are forced to block out their memories to sustain a relationship. The same does not apply to animals - due to the amalgamation of being adults and not being human, animals do not suffer as a result of having sex with a human alone. Of course, if an animal is raped or forced in any way, they will suffer physical and/or psychological trauma, but that is not an accurate representation of the majority of zoophilic relationships. Very little bestiality is inherently scarring, while the same cannot be said for pedophilia.

some users seem to have a "gray" line with it, even having sexual contact with "boy" and "girl" dogs

I agree with /u/zoozooz in that I find pedozoophilia rather disturbing and immoral for the same reasons I find human pedophilic sex immoral. It's worth noting that the vast majority of zoophiles do not find the young of their preferred species attractive; dog zoos do not find puppies attractive, horse zoos do not find foals attractive, etc, much in the way that the majority of anthrosexuals do not find human children attractive.

Same with sex with mentally disable person

This one is more difficult. It simply has to be said that a fully functioning, non-disabled adult animal cannot be compared on the same terms to an impaired adult of another. A disabled human individual doesn't have the ability to comprehend human consent as a fully functioning adult animal has the ability to comprehend their species' consent.

What similarity has Zoophilia to Homosexuality, or bisexuality etc

It is an innate sexual tendency (I'm avoiding the term "orientation" for now) that is not chosen by the individual. The ability for a zoophile to fall in love with an animal is no lesser than the ability of a gay man to fall in love with another man. That said, I can understand the wish of most people for human orientational recognition to remain on human terms. While I am an exclusive zoo myself and such a position is inherently unfair, it is nonetheless understandable - whether I like it or not is another issue. As I said at the beginning, I really do think the best thing for zoos to do would be to share loving relationships with our animal partners in private, maybe tell a few people they trust most if applicable, and generally keep on the fringe of society, provided we are careful to keep in mind why we are on the fringe in the first place. We may be hated by so many others, but we must act towards reducing outward animosity.

¿Do you plan to change the term from "zoophilic" to "zoosexual"?

No, unless we are deemed that by the rest of society. As I said at the time, when groups begin to make their own vernacular they make those on the outside more fearful and thereby more likely to make assumptions. I consider it better to have the label "zoophile" and have people understand than call myself something else that may be a little better for self-esteem and have people either mock it or fear it. What's more, our partners are animals with whom body language is the only shared tongue - it doesn't matter to them what we call ourselves in English either.

¿Do you intend to normilize the idea and introduce it as a normal/natural/safe/healthy human behaviour?

Normalisation... not really. But as for it being natural, safe and healthy, yes. The issue of normalisation (and even legalisation) is that the more people partake in bestiality, the more likely animals are to suffer. Zoophiles fall in love with animals and so of course would never wish to hurt them, and any non-zoophiles who want to dabble generally have to take the time and care that zoophiles do so as not to be caught or have any number of other bad outcomes pushed onto them. If SWA were considered normal, more people would do it, people would take less care and the animals would bear the brunt of the negligence. No thanks.

But when it comes to the others... it should be known that zoophilia and interspecies sex happens in nature, and that it can be done nonharmfully and consensually. Many young zoophiles believe they are inherently rapists before they come to terms with their feelings, so some common knowledge that it need not bring harm, disease or otherwise negatively affect either party would be beneficial.

Would you like to create a family, have children, adopt with your pet companion?

Personally, no. It is not unheard of for a zoophile with a partner to adopt a child themselves and raise them as a single parent, with their partner seeming like a pet to the child and anyone else. I would have no objection to that on an ethical level, and indeed it would likely be a positive experience for any exclusive zoophile who wishes that he/she were able to have children. I drew the exclusivity line there, because many nonexclusive zoophiles have children with their human partners, again with their animal partners (if applicable) appearing as pets to the kids and anyone else not informed. Personally, I find children absolutely unappealing and have no intentions to adopt or otherwise raise a child in any scenario, but that's my choice.

I posted my responses but may have responded faster than my thoughts could catch up, so here's a follow-up thought on the topic of comparisons with sex with the mentally handicapped.

Generally I feel this may be the hardest area to really explore. Not because I feel there's a real association with zoophilia, but that mental handicaps can cover a broad swath of different levels of impairment and ability at different ages. But for a large number of conditions, I think it's also unfair to compare the mentally handicapped directly with children or animals. While I don't think people should attempt to take advantage of mentally handicapped, it should be recognized that mentally handicapped people may be entitled to intimacy and sexual pleasure in some circumstances. I don't feel qualified to make these kinds of judgements about when and how this might be acceptable and what this kind of sexual contact might entail, but some of the points made in this article by http://www.advocatesforyouth.org make better points about recognizing the sexuality of youths and adults with mental handicaps better than I could. It also touches a little on your questions about the differences between a mature, sexual being and a child. Here is an excerpt:

Myths and Facts about Sexuality and Disability

Many people believe myths about the sexuality of people who live with disabilities. Common myths:

• People with disabilities do not feel the desire to have sex.
• People with developmental and physical abilities are child-like and dependent.
• People with disabilities are oversexed and unable to control their sexual urges.[7]

Myth 1: People with disabilities are not sexual. All people—including young people—are sexual beings, regardless of whether or not they live with physical, mental, or emotional disabilities. And, all people need affection, love and intimacy, acceptance, and companionship.[6,7] At the same time, children and youth who live with disabilities may have some unique needs related to sex education. For example, children with developmental disabilities may learn at a slower rate than do their non-disabled peers; yet their physical maturation usually occurs at the same rate. As a result of normal physical maturation and slowed emotional and cognitive development, they may need sex education that builds skills for appropriate language and behavior in public. In another example, paraplegic youth may need reassurance that they can have satisfying sexual relationships and practical guidance on how to do so.[6,7,8,9]

Myth 2: People with disabilities are childlike and dependent. This idea may arise from a belief that a disabled person is somehow unable to participate equally in an intimate relationship. Societal discomfort—both with sexuality and also with the sexuality of people who live with disabilities—may mean that it is easier to view anyone who lives with disabilities as an ‘eternal child.’ This demeaning view ignores the need to acknowledge the young person’s sexuality and also denies her/his full humanity.[6,7,8,9]

Myth 3: People with disabilities cannot control their sexuality. This myth spins off the other two—if people with disabilities are neither asexual nor child-like, then they perhaps they are ‘oversexed’ and have ‘uncontrollable urges’. Belief in this myth can result in a reluctance to provide sex education for youth with disabilities. The reality is that education and training are key to promoting healthy and mutually respectful behavior, regardless of the young person’s abilities

Hi, and welcome

Excellent idea to ask those who are zoophiles instead of letting your imagination run wild and then be disgusted about your imagination.

And second disclaimer: All I say is opinion, you'll get slightly different answers on your questions, since the group of zoophiles splits into different 'motivations'. Just as gays have twinks and bears etc. It's not one solid group, and that is the first big revelation that so far even science sometimes can't get right.

So, my opinionated answers and annotations to your questions are:

When gay marriage was approved, people started saying that some other groups would come behind them, among those: Zoos and Pedophilia

Please keep apart religious marriage, and state sanctioned marriage here. Religious marriage is before Zeus or Allah or what you chose and very ceremonial. State marriage is a bureaucratic act that assigns you for example tax privileges, or rights in terms of power of attorney for the other partner in some circumstances in the eyes of the government. You go to a government office and sign a paper in front of a government official. "Legal gay marriage" is solely about the later, to give gay couples visitation rights at the hospital, or the partner bonus with their health insurance etc. - On the other hand, "marriage" does not by default belong to the church. It has been there before the monotheistic churches, and if I want I can make my own church and marriage ritual, and 'marry my horse' in a glorious made-up ceremony with all my friends in before Epona, the greatest of all Goddesses. Both these things take the legs away from such arguments like 'it's an attack on the sanctity of marriage' and so on.

Also, you simply have a slippery slope here. Slippery slopes are always bullshit. To give you an example: Germany outlawed sex with animals (it was legal there), shortly after, an official German government ethics board recommended that it is the time to legalize sexual intercourse between brother and sister (was and is illegal there). In the spirit of slippery slopes, OBVIOUSLY (lol) you seem to need to keep shagging cows legal, because otherwise brothers and sisters want to do it with each other. As can be seen in this concrete example.

Anyway:

Do you wish/plan to get the rights as recently gay activist earn with hard work?

I would like to. Some others will say it is a stupid idea as it cannot be attained in this century, no matter what. But what rights do I want to have? How about the right not to be unjustly discriminated against because of my sexuality e.g. when I look for a job at the local supermarket? How about the right to remain physically unharmed, despite my sexuality? How about the right to a just and equal trial before the law, as well as protection provided by the law? Yes, if you remember, gays used to be 'roughed up a bit' in the streets, weren't they? (stonewall anyone?) Can happen to me too, even nowadays in this great progressive society I live in right here.

Do I want to marry in the same church as normal people? No, why? That is the church telling them to hate me, they can fucking keep it. I could marry on my own just as well.

And do I want tax cuts as a married couple? Well, that doesn't make much sense if the income of one partner is NIL. Although it would be nice to have some kind of thing going towards a partnership status made out that could be entered into the animal's passport. Because then some things like confiscation for some reason and a later 'oops, we already put him down' could be barred. Some people even sneakily get that, they have a doctors note that says they need the animals for 'emotional support'. Delta airlines once had to transport a pony in an aircraft cabin because of that (which I agree is a bit ridiculous).

What would be the problem with legalizing zoophilia, telling law enforcement to treat us not different, and perhaps put this special checkbox in the animal passes? Like seriously, what is the effect, the detrimental outcome of it? Will the stock market crash? Will Saudi Arabia declare war over it? I am not going to shag a horse in the town square the next day, nor am I going to have a parade and shove it into anybody's face, really.

What differentiates Zoophilia from other "philias"

Zoophilia is loving an animal. Other "-philias" desire other things

Isn't a dog the same as a kid?

You are bambifying and idolizing dogs here as cute, innocent, and you think back on some puppy, that was neutered most likely before he become a dog.

First thing: Can I buy and sell kids openly? In stores specifically for that? Can I chain a kid to the building so it yells at oncoming strangers and I know there's a stranger? Can I go to a vet and have the kids testicles cut off because I fear he might grow too fierce otherwise? Or because he might want to hump female humans? Do we use thousands of kids in medical laboratories and research facilities for experiments? Do you run over a kid in the desert with your car, say oops and drive on?

With a dog, that's all possible and often the case! Are dogs like children now? Would you pet a fully grown growling Mastiff because he's like a sweet child with his salvia flying everywhere and those adorable teeth at full display towards you?

And most of all, if you don't neuter a dog, he grows into an adult. With a sex drive. I don't have experience with female dogs, but with male dogs often getting naked and shaking your behind in front of them is enough so they'll have sex with you. And when they are on top, actively pushing into you, is there really a question of consent left? I don't think so, even if you cleverly disguise it in a 'dogs are like kids' formula. If you compare kids and animals, the correct comparison is kid == puppy. And I would never touch a puppy that way for the same reasons YOU don't touch kids.

I am particularly shocked since some have a "gray"...

Yes, but I don't consider them zoophiles. I will have more on that point later. Some people kill animals for fun, too. All these people can go fuck themselves in my opinion, and suffocate in the steam the pile of shit they are emits.

Without defending such bastards: Please take into account that 'normal' man on woman sex also has a lot of rape occurring to it's name on this planet. So I am particularly shocked that is still legal. The cases of humans raping humans outnumber the cases of animals being raped [ legal slaughter, legal insemination or semen extraction 'techniques', the legal rearing methods in the meat farms, legal mistreatment of pets by overfeeding or inept handling (coochiecoochiecoochiemylittlesweetie...) aside ] easily by a factor of 100 or more. Possibly much more. But nobody says: Ah, this sick heterosexuality, look at the abuse potential in it!

And once again: Screw people who actually abuse animals or have sex with non-adult animals. Fuck you guys, you are not zoophiles imho.

does not mean they fully understand what is going on

Now you are trying the so called "informed consent". The problem is you either make the animal so dumb it can't consent ever, but then it is also so dumb the question is why it needs any protection as it is like a stone or a piece of wood now. OR you accidentally require so much knowledge on sex that a lot of humans, who also really don't know about any dangers or what is going on could not have sex. Pick your choice, and see that that is rather ridiculous.

similarity has Zoophilia to Homosexuality, or bisexuality etc, that you think it gives you right to be as accepted as them

We are human beings. Many of us pay taxes. We love and take good care of our partners for we want to live with them a long time. You rather explain to me please: What gives you the right to request from such people as described to justify that you should at least leave them be in the first place?! Just leave us be. Say hi when we meet on the street and I'll say hi, too. Come over and ask if you need help, and I'll help you shovel the snow from the driveway, or to fix up the roof over the weekend.

Do you plan to change the term from "zoophilic" to "zoosexual"?

No. I don't know where that is coming from, and it is pretty dumb. But it goes to show that often even 'journalists' have no clue what they are writing about, as the term 'zoophilic' appeared in some publications, lately, even. My guess is someone made it up somewhere, as the kinda knew zoophile, but his feeling told him it should be written so. It's a stupid typo, and I don't see what merit it has. In my opinion, the term "zoosexual" is the umbrella term, the big thing for "everything sexual with animals", hence the zoo, and the sexual in it. Others here will disagree, I know that already. Then within zoosexuality, you have a lot of groups: People who torture or abuse animals: Zoosadists. People who love animals: Zoophiles. People who love seeing other people being fucked by animals: Zoovoyeurs. And so on and so on. In fact, the whole sexual universe from one level up is replicated, just with one partner substituted with an animal. I prefer zoophile. It works as adjective: zoophile webpage e.g. And I refer to myself as a zoophile. Or short a zoo.

Important questions that deserve thoughtful answers.

When gay marriage was approved, people started saying that some other groups would come behind them, among those: Zoos and Pedophilia.

I suspect people who said this in the first place were both gay and at least one of the other things they also condemned. (Other common slippery-slope examples are necrophilia, incest, and polygamy; while homosexuality itself was given as a possible consequence of allowing inter-racial marriage).

¿Do you wish/plan to get the rights as recently gay activist earn with hard work?

That would be nice. More important for me, though, is to give all sentient animals the right to life and autonomy over their sexuality. Right now, they don't — animals are killed for food and most people don't give a moment's thought to ask if they consented. And they are not just killed: pigs, for example, are castrated (without anaesthetic) to make their flesh taste better.

Now, I have no idea right now what sentience is. I don't know which animals possess it and which don't. If I had to guess, I'd say that dogs are sentient, but lobsters (which boiled to death for the taste, who asked the lobster for consent?) are not. I know that I don't know this for certain, so I act as if all species are sentient. I do not eat the body or derivatives of any animal, just in case they are sentient.

Asking if the animal consented to become meat generally leads to being mocked. As a zoophile, I find this somewhat unfair.

¿What differentiates Zoophilia from other "philias" such as "pedophilia"? Isnt the same a dog as a kid?

All paraphilias are, by definition, abnormal. Other than that, they all are all as different from each other as the colours of the rainbow.

Dogs' intelligence is not like human intelligence. It seems like science has only just started examining it in any serious way. I hear that dogs counting and language skills are like a child, but the emotional intelligence of a teenager.

You may think "but a teenager can't consent!", and you'd be right. But dogs have a huge advantage over a teenager: all a dog needs to be aware of is their own body. Dogs having sex with humans don't need to worry about pregnancy, nor most of our STDs.

Of course, this leads to another irony: when humans cause animals to get pregnant, either as farmers or as selective breeding, and either naturally or with artificial insemination, the humans arranging it all don't care one way or the other if the animals consented.

Same with sex with mentally disable person, a person who does not understand the meanings of their acts, who might enjoy the sexual pleasure, but can't have the mental function to give a full consent?

I don't believe that humans generally "have the mental function to give a full consent", because if they did then there wouldn't be HIV epidemics in any country.

I am a little disappointed with the responses so far, but here is my take.

Since you brought it up, your questions about pedophilia might better be answered from this gentleman.

¿Do you wish/plan to get the rights as recently gay activist earn with hard work? ¿What are you plans?

Umm, so, yea. I worked on those rights myself as a bisexual man, so please don't assume that "the gays" earned those rights and others do not deserve them.

The fact of the matter is, the state and others took away human rights in an effort to control people. The fight isn't to have rights given to me, it is to prevent them from being taken away. Sex with animals (SWA) is not illegal because it is harmful. It is illegal because it has been considered immoral by certain religions(typically Abrahamic). They want to control what I do with my penis.

In any case of pure sexual intercourse with compatible animals that has gone to court, if tried by using regular animal abuse laws, have simply failed to earn a conviction. That is why so many US states are now having to explicitly include sexual intercourse as a form of abuse. No reasonable person would say that me placing my penis in a mare vagina would hurt her in any way shape or form. There are now a host of, from my perspective very disturbed, "experts" in animal welfare who are being used as expert witnesses in court. They make up facts, instances, examples, and descriptions of behaviour. I have very much read their testimony with interest. Imagine tryign to counter that, what vet would say, "No, I found no example of harm due to sexual intercourse" No matter how much that might be truth."

On another note, I think the idea of getting the "right" to marry for zoosexuals is simply wrong. We already have all the rights we need through the right of ownership. I will not be kept from my lovers deathbed by a family so hateful as to exclude me, I own her it is my right to be there. I will not be denied insurance money because we are not legally recognized, the insurance will be made out to me in the first place. We do not have the same issues that gays, and lesbians have been forced to confront in their times of need. Also, my horse would more likely eat the contract rather than sign it. It doesn't make even one iota of sense to suggest a legal marriage between us for legal purposes.

As a symbol of love, religious or otherwise, you can already get married to your horse. Sure the RC church won't recognize it, and that is a problem for your own faith(if you are RC) and the church to work out, just as it has always been and is still now for the gays. Churches just can no longer discriminate against gays in the public services they offer, like hall rental. The biggest misunderstood thing about the "right to marry" is that the churches can still just marry whomever they want but they no longer can have the strangle hold they once did on the legal definition of marriage.

¿What differentiates Zoophilia from other "philias" such as "pedophilia"?

I am coming to believe that sexuality is a much broader term than we give it credit for. The link I gave above should help you think about that.

Did you know that heterosexuals have a philia? Yes, heterosexual sex is in the list of philias as it should be. You see, the real definition of the psychiatric -philias involved harm to self and others. It is possible to be overly addicted to sex, and thereby cause yourself harm. I think you need to read the DSM-VI in a little more detail. So I would say that there is no difference between the -philia's except the "object" of focus. The reason you do not know this or think this way is that our society is heteronormative. You didn't think, hey, that's my sexuality listed as a -philia, you thought "wow, other people are addicted to sex".

Isnt the same a dog as a kid? What differentiates Zoophilia from Pedophilia? In both cases, animals and kids could feel pleasure, in the later they could even say "yes", in both even "search" for that pleasure source, but does not mean they fully understand what is going on. Putting in count that none animals or kids get harm. ¿what truly makes the difference? Other than the obvious species one.

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't eat much human meat on my table, or test drugs on children, or... the list goes on. You already assume that animals should have different rights to children. You already are okay with animals being raped for your pleasure. Both meat and milk production routinely use artificial insemination. That means bulls being masturbated, and cows having a hand up inside them. "But those are medical procedures" I am sure you are thinking, except that medical procedures require consent too.

People only seem to be concerned with consent, or an animals "feelings", when they are against me sticking my penis in it.

So let me challenge you to define in which ways animals and children are the same. I certainly find a lot of differences in how you would treat an animal as compared to a child. You leave your cat or dog alone at home when you are at work? You shut your dog in a kennel when they are inconvenient? You drop your dog off at the pound when it is too big, not cute, or whatever other excuse?

It doesn't seem to matter that I've rescued many abused animals, and I mean real physical and mental abuse, and rehabilitated them. That I constantly get compliments on how well behaved and loving my animals are. I've been complimented by some of the best horse people I know in the world about myself and my mare having a connection seldom seen. I have yet to see the negative impact of anything I've ever done with a mare.

Same with sex with mentally disable person, a person who does not understand the meanings of their acts, who might enjoy the sexual pleasure, but can't have the mental function to give a full consent?

I would say that some don't fully understand the consequences in our human society. It is possible that they will feel differently after the act, so don't understand that. There is also the potential for abuse.

Can you give me a social example of where consent from an animal is required and the lack thereof is detrimental to them or society? As other have pointed out, abuse can happen. As a matter of fact, it regularly happens in non-sexual cases.

Legalizing SWA because the "bestialists" might harm animals is an inane argument. It's like saying we should criminalize hetrosexual sex because rapists rape people. The kinds of folks who are going to hurt animals, will do so if it is legal or not. By all means strengthen the animal abuse laws, as a matter of fact... PLEASE strengthen the animal abuse laws and send people to trial who are actually abusing animals.

too long... cont...

A very basic thing needs to be said: an adult is not a child. An adult animal is not a human child. Human children are similar to kittens, puppies etc, in that they are both physically and psychologically immature. Adult humans are more like adult dogs, cats, horses etc. You know. Grown ups.

Therefore, the common comparison between pedophilia and zoophilia is irrelevant.

Im going to make this point fairly short and quick, considering a lot of people here have already given full explanations of the questions at hand, but there is one specific question i would like to give my opinion on.

¿Do you wish/plan to get the rights as recently gay activist earn with hard work? ¿What are you plans?

Legalizing, normalizing, or even simply making zoophilia acceptable in society is a very hard thing to do. First of all you need to consider the fact that by advocating for zoophile rights you are very much making the world more aware of it, and furthermore, the results of staunch advocating could very well result in a more rigorous illegalization of it. Even if zoophilia is made acceptable, there are always people out there who will continue discriminating us, and it would not surprise if you came across more cases of discrimination if zoophilia was made acceptable, in my house for an example, i know that zoophilia is hated, and i dont think that even the legalization of zoophilia would change that. Second, im sure if you have done some reading you are aware there are people out there who have sex with animal simply for the sexual pleasure, or in more extreme cases there are people like zoosadists who will have sex with animals simply to make the animal suffer. With this in mind, by increasing the rights of zoophiles, which would most likely lead to the legalization of sex with animals, you open the door to the handiwork of people like zoosadists. To put this in perspective, by legalizing zoophilia, you would be legalizing rape as a biproduct, and because animals have no way of verbally consenting, it would become very hard to determine the motives of someone who wanted to have sex with an animal or whether the animal was infact enjoying it.

With all this in mind, as much as i would like to advocate for rights amongst zoophiles, it seems fairly unrealistic as of right now, as much as zoophilia does share some similarities with homosexually and bisexuality, it needs to be dealt with in a completely different way.

I am not a zoo either, but I have done plenty of research, and will admit I have developed a small amount of fascination for the community. I have not done much research on the pedophilia thing, but there is not really a link between it in zoophilia though that I see. Sex is special to humans, not non-human animals. A human child could easily grow up, become sexually mature, and then realize they are horrified by what happened, even if a dog became as smart as a human, sex is not special to dogs, so it would not matter. Plus a child is not sexually mature and the animals zoophiles are into are. Think of it this way. If you replace sex with the word tickle, you pretty much get the perspective of the animal. So what it is just tickles? A better comparison would be somebody who does it with puppies. Puppies are not sexually mature. Children are not sexually mature. Additionally there are other dangers, pregnacy, STDs, injury, etc that are present with sexual contact with those too young for concent that simply do not exist with animals.

I will admit, I have to do more research on pedophilia before making any decisions, but this is what I see for now. I do not know how useful any of this is, but this is a bit of what I know from researching and debating this in the past

Also side note. Happy to see another non-zoo looking into this. I was beginning to wonder if I was mostly alone in this.

This might be controversial and might offend several different groups of people but here is what I think: If one does a search on youtube for animals mating, you find thousands of videos, with millions of views. If one looks at the terms of service for youtube it clearly says child abuse is not allowed. Pedophilia in fact breaks one of the only 4 rules that reddit has. On TV one can find shows about wildlife that sometimes show mating and the shows are only rated TVG, or TVPG. Plus animals naturally mate, while children can't with each other. So many movies and tv shows make jokes about zoophilia and never even touch pedophilia. I think society is more accepting of zoophilia then pedophilia.

I wish to mention a point that is often not made in these discussions:

It is in the interest of ALL law abiding people, that all victimless behaviors should be lawful. (For reasons stated by others in this thread, I believe that most zoophile behavior is harmless and therefore victimless). So, most zoophile behaviour should be lawful.

WHY is it in the interest of ALL law abiding people, that ALL victimless behaviors should be lawful?

ANSWER: Because as soon as you criminilize otherwise lawful people, you deprive them of the protection of the law and create a larger underworld within which people can fall prey to serious criminality, or at least are forced to tolerate it.

For example, prior to the creeping criminalization of bestiality porn and zoosexuality in general around 2007, the online world of zoosex was largely free of overt pedophiles and sexual sadists. From that date onwards, more and more people with potentially quite dangerous sexual interests started flaunting them openly in the zoophile social spaces. Why? Because they knew we could no longer report them or turn them in without becoming victims of law enforcement ourselves, and we knew that criminal networks were now in a position to blackmail us.

In fact, this exact scenario was lived out when a woman who suspected her boyfriend of accessing child porn ended up being charged with bestiality when the police searched their shared computer WITH her consent. By trying to do the right thing and act against a potentially serious crime, an innocent became the subject of investigation and prosecution, the message being clear "you are denied the protection of the law, you are on the same side as the pedophiles now whether you like it or not".

Whether or not the woman was right to turn her partner in for being interested in sex with children depends on the seriousness of her concerns. Maybe she was trying to get him in trouble for no good reason, but maybe she was scared of him and was afraid that he had hurt or would hurt someone. She should have been entitled to the protection of the law, but no, because she was a zoo, she should have realised that was now an enemy of the state liable to the same attention from the law as someone who would wilfully ruin the life of a child. https://dale5io.wordpress.com/tag/bestiality/