I don't know, can man + man or woman + woman consent? It is kind of a crime against nature. Nothing nature invented but the cruelty of perverts figthing against their natural origin.
Atul_Dushyant 3 points on 2014-12-23 11:01:53
Many people says animals can't consent. I think these people are idiots they can only see animals as props/toys or food. ANIMALS CAN CONSENT! If you know them, you will see the signs!
Anyway: Try to do something against a 1600 lbs horse with teeth and hoofs... one kick and you got your ticket to the afterlife. Dogs can bite badly even unintentionally if you hurt them... etc. And if an animal is in heat, they will seek the opportunity for mating even with a human. They can consent, they can choose, they can initiate, they can defend.
So shut your mouth 'animals can't consent' idiots!
PonySmoocherEquines! 2 points on 2014-12-24 15:00:18
So true. I once helped to catch a horse that had gotten lose and was panicking back and forth in traffic. Received a kick from him the first time I tried to halter him (yes, I have a halter and rope at hand, go figure, that one time it was so worth it). Holy shit, that hurt! He absolutely meant that kick. Pretty convinced my thigh bone was close to breaking there - And I still have a huge nip in my muscle from the tissue damage.
thousandcows 1 point on 2014-12-24 20:53:28
I've never known another horse-owner who didn't get a broken rib at one time or another. I suppose I've avoided it simply because I'm not a real horse enthusiast, I only take care of them at times.
Also, while I have no interest in horses, I've been "sexually assaulted" by both male and female horses enough times to know perfectly well that consent is pretty much a non-issue when it comes to horses.
PonySmoocherEquines! 1 point on 2014-12-24 21:07:48
I have switched to strongly recommending to anyone who works in the stables to wear steel cap shoes. A horse can turn your foot into a soup of liquid skin and little bone bits BY ACCIDENT (oopsy, did I stand on you?).
Defenseless like children my ass.
danpetman 9 points on 2014-12-23 13:13:59
"Consent is the most important thing." \*next breath\* "Look at this new trick I taught my dog! How're you enjoying your steak? Oh, and remind me to take my cat to get fixed tomorrow."
People turn sex into this magical corner case where consent is utterly sacrosanct and animals are incapable of giving it, yet literally ANY other activity, up to an including literally killing animals and eating them is nowhere near as reviled as zoophilia. If a dog can't consent to sex, he or she can't consent to anything else either. And yet when zoophiles state that you can "know" an animal is consenting to sex we get painted as rapists while someone else can claim that they "know" their dog enjoys playing fetch or having their head scratched and everyone takes them at their word.
It's not the condemnation that gets me, or the reliance on shaky assertions like "animals are like children." It's the utter lack of consistency in the beliefs of people who would call us rapists for giving a dog a handjob, but are fine with a vet doing it for artificial insemination. Either neither are wrong or both are, you don't get to arbitrarily decide one is and the other isn't as it pleases you.
zoozooz 1 point on 2014-12-23 15:07:37
fixed
Can we just stop using that word altogether?
What gets me is that almost nobody is willing to even try to explain why they think "animals can not consent".
Since I was intending it to sound like something the average anti-zoophilia person would say, I think "fixed" is an appropriate choice of wording.
As for the GamerGhazi thing, while I obviously disagree with them that sex with animals is always rape and with their decision to ban a user for expressing an unpopular opinion, he did just sort of randomly barge into a community he wouldn't normally post to just to push his own agenda. I believe the term is "sealioning" and it's generally looked down upon regardless of what argument the person in question is trying to make.
If someone engages you in a debate about the ethics of zoophilia, then sure, they have an obligation to explain their viewpoint and present evidence and stuff. If they're just talking to someone else about it and you wade in to correct them, they don't owe you anything. They may be misinformed, using faulty logic or even just plain wrong, but they didn't invite a debate, so you can't be annoyed if they have no interest in having one.
zoozooz 2 points on 2014-12-23 17:07:06
I don't really agree.
Reddit is a collection of communities, that specifically has a search functionality and specifically allows everyone to post everywhere. That's kind of the thing about it. And there are tools available to prevent that like making the subreddit private or putting something like [members only] in the title. Or put something about it in their sidebar/rules.
Maybe I'm overdoing it a bit, but it happens all the time and people don't seem to care too much, for example the two discussions on /r/furry recently were largely dominated by zoos and hardly anyone seemed to care.
I wouldn't have posted there, had they not specifically made it about zoophilia. After all, it's not just a discussion about some random topic. They are basically talking about whether we should go to prison.
danpetman 1 point on 2014-12-23 17:39:38
The fact that they're talking about it is kind of incidental. They weren't having a debate about it and had given no indication that a debate was something they wanted (which you could argue is a fault on their part, to be sure) so you can't blame them for not engaging in a debate just because you want one.
/r/furry is a bit of a different kettle of fish, because it's a topic that they have to deal with regularly and that I'm sure a few of them care deeply about. There are a lot of zoophiles in the furry community and vice versa. GamerGhazi has nothing to do with zoophilia, even tangentially, and that thread was far more about drawing attention to the lengths to which Gamergaters will go to excuse shady practices than specifically condemning zoophilia. Sure, there's nothing to stop you posting in any community you like, and sure, reddit has tools that allow people to make things members only and whatnot, but that doesn't mean you have a mandate to try and hijack any discussion that even mentions zoophilia just because you're not explicitly prevented from doing so.
Unwelcome discussion does far more harm than good, since it's intrusive, self-serving and generally paints people in a bad light. For an example, just look at those evangelical religious types who go door to door to tell people "the good news." Sure, they're entirely within their rights to do so, but it definitely doesn't do their cause much good, especially when they call at unwelcome hours.
zoozooz 1 point on 2014-12-23 17:54:16
GamerGhazi has nothing to do with zoophilia, even tangentially,
After getting some distance, you are right and in the future I will definitely abstain more from posting.
but:
was far more about drawing attention to the lengths to which Gamergaters will go
The image also was about incest, nazis, suicide, rape and pedophilia but the poster decided to single out zoophilia with the title.
I do understand that the whole thread was to point out the "funny" caption, but I wasn't really actively aware of it.
When thinking rationally about I know I shouldn't take it personally, but it is a funny feeling telling myself I shouldn't take it personally when people talk about me being a criminal.
danpetman 1 point on 2014-12-23 18:04:50
I know how you feel, trust me. If you've ever searched "zoophilia" on tumblr you know that 90% of the posts are people just venting pure hatred, and it can be really upsetting to see. The sad truth though, is that most of the time, people have no interest in actually thinking about stuff, or engaging in a debate, or allowing new, uncomfortable ideas into their heads. You can't force them to, and trying often backfires spectacularly, so sometimes the best thing to do is just to sigh and move on and hope that maybe one day, the people fired up with so much anger and condemnation take a little time to examine their beliefs and listen to what someone else has to say rather than just dismissing it out of hand.
There is a time and a place for ethical defences of zoophilia, and it's when people invite the discussion, not just when you see someone being a bit of a shit and making you feel bad. I sympathise with you completely, but you have to pick your battles :)
Battlecropsdogs, big cats, snakes, ungulates 1 point on 2014-12-30 08:35:16
Hey, would it be okay if I pasted your comment to my tumblr blog as a post? This is such a common thing that gets discussed and I really like the way you phrased it. I could leave your username off and keep it anonymous if you'd prefer, or it's totally cool if you'd rather I not post it!
danpetman 1 point on 2014-12-30 12:03:53
Oh, wow, I'm honoured :)
By all means post it. Feel free to leave my name on it, too, since it's not like "danpetman" has a reputation to maintain :P
Battlecropsdogs, big cats, snakes, ungulates 1 point on 2014-12-31 03:20:08
Great, thanks so much!!
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied. 1 point on 2014-12-23 18:55:31
Hmm, maybe theres something else going on here. Why is it that consent is always the first (and only?) thing that people have a problem with.
It must be that a lot of them use the consent arguement as thats what theyve heard someone else say and as it doesnt affect their daily life they havent given it any more thought. Therefore when this topic comes up, instead of giving it some thought, or thinking about why they have a problem with consent, they just go ahead and repeat it because thats what theyve been told and it seems to make sense on the face of it. Once we add in the fact that non-zoo supporters are also ostracized and hounded for their non-conforming opinion we can see how its relatively easy to start an echo chamber when this topic comes up.
I also think by them claiming animals cant consent it automatically makes you out to be the bad guy, putting them in a strong position and gaining the moral high ground from the outset. Their logic follows that animals cant consent, therefore if you try and argue against it then you are a sicko animal abuser. This allows them to dismiss your further arguements because, as an animal abuser, you only have your best interests at heart and dont care about the health and wellbeing of the animal (obviously this is false for the majority of us here).
The LGBT community had the same problem with people argueing that its 'unnatural' or morally wrong. no amount of logical statements will convince these people to think otherwise.
End of the day, dont get too aggravated. Remember this is reddit, not real life. Just as they can make their statements anonymously I can also say I'm going to go ahead and screw the pooch anyway and then proceed to watch them flip their shit as they cant actually do anything about it beyond the keyboard.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 2 points on 2014-12-23 23:50:34
I have often thought it's good that the first excuse they can find for their disgust is consent. That means consent is something they care about in their own sex lives. Obviously, I wish they'd think harder and solve the hypocrisy that that leads to, but I wish that about many more cognitive dissonances than just us.
thousandcows 2 points on 2014-12-24 13:33:18
thats what theyve heard someone else say and as it doesnt affect their daily life they havent given it any more thought. Therefore when this topic comes up, instead of giving it some thought, or thinking about why they have a problem
Also known as how all political and media related opinions are formed, as well as how most of reddit and almost every online social network functions.
[deleted] 1 point on 2014-12-24 15:26:19
[deleted]
PonySmoocherEquines! 1 point on 2014-12-24 21:15:07
like srsly, we are on the same internet, aren't we?
zoozooz 1 point on 2014-12-24 22:14:26
You don't understand, that is quite obviously and provable 100% dominance behavior!11
But seriously, it's not just humans. On youtube you can find a LOT of videos where animals hump members of a different species (just one example of many).
I actually find this video disturbing. Why does nobody seem to have any idea how to deal with a dog in that situation? Maybe it would help if they would stop hysterically scream-laughing and give their dog a clear and serious "no"? But no, let's rather hit the dog. wtf?
PonySmoocherEquines! 1 point on 2014-12-24 22:28:15
Well, yes, it would help to have a vast knowledge on dog behavior. And to really really care about them, truly love them so to say. And spend an enormous amount of time and money on them, besides other things on good training so they are healthy and happy members of a pack and of a society... Let's see, who could fit all of these points typically expertly? Normal peopleNormal dog ownersanimal activistsThe policePoliticians and Judges Dog zoos.
/r/zoophilia archive
I may have to start /r/zoophiliacirclejerk
I don't know, can man + man or woman + woman consent? It is kind of a crime against nature. Nothing nature invented but the cruelty of perverts figthing against their natural origin.
Many people says animals can't consent. I think these people are idiots they can only see animals as props/toys or food. ANIMALS CAN CONSENT! If you know them, you will see the signs!
Anyway: Try to do something against a 1600 lbs horse with teeth and hoofs... one kick and you got your ticket to the afterlife. Dogs can bite badly even unintentionally if you hurt them... etc. And if an animal is in heat, they will seek the opportunity for mating even with a human. They can consent, they can choose, they can initiate, they can defend.
So shut your mouth 'animals can't consent' idiots!
So true. I once helped to catch a horse that had gotten lose and was panicking back and forth in traffic. Received a kick from him the first time I tried to halter him (yes, I have a halter and rope at hand, go figure, that one time it was so worth it). Holy shit, that hurt! He absolutely meant that kick. Pretty convinced my thigh bone was close to breaking there - And I still have a huge nip in my muscle from the tissue damage.
I've never known another horse-owner who didn't get a broken rib at one time or another. I suppose I've avoided it simply because I'm not a real horse enthusiast, I only take care of them at times.
Also, while I have no interest in horses, I've been "sexually assaulted" by both male and female horses enough times to know perfectly well that consent is pretty much a non-issue when it comes to horses.
I have switched to strongly recommending to anyone who works in the stables to wear steel cap shoes. A horse can turn your foot into a soup of liquid skin and little bone bits BY ACCIDENT (oopsy, did I stand on you?).
Defenseless like children my ass.
"Consent is the most important thing." \*next breath\* "Look at this new trick I taught my dog! How're you enjoying your steak? Oh, and remind me to take my cat to get fixed tomorrow."
People turn sex into this magical corner case where consent is utterly sacrosanct and animals are incapable of giving it, yet literally ANY other activity, up to an including literally killing animals and eating them is nowhere near as reviled as zoophilia. If a dog can't consent to sex, he or she can't consent to anything else either. And yet when zoophiles state that you can "know" an animal is consenting to sex we get painted as rapists while someone else can claim that they "know" their dog enjoys playing fetch or having their head scratched and everyone takes them at their word.
It's not the condemnation that gets me, or the reliance on shaky assertions like "animals are like children." It's the utter lack of consistency in the beliefs of people who would call us rapists for giving a dog a handjob, but are fine with a vet doing it for artificial insemination. Either neither are wrong or both are, you don't get to arbitrarily decide one is and the other isn't as it pleases you.
Can we just stop using that word altogether?
What gets me is that almost nobody is willing to even try to explain why they think "animals can not consent".
But statements like this are commonplace... Well, now he probably won't have to explain his viewpoint anymore.
Since I was intending it to sound like something the average anti-zoophilia person would say, I think "fixed" is an appropriate choice of wording.
As for the GamerGhazi thing, while I obviously disagree with them that sex with animals is always rape and with their decision to ban a user for expressing an unpopular opinion, he did just sort of randomly barge into a community he wouldn't normally post to just to push his own agenda. I believe the term is "sealioning" and it's generally looked down upon regardless of what argument the person in question is trying to make.
If someone engages you in a debate about the ethics of zoophilia, then sure, they have an obligation to explain their viewpoint and present evidence and stuff. If they're just talking to someone else about it and you wade in to correct them, they don't owe you anything. They may be misinformed, using faulty logic or even just plain wrong, but they didn't invite a debate, so you can't be annoyed if they have no interest in having one.
I don't really agree.
Reddit is a collection of communities, that specifically has a search functionality and specifically allows everyone to post everywhere. That's kind of the thing about it. And there are tools available to prevent that like making the subreddit private or putting something like [members only] in the title. Or put something about it in their sidebar/rules.
Maybe I'm overdoing it a bit, but it happens all the time and people don't seem to care too much, for example the two discussions on /r/furry recently were largely dominated by zoos and hardly anyone seemed to care.
I wouldn't have posted there, had they not specifically made it about zoophilia. After all, it's not just a discussion about some random topic. They are basically talking about whether we should go to prison.
The fact that they're talking about it is kind of incidental. They weren't having a debate about it and had given no indication that a debate was something they wanted (which you could argue is a fault on their part, to be sure) so you can't blame them for not engaging in a debate just because you want one.
/r/furry is a bit of a different kettle of fish, because it's a topic that they have to deal with regularly and that I'm sure a few of them care deeply about. There are a lot of zoophiles in the furry community and vice versa. GamerGhazi has nothing to do with zoophilia, even tangentially, and that thread was far more about drawing attention to the lengths to which Gamergaters will go to excuse shady practices than specifically condemning zoophilia. Sure, there's nothing to stop you posting in any community you like, and sure, reddit has tools that allow people to make things members only and whatnot, but that doesn't mean you have a mandate to try and hijack any discussion that even mentions zoophilia just because you're not explicitly prevented from doing so.
Unwelcome discussion does far more harm than good, since it's intrusive, self-serving and generally paints people in a bad light. For an example, just look at those evangelical religious types who go door to door to tell people "the good news." Sure, they're entirely within their rights to do so, but it definitely doesn't do their cause much good, especially when they call at unwelcome hours.
After getting some distance, you are right and in the future I will definitely abstain more from posting.
but:
The image also was about incest, nazis, suicide, rape and pedophilia but the poster decided to single out zoophilia with the title.
I do understand that the whole thread was to point out the "funny" caption, but I wasn't really actively aware of it.
When thinking rationally about I know I shouldn't take it personally, but it is a funny feeling telling myself I shouldn't take it personally when people talk about me being a criminal.
I know how you feel, trust me. If you've ever searched "zoophilia" on tumblr you know that 90% of the posts are people just venting pure hatred, and it can be really upsetting to see. The sad truth though, is that most of the time, people have no interest in actually thinking about stuff, or engaging in a debate, or allowing new, uncomfortable ideas into their heads. You can't force them to, and trying often backfires spectacularly, so sometimes the best thing to do is just to sigh and move on and hope that maybe one day, the people fired up with so much anger and condemnation take a little time to examine their beliefs and listen to what someone else has to say rather than just dismissing it out of hand.
There is a time and a place for ethical defences of zoophilia, and it's when people invite the discussion, not just when you see someone being a bit of a shit and making you feel bad. I sympathise with you completely, but you have to pick your battles :)
Hey, would it be okay if I pasted your comment to my tumblr blog as a post? This is such a common thing that gets discussed and I really like the way you phrased it. I could leave your username off and keep it anonymous if you'd prefer, or it's totally cool if you'd rather I not post it!
Oh, wow, I'm honoured :)
By all means post it. Feel free to leave my name on it, too, since it's not like "danpetman" has a reputation to maintain :P
Great, thanks so much!!
Hmm, maybe theres something else going on here. Why is it that consent is always the first (and only?) thing that people have a problem with.
It must be that a lot of them use the consent arguement as thats what theyve heard someone else say and as it doesnt affect their daily life they havent given it any more thought. Therefore when this topic comes up, instead of giving it some thought, or thinking about why they have a problem with consent, they just go ahead and repeat it because thats what theyve been told and it seems to make sense on the face of it. Once we add in the fact that non-zoo supporters are also ostracized and hounded for their non-conforming opinion we can see how its relatively easy to start an echo chamber when this topic comes up.
I also think by them claiming animals cant consent it automatically makes you out to be the bad guy, putting them in a strong position and gaining the moral high ground from the outset. Their logic follows that animals cant consent, therefore if you try and argue against it then you are a sicko animal abuser. This allows them to dismiss your further arguements because, as an animal abuser, you only have your best interests at heart and dont care about the health and wellbeing of the animal (obviously this is false for the majority of us here).
The LGBT community had the same problem with people argueing that its 'unnatural' or morally wrong. no amount of logical statements will convince these people to think otherwise.
End of the day, dont get too aggravated. Remember this is reddit, not real life. Just as they can make their statements anonymously I can also say I'm going to go ahead and screw the pooch anyway and then proceed to watch them flip their shit as they cant actually do anything about it beyond the keyboard.
I have often thought it's good that the first excuse they can find for their disgust is consent. That means consent is something they care about in their own sex lives. Obviously, I wish they'd think harder and solve the hypocrisy that that leads to, but I wish that about many more cognitive dissonances than just us.
Also known as how all political and media related opinions are formed, as well as how most of reddit and almost every online social network functions.
[deleted]
An animal would never be interested to fuck a human being! They must surely be forced to do so! \s
There is no way that sex with an animal is consensual, it MUST be abusive towards the animal, end of story. The animal suffers nightmares during such an act, horrendous! \s
Who could even think of something so ludicrous and unheard of, that an animal would enjoy or desire such a thing? Never! Impossible!! They must be drugged, or beaten to death or strangled or tied up for that! \s
like srsly, we are on the same internet, aren't we?
You don't understand, that is quite obviously and provable 100% dominance behavior!11
But seriously, it's not just humans. On youtube you can find a LOT of videos where animals hump members of a different species (just one example of many).
This wikipedia article has a nice expression for it:
\
I actually find this video disturbing. Why does nobody seem to have any idea how to deal with a dog in that situation? Maybe it would help if they would stop hysterically scream-laughing and give their dog a clear and serious "no"? But no, let's rather hit the dog. wtf?
Well, yes, it would help to have a vast knowledge on dog behavior. And to really really care about them, truly love them so to say. And spend an enormous amount of time and money on them, besides other things on good training so they are healthy and happy members of a pack and of a society... Let's see, who could fit all of these points typically expertly?
Normal peopleNormal dog ownersanimal activistsThe policePoliticians and JudgesDog zoos.oh.
Also, god damn it, it is so blatantly obvious, that the animal wants to be left alone! Look how he forces him into it, look how the animal struggles against it! \s
Like srsly, look how much it doesn't want to! look how it needs to be constrained, how much it fights against it OH THE HUMANITY! \s