A fairly good review of the recent history of psychological thought and study from the independant. He throws everything under the bus with his assertion of non-consensual sex.
Was thinking about a comment to leave on his last paragraph.
Edit: word choice
Applejack_AppleSpeakin' in fancy! 2 points on 2015-04-25 01:32:36
Not a bad article, I like the breakdown of different kinds of zoosexuals. Like most forms of sexuality, it appears zoophilia comes in many different flavors, a few of which I would condemn—anyone who would torture or kill an animal for their pleasure, for example.
IAmAZoophileCanine 4 points on 2015-04-25 02:27:14
I don't think it's any more fair to refer to people who torture or kill animals as a 'kind of zoosexual' than it would be to refer to men who kidnap and rape young boys as a 'kind of homosexual'.
Applejack_AppleSpeakin' in fancy! 3 points on 2015-04-25 03:41:30
Agreed, they are zoosexuals in the technical sense only. They are most certainly not zoophiles.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 1 point on 2015-04-25 13:13:32
Agreed. "Sadistic bestials" and "Homicidal bestials", should not be lumped into zoosexuals.
Yearningmice 2 points on 2015-04-25 13:59:18
Academically I don't think it is unfounded. The focus is on animals. But the paper he quotes wasn't a very good read nor very informative. It was definitely coming at zoophilia as a serious problem to be solved and as such used many of the old assumptions without research.
KynophileDog lover 8 points on 2015-04-25 04:22:27
This guy is an opponent of ours intellectually, but he appears to be a clear-minded and level headed one. His articles on the subject tend to maintain a neutral tone except for his relatively mild statements of opinion (he cites Piers Beirne's arguments at one point, but Beirne has his own problems, and painting Griffiths with them isn't exactly fair). He's wrong about his moral opinion, but his methods so far appear to be right, and he's not on a crusade against zoos so far as I can see.
other_profile 5 points on 2015-04-25 05:00:04
I'm betting he is a closeted fur.
KynophileDog lover 2 points on 2015-04-25 10:43:40
Could be. His top read articles are a laundry list of fetishes with academic references for each. It's actually kind of a good resource for anyone with a basic curiosity for paraphilias in general.
fasterfind 1 point on 2015-04-25 14:14:47
Change the question and you get clear answers. Why would anyone want to have sex. Period.
Because sex.
Yearningmice 4 points on 2015-04-25 14:52:16
Well, we could reverse the question and ask why wouldn't you want to have sex with a beautiful horse or your family pet?
It could be your relationship isn't sexual, but there are usually a host of issues like, "Eeew", disease and so forth that are to the forefront. When you consider yourself in that position it is never because you're going to hurt the animal in question(assuming size and compatibility). Yet, as the question differently, why should THEY have sex with animals and it's suddenly it's all about abuse and animal's consent and so forth...
/r/zoophilia archive
A fairly good review of the recent history of psychological thought and study from the independant. He throws everything under the bus with his assertion of non-consensual sex.
Was thinking about a comment to leave on his last paragraph.
Edit: word choice
Not a bad article, I like the breakdown of different kinds of zoosexuals. Like most forms of sexuality, it appears zoophilia comes in many different flavors, a few of which I would condemn—anyone who would torture or kill an animal for their pleasure, for example.
I don't think it's any more fair to refer to people who torture or kill animals as a 'kind of zoosexual' than it would be to refer to men who kidnap and rape young boys as a 'kind of homosexual'.
Agreed, they are zoosexuals in the technical sense only. They are most certainly not zoophiles.
Agreed. "Sadistic bestials" and "Homicidal bestials", should not be lumped into zoosexuals.
Academically I don't think it is unfounded. The focus is on animals. But the paper he quotes wasn't a very good read nor very informative. It was definitely coming at zoophilia as a serious problem to be solved and as such used many of the old assumptions without research.
This guy is an opponent of ours intellectually, but he appears to be a clear-minded and level headed one. His articles on the subject tend to maintain a neutral tone except for his relatively mild statements of opinion (he cites Piers Beirne's arguments at one point, but Beirne has his own problems, and painting Griffiths with them isn't exactly fair). He's wrong about his moral opinion, but his methods so far appear to be right, and he's not on a crusade against zoos so far as I can see.
I'm betting he is a closeted fur.
Could be. His top read articles are a laundry list of fetishes with academic references for each. It's actually kind of a good resource for anyone with a basic curiosity for paraphilias in general.
Change the question and you get clear answers. Why would anyone want to have sex. Period.
Because sex.
Well, we could reverse the question and ask why wouldn't you want to have sex with a beautiful horse or your family pet?
It could be your relationship isn't sexual, but there are usually a host of issues like, "Eeew", disease and so forth that are to the forefront. When you consider yourself in that position it is never because you're going to hurt the animal in question(assuming size and compatibility). Yet, as the question differently, why should THEY have sex with animals and it's suddenly it's all about abuse and animal's consent and so forth...