[META] There is a rule against abuse/cruelty towards animals, yet I frequently find posts about sexual activities with animals here. (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2015-08-03 17:47:32 by herbinlegend
This doesn't make much sense to me, can somebody explain?
I think you'll find that most of us don't consider it abuse.
Why are we getting trolls here all of a sudden? This is the second one in a few days. What's the deal?
Probably visits /r/antiPOZi by his comment history. I feel like that's where people have been coming from in the past few days but I could be wrong
He didn't look like that to me when I checked his comment history. Far too sane. He doesn't even seem to be sealioning (at least, not hard), and if "sealioning" is the worst criticism I can place, I should also point fingers at people here who do that on other subreddits. :P
Yeah. I was thinking the same. Kinda pissed that my post was what led them here :/
The reasoning/belief is that sexual activities and sexual contact with animals isn't inherently abusive.
Sexually mature animals have sexual urges, and can express these towards humans. If an animal is penetrating a human, it's unlikely to be injured. If an animal is penetrated by a human, assuming the animal is sexually mature and adequately sized, injury is again unlikely unless harm is intended.
While the potential psychological effects on animals are not significantly researched, there are a number of sexual activities humans do with animals outside of bestiality. If a human stimulating an animal's genitalia caused significant trauma, shouldn't we be seeing this trauma in animals artificial insemination has been performed on? Would dogs that hump legs be traumatized afterwards? If this assumption is true, why are we not seeing these effects already? Why would the deciding factor be whether or not the human gets sexually aroused?
Devil's advocate time: how sure are we that vets and inspectors don't see such trauma, or at the very least, that they wouldn't see it if they bothered looking? I mean, "death" is a pretty traumatic medical condition, yet most people don't care that it happens to the animals that become their meat, and "existing animal husbandry practices" are explicitly excluded from all the new anti-bestiality laws I've seen commented on, probably because they had to be.
I think that's true and a good point. Most literature on risks of AI involve risks of disease and physical injury, I haven't seen any that have gone into detail beyond "possible psychological effects". How animals feel during sexual contact of any kind is very under studied.
Not even the fact that dogs are pets is a good rebuttal, since people still subject dogs to things where there's a lot of documented evidence they cause adverse psychological effects.
I do though think it's interesting that pet owners, shelter workers, and vets haven't made any observations (that I've seen) about this.
Interesting, but not very powerful. I have always assumed, because English newspapers use the phrase "rapists and murderers", that rape is one of the worst things that a person can experience. Unfortunately, surveys of rape victims show that most humans can't even tell when another human is a victim — from my perspective, that seems like the biggest problem with human sexuality in general, not just with human-nonhuman interactions like bestiality and artificial insemination.
I think there needs to be a lot more research on it. As-is, aside from anecdote, how/if it affects animals is just a big ??? Even in animal husbandry, how animals think about sex seems to be something nobody wants to think about.
In this interview a guy explains how he has sex with his dog:
On a scale from 0-10, how cruel do you think the dog feels this kind of sexual activity is?
Don't try to masquerade this as a "misunderstanding."
It's obvious that you're trying to annoy people who fundmentally disagree with you.
[deleted]
Your post is logically equivalent to the following:
It's either a misunderstanding of the basic uses of these terms by the community that uses them, or an attempt to lazily point out an apparent contradiction in terms and thereby "win" by being more consistent. To be fair, there are contradictions in the Bible, I believe, but the concept of the Trinity is one which can be reconciled.
Believe it or not, it's NOT a widely held consensus that sexual behavior between people and animals is necessarily abuse any more than it is between any other creatures, of the same species or otherwise.
You find it icky, I get that, but I'd wager a million bucks that if you broke your thought process down and actually analyzed what your reasoning is, it would fall apart under objective scrutiny.
Because the fact you cannot ignore or do mental gymnastics around, is the fact that for millions of years before people were around, these creatures were having lots, and lots of sex, because nature makes us all desire it at some point or another. Sex is natural and not a bad thing. Animals don't view it as a bad thing unless we train that association into them. Only humans view sex as bad. Why is sex bad anyway? I can never get a straight answer about that question in particular. Zoophiles do nothing against an animal's natural desires and instincts and most zoophiles are very aware of physical differences and respect compatibility issues. As for consent... well you didn't bring that up, but it's pretty much the fall-back argument that people who are grossed out about the idea use when they're backed into a corner.
"They can't talk to you, so how can you know if they really want it?"
Hmn, not to go off on a tangent, but how often has your human sexual partner given you a written statement or a verbal request like "I would like to engage in sexual intercourse at this time."? Sure maybe once or twice in your life as a joke, but for the most part, when people want to fool around it goes one of two ways... either they start rubbing all over each other and kissing and getting more and more intimate and it just leads into sex because all the signals and body language is there, or one knows the other partner is potentially receptive and proceeds to begin touching to see if he/she will reciprocate those desires.
It's no different with animals. If anything, often times humans are the ones who are told very clearly what the animal wants. They can be completely pure in their wishes and intentions and sometimes don't readily take no for an answer. Sometimes they want it, sometimes they don't. Zoophiles always respect their partner's overt signals for the very reason that they can't readily speak or deliver a hand written note.
"But they're like children, how you can take advantage of those poor little babies??"
Sorry, take a look between your furry baby's legs sometime. See those things? That means they are built for sex. Most adult un-neutered or un-castrated animals are fully developed, sexual creatures. It's humans who turn them into infants. They just think differently and view the world differently. They're not helpless or asexual unless we make them that way. Zoophiles respect animals as equals on ALL aspects.
Yes, some people abuse animals sexually. A very, very small segment of sociopaths. There are far more people who abuse their animals by neglect, physical violence or even over-feeding and poor behavioral training. If you're looking to end abuse, start going around your neighborhood looking for dogs kept on chains, kept in kennels that are too small for them, horses kept in pens with no shade or protection from the weather 24 hours a day, abandoned animals living in gutters, animals left to starve, thrown out of vehicles, neglected and festering with diseases and malnutrition. How dare you come in here and talk to us about abuse when you have that happening in your own neighborhood right now as we speak. How dare you. Go out and fix that then come back here and talk to us.
On the verbal consent thing:
I often have intercourse with human women. Before meeting my wife, I hooked up with a lovely Korean woman multiple times. Never understood a word she said but we both thoroughly enjoyed ourselves.
I rarely ask my wife "Would you like to have sex?" Instead, a touch, gesture or other signal tends to get things moving in that direction.
I would like to say you come on pretty strong which can put people on the defensive, which studies have shown will cause people to believe their own side more even if given solid evidence against it.
As far as sex being bad, that is because we live in a sex-negative culture. There are three general views that cultures have on sex: sex negative (where sex is inherently bad bad) sex neutral (sex is just sex, nothing special or different about it) and sex positive (sex is inherently good). Sex negative cultures tend to have many rules and judgments about sexual activities because sex is bad. Sex positive cultures like ancient Greece tend to have quite a bit of sexual freedom, even pedophilia was an acceptable practice there.
I'm at the age when the fucks I used to have and give freely have long since dwindled to a small, precious handful, which I save for people who deserve it. I most certainly will not give one of my last fucks on another troll thinking they have some kind of retarded point against a community they find gross and nasty, and in doing so will feel better about themselves, like they did the good deed for the day by pointing out hypocrisy in the bad guy's own turf.
I want to stay strong because I think it's needed. Reddit is primarily made of 18 -29 year old kids and a helluva lot of kids that age have the attention span of goldfish and a strong voice will get attention, which counts as much as message.
The issue is that you make them less likely to agree with you when you do that. They get mad and then they are on the defensive, and then even scientific evidence will only make them more prone to believe their own viewpoint. The issue is it is extremely counterproductive to make the others in the discussion upset, the only way to convince people of your side is to be friendly and likable.
Additionally I doubt this person was a troll given their OP and you seem to be very prejudice towards the reddit community and that age group.
Also, holy shit. Look at OP's "submitted" history. There's like a thousand posts in there and no points on any of them, if he/she wasn't constantly trying to ride some high morality horse on those posts I would think they're a bot.
Don't think /pol/ might not approve of you posting on le cuckit?
Eating meat is more cruel to animals than having sex with them, yet almost everyone eats meat(I don't).
there is no possible way a human penis inserted into the vagina or anus of a female kuvasz or orher XL BREED will cause any harm whatsoever, as long as the dog is INTACT.
There is also no way a male dog mounting a human is going to cause the dog any sort of trauma. these are FACTS, but most people are too close-minded to accept them.