Something interesting about those who oppose zoophilia(self.zoophilia)
submitted 2015-10-05 05:58:28 by [deleted]
[deleted]
Cyenawe 3 points on 2015-10-05 08:56:45
Truth truth truth truth truth. I fought sooo much of this from tumblr when that awful person started the hate campaign against me for my sexuality. They seriously just refuse to see any side other than that pets are babies, and some kind of delicate puff ball that needs protecting from the big bad zoosexual/phile that LOVES THEM.
I think people just have to remember that most of the animals we keep as pets could do serious harm to their human. Dogs are predators, with teeth, claws, they are strong buggers, even the little ones. Cats are the same way, and on top of that they're acrobats and escape artists. These animals could definitely get away from a human they didn't want touching them, and would probably do damage in the process. And horses, those powerful beasties could kill you! Easily!
I enjoyed reading your rant, you pretty much vocalized my own thoughts and frustrations.
[deleted] 2 points on 2015-10-06 02:45:58
[deleted]
JunkieSuiBunny 5 points on 2015-10-05 14:30:43
Hmmm... a desire for something doesn't necessarily mean that when you'll attempt it, you'll achieve it. Many pedophiles also wish to have loving, fulfilling relationships with their 'partners', but we know how that goes. Not wanting to be a rapist/rape someone doesn't make you not a rapist - for instance, I could tie somebody (unwilling) up and have sex with them, with the deepest desire that they enjoy and want my attention, but that doesn't mean what I'm doing isn't rape.
Also, saying 'X is obvious, anybody who can't see that is closed-minded!' is... uh... pretty closed-minded. The thing is, many (most?) people /don't/ see things that way.
(I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong or right, mind, I'm just saying that I think your argument is pretty faulty.)
ursusem 2 points on 2015-10-05 19:48:53
The point that I'm getting at is that my desire is to have a connection which is mutual. Is that a "desire to rape?" No. I think it's pretty obvious that tying someone up (especially someone who cannot express him/herself using a human language such as animals) very well likely is not going to be the mark of a consensual activity. I know that just because my intentions are good does not mean that when I try to do the activity that the partner will actually be down with it but it is also my responsibility to carefully assess their behaviors and how we relate etc to be sure that what I do is not rape. The "interesting" thing that I was commenting on here is how ANYONE with some sort of interest or desire to have sex with animals is said to be an 'animal rapist' by those who are anti-bestiality of any sort. I feel that we are called that because some people find bestiality (meaning ANY kind of sexual interaction between a human and a "lower" animal) to be disgusting and I feel that they seem to like to fantasize that anyone interested in doing it is a sicko who has evil intentions (in other words- we have a desire to be cruel as far as their ignorant, judgmental, fantasizing minds can think which, as I've tried to show here at least in the case of myself, is very far from the truth). I understand that just because one has good intentions does not mean rape will be avoided and for you to even bring that up means that you've missed the whole point of my rant. Hopefully I've explained my position better now.
You've also missed my point when I said how it's obvious that non-humans are capable of entering the relationships they wish to have. I said anyone who says otherwise is MOST LIKELY closed minded- I didn't say that they absolutely were closed minded. I am just more apt to take with a grain of salt anything that an anti- says because I know that their general feeling is that bestiality very much turns them off and they don't like it and therefore their general wish is to just MAKE IT STOP AAARRGHH. I don't think they have a really good reason to not like it other than just personal dislike. Antis have a bias against any sort of bestiality for not any good reason so I can't buy every little thing that comes out of their mouths not until they at least start showing that they are open minded to the possibility that consensual bestiality may be a real thing instead of just being automatically and irrationally against it straight out the gate without researching it, without fact checking. That was all I was saying there. Isn't it obvious that one can communicate with a non-human creature about a thing such as "we should do sex?" I may be in the minority in my belief that a lot of communication is through body language- even among humans. It just seems like the reality of sexual encounters is that "one thing leads to another-" You are either into and want to do sex or you don't want to. Some people have regrets about doing sex after the fact but if you were into it in the moment and wanting it in the moment I would say that you were not raped even though maybe you now later regret it/ feel bad about it (as is what we seem to see happening among college students for example. And for the record I am female and I believe a lot of this idea about "rape culture" is really some bs frankly- don't know about what you think about that). Now yes, I believe it is also important that zoophiles/ zoosexuals whatever be experts when it comes to the body language of the species they are attracted to. Of course animals are different from us humans in some ways and so they may have some different ways of expressing themselves that any good zoosexual oriented person would dedicate her/himself to learning how to read the behaviors of that species as well as the behaviors of the particular unique individual that the zoophile is involved with.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 2 points on 2015-10-05 20:15:23
Children are not sexually mature. But animals are.
JunkieSuiBunny 4 points on 2015-10-05 22:31:20
True.
But I was only saying that a desire to have a fulfilling, consensual relationship with a being... doesn't necessarily mean you can have one. No more, no less.
ursusem 1 point on 2015-10-05 23:02:55
What does that have to do with the right to call people who want that "animal rapists," though? I mean, we can call anyone anything but our name-calling may not be justified.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 2 points on 2015-10-05 23:45:42
People like calling misunderstood people (like zoos) names.
ursusem 1 point on 2015-10-06 00:26:09
That's for darn sure!
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 2 points on 2015-10-06 10:00:50
I think this is the same sort of misunderstanding as the "will a plane on a treadmill take off?". It sounds to me like /u/ursusem is complaining about being accused of "wanting to rape", while the counterpoint of /u/JunkieSuiBunny is "is the act, rather than the desire, rape?"
Correct me if I'm wrong, both of you.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 2 points on 2015-10-05 23:46:55
My bad. I understand your comment now.
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 1 point on 2015-10-06 13:27:29
I guess so, but what makes you think you cant have one? I'm sure most normal dog owners say their dog loves them back.
syzithryxi like cookies 1 point on 2015-10-06 01:28:22
I was fantasizing about gay sex when I was eight years old. Specifically, watersports fetish. I didn't even know how it worked, but I knew I wanted it, and if I'd had the chance I probably would have learned more and maybe wanted to try it with someone. So I know firsthand that though they may not be physically "sexually mature", children are nonetheless capable of true sexual desire. It always annoys me when people claim otherwise.
ursusem 3 points on 2015-10-06 02:09:18
That's true. I was definitely very sexual when I was eight years old- and I was never sexually abused or anything. I grew up on cartoons, didn't watch sex and violence on T.V. and was raised by loving parents.
horse_account 1 point on 2015-10-06 02:52:36
That doesn't mean it's okay to fuck them.
ITT: "kids and adolescents aren't asexual, so I should be allowed to fuck them."
ursusem 1 point on 2015-10-06 03:23:10
So why do we draw the line at adulthood? Mind you, I am not pro-having sex with children but I want to know what logic we are using to allow us to know that it is wrong to have sex with children.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2015-10-06 10:17:51
My logic is the media reports of all the harm kids suffer from it.
The obvious reply is
"headlines are always biased to show bad things; they report plane crashes, not planes having uneventful flights".
I'm told that back in the '70s quite a lot of people were convinced that most of the harm was done by making a fuss about it, not by the act itself, but all the cases that have made headlines since then have said "no, actually, this was bad anyway."
And again, the obvious reply is
"headlines?"
But newspapers are my only source of evidence. I wouldn't know which scientific journals in the field are high quality and which publish gibberish from a Markov chain.
I remember being a kid myself. I remember wondering what sex felt like when I was about 9, but for me it was a purely intellectual curiosity and not sexuality - it was several years later, after my teenage growth spurt had started, when I first discovered masturbation.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 1 point on 2015-10-06 13:21:32
Maybe because there are not mature enough to give consent?
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 2 points on 2015-10-06 14:36:59
I was told I was very mature as a kid.
I think the biggest problem in this whole area, and it is one that affects us too, is that children, animals and traditional housewives all have strong reasons to stay in a home even if another occupant of that home is harming them.
Modern attitudes to divorce has helped the housewives, but even now there are cases of people going to domestic abuse shelters, then being kicked out (because the shelters have limited funds) and having to return to their abusers because the alternative is homelessness.
I think it's about the freedom, physical and psychological, to leave — I've been told that dogs living at home who rip up all the furniture while their owners are away, do that because they're going mad with what is effectively solitary confinement: severe psychological harm that the owners don't even recognise that they are causing.
Now I want to design a video game kit for bored house dogs. Dogulus Rift or something.
syzithryxi like cookies 2 points on 2015-10-07 00:35:12
I remember vividly having truly sexual fantasies about a boy I knew, back when I was eight. I wanted to see him naked, touch him, partly out of curiosity, yes, but I remember the EMOTION behind the curiosity, and it felt precisely the same as sexual arousal does now. I have no doubt that had I learned about the details of sex, including masturbation, I would have wanted to try it back then. And not just for "curiosity." It was true sexual desire, just uninformed.
syzithryxi like cookies 2 points on 2015-10-07 00:31:53
Also there's the fact that children are one thing, but teenagers are quite another. Why on earth is it illegal to have sex with a consenting teenager who, having entered puberty, is DEFINITELY, without a shadow of a doubt, capable of sexual desire? People always give a load of crap about how they're not mature enough for it yet, but when I was twelve (again, maybe this is just me) I knew about STDs and that condoms are necessary for safe sex and all that stuff. If I had had the opportunity to have sex when I was that age, I would have done it safely and it would have been consensual. And then there's the other excuse people give, which is that with an older individual it would be "coerced," but again, if you're horny and you want to fuck a hot guy and he wants too also, it's rather ridiculous to say he coerced you if he happens to be older.
In sum, whatever you think about pedophilia proper, I see no reason that hebephilia (attraction to teenagers) should be stigmatized, or illegal to act upon.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 3 points on 2015-10-07 10:22:59
Regarding the age of consent, I've long thought that the age of consent should be inversely related to the quality of sex education. I don't know when I learned about condoms, but I don't think I'd heard of masturbation when I first masturbated; I didn't hear about chlamydia until I'd left high school; it took until my mid twenties to find out that childbirth could still be extremely traumatic in the developed world or that men could get thrush; and my thirties to find out both that cesarian had serious side effects and that some hormonal contraceptives made periods worse.
syzithryxi like cookies 1 point on 2015-10-08 01:01:00
In this modern world filled with ubiquitous internet and sex on television, I don't see how anyone could still be uneducated on such matters, at least in wealthy countries like America.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 2 points on 2015-10-08 11:17:08
The sex may be ubiquitous, but if it's all repetition of fantasies and phobias, it's no better a sex education than Star Trek is a physics lesson.
SusitarCanidae 3 points on 2015-10-07 12:38:28
I think the problem is that teens mature in very individual paces. Some 13-year olds are finished with puberty, some are just starting. Some kids' bodies mature faster than their minds, and the other way around. Age of consent is a method for trying to draw the line somewhere, so that the excuse can't be "well, she looked older than her peers, her breasts were developed, I thought it was okay". Age measured in years is something that can be objectively measured, while personal maturity is very difficult to quantify.
Different countries draw the line at different ages. Where I live, the age of consent is 15. Yet, until recently, Spain's AoC was 13. And Austria still has it at 14... While many states in the US has an age of consent at 18. It's a mess.
Anyway, I'm no expert in child development and psychology. So I trust the experts in this issue. When it comes to zoophilia, I know more about animals than most people (I'm a biologist), so I trust my own judgement more.
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 2 points on 2015-10-08 14:03:58
I think this is absolutely true, and, when I was opposed to animal sex, this was something I kept in mind. Love is not mutually exclusive with abuse. Many abusers- physical, emotional, and sexual- genuinely love their victims.
I think though that this is more about antis who don't realize zoophiles love and care about animals. Like I've seen antis who were surprised to learn that there is a significant number of vegan zoos. The thought process seems to be that abusers can't love their victims and bestiality is abuse so zoos don't care about their animals. It's faulty logic, and it's something I see even within the zoo community to a certain degree, just watch anytime someone gets caught.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2015-10-08 17:04:32
I'm sure I've seen that fallacy elsewhere too — the idea that any given person is either all good or all bad, with no middle ground for "They were a good president, but I still think they're an arsehole for womanising and giving their daughter a lobotomy."
Anybody that has spent a decent amount of time on a horse farm know animals WILL come onto people. I had a mare on my grandfather's farm that would back up and pin me any chance she'd get when estrus hit. And, of course, there's the fine line of breeding. It's not rape when I have to stick my arm halfway up her ass to lift up her bits right so I could use the inseminator, but it is when it's six inches of dick.
And of course, I don't think cattle consent to becoming a hamburger, but that's not animal cruelty. The law stands in hypocrisy.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 2 points on 2015-10-06 10:20:51
I don't think cattle consent to becoming a hamburger
I have this mental image of a website, zoovegans or something, whose home page is a flashing h1 tag:
STOP EATING
OUR LOVERS
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 4 points on 2015-10-06 13:23:48
STOP EATING
OUR LOVERS
yeah, when I get a dog I want to be the only person to eat her... ;D
BaaxtenWhen in doubt, C4 1 point on 2015-10-06 15:02:18
Even though I've heard stories like that, I still find myself both surprised and intrigued by how other animals choose humans over members of their own species.
foxyramirez 1 point on 2015-10-06 17:36:02
Personally, I think it has a lot to do with the time you spend with em. My grandfather's horses were high maintenance prize winning fox trotters. For a few years, I spent nearly every day with em. Whether it was cleaning out stalls, cleaning and setting shoes, feed, etc. I spent a lot of intimate time with a lot of horses, as just a point of caring for them. I imagine if somebody did the same for me, I'd think of them quite fondly too. The one that always made me laugh was semen collection. You're literally Jerking a horse off. Granted you have some tools to help with the job, but that's literally how you get it. With show horses, you simply can't let them bump uglies the old fashion way because the risk of harm is too high. So it's all done by hand. I'd have to get all intimate with their genitals, and somehow all that wasn't a crime.
BaaxtenWhen in doubt, C4 1 point on 2015-10-06 23:20:15
the risk of harm
How can natural behaviour be harmful?
foxyramirez 1 point on 2015-10-07 00:03:32
Male horses are big. They can cause damage to the female's spine, hooves can cut and leave scars, which ruins their show value. I mean, we're talking horses worth upwards of twenty thousand dollars. I don't want to go into too much detail, but these horses are some of the best bred in the nation.
You wouldn't take your Ferrari to a cheapo auto repair place, this is roughly the same idea.
ZooMasil 1 point on 2015-10-06 21:23:59
The problem I this is that people don't interact with animals that have intact sexual organs and so they don't think of them as sexual beings, just like how children aren't sexual beings, hence they always call us pedophiles because the rational for dismissal is similar in their minds.
SusitarCanidae 2 points on 2015-10-07 07:37:29
Here it's quite common to leave your dog intact, but even then people think they just exhibit sexual behaviour as if they were some kind of machines, that it's "pure instinct", and therefore doesn't count as sexuality.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2015-10-07 10:24:16
Is human sexuality anything other than "pure instinct"?
SusitarCanidae 3 points on 2015-10-07 11:29:10
Trying to point out that humans are animals, and that we have instincts too... is pointless when it comes to these types of people. A lot of humans are very stubborn about wanting to set themselves apart from animals. Yes, even many animal rights activists I've spoken to.
In order to be more scientifically accurate, but also to annoy anthropocentrists, I tend to say "humans and other animals" instead of "humans and animals". Hehe.
Crazy_ManManNot a zoo, but a friend. 2 points on 2015-10-09 03:57:20
Many of them only know of the cases the media portrays, of people tying up animals and doing horrible things to them whilst saying the animal liked it or asked for it. I can understand their view because all they see is the truly horrible people, they media does the same things to pedophiles (not all of them are terrible people and most of them are not child molestors and no better than to do so, and many of those that do act on it, want very badly not to hurt the child and do things that are not physically harmful and the child does not say no to. It does not make it necessarily right, but it certainly is not as bad as stealing children and raping them violently like the media portrays them as). The real issue is lack of education and awerness. People do not know the fact, and this is part of the reason I dislike schools. The idea of schools is great, but they execution is just a sheeple factory that skips over some of the most important stuff we could be teaching these kids.
Anyway I jumped around on that quite a bit so I digress before I tangent more.
/r/zoophilia archive
Truth truth truth truth truth. I fought sooo much of this from tumblr when that awful person started the hate campaign against me for my sexuality. They seriously just refuse to see any side other than that pets are babies, and some kind of delicate puff ball that needs protecting from the big bad zoosexual/phile that LOVES THEM.
I think people just have to remember that most of the animals we keep as pets could do serious harm to their human. Dogs are predators, with teeth, claws, they are strong buggers, even the little ones. Cats are the same way, and on top of that they're acrobats and escape artists. These animals could definitely get away from a human they didn't want touching them, and would probably do damage in the process. And horses, those powerful beasties could kill you! Easily!
I enjoyed reading your rant, you pretty much vocalized my own thoughts and frustrations.
[deleted]
Hmmm... a desire for something doesn't necessarily mean that when you'll attempt it, you'll achieve it. Many pedophiles also wish to have loving, fulfilling relationships with their 'partners', but we know how that goes. Not wanting to be a rapist/rape someone doesn't make you not a rapist - for instance, I could tie somebody (unwilling) up and have sex with them, with the deepest desire that they enjoy and want my attention, but that doesn't mean what I'm doing isn't rape.
Also, saying 'X is obvious, anybody who can't see that is closed-minded!' is... uh... pretty closed-minded. The thing is, many (most?) people /don't/ see things that way.
(I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong or right, mind, I'm just saying that I think your argument is pretty faulty.)
The point that I'm getting at is that my desire is to have a connection which is mutual. Is that a "desire to rape?" No. I think it's pretty obvious that tying someone up (especially someone who cannot express him/herself using a human language such as animals) very well likely is not going to be the mark of a consensual activity. I know that just because my intentions are good does not mean that when I try to do the activity that the partner will actually be down with it but it is also my responsibility to carefully assess their behaviors and how we relate etc to be sure that what I do is not rape. The "interesting" thing that I was commenting on here is how ANYONE with some sort of interest or desire to have sex with animals is said to be an 'animal rapist' by those who are anti-bestiality of any sort. I feel that we are called that because some people find bestiality (meaning ANY kind of sexual interaction between a human and a "lower" animal) to be disgusting and I feel that they seem to like to fantasize that anyone interested in doing it is a sicko who has evil intentions (in other words- we have a desire to be cruel as far as their ignorant, judgmental, fantasizing minds can think which, as I've tried to show here at least in the case of myself, is very far from the truth). I understand that just because one has good intentions does not mean rape will be avoided and for you to even bring that up means that you've missed the whole point of my rant. Hopefully I've explained my position better now.
You've also missed my point when I said how it's obvious that non-humans are capable of entering the relationships they wish to have. I said anyone who says otherwise is MOST LIKELY closed minded- I didn't say that they absolutely were closed minded. I am just more apt to take with a grain of salt anything that an anti- says because I know that their general feeling is that bestiality very much turns them off and they don't like it and therefore their general wish is to just MAKE IT STOP AAARRGHH. I don't think they have a really good reason to not like it other than just personal dislike. Antis have a bias against any sort of bestiality for not any good reason so I can't buy every little thing that comes out of their mouths not until they at least start showing that they are open minded to the possibility that consensual bestiality may be a real thing instead of just being automatically and irrationally against it straight out the gate without researching it, without fact checking. That was all I was saying there. Isn't it obvious that one can communicate with a non-human creature about a thing such as "we should do sex?" I may be in the minority in my belief that a lot of communication is through body language- even among humans. It just seems like the reality of sexual encounters is that "one thing leads to another-" You are either into and want to do sex or you don't want to. Some people have regrets about doing sex after the fact but if you were into it in the moment and wanting it in the moment I would say that you were not raped even though maybe you now later regret it/ feel bad about it (as is what we seem to see happening among college students for example. And for the record I am female and I believe a lot of this idea about "rape culture" is really some bs frankly- don't know about what you think about that). Now yes, I believe it is also important that zoophiles/ zoosexuals whatever be experts when it comes to the body language of the species they are attracted to. Of course animals are different from us humans in some ways and so they may have some different ways of expressing themselves that any good zoosexual oriented person would dedicate her/himself to learning how to read the behaviors of that species as well as the behaviors of the particular unique individual that the zoophile is involved with.
Children are not sexually mature. But animals are.
True.
But I was only saying that a desire to have a fulfilling, consensual relationship with a being... doesn't necessarily mean you can have one. No more, no less.
What does that have to do with the right to call people who want that "animal rapists," though? I mean, we can call anyone anything but our name-calling may not be justified.
People like calling misunderstood people (like zoos) names.
That's for darn sure!
I think this is the same sort of misunderstanding as the "will a plane on a treadmill take off?". It sounds to me like /u/ursusem is complaining about being accused of "wanting to rape", while the counterpoint of /u/JunkieSuiBunny is "is the act, rather than the desire, rape?"
Correct me if I'm wrong, both of you.
My bad. I understand your comment now.
I guess so, but what makes you think you cant have one? I'm sure most normal dog owners say their dog loves them back.
I was fantasizing about gay sex when I was eight years old. Specifically, watersports fetish. I didn't even know how it worked, but I knew I wanted it, and if I'd had the chance I probably would have learned more and maybe wanted to try it with someone. So I know firsthand that though they may not be physically "sexually mature", children are nonetheless capable of true sexual desire. It always annoys me when people claim otherwise.
That's true. I was definitely very sexual when I was eight years old- and I was never sexually abused or anything. I grew up on cartoons, didn't watch sex and violence on T.V. and was raised by loving parents.
That doesn't mean it's okay to fuck them.
ITT: "kids and adolescents aren't asexual, so I should be allowed to fuck them."
So why do we draw the line at adulthood? Mind you, I am not pro-having sex with children but I want to know what logic we are using to allow us to know that it is wrong to have sex with children.
My logic is the media reports of all the harm kids suffer from it.
The obvious reply is
I'm told that back in the '70s quite a lot of people were convinced that most of the harm was done by making a fuss about it, not by the act itself, but all the cases that have made headlines since then have said "no, actually, this was bad anyway."
And again, the obvious reply is
But newspapers are my only source of evidence. I wouldn't know which scientific journals in the field are high quality and which publish gibberish from a Markov chain.
I remember being a kid myself. I remember wondering what sex felt like when I was about 9, but for me it was a purely intellectual curiosity and not sexuality - it was several years later, after my teenage growth spurt had started, when I first discovered masturbation.
Maybe because there are not mature enough to give consent?
I was told I was very mature as a kid.
I think the biggest problem in this whole area, and it is one that affects us too, is that children, animals and traditional housewives all have strong reasons to stay in a home even if another occupant of that home is harming them.
Modern attitudes to divorce has helped the housewives, but even now there are cases of people going to domestic abuse shelters, then being kicked out (because the shelters have limited funds) and having to return to their abusers because the alternative is homelessness.
I think it's about the freedom, physical and psychological, to leave — I've been told that dogs living at home who rip up all the furniture while their owners are away, do that because they're going mad with what is effectively solitary confinement: severe psychological harm that the owners don't even recognise that they are causing.
Now I want to design a video game kit for bored house dogs. Dogulus Rift or something.
I remember vividly having truly sexual fantasies about a boy I knew, back when I was eight. I wanted to see him naked, touch him, partly out of curiosity, yes, but I remember the EMOTION behind the curiosity, and it felt precisely the same as sexual arousal does now. I have no doubt that had I learned about the details of sex, including masturbation, I would have wanted to try it back then. And not just for "curiosity." It was true sexual desire, just uninformed.
Also there's the fact that children are one thing, but teenagers are quite another. Why on earth is it illegal to have sex with a consenting teenager who, having entered puberty, is DEFINITELY, without a shadow of a doubt, capable of sexual desire? People always give a load of crap about how they're not mature enough for it yet, but when I was twelve (again, maybe this is just me) I knew about STDs and that condoms are necessary for safe sex and all that stuff. If I had had the opportunity to have sex when I was that age, I would have done it safely and it would have been consensual. And then there's the other excuse people give, which is that with an older individual it would be "coerced," but again, if you're horny and you want to fuck a hot guy and he wants too also, it's rather ridiculous to say he coerced you if he happens to be older.
In sum, whatever you think about pedophilia proper, I see no reason that hebephilia (attraction to teenagers) should be stigmatized, or illegal to act upon.
Regarding the age of consent, I've long thought that the age of consent should be inversely related to the quality of sex education. I don't know when I learned about condoms, but I don't think I'd heard of masturbation when I first masturbated; I didn't hear about chlamydia until I'd left high school; it took until my mid twenties to find out that childbirth could still be extremely traumatic in the developed world or that men could get thrush; and my thirties to find out both that cesarian had serious side effects and that some hormonal contraceptives made periods worse.
In this modern world filled with ubiquitous internet and sex on television, I don't see how anyone could still be uneducated on such matters, at least in wealthy countries like America.
The sex may be ubiquitous, but if it's all repetition of fantasies and phobias, it's no better a sex education than Star Trek is a physics lesson.
I think the problem is that teens mature in very individual paces. Some 13-year olds are finished with puberty, some are just starting. Some kids' bodies mature faster than their minds, and the other way around. Age of consent is a method for trying to draw the line somewhere, so that the excuse can't be "well, she looked older than her peers, her breasts were developed, I thought it was okay". Age measured in years is something that can be objectively measured, while personal maturity is very difficult to quantify.
Different countries draw the line at different ages. Where I live, the age of consent is 15. Yet, until recently, Spain's AoC was 13. And Austria still has it at 14... While many states in the US has an age of consent at 18. It's a mess.
Anyway, I'm no expert in child development and psychology. So I trust the experts in this issue. When it comes to zoophilia, I know more about animals than most people (I'm a biologist), so I trust my own judgement more.
I think this is absolutely true, and, when I was opposed to animal sex, this was something I kept in mind. Love is not mutually exclusive with abuse. Many abusers- physical, emotional, and sexual- genuinely love their victims.
I think though that this is more about antis who don't realize zoophiles love and care about animals. Like I've seen antis who were surprised to learn that there is a significant number of vegan zoos. The thought process seems to be that abusers can't love their victims and bestiality is abuse so zoos don't care about their animals. It's faulty logic, and it's something I see even within the zoo community to a certain degree, just watch anytime someone gets caught.
I'm sure I've seen that fallacy elsewhere too — the idea that any given person is either all good or all bad, with no middle ground for "They were a good president, but I still think they're an arsehole for womanising and giving their daughter a lobotomy."
Googles for a bit
Ah! It's called "False dilemma"!
Anybody that has spent a decent amount of time on a horse farm know animals WILL come onto people. I had a mare on my grandfather's farm that would back up and pin me any chance she'd get when estrus hit. And, of course, there's the fine line of breeding. It's not rape when I have to stick my arm halfway up her ass to lift up her bits right so I could use the inseminator, but it is when it's six inches of dick.
And of course, I don't think cattle consent to becoming a hamburger, but that's not animal cruelty. The law stands in hypocrisy.
I have this mental image of a website, zoovegans or something, whose home page is a flashing h1 tag:
yeah, when I get a dog I want to be the only person to eat her... ;D
Even though I've heard stories like that, I still find myself both surprised and intrigued by how other animals choose humans over members of their own species.
Personally, I think it has a lot to do with the time you spend with em. My grandfather's horses were high maintenance prize winning fox trotters. For a few years, I spent nearly every day with em. Whether it was cleaning out stalls, cleaning and setting shoes, feed, etc. I spent a lot of intimate time with a lot of horses, as just a point of caring for them. I imagine if somebody did the same for me, I'd think of them quite fondly too. The one that always made me laugh was semen collection. You're literally Jerking a horse off. Granted you have some tools to help with the job, but that's literally how you get it. With show horses, you simply can't let them bump uglies the old fashion way because the risk of harm is too high. So it's all done by hand. I'd have to get all intimate with their genitals, and somehow all that wasn't a crime.
How can natural behaviour be harmful?
Male horses are big. They can cause damage to the female's spine, hooves can cut and leave scars, which ruins their show value. I mean, we're talking horses worth upwards of twenty thousand dollars. I don't want to go into too much detail, but these horses are some of the best bred in the nation.
You wouldn't take your Ferrari to a cheapo auto repair place, this is roughly the same idea.
The problem I this is that people don't interact with animals that have intact sexual organs and so they don't think of them as sexual beings, just like how children aren't sexual beings, hence they always call us pedophiles because the rational for dismissal is similar in their minds.
Here it's quite common to leave your dog intact, but even then people think they just exhibit sexual behaviour as if they were some kind of machines, that it's "pure instinct", and therefore doesn't count as sexuality.
Is human sexuality anything other than "pure instinct"?
Trying to point out that humans are animals, and that we have instincts too... is pointless when it comes to these types of people. A lot of humans are very stubborn about wanting to set themselves apart from animals. Yes, even many animal rights activists I've spoken to.
In order to be more scientifically accurate, but also to annoy anthropocentrists, I tend to say "humans and other animals" instead of "humans and animals". Hehe.
Many of them only know of the cases the media portrays, of people tying up animals and doing horrible things to them whilst saying the animal liked it or asked for it. I can understand their view because all they see is the truly horrible people, they media does the same things to pedophiles (not all of them are terrible people and most of them are not child molestors and no better than to do so, and many of those that do act on it, want very badly not to hurt the child and do things that are not physically harmful and the child does not say no to. It does not make it necessarily right, but it certainly is not as bad as stealing children and raping them violently like the media portrays them as). The real issue is lack of education and awerness. People do not know the fact, and this is part of the reason I dislike schools. The idea of schools is great, but they execution is just a sheeple factory that skips over some of the most important stuff we could be teaching these kids. Anyway I jumped around on that quite a bit so I digress before I tangent more.