Just discovered this subreddit from a post on r/jesuschristreddit. I am not here to attack you or call you disgusting, I just wanted to hear a civilized discussion about zoophilia. This is coming from someone who as of this morning thought beastiality was a form of animal abuse and was illegal virtually everywhere, and there was no such thing as people being attracted to animals other than creepy animal abusers.
To anyone who considers themselves a zoophile:
Do you think an animal can ever experience the same emotional connection as a human can for another human?
Do you think animals are able to consent to sex, and can they communicate it? If so, are you afraid that you may just be projecting onto it and that you may mentally scar it?
What message would you have for me (a member of society who currently thinks beastiality is morally wrong) to change my perspective?
Edit: Spelling
Just a nitpick, but it's spelled bestiality. It's a common misspelling.
Nice to see another person that wants to see both sides of the issue, though. It happens too often that we have users coming here with no intent but to attack them, and me by extension. I'm not a zoophile myself, but I can take a shot at these questions too, if you'd like.
Thank you, I will fix. Go ahead, if you think you can speak for them accurately.
Have you ever seen a dog who was really emotionally attached to their owner? I wouldn't hesitate to say that's easily every bit as strong an emotional connection as a human might have to their partner. Possibly even stronger.
Absolutely. Animals don't have the same kinds of hangups as humans do when it comes to sex. If they want it, they won't hesitate to let you know unambiguously, and if they don't like what you're trying to do with them, they'll be equally forward in letting you know about that. It's very hard to argue that you're projecting when a dog is trying to pull you to the floor to have his way with you.
Your perspective is your business. I can't expect to change your mind any more than you'd expect to change mine.
[removed]
That's a fair point. I agree with that.
I'm not disputing that a dog can visibly display it wants sex. What I am disputing is that it should count as consent. If a human is raped, they can testify in front of a court and say that they did not consent. A dog can't, and there's no way to tell if a dog wanted sex after the fact.
Fair enough. Thank you for your time.
People that change their minds the morning after and think to themselves "wow that was gross, I hope no one finds out I fucked that guy" and then go to the police and claim they were raped and ruin someone's life are what it seems like you're talking about, and that isn't rape. That's just regret, guilt, or some form of being deluded by radical feminists in the news who say if you regret doing it after the fact you were raped.
Why is there no way to tell if a dog has been raped? You can most certainly tell if a human has been truly raped. If a dog can consent and understands sex and pleasure, why would they be any different? Apart from exceedingly rare circumstances if a human has been truly raped (not like a wife agreeing to sex when she sorta-kinda doesn't really want to, but she wants to please her husband so he will stay motivated to go to work and pay for her) they aren't going to associate with this person voluntarily, let alone with a friendly demeanor or ask for more sex.
Probably. It is A emotional connection, at least. Whether it is exactly the type of connection I have to my human partner is difficult to say, but then again, even with another human I cannot be completely sure if our feels are exactly the same. A human might say he "loves me", but do experience and define love in the same manner? But animals can enjoy the company of people a lot, view them as mates, be jealous, and even risk their lives for humans. There are a lot of stories about pets doing such things, ranging from dogs to parrots. Of course, the emotional similarities between humans and other species might vary with species. I think a dog or a monkey would be more similar to us when it comes to a relationship, than a fish or a snake.
Yes. Normal pet owners have already learnt to see if animals are hungry, in pain, wants to play, is tired and so on. Animal breeders have learnt how to see if an animal is interested in mating or not. I think any pet owner can learn the same, if they are willing to learn it.
Remember that humans are a type of animal too.
1: I think anyone who's had a pet will attest to the bond that they share. So I feel like looking at it from a different angle.
No regions of the brain are unique to humans. Though the size of different parts of the brain may differ between humans and dogs, we have the same basic structures and functions. We also have the same hormones. As humans, our neocortex is particularly well developed compared to other animals, but that part of the brain is not actually particularly involved with emotional responses or attachment. More relevant to emotion and relationships (and, interestingly, sexual orientation) is the limbic system. The limbic system does not differ all that much, to my understanding, between dogs and humans.
That said, there is a lot of interplay between regions of the brain, and the complexity of abstract thought the human brain allows for can result in complexity of emotion as well.
But, I think it is nonetheless fair to say that given the similarities in the most relevant parts of our brains, yes, it would be expected that dogs and humans would at least be pretty similar in the emotional bonds that they tend to form.
2: Yes, and yes. As to the next part of the question... I've seen dogs that have been abused. I've seen dogs owned by zoophiles. I've seen happy dogs owned by non-zoophiles.
I'm pretty confident that I can tell the difference between the ones who have been mentally scarred and those who haven't been.
3: Do you find sex with animals disgusting? If you do, you ought to be careful, because the human brain likes to come up with post-hoc justifications for things. You should be particularly careful to examine your own arguments in such cases, to make sure that they are not based in bias.
Ask yourself: Do you apply the standard of consent consistently? Do you have a problem with other activities that humans regularly do that violate an animal's consent (such as in the farming industry)? If, somehow, it were demonstrated to your satisfaction that animals could consent, would you then be okay with sex with animals? Put yourself in that situation, and ask yourself if you'd still feel like objecting.
These are signs that your objections are emotionally based rather than rationally based. That they stem from a feeling of disgust, and are justified afterwards with an excuse.
Mind you, that doesn't mean that such reasoning is invalid. I think the consent of an animal is important, and it is good to want to respect it, where possible. But you should always be careful about understanding your own biases and trying to account for them.
I don't think we can ever truly know this. Personally I don't think emotions are as uniquely human as some like to believe, but non-human animals experience them differently because they evolved differently. We do have evidence with dogs that suggests that they can perceive, interpret, and react to human emotions. Anecdotally they also seem to bond differently with and have preferences for certain individuals.
Yes to all of that. Watching two animals mate they do appear to give each other certain signals to proceed or to stop. They also are able to seek out specific stimuli on their own. People who work with animals know of concepts of animal consent and test for it for non-sexual activity like petting. I see no reason to believe sexual consent wouldn't also exist. Of course I am worried that I might project or else interpret signals in a way that's convenient to me. This is a known problem in all human-animal interactions.
Consider other interactions we have with animals. I don't mean obvious negatives like death and abuse. If an dog appears to enthusiastically participate in a game of tug, we generally accept this as a sign the dog like this. If a dog does something to instigate a game, like bringing a human a toy or doing a play-dance, we generally accept this as the dog communicating what it wants to have happen. If we accept that dogs can experience pleasure and communicate enjoyment as well as things they want, why should sexual activity be exempt?
Lol you came from r/jesuschristreddit and didnt automatically make a preemptive judgement about us?
Its a miracle
To be fair, Jesus was pretty clear that it wasn't the place for humans to judge.
very good point, but we know how little that stops many of his followers ;)
Not surprised.
Any one who follows him is a bit delusional. I thought believing in comic books was looked down upon?
Come on dude, I'm Christian :P
I'd ask many questions about being a christian and a zoophile at the same time. Like knowing you're going to hell and thinking there's a magical sky daddy in the sky even though as a zoophile, you should be able to think rationally and not fall for the traps of the herd, but ugh... stay away from me please.
I already dislike 30-30 for being agnostic, so I'd really prefer if we kept a distance... I don't do well with humans who believe in supernatural weird shit. Otherkins, religious humans, genderfluid etc. What these humans believe in... oh my fucking...
Sorry man, but it's extremely hard for me to take you seriously after this.
I understand
Why do you dislike me for being an agnostic? When questions about deities arise, I just stick to what can be proven....nothing, neither the existence or the non existence of a "supreme being". Being an agnostic means you are NOT falling into the same trap as atheists who have promoted their once rational analysis of the whole "god "issue onto a level of a quasi religion , holding the strong and firm BELIEF that "god" does NOT exist although they too can´t provide any proof.
As an agnostic, I only say that there´s nothing to sustain a theory of the existence of a god, but there´s nothing to sustain a theory of "god´s" non existence also...talking about imaginary, unproveable things to me is grey noise at best and a complete waste of time and energy. The only religions and philosophies I can relate to are naturalistic philosophies like Shintoism and Shamanism; and "godless religions" like Buddhism. After some very impressive acid sessions I had alone in pastures and woods, I simply cannot take any "religion" with a personified god-image serious anymore. Once you have experienced this vividly living and communicating organic network that´s right under your feet when you leave the areas plastered with concrete, the only "god" you can believe in is Gaia.
Atheism is for dumb people who are smart enough to not believe in a religion. We can't comprehend the vastness of this universe, so just like how we can't say for sure there is a god, we can't say for sure there isn't one.
Oh, the irony.
Atheists do not say that there is for sure no god. Atheists just don't believe that there is one. Most people who claim to be agnostics are also atheists.
Everyone is an atheist about many gods, those who call themselves Atheists just take it one step farther and don't believe in any of them.
I suspect most here are atheists in regard to Zeus, Fenrir, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What's so objectionable about adding a few others, which they feel also do not have any compelling evidence for?
Unfortunately, 30-30, you are an atheist. By your own admission, you do not believe in a god. This makes you an atheist. It does not matter that you do not hold a belief that a god does not exist - that is not part of the definition of an atheist.
You are an agnostic atheist. Those two things are not mutually exclusive, and in fact usually go together. The problem here is that you have either misunderstood or been lied to about what an atheist actually is.
Oh, how pleasant it is when the world is all black and white....no, I´m not an atheist, I´m an agnostic. I don´t claim god´s existence, nor do I deny it. I don´t believe in a personified god and in this context, I might appear as an atheist to you because I don´t believe in any of the monotheistic religions´ big bosses, but how do you know I´m not believing in a poly- or even pantheistic religion in which the concept of a "god" is nothing more than a personification of life principle and ethic values, as it has been in the ancient polytheistic religions. The almost entirely "human" Greek gods like Zeus, Hephaistos, Artemis, and last, but not least, Eris and Gaia , for example. I also "believe" in nature being divine, godlike. Not an anthropomorpised version as Gaia, but actual nature worshipping. So, on one hand I would absolutely qualify as an atheist, but on the other hand, I believe in Eris and Gaia, two actual "goddesses" and that absolutely disqualifies me as an atheist at all.
For more insight on what I believe in and what I don´t, please google the "Principia Discordia", it´s available out there either as a printed version (costs a couple of bucks) and online (for free). And always remember: NO hot dogs on Fridays! ;)
Oh, and I hereby in my function as a discordian pope named General Otto von Hanfgeist declare WarCanine a Discordian pope, too. Take that, you atheist! ;)
HAIL ERIS! ALL HAIL DISCORDIA!!
"I tell you: one must still have chaos in one to give birth to a dancing star" Friedrich Nietzsche
Aaaawww, to hell with it, I declare ALL of you Discordian popes and popesses....;) Be informed that you all are doing Eris´ work now, whether you like it or not, no matter what you do....
P.S.: Any religion is just a complicated joke disguised as a religion, Erisianism is a religion disguised as a complicated joke....
Because it shows you have a sheepy and dumber side. I'm usually not a bigot, but this is some serious bullshit.
I look down on you if you believe in this. Seriously, theists belong with the otherkin and genderfluids.
How can humans believe there is an invisible sky daddy they've never seen? I'm surprised they don't even doubt it a little.
Being agnostic IS falling in a trap, and a bad one at that. The trap of theists: Wanting you to believe this bullshit.
What do you mean ''can't provide any proof''? 30-30, are you alright? I'm really concerned about you now.
Has something happened? Because I thought that you'd at least always be smarter.
Why do atheists need proof? Theists are the ones claiming there's an invisible super sky human.
Your logic is really lacking.
If theists can't provide proof, then that's where the line ends. In that case atheists already have won.
You can't also disprove many things yet you don't think about them either. What if I am a god? Are you now starting to doubt me?
Oh and guess what, atheists do have proof. We've never seen supernatural shit like that before, and that's all the evidence you need.
Let me remind you religion was created by these gullible naked apes who just couldn't find out why they existed, so they did shrooms and made up some bullshit.
Oh, how many years was that ago? Oh, when do humans start becoming religious in their life? Oh yes, when they're children, when they're easily fooled. Riiiiiiiiight...
Careful, now.
!. Whether you blame God or Darwin, all mammals are made of the same materials in very similar patterns. We have the same structures that use the same chemicals to meet the same needs with minor variations to suit certain specializations. You can't even claim that we got the biggest brain because cetaceans have us beat there. The only place we come out ahead is logic, the ability to recognize and manipulate patterns in our knowledge of the world (or the knowledge of good and evil).
So, can an animal seek someone out and say "I think you will bear (sire) me great offspring and together we will raise them"? No. Can you see all four of your feet at the same time as well as watching what is ahead of you (useful if you travel mountain paths)? No, but a donkey can. That leaves the question of how does our specialization affect our emotions. I think most will agree that logic and love seldom mix.
For the purest example consider mother love. What will any mother of any species do for her children? We most certainly have that in common. How many fathers will protect their children also? I suspect that horses have a better record in that department than humans.
That brings us to the bond between animals and humans. We are judging others (animal and human) by their actions because we cannot know what is going on inside someone else's head. How many news stories have you seen about small dogs attacking a bear or other large carnivore because it threatened a human dear to the dog? How many people have you known that owned a dog protective of them or their children? Have you seen the many "reunion" vids found on YouTube.
I submit that while the bond between human and animal is simpler in the absence of human logic, it is more "pure" and often stronger.
2.There are two halves to the "consent question". First, it is a red herring. Without human logic an animal is incapable of informed legal consent. Neither do they have any need of it. No offspring or ownership rights are going to be involved so there is no need for legal contract. Animals have sex because it pleases them physically and/or socially. Happiness, theirs or their partner's, is all they need.
Second, I require confirmed consent personally because I cannot maintain sexual interest in the face of violence or denial and because, when dealing with animals far larger and stronger than myself, it is a basic safety measure. Animals have a language that is rich and complex within those areas that are important to them. It takes time and effort but humans can learn their language at least as well as they can learn ours.
Take horses as an example. You see a bunch of animals standing around in a field being bored. I see continuous communication as they take turns watching for threats, eating, sleeping, etc, etc. Because they live in herds, their social skills are, on average, better than ours. And because so much mass and strength is involved in sex, they have the most complex and detailed communication about sexual things as a necessity to prevent injury.
Humans want profit (plant/animal reproduction if you are a farmer) so they have invented things like "breeding hobbles" to circumvent animal will. Go watch a few "scientific breeding" vids before you grade me on consent. I approach my animals alone and naked. In fact, they usually approach me. Right there is my final test. If they seek me out and demand to repeat an experience, the experience must be pleasing to them.
3.To save time and server space I will simply direct you to someone else's work. All of us have thought long and hard on these questions simply because it's impossible not to growing up Zoo in a straight world.
https://pastebin.com/7bYzQzND
Now that we've had a little time and some excellent answers to your questions I'd like to propose a few of my own.
Do you think it is right to imprison a thinking feeling individual and rule every detail of their life in a fashion that benefits you and not them? Is there any circumstance where the dog's (horse's, bird's, cat's, etc) feelings might take priority? You (plural "you") seem to feel this way about sex but nothing else.
Do you think it is right to surgically alter a living being to convenience someone else? Especially, do you believe in pediatric neutering ("so they never even know what they are missing") even though it has been proven detrimental to many animals' health?
How do you feel about the recent spate of new anti Zoo laws openly passed because no harm could be found to prosecute under existing abuse law?
I think that there is a way to have a mutually beneficial relationship with a pet. For instance, I own a dog, and when I take her for a walk I keep her on a leash. Although if she had her way she might not want to be on a leash, I keep her on it since otherwise she would walk into traffic. The same is true with keeping her in a house, she may think she wants to run outside, but she doesn't know that she would be unsuccessful on her own in the outside world. I think in both sex and imprisonment, us humans have better judgement than pets, and we should not abuse our intelligence for our own interests.
Neutering a dog isn't just for the convenience of humans, it also helps the dog behaviourally. Although I am not a animal psychologist or anything, my understanding is that dogs are less sexually frustrated after being neutered. Again, I may be wrong, not saying there isn't a case for not neutering animals, but I am saying there are positive benefits of the procedure as well.
Can't speak for any specific legislation or examples, but I can say not all damage is physical or visible.
1) - That's a fine example of dismissing consent when it's convenient for you, but trying to justify it only for actions which you condemn. Why doesn't consent matter for being leashed, going to the vet, being neutered , being imprisoned (to use your terms)? How are these not abuses of our intelligence for our own interests, but providing an outlet for sex is?
2) Neutering a dog is certainly not in the dog's interest. As for behavior, that pendulum swings both ways as there are some behaviors which are aggrivated by the hormonal changes. So you're justifying a surgical modification which has some serious risks, to alleviate a (very minor) problem that could be resolved other ways, such as how a zoophile resolves it? And you're proposing that what we're doing is unethical?
3) A man can beat his wife or cause emotional trauma, it happens sometimes. Should we make heterosexual relationships illegal? I bet I can produce far more statistics supporting spousal abuse than you can for emotional trauma from zoophiles.
I just feel morally like there is a difference between how people usually keep pets and how zoophiles do. If I keep a dog on a leash, that's not a matter of consent, it's a matter of doing something in the dogs interest. If I keep a dog from killing itself, that seems like me acting in the dogs favor, but I don't think anyone has sex with a dog other than if they desire it as well.
I don't know the science. I will read up on it and get back to you. I by default agree with the scientific community, since I trust they are adept at doing their job, but that doesn't mean I'm right.
I am against sexual abuse. In the case of humans, people can (hopefully) communicate their problems. Dog's can't, at least not in front of a jury to convict or acquit beyond the reasonable doubt.
You are entitled to your opinion and I do not fault you for it, but that you find something offensive is not a valid reason for censure.
I can eat pork in America with impunity, but in parts of the Middle East it is a greivous crime. Is this also valid if, those people feel it is repulsive, to enforce that prohibition upon others? If I should find it repugnant that a man has sex with a woman, and that I convince many neighbors to agree, would it then be wrong for a man to have sex with a woman?
You're still just handwaving off consent, do you not see this? Why is consnet necessary for a mutualy pleasurable, but to you abhorent, encouter but not necessary for other actions which include unecessary surgeries for your convenience? You cannot possibly believe that neutering an animal is in it's best interests, it is done merely for the convenience of the human who owns it.
I can legally, and largely without censure, euthanize a dog which is merely inconvenient to me without it's consent, but if I redirect Fido's leg-humping into a handjob I'm crossing the line and need his consent?
I can raise livestock in cramped conditions, force breed them, and slaughter them at will without their consent, but I can't pleasure myself and a cow without her consent? Assuming that the cow gets absolutely zero pleasure from the activity, is that still worse than killing her? Why do I need her consent to stick my penis in her, but not if I am inserting tools for AI?
I'm not suggesting that I should not need her consent, I personally think I should have it and that it is entirely possible to get it. Even if Bessie the cow isn't really interested in me, but simply tolerates it because she just doesn't care enough to walk away, how is that worse than AI? Than selling her? Than killing her? Why do you not require her consent for these other, far more invasive actions? Is it OK for me to slaughter her, but fuck her dead corspe? By the logic presented, it's OK to slaughter her and once she's dead, I don't need her consent because she's just meat, no? If not, why not?
I am as well, but you're presuming that it's abusive without providing any evidence for that always being the case, which is why I presented the man who beats his wife. Just because some cases show abuse, it does not follow that all cases imply abuse.
I'll reply here since it seems the least duplicating.
1) I do understand your point, although:
a. Morality is by its nature seldom absolute
b. Many fun things people do with pets are not "in the animal's interest" strictly speaking, but are still enjoyable and just-fine morally. Sharing a bite of steak with a dog may suggest that human food is okay, it isn't the best balanced diet, but it the animal enjoys it, the human gets a sense of satisfaction, bonds are built.
c. Whether humans enjoy something doesn't affect its morality, does it? Hugging a dog may be completely foreign to the animal but still people do it because THEY enjoy it, and it's not a problem for the animal.
d. I'm not sure what you mean by "how zoophiles do." :)
2) One hotbutton issue at a time... I'll just say:
a. The scientific community is mixed on neutering, particularly early neutering, and
b. What you call "helps the dog behaviorally" some might call "modifies the dog's natural behavior for one's own convenience".
3) We're all against sexual abuse. The fact that abuse CAN happen doesn't mean that therefore all relationships of such a nature ARE abusive, I hope you agree.
(Repeatedly edited for format, sorry)
Re #2:
Personal experience here, but my neutered boy (not my choice) so far has been the only dog around here that managed to slip through and tie himself with a female in heat. So much for reducing their sexual frustration eh? :\^)
I work with mostly intact dogs and three neutered and one sterilised ones. The later four are chronically getting overweight, even when I reduce the food to almost nothing. I personally like the character of intact dogs much more, they're a lot more lively and active. Health wise, there are more risk for an neutered dog than an intact dog. I don't see any benefit in having them neutered.
!. I should have made it clear that "rule every detail of their life" was the primary complaint and "imprison" was more about the lack of a remedy. My horse is a stud. He can't be in parades and public trail rides because people fear him. I have been told "I don't care if your horse is well mannered and under control, other people will lose control of their horses because of him." Many supposed horse experts keep stallions in isolated stalls and only bring them out under tight security for breeding. Then they wonder why the horse rebels.
Many "vicious breed" dogs suffer similar fates. Just visit any "Pit Bull" club for a list of horror stories. To be continued in #2
2.I am an expert trainer and have been consulted by governments and individuals for advice on animal behavior. The dog's primary sex organ is his nose. Removing organs on the other end of the dog will not change his desire to chase sex only what he can do when he catches it.
Your mistake is listening to the PETA backed propaganda re pediatric neutering. Puberty is vitally necessary to mammals to close or end growth processes. Look up "record tallest dog" They are all Great Danes neutered as puppies so their bones never stop growing and they all die at about 7 years old from bone cancer.
But you want a real test? Just go to your local shelter or vet and tell them that you want your dog vasectomized or ligated. Those are equally certain methods of birth control but you will not find them embraced.
3.The most famous case was in Enumclaw, Washington. The man that died of internal injuries after sex with a stallion was a friend of mine. He was drunk and foolish when he did it which is never a good idea around horses but what really killed him was prejudice. He refused care because he was worried that he would lose his job if it came out that he had sex with animals. You can't force care on anyone legally so his friends waited until he passed out to take him to the hospital. That was too late.
In the investigation afterwards, the police determined that the horse was in good health physically and had not been abused so they couldn't charge anyone. The local "rescue" started a crusade to change the law to allow prosecution without evidence of harm or abuse. Their justification was that people who abuse animals go on to abuse children. What this has to do with loving a 1200 lb horse that hasn't been abused we still don't know.
I agree that emotional connection exists. You and other posts has convinced me it is easily on par with one between people.
I appreciate your concern, and if all people were like that I might think differently. However, that doesn't mean all people will show the same (or any) concern for amimal consent. You mention that humans can manipulate animals into sexual relationships with each other and bypass will. If that's true, they can certainly do it with humans, and we reach a moral gray area.
Very interesting read. I never considered that the things that make unconsenting sex damaging to humans is mostly social taboo, whereas that stigma doesn't affect animals. In that regard, my opinion is changed.
However, I still have my doubts. The author acknowledges that there will always be the "lonely shephard" who abuses animals in his own interest. It is a more complicated moral question than I am qualified to answer concerning whether or not the potential damage done to animal by such a person should override the desires of more caring zoophiles, yet that conclusion is not out of the question. I also have to disagree with the author that an animal can always refuse advances. A great dane and a horse can. A smaller animal can't necessarily.
There is something that might improve you perspective. Go to Youtube and watch some natural mating vids. That "lonely shephard" is a far gentler and more considerate lover than any ram. He must be, he doesn't have a spring loaded fibrous penis or always ejaculate on the first thrust.
Certainly there is room to complain about people harming animals far smaller than themselves but you have your work cut out if you want to convince me that any human can harm any full sized horse with his penis. The amazing thing is that she can even feel it.
Where we part ways is in what to do about it. Persecuting people for even mentioning sex outside of species is counter-productive. How has "zero tolerance" worked in the drug business? I have always worked to educate newcomers in the possible and the unworkable. You see, I was born this way and did not have the benefit of any education or support in dealing with a strange and confusing sexuality.
We have our "misfires", mostly what we call "fencehoppers". They are people so determined to find sexual relief that they will trespass and take chances with animals strange to them. A few even find the risk inherent in this to be a "turn on".
In a less savory neighborhood on the internet I have been opposing an individual that advocates just climbing the fence and engaging any random bull you see in sex. I think he is a troll trying to get foolish youngsters hurt for his personal entertainment. But that is the norm these days. Since we can't educate without drawing hordes of anti sex crusaders it is left to trolls and porn pushers to instruct the young.
I don't see what you alone could do about this but perhaps it might give you a small glimpse into the heart of an "animal fucker".
I'm not going to try and change your perspective, you're going to continue believing what you think is wrong because you don't share the same attraction as we do. That is okay.
However, I can tell you that zoophiles love their animals... Obviously. The "morally correct" zoophile will treat their dog better than any human. This being said of course there are ass holes that take advantage of them and abuse animals. They aren't welcome here. We want our animals to feel safe around us, not take advantage of them, and simply love them. It isn't always sexual either, so it isn't as perverted as some wi'll claim. Most of the sexual contact is there to please the animal more so than the human.
Consent. Ah, this one again. A sexual mature animal needs to have sex. There is no ambiguity there, and it shouldn't be considered rape to have sex with an animal simply because they can't speak english and say they want it. They can speak through actions. You don't pull the dogs dick out and force it inside of you, you bend over and let it do what comes naturally. That is the dog giving consent. I can't speak for male human on female animal though, I simply haven't tried that end of the spectrum. Nobody is going to argue that forcing a poor dog on its back and shoving their dick in them is wrong if they clearly don't want it. There are ways for consent as well in female animals that you can read, however I am not experienced in that end.
Male dogs are easy, either want to be touched, or growl when you even try to move your hand down there. They don't talk, sure. But they aren't mindless. They know sex feels good, and once they know you are not going to huRT them, they come through.
Once again, you can't see it exactly from our point of view as well because you do not share the atteaction. All I can ask is that you understand it goes deeper than just "animal rape, you are fucked in the head"
Oh, to answer the other half of 2, there are arguments out there that claim we are projecting things onto how an animal feels on the situation. Sure it could be true to an extent, but how would you explain "new" animals who have never had sexual contact, own up to the idea and discover they like their dick touched. Is really as simple as, oh this feels good, and I need sexual release, let's let this happen.
Explore the subreddit. Don't go look at the sexual porn, because you aren't going to like it. That'd be like making a straifht guy watch gay porn and expecting them to like it. Or a fetishes you aren't into. Instead see some of the actual posts out there about loving their animals.
ad 1: Do you really believe human feelings of love are superior? More advanced? Well, when I take a good look into society and human love, I see a history of cheating, deceit, power games, domestic abuse and violence, emotional manipulation, etc. pp.
So, is this idealised human love you are bringing into the discussion really the rule in humans? Or isn´t it just an illusion that quickly fades away when you are actually analysing human relationships, an ideal only a very select few bipeds are able to live to its fullest extend? From the neurochemical perspective, all mammals share the same biochemical mechanisms...are you familiar with the hormone Oxytocin? This so called "love hormone" basically is responsible for bonding and forming relationships and it is present and working in all mammals. There are vast archives with stories and anecdotes of animals forming longtime partnerships, friendships with their own species, with other non human species and with humans. What I think yoou´re suffering from is anthropocentrism here. With all this cruelty humans do in the name of love and with all the proof of animals being able to show an at least similar potential to forming strong bonds and friendships, I wouldn´t be so sure of a human superiority in love as you are. Returning to your original question, I´d say that it is absolutely possible for an animal to form strong emotional bonds and deep connections to almost any other lifeform, including humans; and I´d like to add that in some cases, these bonds and connections may even transgress the human level of love.
ad 2: It is true that you cannot simply ask an animal whether it wants to be with you, let alone if it wants to sleep with you. No "Are you horny?", no "Want sum fuk?", sure...but let´s be honest here, how much of "informed verbal consent" is there between "normal", human-on-human couples? Do you really think that every cohabitation of "normal" couples is initiated by "informed verbal consent"? No, most couples just feel when their partners are ready and willing...the longer they are a couple, the less talking is needed, isn´t it?
BTW, I´m not saying that an itching groin is turning you into a Dr Dolittle and I abhor this common idea within our community that lusting after an animal is automatically and miraculously turning a "zoophile" into an animal communications expert, but I´ve personally seen quite a few of animal-human relationships (non zoophile and zoophile) that clearly showed signs of direct and genuine , non verbal communication between human and animal. I´d say it IS possible to genuinely communitcate with animals, but contrary to what many "zoophiles" seem to believe, this communication isn´t something that just develops from fucking animals...it´s something you have to invest time and effort into, gain knowledge and gather experience with a vast number of different animal individuals. Projection actually IS an issue in our community, but you also have to take into account that there is no uniform group of people named "zoophiles", there are many different motives to engage in sex with animals, such as thrillseeking, fetishism, taboo breaking, sadomasochistic tendencies, denigration, to name but a few. You also have to see how zoophilia as one of the three last sexual taboos is what I call a "weirdo magnet", apparently some mental cases feel attracted to our community because they think they might not get judged as quickly with us "animal fuckers". There also are many insecure folks out there to whom "zoophilia" seems like a viable alternative because animals don´t judge your "weak first time performance" or that you´re not "well equipped"...
Well, for the "unintentional scarring" thing, you might want to search my contributed threads for one named "A little thank you and something I want to share". I included some pictures of my mare and me, of course non pornographic ones...look at these pictures and tell me if you see a "mentally scarred" horse there...
ad 3: Well, I don´t exactly know whether I really want to change your perspective. I´ve tried it for decades now to change people´s perception of zoophilia, but to no avail. I guess there´s nothing I can write or say to really change your mind, you have to see it right in front of you, before your very eyes to really have a wholistic impact on your weltbild. What we zoophiles say and write is irrelevant; what we do and what we don´t do is what people judge us by. I could throw in shitpiles of pro zoophilia texts in here, with all these chivalrous ideals , but when the antithesis is just two clicks away (animal pornography, for example, or our little fencehopping "zoo" loudmouth Mr A-hole), none of that matters anymore.
Is there actually a point in trying to change your opinion? As far as I am concerned, I´m fully aware of the controversial nature of my sexual orientation and absolutely give anyone the right to feel disgusted or repelled.I even think having a powerful opposition is necessary to advancing our zoo ideals; without all of these "hateful" assholes pointing out the logical loopholes in our "zoo agenda", there would be no progress.
Maybe the best I have to offer to change your mind are the pictures I mentioned above. I was with my mare for more than two decades, never cheated on her although possibilities were always present, I did everything to make her life good and pleasurable for her, even when that meant to live on 50 Euros for a whole month because of the vet bills. Even many of the other horseowners recognised our deep realtionship and I often heard "You two love each other so much" and even stuff like "I envy your mare. I wish my friend/man would treat me like you treat your mare". I "survived" in several public stables although I had a regular and vital sex life with my mare...and people at least had their suspicions about her and me, for sure. People saw her to thrive from our relationship...being the shinycoat, self confident, playful,brighteyed mare with a strong character she was, people never got the idea our relationship was harmful in any way to her.
If you only would open up to the idea that in SOME cases, animal-human relationships might not be so horrific and demand closer examination to identify their harm potential, that would be a great progress. I don´t want you to do the usual "black and white" thinking routine. Zoophilia is not bad or good per se. Zoophilia is zoophilia, a rare emotional and sexual attachment to an animal; bestialisty is bestiality, any kind of sex act with an animal...don´t judge the group, judge the individuals. I´ve zoo friends who treat their animal partners like gods and goddesses, I know normals who do this too. I know normals terribly neglecting their animals and I´ve met "zoos" doing this, too. Don´t judge the practice of bestiality, or the orientation of zoophilia. Judge the individuals instead. It is indeed a big progress for us zoophiles if we´re not automatically put in the same drawer as animal sadists and mindless, irresponsible bestialists. That would be a very good and promising start...
While it probably isn't completely identical, because humans have additional parts of it related to social context and rationalization, the basic mechanisms of emotional connection are about the same between humans and other highly social mammals like dogs and horses. Positive experiences and proximity produce a conditioned response involving the release of endorphins and oxytocin for both humans and dogs, as has been demonstrated in at least one study (citable upon request, currently on a phone). That is a demonstrable emotional connection.
Animals can consent in their way, meaning that they can feel that what is happening is good or bad and use body language to express that. In essence, consent is when they either actively participate without coercion, or demonstrate that they like what is happening and want it to keep happening. This isn't the sort of informed consent used, for example, in contract law or medical consent forms, but that form is pretty much impossible to ensure in the bedroom anyway, at least without a common understanding of what information needs to be passed between people for it to be properly informed.
Projection is a possibility, of course, but being properly educated on your partner's body language and staying aware of that before, during, and after the act makes that less likely to be a problem. Also, a mentally scarred animal will show symptoms of that like depression, anxiety, aggression, etc. If you see signs of this in someone else's animals, I think that deserves investigation, though I'm not sure what legal measures could be taken with so little information.
Not so much a message as the opening to a conversation: why do you think it's wrong? If it's simply a matter of visceral disgust, then all I can say is that your feelings about actions that don't affect you don't give you any right to stop those actions. If there are more well thought out reasons, like the consent argument, that would need further discussion. As an overview, I recommend the paper "What (if Anything) is Wrong with Bestiality?" by Neil Levy, which presents counterpoints to the most common arguments that bestiality is morally wrong.
I look forward to further conversation with you and people like you, the curious but unconvinced.
I don't, there should be at least a difference. They think differently.
They are still capable of having big bonds with us, though. I do still think animals can have bigger bonds than humans can.
Considering how humans are, I don't really see humans as very lovable creatures.
Yes.
This is done with their mating rituals. It could be their own species mating rituals (which would be the most common) or even have an unique way of showing it. They always have a way of showing what they want and there's no reason they don't understand what they are doing.
I'll give an example.
For male dogs, they can try to mount you.
For female dogs, they lift their tail and present their genitals.
This is just a basic mating ritual of theirs and there's many others.
Of course, the human can also make the first move. And it depends on the animal's reaction if it's a yes or a no.
I'd say they can use their mating rituals after the human made the move. For example the human tries to touch the dog's genitals, and the male dog will try to mount the human. And for females they will flag, which is presenting her vagina.
In short: Body language.
Deep inside? Kind of. Really? Not really that much.
They aren't humans nor human children who would be greatly affected by it, so there's not much to worry about.
Everything I just said.
But here's a few things to keep in mind that I think are VERY important to keep in mind.
It's not needed to survive, but they sure do crave for it because they also have sexual urges.
It does make them pretty happy and excited. They obviously enjoy it, too.
Is it right for a dog to have sex with a wolf? (They can reproduce together, but they aren't the same animals.)
Is it right for a dog to have sex with a fox? (They can't reproduce together, but they're still in the same family.)
Is it right for a dog to have sex with a cat? (They aren't closely related and can't reproduce together. (Let's also ignore the size difference here.))
Is it right for a dog to have sex with a monkey? (They aren't closely related and can't reproduce together. But they are closely related to humans.)
At what point do you think it's rape and why?
This can really change other's minds and actually affects a lot of humans.
I've seen a lot of humans who say: ''Ewww it's disgusting. It should be banned just because it is.''
This might change your view of zoophiles, but it actually shouldn't. We aren't like them in any way.
You know when they want to play, take a walk, eat, drink, etc. too.
If I could have you walk away with two thoughts, it would be: First, appreciation for putting aside judgment to raise some intelligent and fair questions; and second, there is not one monolithic block of people who are "zoophiles" so please be aware of this when forming ideas.
No doubt there are animal rapists in the world, just as there are human rapists. People here will be just as outraged as the "normals" - maybe more so - when such cases of acting against the animal's wishes are brought to light.
The legal issue is thorny - animal abuse laws already exist. Lately there is additional effort to create specific laws against sexual contact. Depending how cynical you are, one might find this more a factor of which side is more willing to spend money on lobbyists (after all, what politician is going to speak up AGAINST laws prohibiting sex with animals, even if they aren't valid?).
The moral argument is what it is. Some people think sex outside of marriage is morally wrong, or that birth control is morally wrong. Morality is morality, a good topic to bring up with your minister, rabbi, etc., but a shaky basis for objective law and imprisoning people.
I think many pet owners often don't take the time to understand animals. Not that I'm a fan of the dog training shows or horse-whisperer lectures, but a lot of "zoophiles" will watch these and wonder how it's possible for humans to NOT pick up on the cues the animal is obviously giving. I think this is at the heart of the popular opinion that animals don't have their own opinions or can't communicate a desire: A majority of pet owners sadly don't have the aptitude or interest in learning the language. They suffer under the delusion that animals are infantile fuzzy toys one should baby-talk to, rather than seeing them as fully-developed adults of their species.
Compounding this, most people in the US are conditioned to think it's irresponsible not to neuter an animal, which in addition to that argument's own faults also means that most people in the US are not around intact animals to understand how they behave and what interests they have, so not only do they not know the language, they also wouldn't understand the message.
Hopefully this offers you some food for thought, so you can form your own opinions or ask further questions.
just a word to say that i am happy to see all of the very well thought out responses here; this is a good thread.
and another word to say that i really hope you take the time to read them, /u/colorado777 .. and hopefully ask more questions (though i hate to be greedy -- just asking these questions, reading the responses and thinking about them is already many steps ahead of the majority of non-zoophiles).
thank you for coming here with civility and an open mind.
I'm aware of a case that when an owner died, the dog died within 3 weeks of the owner's death. Animal bonds can be extremely strong, bonds aren't forged by just having a talk, you can connect on many levels. Just turn on google and see the many cases of extremely strong bonds animals form. Not only humans are capable of having emotions and bonds, it is however one thing to see a bond and its strength than actually "researching" how strong it is and scale it 1 - 100 Odd thing, I've tried to get into many relations, you know, everyone had them, so I just need to find the right gal or guy, because that's how things roll. All relations pretty much ran short because I've lacked any feelings that go past "you're a friend, I like you, but I don't feel anything more than that" (yay the infamous friendzone), and I do have more feelings and connections to dogs. Not sure how to explain it with dogs, I don't see them as different from me (I see so much things alike) When you have a partner, or had a partner, you want to be with them, make them happy, and just when you separate, you kinda itch, its what I have with dogs. I've only recently understood what a relationship means. It's odd, and I have no idea how to explain any of these feelings I have (the feels meme, its quite accurate) with dogs, that I've never had with humans.
I do definitely believe animals can consent, an animal in the wild is perfectly able to tell a potential mate to get the fuck away or offer a mating. But, please do your own research to it, I mean after all, everyone here can be biased. My biggest fear is the other way around, not that I'm projecting they want sex, but that that I harmed an animal physically or emotionally. If there is -anything- I would be projecting onto them, it would be that I've harmed them. And that's where and why you need to read an animal, which goes further than, tail goes wag: it is happy. Each creature is unique, in their "being", just like humans. They have their ways of expressing themselves, and you really need to listen. So that you wont get a case of: "ohh the dog has its tail raised and walks backwards to me, it wants pleasure time" whilst in reality its telling you about a threat it sees and seeks your support, but doesn't want to let the threat go out of their sight. Quite funny, its like human relations: "listen to your partner, don't just go for it assume its OK" ("because its just an animal" < you hear a lot of people say this) We are no more than any other animal in the world, and no less
listen to your heart, you have your moral compass, and it is yours and there for a reason. I can fully understand the morality questions, its something worth pondering over. And whatever the base is for this moral view, be it religion, raising, first impression, gut feeling or whatever, it is valid.
So what about it, /u/colorado777?
Happy with your answers? I'm quite curious on what you have to say.
I just hope it's not the usual we get from others, because that's getting boring.
Remember what day of the week it is. Someone who comes from r/jesuschristreddit might be otherwise occupied today. Tomorrow you can turn up the pressure a little.
I'm missing something here, aren't I? 'Cuz I don't get it.
It's Sunday, the day that most Christians reserve for worship and rest.
Yeah I don't think they are actually christians.
Luckily that's true, because otherwise OP wouldn't come here and was so polite about this. Don't trust no religious humans, 'specially when talking about things like this.
There are sane intelligent people in all groups, religious and political. It's the loudest 1% of 1% that everyone remembers.
I'm not looking to argue about this further because it's irrelevant, but... They believe in an invisible man they've never seen.
If I were to say fictional characters were real I'd be made fun of, too. But for some damn reason when we slap the word ''religion'' on it and it's from hundreds of years ago, suddenly it's correct.
Humans like them obviously aren't right in the head. And that's coming from someone who isn't mentally healthy and is a zoophile, at least I have chances to think straight and don't believe in illogical stuff like that. Like shit, we're all adults now. We can't be believing in fairytales.
We must have advanced after so many years on this planet. In fact, it's one of the reasons why I gave up on humanity.
You don't even make a little sense when you're religious and support zoophilia: They interfere with each other greatly. It's impossible.
You can't convince me there's nothing wrong with these kind of humans. The end, that's just it.
Look up Epona some day.
Meanwhile,, prove to me beyond a doubt that I exist without calling on my testimony. I bet you can't do it. At some point everyone has to have faith, be it faith in what is, or is not.
Can you prove that I'm not god itself? Can you prove that I'm not a dog who can type? Can you even prove that animals can consent?
Seriously mate, that's not how logic works. We both know very well you exist because you're right now communicating with me. Although... you could be a bot all this time. I have no evidence of it, so I guess I can't prove that.
But you have to realize that this is not how this works in any way: If you claim something, you need evidence. Thing is, religious humans don't have evidence a god exists. It's simple, that's just where it ends.
And having faith? That's bullshit, we both know that.
Okay then: It's ethical to kill and rape animals. Evidence: Faith and because I have a holy book. There you have it!
I have faith in the fact that it's right, well see ya. I'm off to do such things.
Meanwhile, I'll make a fictional book and have gullible humans believe it. They HAVE to believe it, why would they believe in a book written thousands of years ago when humans were even more dumber than now, if instead they can have a newer updated book?
You know what's funny? If religion was invented today humans wouldn't have fallen for this bullshit.
I bet my dick 'n sack we'd be so more advanced in humans like them didn't waste time talking to their imaginary friend. These idiots even got themselves and others hurt. Look at ISIS.
Yep, they truly are smart humans. Yeahahaha, I really see it. Everything in life can't be just a coincidence!
Sometimes I wonder, do humans like them never doubt shit like this? Of course they don't, nothing but a brainwashed trained animal or just a sheep.
I'm surprised this species survived like this, to be honest. And that's why I want it to die out already.
What has the Epona cult of the Celts and Romans to do with this? I doubt heavily that fucking horses was seen as religious practice, just as fucking a cow in India won´t grant you much kudos from Indians.
Fun fact: Plutarch wrote that Epona as the goddess of the cavallery was the result of a cohabitation of a mare and a misogynistic Roman named Fulvius Stella...thus exactly pointing out one of the main "reasons" to engage in bestiality, misogynia or misandria, hate of women and men.
I really don´t want to contradict your anti religious rant here, but there is something you probably should take into consideration here. It is a scientifically proven fact there are "circuits" in the human brain directly responding to "religious" feelings. Several scientists have managed to electromagnetically stimulate the brain region and the ones tested reported several "epiphanies" and "religious pathos". It seems as if so called religious feelings are natural for humans, not a twisted brain function society promotes and perpetuates. Mind you, the feelings are natural, the organised religions are not.
I don´t subscribe to your point above and say that it CAN make sense when you´re religious AND a zoo; it just depends on what you understand as your religion. Agreed, it really is stupid to believe in Catholic Dogma and fuck animals...what the "religion of clemency" is thinking of us "animal fuckers" can be read in the Old Testament´s section of Leviticus...and it´s not exactly nice. But I do think you actually can believe in a superior entity, even the Christian God and also be a zoophile...in the end, Christianity says that God is love. And love is what zoophilia should be all about. No conflicts here.
Sorry buddy, no contradiction here.
And what does that change even if it was true? I don't believe in religious bullshit and neither should any human.
For me, you're still extremely dumb, delusional and silly if you are religious. If I can easily see trough bullshit, so can you.
We're the damn same fucking species and I'm not someone with a super brain, I'm just another naked ape like anyone else.
Yeah sure, believing in a fictional comic from thousands of years ago is now a ''thing'' in our brains. Maybe we've developed that way because so many sheeple were religious? I guess that's evidence humans can't be saved, other than genocide so peace will be back on earth.
Unless we all suddenly live in a way nobody believes in this bullshit we might grow back to normal again. And of course at the same time humanity would already advance faster to begin with, because they wouldn't be talking to air, sacrificing sheep or even humans, wars because of things like ISIS, etc.
Sure, but I always expected zoophiles to be more rational. Although I still see a conflict.
As a zoophile, it's very likely you support zoophilia. Not just because of your urges, but you don't fall for the public's shit: You hold your own opinion and don't get yourself controlled by society. You have evidence on your side, too.
But religion is exactly the opposite. You fall for the public's shit because they brainwashed you at some point.
There's no evidence and you're living how society wants you to live. That's a big conflict to me.
I guess my ''teammates'' dissapoint me every day more and more. But I already know why, and I probably shouldn't judge humans for being zoophiles, but rather being so human.
And it also says that you'll burn for eternity if you sleep with an animal.
Yep, no conflicts here. If you believe in the christian god and you don't think you'll land up in the so called hell after you die because you've slept with an animal, then there's obviously something wrong.
Why out of all things wouldn't you trust a certain part of christianity? Seems like you'd be picking random parts what's true or not.
Funny, because there's no evidence for any of it at all. So it doesn't even make any sense if you're picking certain parts of a religion.
Regardless of what's correct, I'd say that religion isn't something that makes people 'not right in the head'. We're inclined to believe things we were raised with, and in some cases things that bring us comfort. Religion also often has the benefit of being interpretable. People find their own meaning in religious texts, and that meaning needn't conflict with zoophilia.
OK, several people now have made the presumption that /r/jesuschristreddit is a religious sub, have any of you actually looked at it?
Sorry about that, I've been driving all day. I thought your answers were insightful, although I'm not completely convinced. I guess to me I just can't help feeling like animals are not intelligent enough to make rational decisions, especially concerning something like cross-species sex, and humans have an obligation to not take advantage of their animal instinct. I've read most of the answers, I will have time to respond to more tonight.
there's very little rational thought going on where sex is involved. it's kindof the opposite ... if sex required rational thought, life wouldn't still exist. mating/reproduction is too critical to require something as complex as (what we consider) rational thought.
just as an example... playing fetch with a dog is taking advantage of their animal instinct to chase a moving object.
this question was brought up by another, iirc .. what makes sex special and different? again, as long as no harm occurs, there should be nothing to worry about. the hangups are entirely human and entirely irrelevant to the animal.
Put the other way around, given that their level of intelligence is satisfactory to decide/give-in to being physical with other partners (same-species and non-human different-species), why is a greater level of intelligence uniquely required for humans? Almost certainly a more cautious, more hygienic, and more understanding partner....
I will also be interested to hear more about whether the argument is "it is inappropriate" or "it is abusive."
I am concerned about it abusively. I agree that some owners may be able to tell whether an animal wants sex or not. That doesn't mean:
a. That it is ultimately good for the animal
or
b. That owners won't abuse this power. If an animal is beaten, a jury can tell. If an animal is starved, a jury can tell. If it is raped, a jury can't.
One thing I didn't consider is the fact that animals don't really give consent with other animals. This is a good point, since I guess we don't hold animals to the same standards as humans. However, I still think that humans are selfish to use animals who don't know much better for sex. I can't speak as to whether the long term effect on animals is good or not, but if it wasn't, I don't see how an animal could escape an abusive relationship.
Wright-one made a pretty good point on this, but I'm really curious to what you have to say to my argument.
My guy is far stronger and faster than any human. He has super vision that can see all around him at the same time and dual directional super hearing. In his environment he is the superior one and is careful not to take advantage of me.
In the human world I am the superior and he bows to my advantages.
We have sex in his world.
Just wanted to give an update on my opinion.
I concede that in some circumstances, I can find no moral objection to beastiality. I still don't think that it should be legal, given I still believe it could be taken advantage of by animal abusers. However you guys have more than proven to me that it is possible to do in a mutually beneficial and harmless way.
Thank you for enlightening me on something I considered so morally unambiguous, and changing my opinion entirely. Best of luck.
I've heard several zoophiles make a similar argument to you. The argument going that good, moral zoophiles are unlikely to get caught by these laws and can effectively hide, but the laws made it easier to prosecute those who do immoral things.
I can understand this argument, and to some extent I even sympathize with it, but for a variety of reasons I don't agree. One of those is that criminalizing behavior tends to drive it underground, where having it in the open makes it easier to deal with issues.
Consider, for instance, the legislation homosexuality, which prevented research difficult and caused a lot of misconceptions regarding health, as well as encouraging risky behaviors like promiscuity.
Or the era of prohibition, where instead of disappearing, alcohol use began to fuel organized crime - with an obvious parallel with illicit drugs in modern times.
Like I said, I can see the arguments both ways. But driving things underground can have a lot of negative effects, and it is important to try to understand those potential issues before deciding whether legalization or criminalization is the way to go.
Just something to think about, if you feel like it, at some point. However, for now, I just wanted to say that I am impressed with you. it is not easy to admit to changing your mind, especially on an issue that has strong emotional connections like this topic does. I appreciate that you gave us the opportunity, even.
To add, with it being legal in the capacity that the harm free approach is not punished, we can research it more and refine our metrics for determining abusive or coercive sexual contact outside of the bedroom, whereas right now not even that is being done, really.
This... I've said before - we are never going to have valid research and data on sex with animals until harm-free bestiality is legalized.
Honestly I doubt there will ever be anything other than pretty small-sample-size, independent research and case studies on the topic. I don't think there's enough interest in it to get the funding to conduct it. That's not to say that there won't be valid research on things that you can look at and apply to sex with animals. Research on sexual injuries, genital physiology, and the psychological effects of semen collection/artificial insemination compared to natural mating might all provide useful insight.
I agree with this.
Animals abusers can do it so easily, without ever getting caught.
I'm not sure about the law, though. I always find it sad that innocent zoophiles like us can get caught or that animals will likely die after being taken from their owner.
And there's not many others who change their opinions like you. How nice of you not to be like anyone else and actually give us a chance.
I personally don't care much, but I guess this community will probably be happy with it.
Thanks for "outsider" insight, and your openmindedness to challenging some preconceptions.
you may be surprised to hear this, but there seem to be many zoophiles who also don't think it should be legal for similar reasons. the thought that perhaps more people would try it just for the heck of it but not be concerned about the animal's welfare is a strong argument for keeping it illegal. on the other hand, you have what /u/amorebestia said elsewhere - that making it legal allows for science to help understand it and perhaps find ways of making sure sexual interactions were not abusive.
I just dont understand how a sub can be so inactive in posts but more active than most other subs in the comments. really 60 comments is close to the norm here
[removed]
Pardon the late reply. I actually handle a great deal of private and public communication pertaining to /r/zoophilia, so sometimes I take a while to get to certain things. It seems like you've gotten alot of great feedback so far, so I'll try to take that into account and make contributions that add to what you've already read here. You may find that what I have to say isn't too different from the zoophiles of this sub.
Dogs and a number of other mammals undergo sexual and social imprinting. If it doesn't happen with their parents, it does with their human caretakers. Not only is there an incredibly strong filial bond formed in dogs, but it helps form their sense of identity(which I believe someone else alluded to, but outlining the mechanisms helps).
I might even go so far as to say that some nonhuman animals have bonds with their caretakers that exceed most human limits, though of course with a touch less nuance. It would seem that the bonds some nonhuman animals have with their caretakers border on dependence, or even addiction in its magnitude, in cases of hyper-attachment. While I wouldn't advise anyone allow things to reach that point, the fact that their bonds can exceed that of humans in this way is definitely notable.
I'm afraid I can't make many terribly novel contributions here, but I will say this as a minor point: Fitness to offer consent is contingent upon them understanding what they're consenting to, according to many people. It often is said that while they enjoy the feeling, they don't understand the nature of the pleasure and how it is brought about, yet various nonhuman animals have been observed stimulating themselves to orgasm. While it doesn't prove it 100%, it provides evidence that they understand at least that much about sex.
No matter what your thoughts are about bestiality, a zoophile generally pays extreme attention to the welfare of their companions and partners, relative to the average caretaker. Done right, alot of the health benefits that sex offers to humans would probably be conferred to them, though that's not to say that everyone should start doing it.
It's true that some people seeking it today that shouldn't do it, be it by merit of apathy, ignorance, or motivation... but there are also plenty of people, zoo and non zoo alike, that do care and value them, do know about them and their anatomy, and don't have any ill conceived motives. The world attacking it doesn't stop bestiality, it only drives it underground, attracts taboo seekers that may be even less likely to observe proper safety, and restricts the flow and discovery of critical information.
(Talking pretty exclusively about dogs here)
1) I think animals, like people, are individuals. I think they probably see the world differently than us and they probably don't 'fall in love' the same way a lot of/most humans do. I don't think just because the connection is of a different kind that it makes it lesser, inherently.
2) I mean my answer is in 2 parts. First of all, I completely do believe they are able to consent to sex. Female and male dogs alike can be VERY enthusiastic about it (girls flag and back up into you, whine, hump things, while males obviously mount and hump often without being prompted at all (this can even be a problem lol)). I guess I have a hard time believing 'this adult male who is actively trying to insert his penis into a human is NOT consenting to this'. I think you have to be careful and learn to read your animal's body language because some may repress signs of discomfort or disapproval, but having said that it's rare for me to meet an animal that I can't read as saying 'please don't touch me' when it's necessary.
For the latter half of your question, I mean, it worries me, but I've honestly never been able to find clear evidence one way or another. My boy is one of the healthiest behaviourally I know.
Beyond that, we're learning more about dogs/animals every day. For a long time (and even now in some circles) 'dominance' theory was really prevalent, and people pinned their dogs to make them 'submit' to their will. They were only trying to do what was right/best for their animal, but we know now they were causing harm. To the best of my knowledge my relationship is causing happiness, greater bonding, and pleasure, and I have absolutely zero reason to suspect otherwise. You can only ever do your best for an animal.
And finally, something I've brought up before - kinda weird to worry about whether an animal 'can consent' to sex when we eat and breed them (with no care for what they want) every day.
3) I guess I would just wonder... why? Do you believe animals class 'sex' the same way as humans do - something special and very different to all other kinds of contact? What's the difference between a dog licking your face and licking your genitals - sexual pleasure? Because that makes no difference to the animal (other than 'my human likes it, I'll do it more!'). Why is it wrong to let your dog hump you instead of your best pillows? Why is it bad to penetrate a large animal yourself, and in that case, are you also adverse to breeding (which often involves more force/coercion).