submitted 2017-08-03 00:03:53 by thelongestusernameeebanned from the aquarium touch tank
SCP_2547 6 points on 2017-08-03 00:50:13
Anti-zoophiles are special.
I don't even bother being bothered by them any more. Sometimes they're fun to talk to, though.
If you pay attention, you can see how evidence and logic isn't really their best thing as they usually try to twist it all around and insult you instead.
More bark than bite and more neckbeard than brain I guess.
Sometimes it gets boring trying to educate them, so I make threats about fingering my dog if they post here and actually do it when they post.
Well you heard it anti-zoo 'tards, want me to pleasure rape a poor innocent doggy that has done nothing wrong and is clearly resisting with her mating rituals? Awwwh take a listen to that, she's moaning crying!
They can be annoying as fuck with their typical human behavior, but I want them back just for a few hours.
Makes me think though, they upvoted one post to hell and I'm pretty sure a lot of them subscribed to this sub.
Can some one get them here? I haven't been to the circus a while and would like to see them use the same excuses over and over again.
Oh and I've been addicted to spreading fun facts lately.
Fun Fact #001:
One anti's reasoning for thinking animals can't give consent is because we don't know what animals think and they don't have a clear language. Funny enough, that human could tell when a dog was hungry or not.
Imagine that human taking care of an animal. Yeah, and we're the ones we can't seem to care for them properly...
Oh, if anti's only admitted to being so wrong it'd be just easier for everyone. I guess it's their loss in the end, because they do know we're always right, and that's why there's so much excuses they make.
And well, there's no way they can stop us from participating in consensual acts.
KynophileDog lover 3 points on 2017-08-03 01:08:09
If they would stick to "God said so" for why bestiality is wrong, stupid though it is, it would at least be consistent. But now that homosexuality is more widely accepted, it would be hypocritical to go that direction, so they attempt to project a standard onto sex and consent that will never be enforced between people, and then pretend that standard is, in fact, the norm, belying the experiences of pretty much anyone with a healthy sex life.
My question with the informed consent argument is this: can you tell me precisely what information needs to be transmitted between parties for there to be informed consent? Because either we can get that through body language from many social mammals or we pretty much never do that even in encounters that both parties would agree were consensual, at least so far as I can determine.
mttcisccrocodiles are beautiful 1 point on 2017-08-03 01:30:52
If they would stick to "God said so" for why bestiality is wrong, stupid though it is, it would at least be consistent. But now that homosexuality is more widely accepted, it would be hypocritical to go that direction
Ohoho, trust me, this is only a tip of the iceberg. If they do so I would be more than pleased to point out a whole list of things that God forbidden, some under a punishment of death, which THEY do. What's more funny, almost once a week.
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-08-03 01:35:34
Well honestly, it's religion.
If you expect logical and ethical ideas from religion, you're far away from the truth.
Not wasting your time with fairytales is a crime, humans! According to our skydaddy, you'll burn for eternity just for not believing!
Ah yes, brings peace to my mind!
I gotta be honest, I despise my life but sometimes I'm really grateful for being an atheist.
mttcisccrocodiles are beautiful 1 point on 2017-08-03 01:43:23
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I can at least say that if they bring up an argument from their very holy book they should do what it says before. I like not to believe in this stupidity too.
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 3 points on 2017-08-03 03:35:06
can you tell me precisely what information needs to be transmitted between parties for there to be informed consent?
I used to hold to this argument so here's my understanding of it. What you can't communicate to an animal is risk of possible injury and what your intent is beyond just the action, the emotional and social implications that are attached for humans. So if someone's not comfortable for those reasons I think that's fair. However, where it falls flat is that we can't communicate these things for any activity we do with animals, so why should sex be less ethical than other physically riskier activities?
Where people finally draw the line in what's okay vs what's not okay is going to be fairly arbitrary. We all have our little hypocrisies and inconsistencies. Personally I don't like the idea of using deliberate training for sexual activity, though by the logic of 'it isn't different than non-sexual activity' it should be fine. The best argument I can come up for it is that it just feels dishonest. People are inconsistent and I think that's okay, as long as they can recognize it and that not everyone is going to have the same limits.
30-30amator equae 7 points on 2017-08-03 02:37:44
"sometimes it gets boring trying to educate them..." One thing that´s obligatory to successful teaching is the willingness of tthe "student" to be taught. Is this the case here? No. So "trying to educate them" is a bit of a sad justification somehow, man. You cannot teach the unteachable.
"...so I make threads (or threats? ;) ) about fingering my dog..." Very immature, man, very immature. Do what you do, but don´t (ab-)use it as a weapon in a stupid online fight. That´s kinda pathetic, you know...as well as instrumentalising your dog; and we zoos want to avoid exactly this at all costs, right?
And pardon me when I ask what you will do when one of those folks on drama or cringeanarchy insult you, but your dog isn´t in the mood? What are your priorities then? See, if I were you, I would try to avoid maneuvering myself into additional ethical and moral dilemmata...we already have enough of them to deal with, don´t you think?
We all know what these subs like the two mentioned above are about, right? We know that it´s not intelligent discussion of a very controversial topic they´re after, but predominantly about finding scapegoats to safely release their anger upon.Can´t you just curb your passive aggressions a slight little bit?
For all the "tu quoque" stuff that´s been pulled off in this thread: well, folks, has this gotten you anywhere, ever? Fact is: zoophilia and sex with animals IS controversial, you know it, I know it, everybody knows it in here.Our opponents have no scientific proof, but we also don´t. Basically, this isn´t a "blind leading the blind" situation, but a "blind fighting the blind" one...
"...I would like to see them using the same excuses over and over..." Well...you don´t have to invite r/drama over here for that, just take a good and unprejudiced look at what we usually come up with...;)
"...they do know we´re always right"...must be some parallel universe´s "zoo community" you´re talking about, ´cause I see lots of totally wrong claims here. We have anecdotal evidence, at best. The sensationalist media and of course the lots and lots of cases that make first class eyecatcher headlines contribute their fair share to the unfavourable picture of us as a group, so what do you expect? And be honest, you aren´t doing this to "educate", you´re replying in these subs practically for the same reasons your "opponents" do...to release your anger because your life isn´t what you want it to be...
Think about that for a while...
Reddit is open to use for everyone, so it´s only natural that our sub gets some unwanted attention, isn´t it? And by trolling , be it your style, spiced with passive aggression or be it the Aluzky trademark fake ass scientific style ("citation needed"...I still wonder if he thinks that "citation" is a synonym for the cock of a dog that doesn´t belong to him), you will not only fail to "educate" , you will actually fuel their anger. And that anger will hit us all, not just you as the one responsible for it.
Actually I don´t give a flying f whether you continue with this or not, it doesn´t matter anyway, but I just wanted to share my thoughts on your actions in these "hostile" subs and let you know that I consider them very immature and inappropriate, even detrimental for our cause. Maybe you want to take a step back and ask yourself if this is what you wanna stand for, what you want to be known for...is it?
the_egoldstein 1 point on 2017-08-03 02:46:27
or be it the Aluzky trademark fake ass scientific style ("citation needed"...I still wonder if he thinks that "citation" is a synonym for the cock of a dog that doesn´t belong to him)
The Chevrolet Citation is a compact car marketed by Chevrolet for model years 1980–1985 in two-door coupe, three-door hatchback, and five-door hatchback bodystyles. Introduced in April 1979 for model year 1980, the Citation superseded the Chevrolet Nova.
The Citation was significantly downsized compared to the Nova it was replacing. As a variant of the GM X platform, the Citation was adapted for front-wheel drive and was manufactured with badge engineered variants including the Buick Skylark, Oldsmobile Omega, and Pontiac Phoenix.
I always like to give others taste of their own medicine, but with my own extra twist added to it.
They're immature too and start threatening me. Well, I'll do it too.
That´s kinda pathetic, you know...as well as instrumentalising your dog; and we zoos want to avoid exactly this at all costs, right? And pardon me when I ask what you will do when one of those folks on drama or cringeanarchy insult you, but your dog isn´t in the mood? What are your priorities then? See, if I were you, I would try to avoid maneuvering myself into ethical and moral dilemmata...
I don't blame you for not knowing, but I've said this before.
If she isn't in the mood, I save it for later. Simple.
And there's nothing wrong with fingering her as long as she wants it. It's not my intention that counts, it's the action that counts.
Our opponents have no scientific proof, but we also don´t. Basically, this isn´t a "blind leading the blind" situation, but a "blind fighting the blind" one...
Our evidence is basic animal behavior. In short: Mating rituals and animals are adults so they are sexually mature. That's basically the evidence we have in short.
And no, I don't need this ''animal translation program'' (before you mention it) who even says it's reliable? Even then, this is all we need.
If you, 30-30, think otherwise: Okay, good for you. It's nice knowing you had sex with animals without being sure if it's ethical or not. Really shows how much you love them, huh?
If they want to say things like ''bestiality has bad effects on animals'' they'd have to prove it first. We don't have to prove shit ourselves.
Can´t you just curb your passive aggressions a slight little bit?
Ah no, no no can not do.
24/7 bitterness isn't something controllable, you know.
And be honest, you aren´t doing this to "educate", you´re replying in these subs practically for the same reasons your "opponents" do...to release your anger because your life isn´t what you want it to be... Think about that for a while...
Oh look, typical internet buddy thinking they're reading my mind.
You should become a psychic! You'd earn some easy money from some gullible humans, because they're the only ones who would believe the shit you said.
Actually, I did want to educate others. Or rather, stand up for ourselves.
That has changed indeed, now I just like to fuck around with the fools. They think they've got me, but they're the ones who start going really aggressive and such...
Oh and ''...to release your anger because your life isn´t what you want it to be...'' of cooourse. Must be easy to say if you've basically got everything, huh?
It's not true, because when I have such thoughts I'd rather think about how to end it all in the most quick and painless way, but that's a whole another topic, riiight?
...must be some parallel universe´s "zoo community" you´re talking about, ´cause I see lots of totally wrong claims here.
Well who knows what I'm talking about? Maybe a parallel universe where you're actually right?
Oh excuse me Aluzky, did you have to take my messsage so literally? You know what I meant.
We're a lot more right than they are. If you don't agree: Okay, good for you, but you don't represent the majority here, luckily.
you will actually fuel their anger
Not really, we see eachother as the same, or at least I do.
They're fools in my eyes, and it's the opposite too.
Even if they are pissed off, I'm happy to piss them off, because that's exactly what they're trying to do too.
Don't you get the point of trolling? There's a reason why I threaten to have sexual contact with animals and actually do it.
And that anger will hit us all
[citation needed]
just wanted to share my thoughts on your actions in these "hostile" subs and let you know that I consider them very immature and inappropriate, even detrimental for our cause. Maybe you want to take a step back and ask yourself if this is what you wanna stand for
Well I want to improve zoophilia for the animals. Thing is, if we all gained lots of respect out of nowhere we won't fix our current problems.
There's many ethics and things that should be fixed, because I think that at this point zoophilia is a threat to many animals.
It's hard to explain, but imagine telling a murderer what they do is right and you respect them. You expect them to ever improve if you encourage them like that? Same thing here.
Also, remember when I actually cared about what others thought of us? You told me to stop giving a shit. (Must be easy to suddenly not care about something, huh?)
And I finally did, and now you say it's bad? But oh my dear, look at me, I am the bad guy now.
You see, zoophilia becomes their problem. I can keep doing what I'm doing, and they can't do a single thing about it.
I enjoy schadenfreude a lot. Everyone gotta have their revenge some time.
I enjoy it even more when it's done against my enemy. If they had the chance, they would take my love away from me and torture us.
I don't care if it ''hurts'' ''us,'' as long as my enemy suffers I win.
Even if they get bothered slightly it's a little victory for me.
what you want to be known for
I've embarrassed myself enough here and have lowered my reputation with my depression and reasons for depression already.
So much that other zoos said I didn't deserve my biggest dream despite having revolved my life around fixing it. Pretty sick if you think about it, and they wonder why I am so bitter and hateful...
Point is, I don't think I care about that. I've done damage enough to my own reputation. I even feel my names I've been known for are tainted.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^'
You made me think, though. What if I invite my witchhunters to this sub?
There's a lot of them, but what if we just invite one over here? You'd love Beemallard for sure.
Everyone would get sick of that 15 year old by now. Mwahahaha, makes me laugh just thinking about him being here.
I think you should also know who you're talking to. I'm not exactly proud of it, but you know very well I'm someone who gets into fights and drama very often. Can't remember how many uproars I've already made now.
It still happens to this day on random places. Good luck man.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^'
Forgot one last thing.
Every time we zoophiles mention we do zoophilic stuff to our animals, they also get triggered.
What, you want us to stop talking from now on?
Let me remind you just regular threads catches their attention and fuels their anger. I'm not doing that much damage compared to anyone else just admitting to having sex with an animal here.
Not wanting to defend fencehopping here (just wanting to remind you of this), but you can't really dislike fencehopping because humans don't want you to have sex with their animals.
Let me just make it easy for you: No one wants us to have sex and kiss with any kind of animal.
No matter what you do here, you're destroying our image in a way.
fuzzyfurry 1 point on 2017-08-03 10:14:51
I've embarrassed myself enough here and have lowered my reputation with my depression and reasons for depression already.
So much that other zoos said I didn't deserve my biggest dream despite having revolved my life around fixing it. Pretty sick if you think about it, and they wonder why I am so bitter and hateful...
It's not about your depression, it's about how you present your opinions in your rants. It's not about you specifically not deserving sex. The world doesn't owe you or anyone else a partner to have sex with for "putting the work in". You are unhealthily focused on getting it, and it makes me uncomfortable because at times you sound far too close to /r/theredpill for my taste.
Recently someone said in /r/morbidquestions
Dogs can't talk, so although we can see them act in a certain way and interpret their signals one way or another, we can't actually hear them communicate "I want it" in the same unambiguous way that you can with a human.
Think about it. How often have you heard a guy say "she's so hot for me, she wants me so much" when it's clear that the woman in question wouldn't touch him with a barge pole?
and it rings true to me, that's why it's very important to lose egocentric sentiments and expectations
SCP_2547 2 points on 2017-08-03 14:08:37
So what makes sex to not be deserved and so different from other things?
If that one homeless man spends 2 years trying to find a job and tries to find all the information he gets? Doesn't he deserve a job even though he spent so much time trying to find one and would be grateful forever?
If that one friendless woman is looking for friends for 2 years, putting in all her effort into making new friends and have the most polite behavior, doesn't she deserve a friend even though she revolved her life around it?
Why should sex be any different than these? I have a willing dog.
There's a difference between the same ''kind'' of humans like me, they don't have a willing girlfriend that wants to have sex with them at all. They don't have a girlfriend that is too small to have sex with, even though everyone else has a big enough girlfriend of the same ''breed.'' I do.
We both ''deserve'' it. I spent so much time and effort into this, you wouldn't know.
There's a reason I became fucking depressed because of it.
If no one deserves sex, why are you all fucking animals every day? You don't fucking deserve it either then. Stop it now. Do it. Everyone should stop right now then. It's not important and nobody deserves it right?
Sorry, but that's the same logic.
If you bother to have sex with an animal, you should at least understand.
I'd wish humans like you would be in the same situation for a second... Sometimes you only understand things when you experience themselves, sadly.
And might I remind you that was a personal attack back then? Because he hates me for no reasons, and double standards are involved.
He abuses my information and thinks of me unfairly.
I have thousands of reasons why I'm obsessed with it, and you all are only making it worse.
I'm not going to bother explaining them, as literally nobody I've met seems to understand that certain humans value things over other things.
And I'd say that's pretty sad, considering we as zoophiles mostly put animals over humans.
It's like someone saying: ''So what if your animal is dead? Just get another one or something.'' to us.
I know it's kind of disgusting to compare this to an animal's death, but I couldn't think of anything else for now.
But you get my point. It's going in the same direction.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-03 22:42:03
I actually think you really don't, because no one here put that much effort into it.
Do you need your daily reminder that your mother supports both "your" dog and your jobless ass? You don't know the first thing about effort. Get lost.
No, really. I have very good reasons for hating you.
SCP_2547 2 points on 2017-08-04 00:39:11
Can you please at least explain what your point is? So what if I don't have a job and get supported by my mom? I am 18.
Yes, almost no one would at this point cam all do it on their own. I know no one who could, at least.
Could you afford a dog AND yourself at that age? If so, that's impressive.
I don't want your everyday job in a store or anything. I'm still studying myself.
There's actually many reasons why I don't have a job yet. If it involves too much human contact, I couldn't do it. If it involves calculating, I couldn't do it.
And finally, since I'm still in school it'll take away my time. I already feel bad for leaving her all alone when I'm in school.
And what do you mean ''your'' dog? She is on my name since forever, and I do have the money to support her. My mother just pays for her things. Except the 40's of euros I spend on her toys and treats a lot of the time.
And since I'm still studying and young, I get money automatically and can actually afford her.
I've had trauma in the past. I'm a bit slower than others and have trouble doing certain things. Now with my depression that doesn't help either.
I do know about effort, because I've put in effort in trying to have sex. You can't tell me it's not true, because to this day I'm still trying, and trying to get information.
For me, yes that is effort. It really is because of my depression and lack of optimism in it. It's something that wears me down way more than you think.
Of course I've put effort in other things in the past, but I really put a lot of effort into this.
Do you know what I've put into that? A lot of energy and time. Why would you judge me for that?
Why is everything suddenly so different when it's sex? What if it was something else that was considered ''not important''?
I seriously don't get it. Replace it with anything else and it's suddenly okay...
If you think I see my girl as unimportant like you claimed before, then you should stop assuming so much. Because I really do care about her.
I always put her up front in many cases.
Only I can decide this, you can't. You really think you may read minds like most humans do, but you really can't.
She's my most important thing, and no, not just because she has a vagina.
If it really was true, wouldn't I have trained her to have sex? Wouldn't I be pissed off when she denies such sex requests?
And if you think so, I think you should really look at some other zoophiles here. If you pay attention to them, it really looks like they're a bit obsessed with sex themselves. Yeah, having sex everyday, sex at 17, repeated fencehopping, etc. isn't an obsession with sex for sure... We suffer from a strange attraction, honestly... what are you even expecting?
Before you think it's an insult, it's not: But you fencehopped.
I'd say that's something completely done out of lust. You went out of your way to do that.
But you know what? That's not true. Because you told me you did it for her. I actually have no reason to deny what you said. Don't you realize you're one of the few who actually made me change my mind about a subject?
I'm not fond of fencehopping, but I am not strongly against it any more as I used to be. Because in the end, I did understand you. Yet you don't understand me and continue to be toxic to me.
I know I'm assuming a lot here, but I'm saying just in case it's what you think, since you've said it before.
You misunderstand me greatly, and it's quite sad to be honest, because it results in unnecessary hate. You treat me like anti-zoophiles treat us.
And what exactly is your reason for hating me? Because I said certain things? I've never done anything wrong.
I can admit my behavior I have displayed in the past months isn't appreciated, but if that is really the only reason... Seriously?
Have I offended you so much that you wanted to kill my girl? What is it exactly?
You're the bad one here, attacking me for no reason and wanting to take my girl away from me.
In case you don't know what I'm saying, you are throwing my IRL information around for ''fun.'' When that gets me in danger, you have killed her. No matter what you think, I'm a good animal owner.
I am suicidal, but I don't kill myself because she's still here. And if I had to, I'd die for her.
And even with my depression I still continue to do the same things as earlier. I am not happy, yet I try to hide it for her as best as I can...
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-04 02:07:57
Can you please at least explain what your point is?
My point is that pretty much all zoophiles had and have to find a way to be support themselves on their own before they could even consider the possibility of having a relationship with an animal. Did you have to go through that? No. You are supported by your fucking mother. Of course, nothing I will say will ever get through your thick skull, because I get it. Your life is soooo goddamn hard. You're 18 and you've never been laid. Boohoo. I'm about to cry.
...
Is that what I need to do to have the privilege of fucking a dog? Buy her 40$ worth of toys? Holy shit, I guess people were right. It is that easy!
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-08-04 02:14:54
I still don't get your point, because my mother promised me to support me, so there's no problem at all.
I had to go trough such thoughts, because I wanted to be sure I'd be giving her a good life and that we'd have enough money for her. And we sure do.
And even if my mother couldn't right now, I still have a lot of money I saved and get enough every few weeks.
I don't see a single problem.
And yes, my life is hard. I have many problems you aren't aware of, and the ones I already mentioned were enough to explain that I have a horrible life.
Anything I say won't get to you either because you're blinded by your own anger, or you could just be really dumb. I wouldn't know, honestly.
My point was is that I still spend a lot of money on her. I've spent more on her than anything.
You really aren't making much sense right now, because you can't hate me for that.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-04 02:22:52
My point was is that I still spend a lot of money on her.
Oh yeah. I'm sure of it. Try getting a mortgage when a fucking shack in the woods costs a quarter of a million. Because that's what I need to get at least to have a dog. Because my mother would never support my dog and I under her roof.
I wish you got caught and your life ruined. Yeah, you got that absolutely right. You "deserve" absolutely no less.
SCP_2547 2 points on 2017-08-04 02:36:47
What exactly is your problem now? I or my mother can support her and I'm doing absolutely nothing wrong.
This hasn't been the case for you, so you're mad at me?
You don't even have a single good reason for why I deserve to be caught and my life ruined.
I've done nothing unethical or wrong.
Really, all this only because you are jealous of me? You're way more immature and illogical than I thought.
And if you really think so, then you are a bad excuse of a zoophile, an animal lover. You surely do love animals if you want to kill one, and even want to ruin an innocent zoophile's life who'll even take care of more animals.
You want to take other's happiness away just because you don't have it yourself. Not even I am like that, which makes you way worse than me.
You might be a bit sick in your head, very sick. Your ethics don't make much sense.
Thinking someone's life should be ruined because they had a little more luck than you... Yep, I'm the fucked up one here.
Not even trying to insult you, but I'm not surprised why your life how it turned out to be. And I barely even know much about you.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-04 02:48:48
I'm mad at you because you can't even be grateful for what you have. If you can't be thankful, then you absolutely don't deserve it.
You're coming here, whining endlessly like your life is some kind of nightmare. In my face. And the face of everybody stuck in the same situation I am. Fucking hell, can't you be grateful for what you have?... Sex or no sex, I would kill to be where you are. I'd butcher an innocent in cold blood and would never even think twice.
Will you shut up about not being to have sex with your dog, holy shit.
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-08-04 03:09:26
Tell me, why aren't you grateful of what you have?
At this exact moment, there are thousands of humans suffering. One example is that there's at least now one human starving to death, and it's obvious why. They didn't have food and luck fucked them over.
There's thousands of humans out there who would fucking endlessly torture to be in your situation. They are in so much pain that they'd do anything to be any of us.
You don't seem grateful of what you have right now. Why aren't you?
Do you know HOW grateful I would be if this happened just once? For that reason, I think most zoophiles here are also ungrateful, considering they all had PiV sex with animals. If I was in their shoes right now, you wouldn't hear me complain about anything.
Yet I still hear them talking about certain shit I've learned to accept. Do I say they should have their lifes ruined?
Again, I have many reasons why I'm not happy with this. I mean, I am really happy with her, but this lack of sex hit me hard because of many reasons.
I bet it wouldn't even help even if I gave you all my reasons, because it doesn't interest you one bit, which kind of defeats the purpose of even talking to you.
But here's something: Depression, the fact that I take things very seriously, etc. all play a part in this too. You don't understand me one bit.
They make this whole virginity thing to me even worse, and it's pretty self-explanatory why. They affect almost everything.
...You'd kill an innocent in cold blood for this, and guess what I would do for us to have sex?
Before you call that all fucked up, we all value different things. I take things very seriously and heavy.
It's not even any different than you killing for a dog. It's both something we want badly, to please both an animal and ourselves.
And by the way, I'd kill more innocents in cold blood for her life, not just one. Even if it had to be my friends or family.
I can completely ignore my misanthropy, and I still would do this.
And in the end...
You wish me to have my life ruined forever just because I'm not completely happy with what I have? I'd say your ethics are fucked up, but you lack them completely.
That makes absolutely no sense.
Have you ever considered that I don't even control such a thing? I tried accepting my fate and I tried to be happy with everything I have, yet I couldn't.
Also, did you know that I am grateful for my girl? I just am not grateful for not being able to have sex.
This is an extremely important thing you miss so much...
The problem is, you don't even want to understand me. It's extremely clear.
Tell me, what exactly is the point of still talking to me if that's true? You seem to be more angry than reasonable.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-08-04 03:22:38
With what he has, it's very much out of his hands, much as he wouldn't like to admit it. Depression like his is inescapable and has a way of turning a good life into one of misery without so much as a taste of the solace of consistency.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-04 03:24:17
Yeah. I need you to tell me this. Obviously I have no idea what depression is.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-08-04 03:34:42
I trust that you do know what it is, of course. That said, the type of depression he has causes... acute problems, including neurodegeneration that considerably outpaces most other forms of depression. It's a dominant, hereditary trait and grows in severity over time, with the prognosis getting worse the longer it's left untreated. For him right now, what he sees as the only way to overcome it, if only temporarily, is that which he makes a point to talk about.
the_egoldstein 1 point on 2017-08-04 04:59:38
You already deleted your account, but...
I understand the railing against the idea that he's somehow owed sex, no objection there, it reflects poorly on him and if you were taking him to task for that I'd have merely silently cheered you on.
You can't expect a kid who lives at home to grok things he's never experienced. You seem to be projecting your anger at what I presume is difficulty getting established on him, as though he's setting property values and throwing obstacles in your way.
Because my mother would never support my dog and I under her roof.
That's not his fault either. Keep in mind, your life could be a whole hell of a lot worse than it is now, should those who had a rougher time than you give you grief over having it so easy? I mean dude, you had a mother and a fucking roof!
He's a kid, he won't learn that shit until he's forced to, same as the rest of us. Want to get angry at someone, get angry with his mom, presumably she's taught him (and probably taught him like she was taught, so maybe it's grandmom/granddad to blame...who probably...)
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-08-08 15:05:06
I understand the railing against the idea that he's somehow owed sex
And why exactly? Tell me now, what makes sex so different from anything else?
Everyone thinks they deserve a certain thing after spending so much time trying to get it.
Why is sex so different? Look, there's humans here who think they deserve animals.
Should we insult and manipulate them too to make them feel fucking horrible? I thought not.
I have a willing dog, I had a lot of optimism, I spent so much effort into it. ...And our only obstacle is my dick that's too big or her vagina that's too small. Oh, and of course the humans like you saying we don't deserve it, making me procrastinate even more.
Also, might I remind you that you're now on someone's side who says I deserve my life to be ruined forever because I'm not happy? I am happy with my girl, just not with the lack of sex.
I deserve my life to be fucking ruined forever because of that? Did you know he has been typing my real name and place around here? He wants me to get caught.
Seriously, I expected way better from you. But you made me give up on everyone but AmoreBestia here.
It doesn't surprise me he's a non-zoo, since I'm clearly growing a bias against zoophiles here.
the_egoldstein 1 point on 2017-08-09 01:00:54
And why exactly? Tell me now, what makes sex so different from anything else?
It's not really any different, it's not the action, but your insistance that you're owed it, that since you've paid a few dollars to the whore should let you do as you please. You can earn her respect by your actions, but you will never be owed anything. It sounds like you're treating her like an object, not the individual she is. Maybe that's just a poor choice of words on your part, but all I have to go on is what you say here.
the humans like you saying we don't deserve it
I have no objection over the sex, just your attitude that it's owed to you for taking care of her. Providing for her is your responsibility, you took that on when you accepted to take care of her, nothing you do in that regard earns you any privilege. You can take what you're owed, but don't be surprised when others react to you in disgust.
someone's side who says I deserve my life to be ruined forever because I'm not happy?
How am I on the side of someone when my comment to them was to take them to task? I am only responsible for my own statements and actions.
As for what you deserve? Not my problem, I deal with depression too, I've been hospitalized for it, I know full well the impact it can have. You don't deserve shit in life, get over it. People are born into conditions so fucking bad they'd do anything to have it as nice as you or I. You want happiness, you have to make it for yourself, nobody else is as vested in your life to do it for you.
since I'm clearly growing a bias against zoophiles here.
Just in case I haven't made myself clear, I don't really care if you're happy or not, it really has zero effect on my life. I would hope you can find happiness, but that's your problem, not mine. I think you give too many shits about what other people think, happiness is fleeting, find what makes you less miserable, do it without harming others, live, and die, it's the best any of us can hope for.
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-08-09 02:07:40
It's not really any different, it's not the action, but your insistance that you're owed it.
If anyone says you can't ''deserve'' sex while they say you can deserve anything else, you're not making any sense.
Sex isn't any different from anything else. If you say you don't deserve anything at all, then that's fine even though I don't agree with it.
But I've heard different from another zoo, who thought he deserved his dog. Well guess what, he certainly didn't with his stupid ass logic.
It sounds like you're treating her like an object, not the individual she is.
How so? Because I really don't.
I do understand why you're seeing this, but I really don't see her as some kind of sex object.
Do note it's not just about me, but about her too.
Why else would I specifically want to do it with her? You can give me any other animal and I wouldn't have sex with them even if I got the chance to.
I have a feeling of guilt that I have PiV sex with another animal, I betrayed her. Not to mention I want to ''suffer'' with her. (Don't really know how to word it properly.) And I mean by that that if she doesn't lose her virginity, I won't either.
I want her first experience to be with me, but I also want my first experience to be with her. And note that I mean we both deserve it.
I have no objection over the sex, just your attitude that it's owed to you for taking care of her.
You say ''owe'' instead of ''deserve''. Note that there's a difference.
In fact, I've never even said that I am owed sex.
To be owed something, you'd need someone else involved. Like someone who owes you something, who's supposed to give you something. I'm not saying she owes me anything.
With deserving something you only need one someone. Well in this case there's the two of us, but we both deserve it.
No one owes me sex, but we do deserve sex in my opinion. I mean, why don't we? And I've put a lot of effort into this too.
I think anyone deserves sex as long as they do it consensually. And if you put effort into it, you deserve it even more.
Really, it's not hard logic. More effort put / Progress made = You deserve it more.
Providing for her is your responsibility, you took that on when you accepted to take care of her, nothing you do in that regard earns you any privilege.
I never said such a thing.
Even though I agree with you, does this mean you approve of fencehopping? No problem with that, but with this exact logic you do.
You don't deserve shit in life, get over it.
You can't just tell someone to ''get over it.'' That's like saying: ''Stop being poor!''
Feelings like these are out of your control, not to mention most of your life might be out of your control. And that means the problems just won't cease to exist.
I also take it you won't feel like shit when your animal dies? Because apparently everything seems so easy to get over.
Just in case I haven't made myself clear, I don't really care if you're happy or not, it really has zero effect on my life.
I have no problem with that. I feel the same for everyone else.
If I was shot on the streets, currently choking in my own blood and no one would have helped me, I would not blame them. I wouldn't even be mad at them.
But you know when I would get mad? When they walk up to me, say I fucking deserved it and even pour salt on the wound for no good fucking reason. What? Because I'm not happy with life I don't deserve it? Or because I was a dick for a few months? And before I could even explain myself to help them understand, they close their ears and see me as some kind of enemy. That's why I deserve so much pain? Yep, very logical and rational of them.
And that's exactly what these shitty comments directed at me are.
...happiness is fleeting, find what makes you less miserable, do it without harming others, live, and die, it's the best any of us can hope for.
Oh and I know exactly what that is. Oh, exactly... Let's just say that happiness is a few planets away. I already found what I want, now I just need to get it.
But you know, I think I already got my answer. Even though we as zoos suffer from this ourselves, there's a bias about sex.
Sex is often seen very differently than other things.
When you say ''I want to cuddle with her so bad!'' there's no problem at all.
When you say ''I want to have sex with her so bad!'' it's often treated different, even though it really isn't any different than the first example.
In the end, in both situations you are pleasing yourself and someone else.
Suddenly, someone's a ''sex object'' when you want to have sex. Why isn't someone considered a ''cuddle object'' when you just want to cuddle?
Why is it more wrong? If you think about it logically, it really makes no fucking sense.
Just because I want to have sex with her so fucking badly doesn't mean I see her as a sex object. Even then, at the same time our virginities aren't the only problems.
And just because you care about something very much doesn't mean you can't care about others things. What I mean is, even if I care a lot about sex doesn't mean I can't care about her or anything. Because she's in fact more important than sex, it's just that at the same time sex really is a big deal to me and affects me horribly. (For many reasons.)
Because if she was taken away from me, I would feel even ten thousand times more horrible than now.
And that's something that everyone really must keep in mind: I am affected by (certain) things very heavily.
You don't care about me, that's fine. But just because you misunderstand me you want to make me feel horrible and insult me? There's just something wrong with you.
Is it clear now? It's just other's opinions, but being misunderstood isn't something to be happy about.
Especially when they're wishing things upon you you clearly don't deserve or spread false information about you.
I'm fine with the anti-zoophiles saying shit like that since it's typical, but I always expected better of zoophiles.
I guess not. Zoophiles aren't exactly immune to things like biases and double standards.
the_egoldstein 1 point on 2017-08-09 03:02:18
If anyone says you can't ''deserve'' sex while they say you can deserve anything else, you're not making any sense.
Uhh, you mean like where I said in my previous comment, which you quoted
You don't deserve shit in life, get over it.
.
It sounds like you're treating her like an object, not the individual she is.
How so? Because I really don't.
When you say things like how you deserve sex, or that it is owed to you, it comes across as objectifying her. As though just because you happen to provide something more than basic subsistence that she should have to fuck you because you're just so kind as to buy her some toys.
I do understand why you're seeing this if you only read like 2 posts of mine or are blind, but I really don't see her as some kind of sex object.
I don't know what you think, never have claimed to, but here's a clue for you: when multiple people make the same inferrence based on comments you've made, maybe there's something to what they're noticing.
No one owes me sex, but we do deserve sex in my opinion. I mean, why don't we?
Sure, nobody owes me sex either, but I deserve sex with your girl, don't I? If not, why not? What makes your deserving it more than mine? I think if you think about this and understand it, you'll understand what the objection is with being "owed".
And if you put effort into it, you deserve it even more.
Ah, yes, you will be owed it, no? If not, how are you defining "owe" vs "deserve". One deserves only what one is owed, no? One cannot be owed something we do not deserve, can we?
You can't just tell someone to ''get over it.'' That's like saying: ''Stop being poor!''
I can and did, it really is that easy. Let's explore that idea of a poor person for a minute. Let's say it's some poor guy, that he was born poor and it wasn't his fault, but that he doesn't want to be poor. Which is more likely to solve his problem, him making a plan and working to solve his problem or him waiting for someone to come along and give him enough money to not be poor? In order to not be poor he will have to accpet that his only way out is by him, actively doing something about it, him "getting over it" and deciding to do something about it.
When they walk up to me, say I fucking deserved it and even pour salt on the wound for no good fucking reason.
Oh, you mean for the kind of actions which I called out as unacceptable to you which started this whole tangent? The kind of things I was defending you against?
Or because I was a dick for a few months?
What would you expect of people? If I insult you and treat you poorly repeatedly, should I be surprised if you presume that I will do so again. To expect otherwise you be pretty irrational, no? Admittedly, your comments have gotten significantly more intelligible, which is why I even bother with you now.
Oh and I know exactly what that is. Oh, exactly... Let's just say that happiness is a few planets away.
Ok, wallow in it, it makes me angry when you do so. Make me mad, ruin your life and be the most miserable person on the face of the planet, that will show me! You obviously need to get a grip, best of luck with that, I'm done here.
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-08-09 03:26:05
I've edited my earlier comment, so I recommend reading it again. Well, you don't really care but I'm saying that if you want to understand me, it's right there.
Uhh, you mean like where I said in my previous comment, which you quoted
You don't deserve shit in life, get over it.
Then as I said, I have less of a problem with it. I mean, I don't entirely agree with it.
It's just that I don't like this unfair BS they say. Not to mention they say I deserve my depression and to get my life ruined, so in their logic it just doesn't make sense.
When you say things like how you deserve sex, or that it is owed to you, it comes across as objectifying her.
That makes no sense to me. This isn't really relevant, because this has nothing to do with objects nor do I see her as an object.
And I already said, we both deserve it. If I say she deserves it, do I objectify myself? Wtf man...
You know what's objectifying animals? When you say you deserve to have them.
To me that's not entirely true, but it makes more sense than what you said. Hopefully I don't need to explain.
As though just because you happen to provide something more than basic subsistence that she should have to fuck you because you're just so kind as to buy her some toys.
What?
I said that to say that I'm good for her.
but here's a clue for you: when multiple people make the same inferrence based on comments you've made, maybe there's something to what they're noticing.
That's similar to anti-zoo logic.
''The majority of us is against bestiality! Seems a bit strange, doesn't it?'' This excuse holds absolutely no value...
Even then, you all misunderstand me. I see a lot of assumptions about me that aren't true.
Sure, nobody owes me sex either, but I deserve sex with your girl, don't I? If not, why not? What makes your deserving it more than mine?
I'm not saying you didn't? As I said, as long as it's consensual you deserve it.
But I doubt she would even allow you because she prefers me over even other dogs and I already give her enough sexual contact, so she isn't short on that, and I wouldn't allow either because we're in a relationship.
So, you haven't answered my question about fencehopping. So this is an obvious yes, I guess.
I can and did, it really is that easy.
And I'm not you.
A lot of humans aren't you, either. Because still thousands of humans have problems like this and they can't just forget it all either.
Right now there's only one true path to happiness for me, and I can't reach it. You know exactly what that is.
And no matter what I try, I can't do it. I've put all my energy and optimism into that.
Let's explore that idea of a poor person for a minute. Let's say it's some poor guy, that he was born poor and it wasn't his fault, but that he doesn't want to be poor. Which is more likely to solve his problem, him making a plan and working to solve his problem or him waiting for someone to come along and give him enough money to not be poor? In order to not be poor he will have to accpet that his only way out is by him, actively doing something about it, him "getting over it" and deciding to do something about it.
Oh you really misunderstand me. I am not waiting for anyone to give me help.
I am just asking for some fucking assistance, not completely relying on others. Then again, I ask for help and don't force it.
And I bet that poor human would also need some assistance. What if they're completely clueless? They must at least ask for some help.
Even then, I try things on my own. But at some point in life you can't do it all on your own no matter hard you try.
There's a reason things like allies exist. If we don't need them, why don't we get rid of them?
Oh, you mean for the kind of actions which I called out as unacceptable to you which started this whole tangent? The kind of things I was defending you against?
You know what I'm talking about. All the comments basically saying I deserve to suffer, for example?
What would you expect of people? If I insult you and treat you poorly repeatedly, should I be surprised if you presume that I will do so again. To expect otherwise you be pretty irrational, no?
I expect you to be a dick against me too, but saying I deserve to get my life ruined or suffer? Then you are seriously fucking sick in your head.
I've never even wished for anyone else to suffer or get their lives ruined just because they were dicks to me.
This isn't how revenge works. Not to mention someone already despised me greatly before I had this angry behavior.
Ok, wallow in it, it makes me angry when you do so. Make me mad, ruin your life and be the most miserable person on the face of the planet, that will show me!
You don't understand, I'm trying to improve.
But when someone is sick of life, do you expect them to be happy? Of course not.
It's called anger, if you didn't know. For some certain humans it's hard to keep their normal behavior if they forgot what happiness felt like.
I thought this was obvious.
But you know, it was nice talking to someone more rational once. It's a rare occurrence.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-04 02:47:57
[removed]
MessedUpPro 2 points on 2017-08-03 04:27:45
Here's some logic and evidence: animals can't consent. I don't care if they sit and take it, they didn't tell you you could do it. There's a reason we don't allow adults to fuck kids, and that's because they aren't able to consent in a meaningful way.
You are sick fuck. If you think fucking a dog is okay, then why stop at dogs? Why say we can't fuck kids? Either you know it's fucked up to involve yourself sexually with a being that can't give you true consent, or you think fucking kids is cool. There's no space between those lines, because consent means the same thing for all of us. It means being of sound mind, using logic to consider all aspects of sex, and saying it's okay.
You need help. Serious help. You're sick. Please call a therapist, because I don't care how much your dog seems to be having fun, at the end of the day, that animal can't give you consent. If you don't think pedophilia is okay, then you have a strange fucking brain to find "zoophilia" (bestiality) okay. And if you find pedophilia okay, then you are even worse than you seem.
Here's some more logic: yeah, we can tell when a dog is hungry, but that's because we feed them and we know when they need food. My cat can't understand what I say, and I can't understand what he says when he meows. If he meows, I'll check his food. But sometimes he meows while he has food and water. So what does he want? Fuck if I know. You know why? Because most animals don't have language. You may think your dog WANTS you, but you don't know that for certain. That's just false, pure and simple. Assume all you want, but that's fucked to do.
So there, I took your bait, you sick fuck. Feel free to try and justify your gross habits, fucking psychopath. And yeah, I insulted you. You need it. You deserve it. This sub deserves to be shut down, and that's why I've reported it. It's hardly better than pedophilia. So yeah, let's have some fun. Let's go to the circus (as if we aren't already here, this place is full of clowns).
SCP_2547 2 points on 2017-08-03 04:43:37
You have done a few things:
Embarrass yourself by taking my obvious as fuck bait.
Embarrass yourself by not giving actual evidence or using any logic.
Made me give my girl a good time.
Not a big deal, but just so I can report you and you'll be banned from this sub.
And nah, I won't need help. A shitfly is more worth than your opinion, it seems.
At the end of the day, you have repeated what many have repeated. So you have not convinced me the slighest.
Animals are adults (you seemed obsses with pedophilia there a bit, bud) and are sexually mature and they use their mating rituals to show their interest in sex with you.
Get ready to deny the evidence. 1... 2... 3... GO!
Oh, and I couldn't just ignore this:
Because most animals don't have language.
Hey! Hey! Hey!
Buddy, I have a question for you.
Do you see that growling dog at that fence? Why don't you go pet them?
Growling isn't a part of their language, it's nothing, right? Just go ahead!
Whahaha, it amuses me how you always repeat the same debunked arguments.
Time to wipe that tear of my eye. Oooh...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^'
Oh by the way, It's almost 7 AM.
We'd rather take a sleep right now. And who knows? Maybe I'll treat ourselves today.
I'm craving for some sweet animal pussy right now. If that's what I gotta do that's what I gotta do.
You amused me in a way. I actually feel happy because of it. It's humans like you and your reactions that make me CRAVE for negative attention.
See ya ''tomorrow'' buddy! Oh and, don't hurt yourself on the way out! All that air in your head can quite heavy!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^' sighs
Man, I'm against fishing but I'm really proud with the fish I caught today. 👌
EDIT: /u/30-30 don't you see? I'm only weeding out the more vocal anti-zoo retards by getting them all reported.
Look at how they bark, bark and bark! I'm only a good guy for zoophilia's future, am I not?
MessedUpPro 1 point on 2017-08-03 04:54:06
Embarrass yourself
You fuck dogs. I am not even near embarrassed for confronting your sick ass.
not giving evidence
You can't understand a dog. That's evidence, that's logic.
Made me give my girl a good time
Yeah, no. That was gonna happen anyway. I don't feel guilty, but nice try.
Not a big deal, but just so I can report you and you'll be banned from this sub
Because you guys know what you are doing is wrong, and don't want anyone pissing on your sick parade.
Animals are adults and are sexually mature and they use their mating rituals to show their interest in sex with you.
No, animals are not adults. At least, not in a human sense. They don't think much beyond basic needs, like a human baby, and if you truly cared about them getting off, you'd get another dog and let THEM fuck, not stick your own appendages in them to satisfy your own sick fantasies.
Do you see that growling dog at that fence? Why don't you go pet them?
Growling isn't a part of their language, it's nothing, right? Just go ahead!
It's language, sure. But it's not consent. Knowing a dog is scared and is trying to defend itself vs a dog trying get you to stick your appendages, which are not meant to be anywhere near it, inside the dog. It's not something you can understand based on simple observation.
Oh by the way, it's almost 7 AM.
Oh boohoo. Go to bed then, you freak. I'm sorry I somehow stopped you from getting your much needed shut-eye. It's not even midnight here, but you poor thing.
You amused me in a way. I actually feel happy because of it. It's fools like you and your reactions that make me CRAVE for negative attention.
You know why? Because you know what you are doing is wrong, and you get off on the tabooness of it.
Since you want to talk about logic, I noticed you didn't respond to my point about pedophilia. Sure, dogs are "adults" after a certain age, sure they have mating rituals. But what stops a 30 year old human from having sex with a 14 year old human going through puberty? They have mating rituals too, and they can "consent" as much as a dog can. You want to talk about logic, yet you showed none of your own.
SCP_2547 2 points on 2017-08-03 05:12:12
It continues to talk.
You fuck dogs. I am not even near embarrassed for confronting your sick ass.
I don't fuck anything and never will.
Nice assumption.
You can't understand a dog. That's evidence, that's logic.
Don't give your animals food and attention then, you can't understand their needs and what they want.
Yeah, no. That was gonna happen anyway. I don't feel guilty, but nice try.
It wasn't, I gain no pleasure from this at all and am barely in the mood to.
But I'm a man of my words. I have no reason to lie and did it just because you commented.
Because you guys know what you are doing is wrong, and don't want anyone pissing on your sick parade.
Nice assumption, but I'm afraid for you that that is not true.
Do you have any evidence we thin- why am I even asking? Of course you don't.
No, animals are not adults.
Goddamn you are embarrassing yourself.
Sure they are. They are sexually mature fully developed beings. That is being an adult.
and if you truly cared about them getting off, you'd get another dog and let THEM fuck, not stick your own appendages in them to satisfy your own sick fantasies.
My girl refuses to have sex with other male dogs.
Also no, I wouldn't even allow that to happen. That would mean pregnancy, so suffering for pups.
Animals do prefer their own species, but they aren't picky. I think a human can easily satisfy an animal more than another animal can. All an animal can do is PiV sex, we as humans can specifically focus on their more pleasurable spots. Not to mention we can give them sexual contact for as long as they want.
And if you truly cared about the human you're having sex with, why don't you give them a better sex partner?
There's thousands of other humans out there who can pleasure them even more. Same logic is used, so if your brain gets a cramp don't panic yet.
It's language, sure. But it's not consent. Knowing a dog is scared and is trying to defend itself vs a dog trying get you to stick your appendages, which are not meant to be anywhere near it, inside the dog. It's not something you can understand based on simple observation.
Thanks for proving I am right and that you are wrong. Animals indeed have languages.
You failed horribly, sorry bud.
What makes you think we can understand if they're scared or not but cannot understand when an animal wants sex or not?
That's honestly pretty retarded, as we know an animal's mating rituals.
Oh boohoo. Go to bed then, you freak. I'm sorry I somehow stopped you from getting your much needed shut-eye. It's not even midnight here, but you poor thing.
I'm distracted by an animal pussy. Sorry, can't sleep.
You know why? Because you know what you are doing is wrong, and you get off on the tabooness of it.
Nah, I'm an actual zoophile. I hate taboo stuff, but I do enjoy taunting humans like you with it.
I don't see how anything taboo is arousing in any way.
Since you want to talk about logic, I noticed you didn't respond to my point about pedophilia. Sure, dogs are "adults" after a certain age, sure they have mating rituals. But what stops a 30 year old human from having sex with a 14 year old human going through puberty? They have mating rituals too, and they can "consent" as much as a dog can. You want to talk about logic, yet you showed none of your own.
But that's your opinion, I showed nothing but logic.
You can't compare a 14 year old human to an adult animal. If you can't see the difference, then I honestly feel bad for you.
Does this ring any bells? ''Adult''? Yeah, 14 year old humans aren't fully sexually mature and not adults. Adult animals obviously are.
Well enjoy your time while you're still here, I guess. You seem a little frustrated, but I guess that's only better for my amusement.
I guess I shouldn't even have to tell you what I'm up to by now. Time to make someone orgam.
EDIT: You should've seen her! She enjoyed it!
Many sweet kisses from her...
MessedUpPro 1 point on 2017-08-03 05:46:01
Don't give your animals food and attention then, you can't understand their needs and what they want.
Nice ignoring my point earlier. I am the only one around my pet. I'm all he has for food and attention. That's a logical fallacy. Not knowing what a pet says doesn't mean I don't know that they need food. He'd die without food. That's stupid to say.
It wasn't, I gain no pleasure from this at all and am barely in the mood to.
No? No pleasure? Then why do it? Please enlighten me.
Nice assumption, but I'm afraid for you that that is not true.
You guys ban people that disagree, and it says "don't abuse animals" in your rules, while you guys are discussing ejaculating in dogs, so you know, seems pretty clear to me, mate.
Goddamn you are embarrassing yourself.
Read the second sentence after the one you cherry-picked. Adults, in a human sense, are fully matured people, in mind and body. That was my point. I didn't change much physically from age 15 to age 18, but does that mean I'm an adult and should be allowed to fuck adult humans at 15?
And again, you guys discussing having sex with animals. There's no embarrassing myself in this situation.
My girl refuses to have sex with other male dogs.
That's the natural way. You want to talk about dogs and nature and logic: dogs rape each other, just as you are doing to yours. Is that logical? For you to partake?
And if you truly cared about the human you're having sex with, why don't you give them a better sex partner?
There's thousands of other humans out there who can pleasure them even more.
I offered. I personally am polyamorous and would prefer an open relationship. She doesn't dig the idea. Not my problem that she doesn't want to experience other people. I would like to, but I value my emotional connection with this woman more than my sexual desires. Nice try with the assumptions, though.
Thanks for proving I am right and that you are wrong. Animals indeed have languages.
You failed horribly, sorry bud.
What makes you think we can understand if they're scared or not but cannot understand when an animal wants sex or not?
That's honestly pretty retarded, as we know an animal's mating rituals.
Animals have body language. Some animals have structured language. Dogs do not have structured language. Dogs rape each other, as I have said, and they don't fight. I've seen it myself. The male dog feels like the female dog wants to be impregnated, but she tries to pull away, can't get away, and ultimately resolves herself to it. You're so sick in the head, I wouldn't be surprised if your pet did this and you ignored it, and now she just deals with it, because it doesn't hurt. In the end, we're human, we make errors. Misreading body language is incredibly easy. That's why we as humans do not speak exclusively through body language. It leaves too much room for error, and is ultimately inefficient.
I'm distracted by an animal pussy. Sorry, can't sleep.
Distracted by arguing with someone you said you had no time for. You took my bait too, it would seem. What a predicament.
Nah, I'm an actual zoophile. I hate taboo stuff, but I do enjoy taunting humans like you with it.
I don't see how anything taboo is arousing in any way.
It's wrong to fuck animals. It's wrong by society's standards. Therefore, it IS taboo. And by zoophile, do you mean you want to have sexual relations with animals and find yourself attracted to them? I assume yes, as that's the common definition (in my short research).
You can't compare a 14 year old human to an adult animal.
Both can show interest in sex, both can carry children, therefore they are about as equal as can be, in your reasoning. What separates them is we as humans have decided that it's not okay to have sex with them, because they are not MENTALLY mature. Dogs don't show the same mental capacity that humans show. There's no measure for dog mental maturity, unless I'm wrong. You got studies that prove that wrong, Facts Man?
Yeah, 14 year old humans aren't fully sexually mature and not adults. Adult animals obviously are.
Again, I didn't change much, sexually, between 15 and 18. I probably grew a little taller. My mind certainly matured. I wanted sex as badly then as I do now. But as I said earlier, there's no measurement for an animal's mental maturity, as far as I know, because it's a human standard. So unless we're getting into what's natural vs what humans do, there's no reason to deny that standard.
Well enjoy your time while you're still here, I guess. You seem a little frustrated, but I guess that's only better for my amusement.
I guess I shouldn't even have to tell you what I'm up to by now. Time to make someone orgam.
Yeah, I'm frustrated that people like you exist, and think it's okay to molest and rape animals.
As for your last comment, again, you would do it anyway. I in no way changed your behavior by commenting here. Your attempts to make me feel guilty will not work. Try harder.
the_egoldstein 2 points on 2017-08-03 05:52:00
You guys ban people that disagree
Eh? That's a new one on me, there's no shortage of disagreement here. If you'd bothered to read much of what gets discussed you'd know that already.
Anyone who can maintain a relatively respectful reply is pretty much welcome here. I like having people who will disagree with me, they can challenge my ideas and make me think in more detail. Sometimes they can change my mind too, I'm always happy to discard poor logic for better logic. Got some?
MessedUpPro 1 point on 2017-08-03 06:07:02
I mean, I have no proof, seeing as any responses removed are, ya know, gone. And I don't want to read anymore of this sub. It's absolutely disgusting to see discussion of tips to have PiV intercourse with animals, or people explaining how humans never interested them, etc. I can't stand it. I'll stick to this thread, which is about dealing with hate from the outside.
the_egoldstein 2 points on 2017-08-03 06:23:19
I mean, I have no proof, seeing as any responses removed are, ya know, gone
Am I then to presume you have a habit of making assumptions when you have, ahem, "no proof"? Your post history here would suggest that may be the case.
If you find it so disgusting then why do you remain? Do you honestly think your insults are going to change anyone's mind? Do you foolishly believe that the poorly reasoned objections you've offered haven't been discussed ad nauseum here? Many of us have considered these questions in detail because we're actually concerned about the non-human.
Have you considered opening your mind to the possibility that, maybe, just maybe, this is a topic which you don't agree with (which is A-OK) and that you can find it both disgusting and still not necessarily harmful or wrong?
You keep asserting that we're making assumptions and some people appear to be doing so, you included. You have an idea of what you think we do in your head, but it's quite apparent that what you think isn't what many of us would do or condone. I suggest that you attempt to inform yourself, first.
MessedUpPro 1 point on 2017-08-03 06:35:44
Why am I still here? Because I feel I'm witnessing a disgusting abuse of a power dynamic, and I feel the need to speak up. Don't speak on a public platform if you don't want people to judge you.
And no, I can't find it gross and harmless. You are abusing the power you have over animals, as a more complex being, to satisfy sexual desires the animals cannot understand. Even if you do it under the guise of "mutual pleasure", it's our responsibility, as more complex beings, to not take advantage of these situations.
the_egoldstein 2 points on 2017-08-03 06:50:15
You are abusing the power you have over animals, as a more complex being, to satisfy sexual desires the animals cannot understand.
So you're saying that a non-human animal doesn't have sexual desires? How is it that they have sex with each other and (he he he) with other species? Oh, did you miss that? There's no shortage of species on species sex occuring in "nature". There was a paper just earlier this year on snow monkeys making it with sika deer. I know man, WTF? Do you think it's the monkey or the deer doing the abusing?
There's no question that adult non-humans have sexual desires, if you don't grok that you really need to study some biology. Do they understand it? They understand that they want sex, but I don't know if they grok the nuances such as that sex leads to babies, they might not....I know a lot of human pregnancies that fall into that category, but hey, we're animals too.
I think most non-humans just aren't so hungup on sex like humans are. They feel an itch and they scratch it, they have their preferences on partners and sometimes that preference can be you or I. Doubt it? Explain Fido's leg-humping, he's certainly goal-oriented and seems to have made up his mind on the subject.
As for females, ever been around a bitch in heat? She'll solicit sex from anyone she's interested in and she's not subtle about it.
You seem to think that any non-human partner of a zoophile is some horribly abused creature. I can't count how many times I've had friends, strangers, vets, trainers, etc, compliment me on how well adjusted and happy my dogs are.
MessedUpPro 1 point on 2017-08-03 06:57:51
So you're saying that a non-human animal doesn't have sexual desires?
Did I ever say that animals don't have their own desires? The difference is that they do it out of nature to breed, and we do it with emotions such as love. Perhaps I'm wrong, and you do it (or condone it, at any rate) out of a desire to breed. However, we cannot breed with other animals, so that wouldn't make any sense.
How is it that they have sex with each other and (he he he) with other species? Oh, did you miss that? There's no shortage of species on species sex occuring in "nature". There was a paper just earlier this year on snow monkeys making it with sika deer. I know man, WTF? Do you think it's the monkey or the deer doing the abusing?
The monkey has no power over the deer, or vice versa. We are the strongest, most powerful beings on the planet. We have a responsibility to be better and not abuse that power to get our own rocks off, even if it's done with all the care in the world. I think that statement covers the rest of your reply as well, so I'll leave it there. Not trying to ignore any of your points, so I'm pointing out that that last bit applies to the rest of what you said as well.
the_egoldstein 2 points on 2017-08-03 07:16:23
The difference is that they do it out of nature to breed, and we do it with emotions such as love.
Yeah, that "love" thing, that's nature and horomones. Non-humans have those too and how do you know non-humans don't feel love? I seem to recall a couple of papers published a couple of years back where researchers were measuring seratonin levels and such in the blood to ascertain levels of "happiness". Evidence suggests you're wrong.
We are the strongest, most powerful beings on the planet.
So if a stallion fucks me, being more powerful, he's abusing me?
That aside, I disagree on the whole "humans are the most powerful", we're pathetic compared to bacteria, we don't even rate.
We have a responsibility to be better and not abuse that power to get our own rocks off, even if it's done with all the care in the world.
You keep assuming that power abuse is required, better minds than yours have explored that and found it not to be so. I suggest you read Peter Singer's "Heavy Petting". If you aren't familiar with who he is, you might want to read up on him before reading.
thelongestusernameeebanned from the aquarium touch tank 1 point on 2017-08-03 14:06:56
we have a responsibility to be better and not abuse that power to get our own rocks off, even if it's done with all the care in the world.
quick question, are you 100% vegan?
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-08-03 08:46:42
As I said earlier, saying something is "disgusting" is not a rational argument. It is a feeling based on prejudice and (in this case) possibly also hatred as well.
To those who are sexually attracted to non-humans, the concept of sex with an animal is NOT "disgusting" -- and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, some of those people think that human-to-human sex is disgusting. So "disgust" does not determine whether something is moral or immoral.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-08-03 09:42:32
People that break rule 7 or 8 on their first few posts and are clearly from a hostile sub get an instant but appeal-able ban, usually. It's pointless for us to try giving those users three strikes and tempbans when they aren't here for the community anyway. The removed replies you speak of are 1-2 sentence comments consisting of, and I quote:
"you're a degenerate and you're abusing the family dog, it's disgusting and I wouldn't blame your parents if they disowned you tbh"
"Tears of Virgins"
"Dude this entire thing nsfl. Fuck"
"They said this would happen after legal gay marriage and we didn't listen."
"Cops need to bust down your door, you sick fuck. They will soon..."
And so on and so forth. They aren't contributing to the discussion, nor are they likely to in the future. There is also the issue of such comments derailing threads... which you've thankfully avoided.
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-08-03 14:40:13
Nice ignoring my point earlier. I am the only one around my pet. I'm all he has for food and attention. That's a logical fallacy. Not knowing what a pet says doesn't mean I don't know that they need food. He'd die without food. That's stupid to say.
No, but you know exactly what I mean.
According to you, animals can't say what they want. What if they walk up to you and you pet them?
They didn't ask for it and clearly don't show signs of understanding it according to you.
No? No pleasure? Then why do it? Please enlighten me.
My fingers don't receive an orgasm nor do my fingers receive any pleasure.
In fact, it hurts most of the time. I'm doing it for her, although I do like it because she likes it. And I guess it's sometimes fun to play around with genitals, I guess.
Well, in this case I'm doing it for you. You're asking for it, and so is she!
EDIT: Nevermind this. I've been pretty sexual lately and quite enjoy it again. I guess you don't have to fear me again!
You guys ban people that disagree, and it says "don't abuse animals" in your rules, while you guys are discussing ejaculating in dogs, so you know, seems pretty clear to me, mate.
First off, I don't ejaculate in dogs.
Second, we ban humans that don't listen to the rules. There's rules in every place and if you don't follow them, of course you get banned.
There's a reason humans like you get banned. You can't behave yourself, because all you do is repeat ''omgg urr rapist!!!!111!!!! molesting!!! u guyz ned help!11!!!''
Sorry, but we prefer to talk to humans who are capable of using their brain. Doesn't seem the case with you.
That's the natural way. You want to talk about dogs and nature and logic: dogs rape each other, just as you are doing to yours. Is that logical? For you to partake?
Makes me think, I'm not saying we rape them but if we did, why is us raping animals bad but animals raping animals isn't?
But then again, none of that is true. Animals also do have consensual sex.
Also, didn't you tell me earlier to get a male dog for my girl? Yep, nice logic there buddy.
I offered. I personally am polyamorous and would prefer an open relationship. She doesn't dig the idea. Not my problem that she doesn't want to experience other people. I would like to, but I value my emotional connection with this woman more than my sexual desires. Nice try with the assumptions, though.
Assumptions? That's what you've been doing all this time.
But yes, of course your ass would like multiple female humans. One wouldn't be enough to satisfy you enough, right?
Dogs rape each other, as I have said, and they don't fight. I've seen it myself.
You've seen it, but my girl clearly does not like when male dogs try anything on her.
She was in heat and a dog was harrassing her. She came up to me and pointed her ass at my body.
Another time when her heat almost ended, a dog tried to lick for her vagina and I had to pry his disgusting ass off her, trying to rape my girl and she was also uncomfortable.
And she also clearly resists when she isn't in the mood. When I try to insert a finger while she isn't in the mood or anything else, she resists.
She quickly turns around, pulls a specific face and stands in a specific way.
They may not fight, but they sure do resist and actual zoophiles will stop immediately when they see it happen.
You're so sick in the head, I wouldn't be surprised if your pet did this and you ignored it, and now she just deals with it, because it doesn't hurt.
And again, you're assuming a lot.
This is why we ban humans like you. Don't act retarded or act retarded and get banned.
I've already told you I don't.
In the end, we're human, we make errors. Misreading body language is incredibly easy. That's why we as humans do not speak exclusively through body language. It leaves too much room for error, and is ultimately inefficient.
We are different than animals. Their body language is more clear than ours.
I can read animals easier than humans. We know what these mating rituals mean because they use the same ones for their own species, or in some cases are just straight up obvious.
If an adult animal uses their mating rituals, they consent. Simple.
It's not hard to understand and not hard to miss. You may be delusional, but we aren't.
Distracted by arguing with someone you said you had no time for. You took my bait too, it would seem. What a predicament.
If that's bait it's pretty shit. But no, I am not distracted by you. I'm just replying?
And you're not making me angry in any way (unless you count the fact that I'm dissapointed to be the same species as you) so good luck with your bait, mate.
It's wrong to fuck animals. It's wrong by society's standards. Therefore, it IS taboo.
First, no.
Second, so?
I still don't do it for the taboo.
And by zoophile, do you mean you want to have sexual relations with animals and find yourself attracted to them? I assume yes, as that's the common definition (in my short research).
Well my attraction has faded mostly, but yes.
This means that I don't like it because it's taboo, but because it was my attraction.
You can't be attracted because something is taboo, then it would be a kink or a fetish.
Both can show interest in sex, both can carry children, therefore they are about as equal as can be, in your reasoning.
That makes zero sense, doesn't mean they can be compared.
Adult humans can also show interest in sex and carry children. Your point is...?
What separates them is we as humans have decided that it's not okay to have sex with them, because they are not MENTALLY mature.
Oh my... your stupidity almost bothers me.
Do you know what mature means? That they are fully developed.
Adults are fully developed. They are fully developed because they don't grow any more.
Man, even kids learn this shit. How old are you again? Mind if I give you a few tips for elementary?
Dogs don't show the same mental capacity that humans show. There's no measure for dog mental maturity, unless I'm wrong. You got studies that prove that wrong, Facts Man?
All I said was proof enough. We know that animals do mature.
It would make zero sense if they didn't. Do you seriously expect them to mature and grow forever?
Holy shit...
Again, I didn't change much, sexually, between 15 and 18. I probably grew a little taller. My mind certainly matured. I wanted sex as badly then as I do now.
And what exactly is your point? Okay, good for you?
I think you should be more concerned about your brain, as it clearly seems to lack an important feature: Logic.
No surprise you didn't change much, you seem to have the mind of a 5 year old with your insults and lack of intelligence.
Also, you were still developing at that time, even if you don't feel it yourself. Also, sexual maturity happens earlier than being an adult. The age of consent is when you are sexually mature.
For animals it's harder to know when they're sexually mature, so we wait until they're adults or close to being adults so they understand what sex is, so they have the ability to have consensual sex with either animals or humans.
Yeah, I'm frustrated that people like you exist, and think it's okay to molest and rape animals.
Nice assumption without evidence, but no. I don't think it's okay to that as I wouldn't want anyone to hurt animals.
As for your last comment, again, you would do it anyway. I in no way changed your behavior by commenting here. Your attempts to make me feel guilty will not work. Try harder.
I really wouldn't, I have less interest for sex. Well, there's a specific thing that I'd like very much, but that's not possible.
I did it just for you, if you are going to deny that then well good for you, it won't change the facts that I still did it because you kept replying.
A few last things, though.
Here's something to think about: Where do you draw the line?
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?
Again, why do you think animals can't consent to humans but can to their own species?
No intelligence or thoughts are needed, other than understanding what sex is. And they do know that because they are sexually mature and can choose to make the first move in sex.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'
Also, I want to apologize.
I'm sorry for having actual logic that your brain can't comprehend. I wish you luck in life and hope that no animal suffers from your lack of knowledge about their languages and signs. Amen.
EDIT / PS: You've proven my point in the first comment. Your kind only insults and does not rely on logic, as said by me.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-04 03:27:00
[removed]
OnzaZ 3 points on 2017-08-03 05:28:31
Please call a therapist
Why would you assume the therapist would think is wrong too? In fact I went to a therapist one, or well my mom forced me to go, and he knew my interest right, and he said I was completely fine and stable.
Okay let's play the argue yourself game :D this is exactly how you sound like :3
Here's some logic and evidence: animals can't consent. I don't care if they sit and let them be killed, they didn't tell you you could do it. There's a reason we don't allow people to kill each other, and that's because they aren't able to consent in being murdered.
You are sick fuck. If you think eating a cow is okay, then why stop at cows? Why say we can't eat kids? Either you know it's fucked up to involve yourself into eating a being that can't give you true consent, or you think cannibalism is cool. There's no space between those lines, because consent means the same thing for all of us. It means being of sound mind, using logic to consider all aspects of life, and saying it's okay.
MessedUpPro 1 point on 2017-08-03 05:52:51
Why are you assuming I'm not vegetarian...? What is with you people assuming shit like monogamy and being an omnivore? lol
OnzaZ 3 points on 2017-08-03 06:00:03
Here's some logic and evidence: trees can't consent. I don't care if they sit and let them be cut down, they didn't tell you you could do it. There's a reason we don't cut people in half, and that's because they aren't able to consent in being taken down.
You are sick fuck. If you think eating a vegetables is okay, then why stop at vegetables? Why say we can't eat people? Either you know it's fucked up to involve yourself into eating a being that can't give you true consent, or you think veganism is cool. There's no space between those lines, because consent means the same thing for all of us. It means being of sound mind, using logic to consider all aspects of life, and saying it's okay.
:D :D :D
MessedUpPro 1 point on 2017-08-03 06:05:14
Why? Because vegetables can't feel. They have no thoughts. They have no emotions. Humans and animals can feel, they can grow bonds with one another, they can love. There's many more layers to humans and animals than to plants.
But I am most certainly not cool with the cutting down of trees. Assumption #4 on this sub. And that's not because they can feel, it's because they grow for many many years, taking a long time, and they are necessary for our planet's survival, while paper and other products are not.
Nice logical fallacies tho.
OnzaZ 2 points on 2017-08-03 06:20:45
Because vegetables can't feel.
Well they can feel some vegetables are able to react to touch just like humans.
They have no thoughts
Nor an underdeveloped fetus, does that mean you are pro-abortion?...
Admit it this is not an argument of objective logic this is whether you think it's good of bad because you think it's degrading for the human to have sex with an animal; you don't give a shit about the animal, just about some fake human honour.
MessedUpPro 1 point on 2017-08-03 06:25:16
Nor an underdeveloped fetus, does that mean you are pro-abortion?...
Yes I am. (Assumption #5?)
Admit it this is not an argument of objective logic this is whether you think it's good of bad because you think it's degrading for the human to have sex with an animal; you don't give a shit about the animal, just about some fake human honour.
I don't think it's degrading. I think it's gross that you are using animals for sexual pleasure. That's what I find gross. That's what my problem is. The animals are being used, no matter what kind of bow you try to put on it. They don't understand what you are doing, they don't understand that they are powerless to you and you are taking advantage of that power dynamic. That is my problem.
OnzaZ 1 point on 2017-08-03 06:32:21
I think it's gross that you are using animals for sexual pleasure
No I am not (Assumption #1) LOL There are many non-zoos, purely romantic zoos, or virgin zoos around here. In fact most people here haven't had sex with animals.
But well humans are animals so we are talking about interspecies I just tell you:
Does this affect you in any way? does this represent a threat to you?... be selfish man, stop worrying about other's people issues; this does not concern you, go and do stuff that really matters rather than attacking people that love animals more than you'll ever do.
MessedUpPro 1 point on 2017-08-03 06:48:21
You aren't using animals for sexual pleasure? Then you must fall into one of the other categories you mention: non-"zoo", which makes me ask why you are defending it so religiously, purely romantic, which is much more harmless but still makes me irk because of the power dynamic, or virgin, which means you WANT to use animals for sexual pleasure.
Does this affect you in any way? does this represent a threat to you?... be selfish man, stop worrying about other's people issues; this does not concern you, go and do stuff that really matters rather than attacking people that love animals more than you'll ever do.
Does it affect me? No. Neither does rape of anyone, for that matter. Does that mean I shouldn't speak up? What kind of logic is that?
OnzaZ 1 point on 2017-08-03 07:56:02
Yeah well if the day comes I'd not mind :3 And by the way I am female, I wonder how in the world I can rape an animal. Has a dog ever humped at you, consent him, you'll see what he does. :D
What kind of logic is that?
None, I'm using your own strategy; I'm not making any effort to answer this.
Aluzky 1 point on 2017-08-16 19:13:33
Rape does affects society as a whole. us having consensual sex in private with our pets does not affects you nor society.
Aluzky 1 point on 2017-08-16 19:12:17
I don't think it's degrading. I think it's gross that you are using animals for sexual pleasure.
Suck it. Is not our problem if you find it gross.
That's what my problem is.
That is your problem, not our problem, not the problem of society. it is only your BIGOTED problem.
The animals are being used, no matter what kind of bow you try to put on it. They don't understand what you are doing, they don't understand that they are powerless to you and you are taking advantage of that power dynamic. That is my problem.
Again, unless you can give objective scientific evidence of an actual problem, then suck it up. You have not proven how using them is wrong. You have not proven how having more power over them makes it wrong. You only claim is wrong, you don't prove why is wrong. And don't use HUMAN examples, because that only proves that using humans is wrong, it doesn't prove that using animals is wrong.
Skgrsgpf 4 points on 2017-08-03 08:58:49
I think you're correct. MessedUpPro's insistence on requiring an animal's human-like "consent" (but ONLY in terms of sex, and not in terms of anything else, such as slaughter or spaying/neutering), is likely because the whole "consent" argument is a smokescreen that is being used to hide his underlying prejudice and disgust towards zoosex.
If he cared that much about animals, he'd be on meat-eating Reddit subs right now trying to get people to stop eating meat and stop the cruel treatment of animals on factory farms (which, by the way, doesn't involve their "consent"). Or he'd be telling people who artificially inseminate animals how wrong that is because it doesn't involve their "consent".
OnzaZ 1 point on 2017-08-03 09:20:21
That's what I mean, it's because people just can't imagine how a relationship with an animal works, that doesn't mean it's impossible, true zoos are really loving towards their partners, and won't dare to hurt them, I don't mind animal rapists being arrested, but a true zoo really wants something mutual; meanwhile there are horrible instances of abuse towards animals out there, yet, it's us, somehow, a ridiculous minority that is into inter-species love.
This is all people thinking on animals in terms that they are too inferior to have a relationship with, it's a very selfish thinking, like if the pride of the human race was on hands and we have to have the perfect imagine, but guess what, there's no God observing us, and if there was then he'd be more upset on how we have treated our friends of the middle east and africa, on how we have destroyed the biosphere leading animals to extinction, on how we kill each other, on how many children are starving, on how we butcher so many animals; not in some small group of animal lovers that are so much into them that don't mind getting into a sexual relationship with them.
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-08-03 09:39:09
like if the pride of the human race was on hands and we have the perfect image
It may have to do with speciesism -- that is, a prejudice (kind of like racism or sexism) in which humans think that they are "superior" to all other species, and that humans are "special", and that non-humans are inferior -- and in this way of thinking, they believe that if a human has sex with a non-human, they are "degrading" themselves to the "lower level" that the non-human is on. (Which is a fallacy).
Speciesism is wrong -- it is a prejudice and not an accurate way of looking at things. Humans are animals, and they are not "above" other species (morally).
or how we butcher so many animals
Why are so many states (in the United States) banning sex with animals, yet allowing slaughter (something much worse) to continue being legal? Slaughter is what they should be banning, not sex with animals.
OnzaZ 1 point on 2017-08-03 09:56:20
I once heard from a guy here that once tolerance increases, a rise of legal bans start happening in order to keep things in check. That it happened to homosexuality before they got rights.
However the only difference, is that we are such a minority, the legalization of drugs is on the way, but us, who knows, we are so small.
SCP_2547 2 points on 2017-08-03 14:46:37
⇾ says we assume shit
⇾ assumes shit himself like saying we want to hurt them on purpose or like the taboo of it for example
⇾ k
⇾ thinks he makes sense xDDDDDDDDD-no
MessedUpPro 1 point on 2017-08-03 16:59:49
No, I don't think you are doing any of this on purpose. I think you are doing it because you're sick and need help. Yeah, my outburst probably didn't help, but you were begging for a good outburst with your smug attitude about how everyone that disagrees with you are "special" or "tards". You get what you get.
SCP_2547 2 points on 2017-08-03 17:08:57
You've said it before. ''You all know you're doing something wrong.''
But nah, none of us are sick and need help. And yeah, I was begging for crybabies like you.
You're so idiotic that it amuses me. I'm a big misanthrope who hates humans for their stupidity, but this is the kind that actually amuses me in a way.
MessedUpPro 1 point on 2017-08-03 17:11:40
I've said my piece. You are indeed sick. It's not normal to hate humans and want to have sex with animals. Seek help. Thank god you can't reproduce, though...
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-08-03 17:16:51
Where's the evidence that I am sick? Are you a doctor? Can you diagnose me trough my posts? No? Oh, right.
And yes, it's normal to hate humans. I have many reasons and hating humans can be pretty common.
And wanting to have sex with animals isn't normal, but that doesn't prove anything. Still, there's many different attractions so it's not as abnormal as you think.
And seeking help? Do you know how much value that holds to me?
I'd say less than none, because you keep me from wanting help even if I even needed it.
And yeah, I won't reproduce. It's both unethical and fucking disgusting because I'd have to have sex with a human. Ugh, yuck.
More humans = more suffering for both humans AND animals too. Wait, the whole world actually.
Well, there's already one of the 1000 reasons why I hate humans: They fuck everything up, especially nature.
And hey, if I could, I'd breed with animals for sure though!
the_egoldstein 1 point on 2017-08-03 17:39:16
Seek help.
As an aside, do you honestly think none here have gone that route? I have, know what I was told? If nobody's getting harmed, who cares. It's interesting that even the professionals you want us to see agree with us that it's a non-issue.
caikgoch 1 point on 2017-08-04 03:03:36
I don't supposed that it has occurred to you that if he does get the help you recommend, then he will be able to reproduce?
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-04 13:00:44
[removed]
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-08-07 03:29:50
What the fuck? Fuck no?
caikgoch 1 point on 2017-08-07 12:01:37
That's the point. If you (or any of us) were to go down to the brain laundry as he recommends, we would come out happy little clones and begin breeding just like him.
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-08-07 14:29:28
It told us to get help, not get brainwashed. We zoophiles can't get help for something we don't need help for.
Not to mention our attraction just can't be wiped off of us, nor the fact that I'd still hate and be disgusted by humans and their bodies.
If you can somehow brainwash me into breeding with a human, then holy shit you must be a god because I'd rather die than do that.
Aluzky 1 point on 2017-08-16 19:08:18
You are indeed sick. It's not normal to hate humans and want to have sex with animals. Seek help. Thank god you can't reproduce, though...
Is not normal to hate woman and want to have sex with guys. Do you tell gays to seek help? You tank god that gays can't reproduce? At this point, not only we can see you are zoophobic but also homophobic. As you arr using homophobic arguments against zoosexuals.
Are you here to try to understand or to rub your zoophobia around?
Aluzky 1 point on 2017-08-16 19:06:46
I think you are doing it because you're sick and need help.
Is your belief supported by scientific evidence? If not, you are no different from homophobes who call any gay mentally ill.
Aluzky 1 point on 2017-08-16 19:05:52
Why are you assuming I'm not vegetarian...?
You mean vegan? Because vegetarians still support the murder of millions of animals.
the_egoldstein 3 points on 2017-08-03 05:37:14
There's a reason we don't allow adults to fuck kids, and that's because they aren't able to consent in a meaningful way.
There's a huge difference between dogs and kids. Kids are not developed, they are immature. An adult dog is just that, a fully formed adult with an adult sex drive.
Kids also interact with human society, being messed with sexually at an immature age can cause complications. Dogs don't interact in such a manner.
Why is consent necessary for a mutualy pleasurable, but to you abhorent, encouter but not necessary for other actions? Neutering an animal is done merely for the convenience of the human who owns it, does that require consent?
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 does it seem that consent is only required if it involves genitals and enjoyment?
MessedUpPro 1 point on 2017-08-03 06:01:59
Kids are not developed, they are immature. An adult dog is just that, a fully formed adult with an adult sex drive.
My sex drive is the same now as it was when I was 15 (20 now). I don't really understand what the difference is in your mind? The only reason I wouldn't want a 30 year old woman coming on to me at 15 is because I wasn't mentally prepared for that kind of interaction, which isn't something you can measure in animals (that I know of). I was physically and sexually ready, however.
Kids also interact with human society, being messed with sexually at an immature age can cause complications. Dogs don't interact in such a manner.
That's a fair point, but why does that mean we should treat animals with less care? Are animals lesser to you?
Why is consent necessary for a mutualy pleasurable, but to you abhorent, encouter but not necessary for other actions? Neutering an animal is done merely for the convenience of the human who owns it, does that require consent?
My cat isn't neutered. You guys REALLY like assumptions around here... That's the third attempt at labeling me with the norm (monogamy, omnivore/carnivore, and now pro-neutering). That argument may work with other people, but that shit don't fly with me, buddy.
I can legally, and largely without censure, euthanize a dog which is merely inconvenient to me without it's consent
You can, but you'd be a sick fuck for that too. Doesn't mean I agree with the ability to do so.
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?
See: two responses back.
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?
What is "AI"? The only "AI" I'm aware of doesn't work here, I don't think? Unless you do mean "Artificial Intelligence". Forgive my ignorance, I'm trying to understand what you mean here. But again, you assume I'm cool with the treatment of animals for beef consumption...
the_egoldstein 1 point on 2017-08-03 06:10:37
That's a fair point, but why does that mean we should treat animals with less care? Are animals lesser to you?
Not at all, in fact I'm not the one insisting that they're incapable of making decsions, that's you.
You guys REALLY like assumptions around here...
Uhh, no, I never implied that you did these things, but that our society accepts these. You can't play the "society defines what's right and wrong" game and then ignore it when it's convenient for you, well not and get any respect. I have no idea what you eat, fuck, or how you treat non-humans. I've deliberately avoided the word "you" for that reason.
What is "AI"?
Artificial Insemination, widely used in agriculture.
MessedUpPro 1 point on 2017-08-03 06:17:56
Not at all, in fact I'm not the one insisting that they're incapable of making decsions, that's you.
If we treat children as if they can't make decisions, despite the reason for it, why treat animals like they can? They don't think the way adult humans think. They just don't. They think like child humans, if anything. Why not treat them with the same respect and care as a human child?
Uhh, no, I never implied that you did these things, but that our society accepts these. You can't play the "society defines what's right and wrong" game and then ignore it when it's convenient for you, well not and get any respect. I have no idea what you eat, fuck, or how you treat non-humans. I've deliberately avoided the word "you" for that reason.
Then why use that argument? I don't agree with it. I am not saying society defines my own thoughts. I have my own thoughts on these things. I do believe children are incapable of making sexual decisions, and I do believe animals are far too innocent to be subjected to your sick, perverted habits. That doesn't mean I accept it because society told me to. I don't agree with a lot of what society calls normal. But you guys? Yeah, I can't get behind you selfishly using animals for sexual pleasure. It's sick.
Artificial Insemination
Ah, yes. I know of this. Don't agree with that either. It's not natural. Kinda like sticking a human dick in a dog.
the_egoldstein 2 points on 2017-08-03 06:32:42
Why not treat them with the same respect and care as a human child?
I've largely got no issue with this, aside from the adult != jouvenile thing. Why are you here instead of campaigning for PETA? You could save far more suffering railing against farming than you would save here, you should see the shitstorm that happens here when people treat non-humans like objects.
Yeah, I can't get behind you selfishly using animals for sexual pleasure. It's sick.
And you're free to have and express your opinion. I thiink you've not given this much actual thought, I'm entitled to my opinion too.
It's not natural.
Lots of things are "natural" that we don't want, rabies, cancer, babies that die. Something being "natural" isn't a measure of it's rightness or wrongness.
Yeah, I can't get behind you selfishly using animals for sexual pleasure. It's sick.
I know some feminists who think that about any man and a woman. Doesn't make it right.
MessedUpPro 1 point on 2017-08-03 06:44:30
Why are you here instead of campaigning for PETA?
PETA is a whole can of worms I don't even want to open here... Not that their heart isn't seemingly in the right place, but I mean... Ah, nevermind on that one.
However, even if I did agree with PETA, how does that stop me from saying anything here? Why does it have to be one or the other?
Lots of things are "natural" that we don't want, rabies, cancer, babies that die. Something being "natural" isn't a measure of it's rightness or wrongness.
So you're okay with artificial insemination then? That was what I said was unnatural, so you must be saying it's okay to do that..?
I know some feminists who think that about any man and a woman. Doesn't make it right.
Feminism has nothing to do with this. An animal is powerless against you. I don't care how much care you try to use, you are abusing your power over them. For example, I don't condone anyone that gets off on the idea of having sex with mentally ill people, if they are the caretaker of said person. They have power of the person, and they would be taking advantage of it to fulfill sexual desires, and that's wrong. That doesn't mean I think mentally ill people are incapable of having sex, but the power dynamic at play creates a disgusting element. That can never not exist with animals, as humans are completely and always more powerful over animals. At least, in our modern world.
the_egoldstein 2 points on 2017-08-03 07:05:29
PETA is a whole can of worms I don't even want to open here... Not that their heart isn't seemingly in the right place, but I mean... Ah, nevermind on that one.
No, no, that's the can you brought here, opened, and now don't want to address. All of your comments have been 100% in that camp, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Your hypocrisy is showing.
So you're okay with artificial insemination then? That was what I said was unnatural, so you must be saying it's okay to do that..?
I think it depends on the circumstances. That things aren't always black and white. I think that forced insemination is probably the wrong choice, but in some cases (I'm looking at you, Pandas) it might be excusable. In other situations it might be the right action, it depends.
Feminism has nothing to do with this.
It's the same logic, that's why I mentioned it. You're free to disapprove, I'm OK with that. You see, I realie that you don't know what I do because you've never asked, that means you're way out there in assumption-land.
I've tried to let you discover it on your own, but you're apparently too blind to see it, that you're projecting what you think is happening instead of bothering to try and find out what might actually be happening. It's OK, it's pretty common, but it makes you look foolish and it undermines you at every turn.
That can never not exist with animals, as humans are completely and always more powerful over animals. At least, in our modern world.
Just because you can't envision it doesn't mean it can't exist. Before Leewenhoek invented the microscope people couldn't envision microscopic life, doesn't mean it didn't exist, just that they were ignorant of it.
It's late, I have other things to do. Maybe I'll see if you've bought a clue tomorrow.
Skgrsgpf 2 points on 2017-08-03 08:25:13
An animal is powerless against you.
Not necessarily. If a non-human animal (such as a horse) is the one doing the penetrating, and the human is the one receiving sex (from the horse), then it can be argued that the non-human is in a more powerful position than the human.
I don't condone anyone that gets off on the idea of having sex with mentally ill people
Non-human beings are not equal to mentally-ill people.
as humans are completely and always more powerful over animals
Humans are not the most important, nor the most "special" species. They are an animal species just like any other animal.
Even if a sexual interaction between a human and non-human occurs and there is a slight power imbalance, this does not mean that such an interaction is automatically immoral. For example, keeping a pet confined to a house is done without its consent, and one could argue that keeping them confined to a house for their entire lives is exerting "power" over them -- that doesn't make it automatically immoral. Similarly, spaying/neutering is something done to animals without their "consent", yet it is socially accepted by society (I personally find spaying/neutering to be immoral). Spaying/neutering is a human exerting more "power" over the animal. So why only criticize sex with animals, something arguably benign compared to all the terrible things (such as slaughter) that happen to animals, when there are so many other things that are far worse to an animal's well-being?
Aluzky 1 point on 2017-08-16 19:04:33
I don't care how much care you try to use, you are abusing your power over them.
And that is objectively strong how? And that IS A PROBLEM HOW?
For example, I don't condone anyone that gets off on the idea of having sex with mentally ill people, if they are the caretaker of said person. They have power of the person, and they would be taking advantage of it to fulfill sexual desires, and that's wrong.
Can you name in an objective way, why it is wrong? Can you prove that the same applies to zoosexual relationships?
Skgrsgpf 2 points on 2017-08-03 09:15:17
They think like child humans, if anything.
This is not true. Again, comparing the younger members of one species (humans) with the mature members of a variety of other species is a fallacy. A dog thinks like a dog, and a horse thinks like a horse -- their minds are not equal to that of young humans.
Yeah, I can't get behind you selfishly using animals for sexual pleasure. It's sick.
Non-human animals are capable of feeling sexual pleasure. It is wrong to assume that humans are the only species capable of sexual pleasure.
A human that has sex with a non-human is not "selfish". In fact, it could be argued that zoos care more about their animal's well-being than non-zoos (due the intimacy component).
And when a human has sex with a non-human, it is wrong to assume that a human is "using" a non-human. As I said before, if a non-human is penetrating a human (with the human receiving sex), then it could be said that the human is "being used by" the non-human, not the other way around.
Even when the human is the one doing the penetrating, sex between a human and non-human can occur in a mutually pleasurable way.
your sick, perverted habits
Saying "it's sick" and "perverted" is not an argument, it's just prejudiced, bigoted name-calling. Interspecies sex, whether it involves a human or not, is not "sick", and it is not "perverted". It may not be normal, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Ah, yes. I know of this.
Something to think about: why is it that when a human puts their arm into an animal's sexual organ to artificially inseminate it, this is considered "normal" and "legal", but when someone puts their penis in there (something arguably less harmful), it is considered wrong and illegal? That doesn't make sense, and is hypocritical.
Andrew-R 1 point on 2017-08-25 03:01:53
And when a human has sex with a non-human, it is wrong to assume that a human is "using" a non-human
Unfortunately I want to disagree here - not because sex is special, but exactly because ..humans way too used to use (getting/sucking more than they willing to give) everyone else :/ so, sex part fails too :/
Aluzky 1 point on 2017-08-16 19:01:34
It's not natural.
Everything in the universe is 100% natural. You sound more and more like bigots.
your sick, perverted habits.
Again, more bigoted words.
Seems that all your complains revolves around, "I'm a zoophobe, you should stop fucking dogs because I say so"
why treat animals like they can?
I treat dogs as if they can't, I'm always there to supervise their decisions. If is see they make a choice that is likely to get them harmed, I stop them.
They don't think the way adult humans think. They just don't.
Captain obvius.
They think like child humans, if anything.
Speculation, irrelevant.
Why not treat them with the same respect and care as a human child?
Because having sex with them is disrespectful to them? Because having consensual safe sex with them is careless?
I do believe animals are far too innocent to be subjected to your sick, perverted habits.
If your belief supported by scientific evidence? Of that is only your zoophobic subjective opinion?
Yeah, I can't get behind you selfishly using animals for sexual pleasure. It's sick.
Tell me, so what if it is selfish? If the animals is not being forced or harmed, what is the problem?
You finding that to be sick is YOUR PROBLEM. If you don't like it, sad day for you. But we will continue doing it because we like it. Unless you can give an objective reason for why we should stop, we will keep doing it.
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 2 points on 2017-08-03 06:38:03
That's a fair point, but why does that mean we should treat animals with less care? Are animals lesser to you?
It doesn't. What it means is that the implications, associations, and values we place on things are irrelevant to animals. When someone teaches a dog not to get up on the couch the reasons they taught it are irrelevant to the dog. When people play sports with their dogs winning games and having a hobby is irrelevant to the dog.
Hell, the act of owning a pet can be seen as a big violation of consent and autonomy. From our perspective we are bringing an animal into a specific social dynamic with certain implications. The animal doesn't know about or understand any of these and can't agree to them. Even if you obtain your pet by building trust with a feral animal until it decides to live in your house these implications and this dynamic is still there from the perception of humans.
From the animal's perspective our human social system just doesn't exist to it. It's completely irrelevant to the animal. What's relevant to it is if its needs are met and if its interactions with the human are pleasurable or painful.
MessedUpPro 1 point on 2017-08-03 06:52:26
You're not wrong, but in the end, we are more powerful than the animals. We have more control. And anyone using that control and power to abuse the animals sexually is disgusting. Non-sexually too, obviously, but that isn't the discussion here.
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 2 points on 2017-08-03 07:36:26
We control the animal's resources, yes. This puts us in control in one sense. I'm skeptical though that animals perceive us as being in control of them. If you ask an animal to do something and it does, it's not because it's deferring to your authority, it's because it's getting something out of it, be that food, attention, or, if you're cruel, avoiding pain.
I'd agree that people sexually abusing animals is disgusting, but I'd disagree that sexual contact, in and of itself, is abusive. An argument could be made for acts where the human is doing the penetration that the body language is more subtle and that there's more things that can go wrong. I'd disagree that means it's always abuse, but I find that fair.
That argument is harder to make for acts where the animal is rubbing its genitalia against the human (female dogs hump to masturbate) or the animal is penetrating the human. It's hard to argue that a dog humping someone's hand is being harmed or at significant risk of being harmed outside of freak accidents. If the animal isn't harmed and isn't at significant risk of harm, where is the abuse?
Skgrsgpf 2 points on 2017-08-03 08:12:39
First of all, humans are animals. Second, your "power abuse" argument is flawed. For example, what if a non-human animal (such as a horse) has sex with a human, and that non-human is the one doing the penetrating (and the human is the one receiving sex?) In that case, one could argue that the non-human has more power than the human, because the non-human is engaging in sex with it's own free will, and the human is passively receiving sex. In the case of large animals such as horses, the animal has the potential to kill a human.
You keep saying that interspecies sex is "disgusting" -- that is not a rational argument. If you think interspecies sex is "disgusting" ONLY when it involves a human, (and you're OK with interspecies sex between a deer and a monkey), then that is speciesism -- a prejudice in which humans are seen as having more "value" than non-humans.
Logically, if you think that interspecies sex (when it involves a human) is "disgusting", then it follows that you would find other forms of interspecies sex (such as a dog having sex with a pig) "disgusting" as well.
While sexual contact between a human and a non-human CAN be abusive, interspecies sex (involving a human) is not inherently abusive. So when you make broad statements such as "it's abuse" (referring to all sex with animals), that's wrong.
Aluzky 1 point on 2017-08-16 18:54:04
And anyone using that control and power to abuse the animals sexually is disgusting.
And doing that is called ANIMAL ABUSE. And we ar not in favor of animal abuse.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-04 03:15:40
[removed]
Aluzky 1 point on 2017-08-16 18:52:59
I wasn't mentally prepared for that kind of interaction
You weren't, other 15 year old may be ready. Most countries age of consent is 15 or 16 because at that age most humans can give legal informed consent. Even with a 30 year old.
That's a fair point, but why does that mean we should treat animals with less care? Are animals lesser to you?
They are not being treated with less care by us. We treat them with even the same or more care than the normal dog owner.
My cat isn't neutered. You guys REALLY like assumptions around here...
He didn't accuse your of neutering animals. So, you are making ASSUMPTION.
You can, but you'd be a sick fuck for that too. Doesn't mean I agree with the ability to do so.
So, having consensual sex with animals makes sick fucks?
What is the exact objective definition of sick fuck? Or, people are sickfuck only when you feel like it?
And if you don't agree with us having consensual sex with animals, why you don't agree? Can you give a rational non-bigoted objective reason to disagree? Are we raping them? Harming them? Damaging you or your property? What if your problem with it? Because so far, the problem seems to be "yuck I think is weird and gross" that is your problem, not our problem.
What is "AI"?
Artificial insemination.
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-08-03 09:21:26
Why does it seem that consent is only required if it involves genitals and enjoyment?
See this (what I said in a different part of the thread):
Something to think about: why is it that when a human puts their arm into an animal's sexual organ to artificially inseminate it, this is considered "normal" and "legal", but when someone puts their penis in there (something arguably less harmful), it is considered wrong and illegal? That doesn't make sense, and is hypocritical.
Do you see this as being hypocritical? (Because I do). If people criminalize sex with animals due to a lack of "consent", then it follows that they could also criminalize artificial insemination for the same reason -- yet they don't. Similarly, slaughter should be banned because it is murdering an animal (without their consent) for profit, and is far worse than sex with an animal ever could be -- yet slaughter (wrongfully) continues to be legal.
Skgrsgpf 2 points on 2017-08-03 08:38:54
So then what about these situations in which an animal doesn't "consent":
Being artificially inseminated, being confined to factory farm cells, being slaughtered, being exploited for dairy products, being spayed/neutered, being hunted, being confined to a house
None of these things involve the animal's "consent", so why is "consent" all of a sudden required when it comes to sex? Most of the (above-mentioned) activities are far worse to the animal than sex (with a human), yet they are all legal and accepted by society. (Meaning it is legal to murder an animal but illegal to have harmless sex with an animal, which is not the way it should be).
Sex is not a "big deal" for non-humans the way it is for humans. From the non-human's perspective, sex is a natural function which does not have any "morality" attached to it. So your comparison between (young) humans and non-humans is flawed, because humans have that moral attachment throughout their lives, whereas non-humans don't. As others have said, a non-human animal that has reached maturity is not equal to an immature being of another species (in this case, humans). That is a fallacy. When I say "non-human that has reached maturity", I mean, for example, a dog that is no longer a puppy.
Ultimately, sex occurring between a human and a non-human is not inherently wrong. Saying things like "it's sick" and "it's disgusting" are not arguments -- they are attacks that are probably based on prejudice and bigotry.
fuzzyfurry 2 points on 2017-08-03 10:47:37
To be fair, people are treating you unfairly by making various assumptions about the opinions you hold.
Still, your arguments are not very good. So far it seems to come down to the usual "dogs = children" and "power imbalance".
We could argue all day why the equating adult dogs with human children is a bad comparison, but I'd rather ask the question why make this comparison in the first place? I know, I know, there is good evidence that children are harmed by sexual contact with adults, so you only have to connect dogs with children and don't have to actually argue why and how dogs are harmed. Let's not go the easy way: How and why are dogs harmed, without comparing them to children?
The power imbalance seems like a classic half truth. Yes, you can force dogs to do a lot of stuff. But people who care about the mental well-being of their dogs will try to build a relationship where they openly communicate what they like and dislike, and are encouraged to "say no" to things they dislike. Here is a random article about what I mean: http://www.rover-time.com/should-your-dog-be-allowed-to-say-no/. Taking it a step further, although in a different context, service animals are intentionally trained to express "intelligent disobedience", meaning they will not comply with commands when they decide by their own judgement that it's a bad command.
They are only completely powerless if you intentionally raise and train them into an environment where this is the case.
MessedUpPro 1 point on 2017-08-03 17:36:41
Reddit is stopping me from commenting to everyone in a timely manner, and it's really pissing me off. But that's beside the point.
We could argue all day why the equating adult dogs with human children is a bad comparison, but I'd rather ask the question why make this comparison in the first place?
Why? Because children struggle to know better when an adult takes advantage of their power as an adult to seduce a child (child meaning anyone under 18, by the way, but I'm mostly thinking the age of puberty, 13-16, not 7 year olds).
I know, I know, there is good evidence that children are harmed by sexual contact with adults, so you only have to connect dogs with children and don't have to actually argue why and how dogs are harmed.
They aren't harmed in a way they can understand, but neither would a person with down-syndrome, if their caretaker was jerking them off for a mental disability kink. I know that changes from the age argument, but I feel it all fits under the umbrella of power. The caretaker has power, the adults have power, and here, the owner has power.
The power imbalance seems like a classic half truth. Yes, you can force dogs to do a lot of stuff.
I never said "force". The dog may well be having fun doing this act. See, my initial outburst was because the person I responded to had the fucking balls to say that people that don't subscribe to the idea that we should fuck animals are "special", so I went off. I have had zero prior engagement with this community. I now better understand what makes me mad about this situation. Apologies if it sounded like I was saying people here were forcing dogs to do anything.
What really upsets me is that the dog has no way of understanding that their owner is doing this because they have deep-rooted sexual and mental problems. The dog just knows it feels good. However, it's our responsibility, as higher, more complex beings, to treat dogs with respect, and not use them to get ourselves pleasure. We are not animals in the traditional sense. We have transcended behaviors like fucking anything that moves (for the most part). We have a responsibility to not do it. I don't want caretakers using mentally disabled people for their kinks, I don't want 30 year old people seducing teenagers, and I don't want pet owners using pets for their kinks. I don't care if all parties get off, or even if only the mentally disabled/kid/pet gets off. It's our responsibility to be better and not use them to fulfill our desires.
But people who care about the mental well-being of their dogs will try to build a relationship where they openly communicate what they like and dislike, and are encouraged to "say no" to things they dislike.
The doesn't mean that you aren't using them, as I've stated above.
They are only completely powerless if you intentionally raise and train them into an environment where this is the case.
Again, the dog may well feel pleasure, but at the end of the day, you are using the animal for your own sexual gain, and they don't realize it. It's not okay, even if they can stop you, because they don't understand that they are being used.
BadBoy003 1 point on 2017-08-03 17:53:36
you are using the animal for your own sexual gain, and they don't realize it
Except for the fact that many animals (dogs in particular) are empathetic and therefore have the capacity to realize what they are doing is causing pleasure, happiness, amusement, discomfort, pain or indifference. As well as a dog being able to determine whether or not a situation is "fair" to them.
have deep-rooted sexual and mental problems.
You can assert this, but it doesn't make it true, or relevant.
Again, the dog may well feel pleasure, but at the end of the day, you are using the animal for your own sexual gain, and they don't realize it. It's not okay, even if they can stop you, because they don't understand that they are being used.
If there is mutual pleasure and no negatives, how are they being used? With a 13 year old kid it's different entirely, they're likely not sexually mature, so will be potentially developmentally harmed AND are likely not versed in the risks of sexual contact. The former is avoided by being certain your partner is finished developing sexually. The latter doesn't really apply since there isn't really any risks given the separate species.
It's our responsibility to be better and not use them to fulfill our desires.
Our desires...and theirs.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-03 19:59:12
Zoophiles are the least of your concerns if you are bothered about animals being "used" for the benefit of a "higher" being without their understanding.
fuzzyfurry 2 points on 2017-08-03 22:30:54
People with intellectual disabilities still have every right to their sexuality and to have sex with other people. You should look up what organizations who represent people with intellectual disabilities have to say about this issue.
It is true that there is a higher potential for exploitation and abuse, and with pets it seems even higher, because unlike people with intellectual disabilities they have no relatives who can seek legal recourse on their behalf.
I don't actually know how to make this situation better, my only idea is that in the interest of animal rights, all pet owners, zoophiles or not, should have to regularly bring their animals to a vet who would look for physical and behavioral signs for abuse. It would probably be very expensive and there are probably not enough vets for that...
their owner is doing this because they have deep-rooted sexual and mental problems
It's a normal paraphilia and unbiased mental health professionals tend to view it as unproblematic.
to treat dogs with respect, and not use them to get ourselves pleasure
Agreed.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-04 02:29:19
[removed]
wright-oneursidae canidae pantherinae 2 points on 2017-08-04 06:01:23
/u/fuzzyfurry wrote:
I know, I know, there is good evidence that children are harmed by sexual contact with adults, so you only have to connect dogs with children and don't have to actually argue why and how dogs are harmed.
this is lazy debating on the part of /u/MessedUpPro (and many others we've encountered who've come here to argue/debate with us), and the crux of my problem with this particular post (and probably several others) of his (hers?).
See, my initial outburst was because the person I responded to had the fucking balls to say that people that don't subscribe to the idea that we should fuck animals are "special", so I went off.
i feel compelled to apologize on behalf of this subreddit for the person you're referencing here.
Apologies if it sounded like I was saying people here were forcing dogs to do anything.
What really upsets me is that the dog has no way of understanding that their owner is doing this because they have deep-rooted sexual and mental problems.
first: "problems" .. i disagree. our sexuality is just different from the vast majority of humankind.
second: .. why does that matter? why does the dog need to understand that if ...
The dog just knows it feels good.
please help me understand why that matters. oh, wait... that's right:
... it's our responsibility, as higher, more complex beings, to treat dogs with respect, ...
if i may suggest this... what if showing them respect involved understanding that they are adults of their species who are capable of asking for sexual contact? .. even outside of their own species?
Again, the dog may well feel pleasure, but at the end of the day, you are using the animal for your own sexual gain, and they don't realize it. It's not okay, even if they can stop you, because they don't understand that they are being used.
you keep talking about "use". if mutual pleasure is the goal (and i assure you, for anyone who truly cares about their animal, that IS the goal), then at worst, it's mutual use - the non-human is also using us to get pleasure. at best, it's shared pleasure - neither human nor non-human is using the other.
and again... why do you have a problem with them not knowing the human is getting pleasure from sex? (although as /u/BadBoy003 pointed out, many non-humans are capable of understanding human facial expressions) especially now that you say you can believe that people here aren't forcing their non-human partner into sexual situations?
edit:
one more thing i forgot that i wanted to point out.
Again, the dog may well feel pleasure, but at the end of the day, you are using the animal for your own sexual gain, and they don't realize it. It's not okay, even if they can stop you, because they don't understand that they are being used.
let's talk about fetch.
if the dog doesn't understand that you enjoy playing fetch with it as much as it enjoys fetching, does that make it wrong? why is sex a special case? define the special kind of harm that is done in a sexual scenario that both dog and human find pleasure in. the lack of understanding on the dog's part that you point to above just doesn't seem like harm.
Aluzky 1 point on 2017-08-16 18:29:03
Why? Because children struggle to know better when an adult takes advantage of their power as an adult to seduce a child (child meaning anyone under 18, by the way, but I'm mostly thinking the age of puberty, 13-16, not 7 year olds).
Legally and by dictionary, a child is anyone under age 12. Over that they are teens. Calling a 17 year old a child is disingenuous.
And you have not proven that taking advantage of animals without harming them is OBJECTIVELY WRONG. Where there is plenty evidence that taking advantage of young humans is wrong because it results in physical or emotional harm. And animals are not children, so you should not compare them, you are doing a false analogy fallacy.
They aren't harmed in a way they can understand, but neither would a person with down-syndrome, if their caretaker was jerking them off for a mental disability kink. I know that changes from the age argument, but I feel it all fits under the umbrella of power. The caretaker has power, the adults have power, and here, the owner has power.
We are not having sex with down sindrom animals. And doing that with a human is RAPE/statutoryrape. Because society can't allow humans to take sexual advantage of humans without their consent. With animals, WE ARE GETTING THEIR CONSENT. Unlike that person did with the downsindrom person.
By law, you must get legal inform consent from HUMANS. From animals, you only need to get non-legal consent.
If you want to bark at the right tree, then find a forum with animal rapists, because you are in the wrong place.
What really upsets me is that the dog has no way of understanding that their owner is doing this because they have deep-rooted sexual and mental problems.
The dog doesn't understand why the owner rubs his ears or belly, but the dog understand that it feels good. And so, the dog consents to it. So, who the fuck cares if the dog doesn't understand why the human does a sexual act on the dog? If the dog is enjoying it or find it neutral, what is the objective problem with it?
Also, where is the evidence that zoosexuality is always rooted on sexual or mental problems?
The dog just knows it feels good. However, it's our responsibility, as higher, more complex beings, to treat dogs with respect, and not use them to get ourselves pleasure.
And who says that using them as sex toys (in the worse case scenario) is showing disrespect to them? like you said, the dog understand nothing, how can you insult or disrespect a dog if the dog doesn't understand that he is being insulted or disrespected?
Also, other animals are as complex if not more complex than humans, so get of your high horse.
We are not animals in the traditional sense.
WE ARE LITERALLY ANIMALS.
We have transcended behaviors like fucking anything that moves (for the most part).
Wishful thinking fallacy.
We have a responsibility to not do it.
Wishful thinking fallacy.
I don't want caretakers using mentally disabled people for their kinks
That is already illegal for rational reasons.
I don't want 30 year old people seducing teenagers
Bigot. If they are consenting adults, let them be.
and I don't want pet owners using pets for their kinks.
Bigot. Again,if they are consenting adults, let them be.
I don't care if all parties get off, or even if only the mentally disabled/kid/pet gets off. It's our responsibility to be better and not use them to fulfill our desires.
Again, Wishful thinking fallacy. What you wish is not reality. You can't force your subjective opinion on us or anyone else, at least not without proper scientific evidence.
The doesn't mean that you aren't using them, as I've stated above.
You have not provided a single rational objective reason for why it is bad to use animals in a harmless way.
Are you even a vegan? If not, you are using animals in a harmful way, as yo eat them you require murdering animals against their will.
Again, the dog may well feel pleasure, but at the end of the day, you are using the animal for your own sexual gain, and they don't realize it. It's not okay, even if they can stop you, because they don't understand that they are being used.
And why is not OK? Can you give an objective reason for why it is not OK? Because all you have given are subjective reasons. No different from homophobes who say that gay sex is not OK even if it is consensual.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 2 points on 2017-08-03 11:38:57
Seems that you've got a considerable amount of replies to sort through, but I can promise a bit more civility given my personal detachment from this community's demographic.
Here's some logic and evidence: animals can't consent. I don't care if they sit and take it, they didn't tell you you could do it. There's a reason we don't allow adults to fuck kids, and that's because they aren't able to consent in a meaningful way.
While they can't consent from a legal standpoint, they can, as others have asserted, offer nonverbal consent by means of their body language. The people here form a strong dialogue with their nonhuman animal partners, and discerning pleasure and displeasure is part of that understanding.
You are sick fuck. If you think fucking a dog is okay, then why stop at dogs? Why say we can't fuck kids? Either you know it's fucked up to involve yourself sexually with a being that can't give you true consent, or you think fucking kids is cool.
False dichotomy, but I'll respond to this. We are dealing with adults. As an example, a two year old dog is 20 years old with respect to how it has aged and matured. They are sexually, emotionally, and cognitively mature, and can display behavior indicative of an understanding of their sexual organs; particularly the consequences of stimulation. Saying they have the intelligence of three year olds or something is a handy shortcut, but the reality of the situation is that their minds aren't younger, but simply different. Not fundamentally so, mind, but still not terribly comparable to children..
There's no space between those lines, because consent means the same thing for all of us. It means being of sound mind, using logic to consider all aspects of sex, and saying it's okay.
I agree with the three elements you proferred concerning consent. The first and third are possible and present with nonhuman animals, and the second point is something I'd like to touch on. Consent exists for humans, in the form that it does, because it's best suited to humans.
Dogs, horses, etc, can't be expected to know the things humans are expected to know when engaging with one another, and they can have offspring because of it, as well as contracting no small number of STIs between themselves. Informed consent is important to prevent undue trauma, unwanted pregnancy, and the spread of STIs predominantly. The latter two aren't relevant here as sexually transmitted zoonoses are extremely rare and there exist near insurmountable prezygotic barriers for hybridized offspring being conceived. The former point is more suited to individuals where the implications of sexual contact can be negative or harmful rather than actual harm. Zoophiles as a rule of thumb are going to be caring enough that there won't be physical trauma caused to their partner in any capacity, and respect their agency such that they have the freedom to continue or stop as they please. Consent on its own is sufficient if we are to act in consideration of the nonhuman animal, and of the greatly reduced risks of such contact, since they're really just consenting to a flood of oxytocin. There are exceptions of course, but those exceptions usually exist outside of this community.
Here's some more logic: yeah, we can tell when a dog is hungry, but that's because we feed them and we know when they need food. My cat can't understand what I say, and I can't understand what he says when he meows. If he meows, I'll check his food. But sometimes he meows while he has food and water. So what does he want? Fuck if I know. You know why? Because most animals don't have language. You may think your dog WANTS you, but you don't know that for certain. That's just false, pure and simple. Assume all you want, but that's fucked to do.
I'd say the subtler points of consent from nonhuman animals does have a certain possibility for error, but the same is also present in some human-human sexual dynamics, with even more layers(though I can't attest to the frequency of the following). False enjoyment/faked orgasms, verbal consent when they don't actually want it or because they feel obligated, consenting after being 'convinced', etc. All things that can muddy the waters for humans as well. Nonhuman animals generally don't have so strong a concept of emotional deception, so it's not too hard to get a read on them during the act as well, if need be. That's why looking for continuous consent is important, though.
I'll say, too, that a human partner would be more attentive to and able to detect consent continuously more effectively than a nonhuman animal. The thing about language is, while it isn't spoken, we do have a considerable understanding of much of it, like with canines. Considerable enough that any discomfort or discontentment would be easily picked up by an experienced caretaker, if avoidance behavior isn't observable.
I think it's gross that you are using animals for sexual pleasure. That's what I find gross. That's what my problem is. The animals are being used, no matter what kind of bow you try to put on it. They don't understand what you are doing, they don't understand that they are powerless to you and you are taking advantage of that power dynamic. That is my problem.
This is of course from another comment of yours. So, there is a frequent assumption that all sex is penetrative here. There are actually a good number of zoophiles here that have never had penetrative sex for one reason or another, but have masturbated or performed oral stimulation on their nonhuman partners, obviously without any use of force. I have it on good authority that zoophiles derive a great deal of their satisfaction from observable enjoyment being displayed by their partners during these acts.
On to the power dynamic, I think there are several things to consider here. One, humans proferring themselves. This is particularly relevant to male nonhuman animals, but either way a human isn't in a position of power when they themselves are being mounted, and leave the decision in the paws/hooves of their nonhuman partner. Second, is that there are instances where the nonhuman animal is much, much more powerful than the human is. This is something that our horse zoos can attest to; they work in tune to the desires of their nonhuman partners or chance serious injury(none has been suffered here to date). And three, well, there are instances where peoples' nonhuman animal partners are the ones offering, themselves... forcibly on occasion... even when said zoophile isn't up to the task for one reason or another.
No, animals are not adults. At least, not in a human sense. They don't think much beyond basic needs, like a human baby, and if you truly cared about them getting off, you'd get another dog and let THEM fuck, not stick your own appendages in them to satisfy your own sick fantasies.
I've already discussed the adult bit, but... this idea of solving sexual satisfaction with another nonhuman animal is a bit off. It's a solution, but it isn't necessarily a better solution. One of your most significant premises is that nonhuman animals can't consent, but even the observable consent through body language might not be considered by a prospective canine suitor. They even have a smaller brain for considering it, and might not stop when avoidance behavior or signs of discomfort are shown with their partner. Your average zoophile, on the other hand, takes that as a sign to stop immediately.
I assume you don't think every instance of nonhuman animal intercourse is rape, but the approach you offered seems riskier, frankly. You said yourself that you've seen male dogs force themselves on others. That would never be done by one of our users, and if it did, it's something that would be condemned with prejudice. One of the most significant things to note about humans in instances like these is that they still have a preference to bring pleasure to their partners, while a dog would likely be considerably more self serving. A zoophile getting another dog to serve as a sexual partner for an existing dog is in a sense like introducing a risk that you can shift blame to in the event that something goes wrong between them.
BadBoy003 2 points on 2017-08-03 17:33:48
You're responding emotionally, you just keep repeating the same arguments over and over and never actually address the points presented to you. It's trying to teach physics to a brick wall
MessedUpPro 1 point on 2017-08-03 17:48:24
Is emotion always wrong? If you are taking advantage of the fact that a dog can't understand your sick fantasies, they just enjoy being stimulated, then how is that not morally incorrect?
[deleted] 2 points on 2017-08-03 17:59:28
[deleted]
MessedUpPro 1 point on 2017-08-03 18:01:30
It's morally wrong because the dog doesn't know that you are doing it for your fantasies. They just know it feels good. Would you be okay with a caretaker sucking off a down-syndrome sufferer, because they have a kink for mental disabilities? Just wondering where your line is.
BadBoy003 1 point on 2017-08-03 18:12:42
Would you be okay with a caretaker sucking off a down-syndrome sufferer, because they have a kink for mental disabilities?
Sorry, but I believe that's a fallacious comparison because one is a mentally disabled human and one is a mentally sound nonhuman.
If you want to ignore that. I'll entertain your comparison
It's morally wrong because the dog doesn't know that you are doing it for your fantasies.
And their pleasure. I could argue you having sex with your human partner is based off your fantasies too.
Would you be okay with a caretaker sucking off a down-syndrome sufferer, because they have a kink for mental disabilities?
In this instance, I'm assuming that said individual is 20 years or older. You have to consider if they realize and understand the risks, pregnancy, STDs etc (none of which apply to non-human-human relations) and then determine whether doing so could harm them in the future.
The rightness or wrongness of this has nothing to do with them having a kink towards handicapped people, it has to do with whether or not it causes harm, pleasure, or just indifference.
But once again, a mentally handicapped human is not a mentally sound animal. It's easy to say a disorder makes something wrong or bad but that isn't the case really. A foot fetish for example, is a disorder, it deviates from standard penis in vagina intercourse. But it isn't wrong, because it doesn't cause harm
OnzaZ 2 points on 2017-08-03 19:01:40
I however would say that some mentally handicapped people, if not most, would develop and mature sexually; many people with say, aspergers, or autism, will develop to be able to have partners without any problem. And there are cases with psychosis, like schizophrenia, where the sexual desires of the person are left untouched, and many people manage to have a relationship with helps a lot them to keep reality and fantasy in check.
Simply things are not just black and white.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-03 21:30:35
[deleted]
Swibblestein 3 points on 2017-08-03 19:05:19
You're getting overwhelmed here, with many different people responding, so I apologize for jumping on as well, but...
No. A zoophile does not have sex for their own fantasies, any more than anyone else who has sex with anyone else. Would you say that a heterosexual male who has sex with a human female is "doing it for their fantasies"?
I think that's a very warped way of looking at things.
Zoophilia, like traditional heterosexuality, homosexuality, or other such categorizations, is a sexual orientation. It has a sexual fantasy component, but it also has other components - a romantic orientation component, an emotional connection component, a behavioral component, a sexual attraction component, and an identity component.
You will have a poor understanding of zoophilia if you try to understand it as a fetish or a kink. Again, it is best understood as an orientation.
[deleted] 2 points on 2017-08-03 20:10:41
It's morally wrong because the dog doesn't know that you are doing it for your fantasies. They just know it feels good.
So the act in itself isn't what is reprehensible? It's what is going through the zoophile's mind that's the problem? That's a scarily Orwellian way to look at things...
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-04 01:54:37
[removed]
Aluzky 1 point on 2017-08-16 18:12:51
If you are taking advantage of the fact that a dog can't understand your sick fantasies, they just enjoy being stimulated, then how is that not morally incorrect?
Morality is subjective. So, doing that is neither moral or immoral. And it is irrelevant if it is moral or immoral.
From an objective point of view, how it is harmful to the animal to take advantage of them WITHOUT HARMING THEM or how it is harm to you or to society?
What argument you have to claim that people should not take advantage of animals WITHOUT HARMING THEM. What is the problem with taking advantage of animals WITHOUT HARMING THEM?
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-04 01:25:53
[removed]
caikgoch 2 points on 2017-08-04 13:50:03
I am SO sorry I missed this. In the off chance that you might look in again, here are some questions for you. (I'm a horse kinda guy so I'll have a little different viewpoint.)
Can you name anything farther from "childlike" than a stallion? They are living all over this planet wild and free without human aid or intervention.
Do you consider me incapable of consent. He comes to me after all.
Do you know what "dressage" is? It's mostly about achieving perfect communication between horse and human. Riding and driving are both filled with standard methods of communication.
There's much more but these will do for a start if you are up for it.
Aluzky 1 point on 2017-08-16 18:09:40
Here's some logic and evidence: animals can't consent.
Nobody has ever been able to prove that claim, but good luck.
I don't care if they sit and take it
Moving the goal post fallacy. An animal sitting there and taking it is the animal giving implicit consent for the action to be done on him/her. As the animal is perfectly capable to stop the act but chooses to not do it because the animal doesn't mind ir or even likes it.
they didn't tell you you could do it.
That logic only allies on animals who didn't tell you that you could do it. Does not apply on animals that did asked humans to do it. Even so. Animals can still consent to actions done by humans even if they didn't ask for it.
Example: how many times a dog has consented to a belly rub from me even that they didn't come to me asking for it? HUNDREDS of times. The fact that the dog allow me to give him a belly rub, is proof that the dog doesn't mind it or like it, that is the dog giving implicit consent for me to give him a belly rub. Same behavior and logic applies to sexual action.
You are sick fuck. If you think fucking a dog is okay, then why stop at dogs? Why say we can't fuck kids? Either you know it's fucked up to involve yourself sexually with a being that can't give you true consent, or you think fucking kids is cool. There's no space between those lines, because consent means the same thing for all of us. It means being of sound mind, using logic to consider all aspects of sex, and saying it's okay.
You need help. Serious help. You're sick. Please call a therapist, because I don't care how much your dog seems to be having fun, at the end of the day, that animal can't give you consent.
Sorry, but insulting us doesn't proves that they can't consent to sex.
And you have not yet provided scientific evidence that animals can never consent to sex.
If you don't think pedophilia is okay, then you have a strange fucking brain to find "zoophilia" (bestiality) okay. And if you find pedophilia okay, then you are even worse than you seem.
Pedophilia/pedosexuality is OK. Fucking children is not OK. Fucking children and pedophilia are two totally different things. one is a sexual act and the other is an a traction (not a sexual act)
Fucking children is not OK because it harms children. Where fucking animals with their consent causes them NO HARM.
Here's some more logic: yeah, we can tell when a dog is hungry, but that's because we feed them and we know when they need food. My cat can't understand what I say, and I can't understand what he says when he meows. If he meows, I'll check his food. But sometimes he meows while he has food and water. So what does he want? Fuck if I know.
Have you consider learning cat language? Is clear that you don't know it.
You know why? Because most animals don't have language.
95% or more of the sex that zoosexuals have are with dogs or horses, two animal that have non-vague language.
You may think your dog WANTS you, but you don't know that for certain.
I think my dog fucking me and knotting my ass and cumming inside of me. Or my bitch rubbing her clitoris till orgasm in my finger, is enough proof that SHE and HE wants me. I'm 100% certain of that.
That's just false, pure and simple. Assume all you want, but that's fucked to do.
You are doing a wishful thinking fallacy. You wish to believe that we are not certain when we actually are. And all scientific evidence proves that animal language can be understood by humans. Is damn obvius when an animal wants sex or not. At least obvius to people who has learned their language.
So there, I took your bait, you sick fuck.
And now you are death fish. You got fried. All your argument are fallacious and lacking in valid evidence, you prove nothing but that you are a ignorant bigot.
Feel free to try and justify your gross habits, fucking psychopath. And yeah, I insulted you. You need it. You deserve it. This sub deserves to be shut down, and that's why I've reported it. It's hardly better than pedophilia. So yeah, let's have some fun. Let's go to the circus (as if we aren't already here, this place is full of clowns).
And you are also a pedophobe. I won't be surprised if you are also racist and homophobic.
Orsoeus 1 point on 2017-08-05 01:15:41
I mean, it may be consensual but you're fucking with an animal. I mean, you don't see how thats weird?
SCP_2547 2 points on 2017-08-05 01:33:43
Well, I do know that zoophilia is weird. I have an unusual attraction and it's not normal because it's very uncommon.
Although... I would say it's not that abnormal as you think. There's a reason behind this, and that's obvious: I have an attraction. Everyone has an attraction, except asexuals.
Like anyone else, I have a desire for a romantic and sexual partner, except I seek for an animal instead of my own species.
But so what? I don't want to pull this ''special snowflake'' card but I'm happy that I'm different from other humans.
And hey, even though I know this is weird, it doesn't feel weird. I don't pay attention to that, so what if it is?
I honestly don't understand why you would care about the weirdness of something. I mean, it's kind of the instinct we have.
We see something weird, we react to it in a negative way because humans are afraid of the unkown.
Yet I have learned to accept weirder things, why can't other humans do the same?
If you think about it logically, who the fuck cares?
Orsoeus 1 point on 2017-08-05 13:40:07
Well i agree, it's not really any of my business nor anyone elses, the only reason i got involved was how aggressive you were being to, how you put it, ''anti-zoophiles''. With something so out there you can't blame people for being judging of it. And to me this argument is too close to home to the pedophile argument of ''well shes only 12 but she likes it i swear''. You have to consider whether their old enough to really make that decision, and if they aren't, how can animals be expected too?
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-08-05 14:03:31
Well i agree, it's not really any of my business nor anyone elses, the only reason i got involved was how aggressive you were being to, how you put it, ''anti-zoophiles''
Makes sense, because I'm only trying to get other's attention.
I mean, they kind of do the same by taunting us or tagging certain users in hate posts.
No problem with just teasing back, right? Because as you can see it really works.
With something so out there you can't blame people for being judging of it.
I actually understand their concern very much. I actually love animals and wouldn't want to get them hurt either.
But the thing is... most of them have such a fucking attitude and won't listen. No matter what you tell them, they are opinionated and won't change their mind.
I see anti-zoophiles make a lot of excuses when they don't know what to say back.
And a lot of them don't even rely on logic. It's very clear they are also mostly controlled by their emotions.
''Ewwww'' and ''Poor animals'' are good examples. It implies they're disgusted, so they stray away from it.
And they are horrified because they don't see animals the same way because in such human's minds they're ''cute'' and ''adorable''.
And to me this argument is too close to home to the pedophile argument of ''well shes only 12 but she likes it i swear''. You have to consider whether their old enough to really make that decision, and if they aren't, how can animals be expected too?
Because at some point animals are considered sexually mature. This is different for many animals.
When they're adults, it's 100% sure they are sexually mature, because that's how development works.
That's why real zoophiles wait until they're adults. I'll give an example, dogs are adults at the age of 2 for sure.
Orsoeus 1 point on 2017-08-05 17:13:26
Its not really about being sexually mature. Technically a 13 - 14 year old human is sexually mature, which is what puberty is, but thats not really the point.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-05 18:05:25
[removed]
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-08-05 18:09:59
To clarify, dog zoos wait 2-3 years because they're adults at that point.
caikgoch 1 point on 2017-08-05 18:40:55
One of the things I like about horses is that an adult horse is a fully capable adult in all senses of the word. They live free and independent of humans all over this planet. So consent from a horse has meaning. A horse that chooses to invite me into his family is making a real choice because he wants to, not because he is hungry.
Aluzky 1 point on 2017-08-16 17:57:26
And to me this argument is too close to home to the pedophile argument of ''well shes only 12 but she likes it i swear''. You have to consider whether their old enough to really make that decision, and if they aren't, how can animals be expected too?
Your argument is a red herring fallacy or a poisoning the well fallacy. Human relationships are irrelevant when the topic is relationships with non-humans.
and if they aren't, how can animals be expected too?
A 6 month old chihuahua is already a fully sexually mature dog. Not comparable to a 12 year old human. Same goes for a 1 year old middle sized dog. Or a 1 year old +months on huge breeds. Dogs age faster than humans, that is why they die faster than humans where they only live like 15 years if you are lucky.
We are having sex with ADULT animals, and the very few that likes to have sex with puppies, well, puppies don't get emotionally traumatized by sex unlike human children, so, it is not the same thing.
Orsoeus 1 point on 2017-08-17 00:35:20
So are you stating a 6 month old dog has more intelligence and reasoning skills than a 12 year old human?
caikgoch 2 points on 2017-08-05 02:18:14
So I take it that you are an exclusive Dendrophile? Because if you're not, you're fucking animals too.
Orsoeus 1 point on 2017-08-05 13:41:48
If you can't differentiate between an actual animal and a human, and/or you are doing it to prove a point, thats horribly sad. You cannot even get close to a universe where that comparison is apt.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-08-05 15:01:08
Humans are in the animal kingdom, was their point.
caikgoch 2 points on 2017-08-05 15:13:49
Exactly. And not always as superior as some like to imagine. For example: want to play tug of war with a horse?
thelongestusernameeebanned from the aquarium touch tank 1 point on 2017-08-05 16:39:38
yes i do. Id probably get my arm torn clean off, but HORSEY!
caikgoch 1 point on 2017-08-05 18:44:37
Injury would depend on the horse. I have known many that would play and tease you while taking care not to harm you. That is exactly why I frown on fencehoppers. Being with a horse that knows you and likes you is the biggest safety factor available.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-08-05 20:04:49
This is the only example you can think of? Oh boy....your focus on the "strength" of horses is utterly disturbing. My radar says "gay masochist" all the time....
caikgoch 1 point on 2017-08-05 22:23:35
In any contest there is strategy and there is tactics. Then there is 30-30.
I am curious though. With your obvious dislike of all things America, why did you choose a symbol so wrapped up in the ultimate Americanism, Texas?
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-08-07 13:50:11
Nice try to deflect...but not good enough, try harder..
To answer your rather irrelevant question: I don´t connect the character to "ultimate Americanism", I view the character as an idenpendent entity/symbol and am not really a fan of the 80s cartoon series or the setting in which it takes place. Not a fan of "Western" movies, not a fan of the "cowboys vs. indians" stuff either. But I´m a huge fan of horses (who would´ve thought that ;)) and also very much into post humanism and cyborgs...now you do the math yourself.
The whole cartoon could have taken place in a medieval Japanese setting, or a medieval European setting with knights , or even a totally unconnected setting, doesn´t matter...what mattered was a visual representation of how I felt , a symbol for how I perceive myself and not at all a symbol for any type of "Americanism".
Aluzky 1 point on 2017-08-16 17:52:02
I mean, you don't see how thats weird?
I don't think there is a zoosexual who will disagree with the statement that zoosex is weird/abnormal.
[deleted] 0 points on 2017-08-05 15:18:33
[deleted]
SCP_2547 2 points on 2017-08-05 15:19:19
oh no im gonna die because my internet buddy told me omg :((
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-08 06:54:02
[deleted]
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-08 12:30:43
[deleted]
SCP_2547 2 points on 2017-08-08 15:41:28
I'm struggling here. Should I challenge you and try to waste my time educating you? Because most of the time it's the most loud idiots with football mom-like behavior that are opinionated and stubborn.
It's basically no use, but your stupidity sucks me in. You see, when I see a lack of intelligence I want to fix it.
Here's something to think about: Do animals say ''yes'' or ''no'' to their own species? I mean with human language, of course.
Obviously not, so why should we need a ''yes'' or ''no'' from an animal in human language? This makes less than zero sense.
And now, we don't assume they're horny because they have clear signs of being horny,
Do you know when your dog is hungry or thirsty? I certainly hope you do, because I'd feel bad for any animal you'd take care of. Because you'd assume they're hungry or thirsty.
This would result in you making an animal starve or overfeeding them.
Animals have mating rituals, and that is a clear way of showing they are horny and want to have sex. It's also ''Yes, let's have sex now.'' in their language so it's consent. They use this for their own species but also others if they are interested.
If your brain can't comprehend that, then good luck in the future. I recommend staying away from any animal in the future, as you clearly don't understand them.
Also, your comparison did not even make sense one bit. Try again. (Or rather don't, because your stupidity is starting to bother me.)
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-08 17:10:20
[deleted]
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-08-08 17:13:30
Oh look, an excuse to deny the truth.
Well, at least you know that I'm right and you aren't, otherwise you wouldn't run away.
And hey, you started replying so you wanted to argue. So your logic is really lacking.
How old are you btw? From my guess it's 12-15~
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-08 17:23:03
[deleted]
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-08-08 17:53:52
No, you are avoiding what I say. If you can't disprove what I say, I am right.
I just told you exactly why in that comment why it's not rape. Should I repeat it for you? Here's something to think about: Do animals say ''yes'' or ''no'' to their own species? I mean with human language, of course.
Obviously not, so why should we need a ''yes'' or ''no'' from an animal in human language? This makes less than zero sense.
And now, we don't assume they're horny because they have clear signs of being horny, Do you know when your dog is hungry or thirsty? I certainly hope you do, because I'd feel bad for any animal you'd take care of. Because you'd assume they're hungry or thirsty.
This would result in you making an animal starve or overfeeding them.
Animals have mating rituals, and that is a clear way of showing they are horny and want to have sex. It's also ''Yes, let's have sex now.'' in their language so it's consent. They use this for their own species but also others if they are interested.
And no, I don't fuck animals and never will.
Even if I did, so what? There's no point in bringing it up.
[deleted] 0 points on 2017-08-08 17:56:16
[deleted]
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-08-08 18:00:59
Then what does give me the right to fuck an animal? They're horny and ask for sex, we answer them.
With the same logic, you shouldn't have sex with a human either.
Your logic is lacking again.
You still haven't told me how old you are, so I'm guessing I guessed right? Because that doesn't seem like a very rational and mature reply.
[deleted] 0 points on 2017-08-08 18:05:54
[deleted]
SCP_2547 2 points on 2017-08-08 18:16:28
my age doesn't matter
Your age doesn't matter, but your behavior makes me suspicious that you may be a very delusional child. And of course, I just want to know if you're a childish adult or not. Would tell a lot more about you.
nothing gives you the fucking right to fuck an animal.
And nothing gives you the right to fuck a human with the same logic.
dogs are meant to fuck dogs. humans are meant to fuck humans.
And we were meant to live in caves without computers and all the stuff we have today. Animals aren't supposed to be domesticated either.
Also, we were all meant to be heterosexual. Are you against homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, etc. too?
Doesn't mean we don't have the right to something if we aren't meant to do something. Your ''point'' makes absolutely no sense and is very vague. It doesn't matter what we were meant to do. If we can have consensual sex with animals, then we should if we want to.
Give me a reason why we shouldn't.
Sorry bud, but this really isn't your subject.
it's not that hard to understand.
Oh look, the classic ''its all obvious right???'' card.
No, no it isn't.
and i'm pretty sure you know it's a crime too, don't you?
...And your point is?
So what if it is? The law doesn't decide what's right or not.
Surely there's one law you don't agree with. Don't deny that.
DISSSSS-MISSED!
caikgoch 1 point on 2017-08-09 00:57:54
OK. Now that we've got that established, how does it work when the human just stands there and the horse fucks the human?
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-09 01:04:03
[deleted]
caikgoch 1 point on 2017-08-09 01:11:15
Having actually done that more than once, I suspect that I realize more about it than you do.
So am I to take it that it is OK as long as the animal is stronger than the human and initiates the sex?
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-09 02:26:25
[deleted]
caikgoch 2 points on 2017-08-09 02:37:00
How is it wrong?
A 1200 lb horse doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to do.
It's his idea anyway.
It's just not possible for me to hurt a horse by standing for him.
It's not a crime in this time and place.
We both enjoy it and do it again and again.
So how is it wrong?
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-09 02:47:10
[deleted]
caikgoch 1 point on 2017-08-09 02:55:52
Absolutely nothing according to a fair number of tests for both structure and content.
And that isn't an answer to a direct question.
edit (5 hours later): I guess it's past his bedtime.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-04 01:15:29
[removed]
UntamedAnomaly 1 point on 2017-08-05 16:23:28
Alright, this is the 3rd time within the last day I've tried to view this post, but I can't see any of the comments. Why this ONE post? There are over 100 comments it says, but not a single one shows up...Ugghh!
thelongestusernameeebanned from the aquarium touch tank 1 point on 2017-08-05 16:38:08
im not having any problems.
Maybe try this? it aint a perfect fix, but it should work
UntamedAnomaly 1 point on 2017-08-05 16:52:02
Ahh yes, I can see all the comments there. Thank you! I dunno why it's just this one post.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-08 23:25:07
[deleted]
thelongestusernameeebanned from the aquarium touch tank 1 point on 2017-08-08 23:31:55
what
lolwatbot 1 point on 2017-08-08 23:31:59
WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU COMPARE BEING ZOOPHILIC TO BEING PART OF THE LGBT+ COMMUNITY? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?
thelongestusernameeebanned from the aquarium touch tank 1 point on 2017-08-08 23:33:43
im sorry please dont hurt me :..(
caikgoch 2 points on 2017-08-09 00:52:27
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I did not speak out;
As I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I did not speak out;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
As I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
As I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller
If you can't figure it out, just ask.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-08-10 22:40:34
Immediately stop citing this bullshit that has NOTHING to do with the situation zoophiles find themselves in. I haven´t seen trains loaded with "zoophiles" traveling to Treblinka, Bergen-Belsen and all the other extinction camps. Stop this bullshit NOW. I have jewish ancestry and I find it so gross you´re even hinting at a possible comparison to the holocaust.
Honestly, what´s wrong with you? You´re basically the same level of retard as ZETA who once published a picture of a David´s star ...with a fuckin´greek lower zeta photoshopped right in the middle of the well known (at least in Germany) yellow 6 pointed stars jews were forced to visibly sew onto their clothes....I´m embarrassed and angry about so much openly displayed stupidity, twisted thinking and self absorbance. Go and hit your head against some history books, old man! Maybe and hopefully, some of the content will simmer through into your brains and you realise why you´ve stepped in fat shit here...
Not amused
30-30
Postscriptum: Maybe you wanna look up the man you aren´t hesitant to quote...Niemöller initially was an adorer of Hitler and only rose his voice against the Austrian runner up of the 1933 Charlie Chaplin doppelgänger contest after the church came under fire from the nazi ideology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niemöller
caikgoch 1 point on 2017-08-11 01:14:26
You know one of the things that I really like about the Jews? They don't deny their history, they hold it up as an example for future generations. That's a stark contrast to many religious and political groups today who pull down monuments and remove names because they don't like being reminded their failures or others successes. An extreme example being Al Qaeda blowing up other peoples' temples.
Niemöller learned from his mistakes and some doozies committed by others. The translation I chose was the one he favored. I don't care how you think it relates to Zoophilia or anything else! I am making a simple but powerful statement about politics and why there are times that being your brothers' keeper is more than just necessary.
How many ways has it been said? "A violation of anyone's rights is a violation of everyone's rights." "Anyone who gives up rights in favor of security deserves neither."
Fantastic as it seems, you are not the center of the world.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-08-11 15:00:48
Show me the concentration camps with millions of "zoophiles" in them, show me the trains, the Gestapo capturing the "zoos" out of their beds at 4 AM in the morning, show me the "flea markets" selling all of the belongings of "zoos" for a nickel to anyone interested, show me the "zoo" mass graves and I might, MIGHT consider talking to your deluded ass again....
caikgoch 2 points on 2017-08-12 02:45:56
You are not talking to or about me now.
thelongestusernameeebanned from the aquarium touch tank 1 point on 2017-08-08 23:42:55
so i found the comment (i hope) you meant to reply to, and i think this is relevant
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-08-08 23:59:29
[deleted]
thelongestusernameeebanned from the aquarium touch tank 1 point on 2017-08-09 00:09:56
/r/zoophilia archive
Anti-zoophiles are special.
I don't even bother being bothered by them any more. Sometimes they're fun to talk to, though.
If you pay attention, you can see how evidence and logic isn't really their best thing as they usually try to twist it all around and insult you instead.
More bark than bite and more neckbeard than brain I guess.
Sometimes it gets boring trying to educate them, so I make threats about fingering my dog if they post here and actually do it when they post.
Well you heard it anti-zoo 'tards, want me to
pleasurerape a poor innocent doggy that has done nothing wrong and is clearly resisting with her mating rituals? Awwwh take a listen to that, she'smoaningcrying!They can be annoying as fuck with their typical human behavior, but I want them back just for a few hours.
Makes me think though, they upvoted one post to hell and I'm pretty sure a lot of them subscribed to this sub.
Can some one get them here? I haven't been to the circus a while and would like to see them use the same excuses over and over again.
Oh and I've been addicted to spreading fun facts lately.
Fun Fact #001:
One anti's reasoning for thinking animals can't give consent is because we don't know what animals think and they don't have a clear language. Funny enough, that human could tell when a dog was hungry or not.
Imagine that human taking care of an animal. Yeah, and we're the ones we can't seem to care for them properly...
Oh, if anti's only admitted to being so wrong it'd be just easier for everyone. I guess it's their loss in the end, because they do know we're always right, and that's why there's so much excuses they make.
And well, there's no way they can stop us from participating in consensual acts.
If they would stick to "God said so" for why bestiality is wrong, stupid though it is, it would at least be consistent. But now that homosexuality is more widely accepted, it would be hypocritical to go that direction, so they attempt to project a standard onto sex and consent that will never be enforced between people, and then pretend that standard is, in fact, the norm, belying the experiences of pretty much anyone with a healthy sex life.
My question with the informed consent argument is this: can you tell me precisely what information needs to be transmitted between parties for there to be informed consent? Because either we can get that through body language from many social mammals or we pretty much never do that even in encounters that both parties would agree were consensual, at least so far as I can determine.
Ohoho, trust me, this is only a tip of the iceberg. If they do so I would be more than pleased to point out a whole list of things that God forbidden, some under a punishment of death, which THEY do. What's more funny, almost once a week.
Well honestly, it's religion.
If you expect logical and ethical ideas from religion, you're far away from the truth.
Not wasting your time with fairytales is a crime, humans! According to our skydaddy, you'll burn for eternity just for not believing!
Ah yes, brings peace to my mind!
I gotta be honest, I despise my life but sometimes I'm really grateful for being an atheist.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I can at least say that if they bring up an argument from their very holy book they should do what it says before. I like not to believe in this stupidity too.
I used to hold to this argument so here's my understanding of it. What you can't communicate to an animal is risk of possible injury and what your intent is beyond just the action, the emotional and social implications that are attached for humans. So if someone's not comfortable for those reasons I think that's fair. However, where it falls flat is that we can't communicate these things for any activity we do with animals, so why should sex be less ethical than other physically riskier activities?
Where people finally draw the line in what's okay vs what's not okay is going to be fairly arbitrary. We all have our little hypocrisies and inconsistencies. Personally I don't like the idea of using deliberate training for sexual activity, though by the logic of 'it isn't different than non-sexual activity' it should be fine. The best argument I can come up for it is that it just feels dishonest. People are inconsistent and I think that's okay, as long as they can recognize it and that not everyone is going to have the same limits.
"sometimes it gets boring trying to educate them..." One thing that´s obligatory to successful teaching is the willingness of tthe "student" to be taught. Is this the case here? No. So "trying to educate them" is a bit of a sad justification somehow, man. You cannot teach the unteachable. "...so I make threads (or threats? ;) ) about fingering my dog..." Very immature, man, very immature. Do what you do, but don´t (ab-)use it as a weapon in a stupid online fight. That´s kinda pathetic, you know...as well as instrumentalising your dog; and we zoos want to avoid exactly this at all costs, right? And pardon me when I ask what you will do when one of those folks on drama or cringeanarchy insult you, but your dog isn´t in the mood? What are your priorities then? See, if I were you, I would try to avoid maneuvering myself into additional ethical and moral dilemmata...we already have enough of them to deal with, don´t you think?
We all know what these subs like the two mentioned above are about, right? We know that it´s not intelligent discussion of a very controversial topic they´re after, but predominantly about finding scapegoats to safely release their anger upon.Can´t you just curb your passive aggressions a slight little bit?
For all the "tu quoque" stuff that´s been pulled off in this thread: well, folks, has this gotten you anywhere, ever? Fact is: zoophilia and sex with animals IS controversial, you know it, I know it, everybody knows it in here.Our opponents have no scientific proof, but we also don´t. Basically, this isn´t a "blind leading the blind" situation, but a "blind fighting the blind" one...
"...I would like to see them using the same excuses over and over..." Well...you don´t have to invite r/drama over here for that, just take a good and unprejudiced look at what we usually come up with...;)
"...they do know we´re always right"...must be some parallel universe´s "zoo community" you´re talking about, ´cause I see lots of totally wrong claims here. We have anecdotal evidence, at best. The sensationalist media and of course the lots and lots of cases that make first class eyecatcher headlines contribute their fair share to the unfavourable picture of us as a group, so what do you expect? And be honest, you aren´t doing this to "educate", you´re replying in these subs practically for the same reasons your "opponents" do...to release your anger because your life isn´t what you want it to be... Think about that for a while...
Reddit is open to use for everyone, so it´s only natural that our sub gets some unwanted attention, isn´t it? And by trolling , be it your style, spiced with passive aggression or be it the Aluzky trademark fake ass scientific style ("citation needed"...I still wonder if he thinks that "citation" is a synonym for the cock of a dog that doesn´t belong to him), you will not only fail to "educate" , you will actually fuel their anger. And that anger will hit us all, not just you as the one responsible for it. Actually I don´t give a flying f whether you continue with this or not, it doesn´t matter anyway, but I just wanted to share my thoughts on your actions in these "hostile" subs and let you know that I consider them very immature and inappropriate, even detrimental for our cause. Maybe you want to take a step back and ask yourself if this is what you wanna stand for, what you want to be known for...is it?
Maybe he's thinking of the American car?
As for the rest of your post...well said.
Chevrolet Citation
The Chevrolet Citation is a compact car marketed by Chevrolet for model years 1980–1985 in two-door coupe, three-door hatchback, and five-door hatchback bodystyles. Introduced in April 1979 for model year 1980, the Citation superseded the Chevrolet Nova.
The Citation was significantly downsized compared to the Nova it was replacing. As a variant of the GM X platform, the Citation was adapted for front-wheel drive and was manufactured with badge engineered variants including the Buick Skylark, Oldsmobile Omega, and Pontiac Phoenix.
^[ PM ^| Exclude me ^| Exclude from subreddit ^| FAQ ^/ Information ^| Source ^] Downvote to remove ^| v0.24
I always like to give others taste of their own medicine, but with my own extra twist added to it.
They're immature too and start threatening me. Well, I'll do it too.
I don't blame you for not knowing, but I've said this before.
If she isn't in the mood, I save it for later. Simple.
And there's nothing wrong with fingering her as long as she wants it. It's not my intention that counts, it's the action that counts.
Our evidence is basic animal behavior. In short: Mating rituals and animals are adults so they are sexually mature. That's basically the evidence we have in short.
And no, I don't need this ''animal translation program'' (before you mention it) who even says it's reliable? Even then, this is all we need.
If you, 30-30, think otherwise: Okay, good for you. It's nice knowing you had sex with animals without being sure if it's ethical or not. Really shows how much you love them, huh?
If they want to say things like ''bestiality has bad effects on animals'' they'd have to prove it first. We don't have to prove shit ourselves.
Ah no, no no can not do.
24/7 bitterness isn't something controllable, you know.
Oh look, typical internet buddy thinking they're reading my mind.
You should become a psychic! You'd earn some easy money from some gullible humans, because they're the only ones who would believe the shit you said.
Actually, I did want to educate others. Or rather, stand up for ourselves.
That has changed indeed, now I just like to fuck around with the fools. They think they've got me, but they're the ones who start going really aggressive and such...
Oh and ''...to release your anger because your life isn´t what you want it to be...'' of cooourse. Must be easy to say if you've basically got everything, huh?
It's not true, because when I have such thoughts I'd rather think about how to end it all in the most quick and painless way, but that's a whole another topic, riiight?
Well who knows what I'm talking about? Maybe a parallel universe where you're actually right?
Oh excuse me Aluzky, did you have to take my messsage so literally? You know what I meant.
We're a lot more right than they are. If you don't agree: Okay, good for you, but you don't represent the majority here, luckily.
Not really, we see eachother as the same, or at least I do.
They're fools in my eyes, and it's the opposite too.
Even if they are pissed off, I'm happy to piss them off, because that's exactly what they're trying to do too.
Don't you get the point of trolling? There's a reason why I threaten to have sexual contact with animals and actually do it.
[citation needed]
Well I want to improve zoophilia for the animals. Thing is, if we all gained lots of respect out of nowhere we won't fix our current problems.
There's many ethics and things that should be fixed, because I think that at this point zoophilia is a threat to many animals.
It's hard to explain, but imagine telling a murderer what they do is right and you respect them. You expect them to ever improve if you encourage them like that? Same thing here.
Also, remember when I actually cared about what others thought of us? You told me to stop giving a shit. (Must be easy to suddenly not care about something, huh?)
And I finally did, and now you say it's bad? But oh my dear, look at me, I am the bad guy now.
You see, zoophilia becomes their problem. I can keep doing what I'm doing, and they can't do a single thing about it.
I enjoy schadenfreude a lot. Everyone gotta have their revenge some time.
I enjoy it even more when it's done against my enemy. If they had the chance, they would take my love away from me and torture us.
I don't care if it ''hurts'' ''us,'' as long as my enemy suffers I win.
Even if they get bothered slightly it's a little victory for me.
I've embarrassed myself enough here and have lowered my reputation with my depression and reasons for depression already.
So much that other zoos said I didn't deserve my biggest dream despite having revolved my life around fixing it. Pretty sick if you think about it, and they wonder why I am so bitter and hateful...
Point is, I don't think I care about that. I've done damage enough to my own reputation. I even feel my names I've been known for are tainted.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^'
You made me think, though. What if I invite my witchhunters to this sub?
There's a lot of them, but what if we just invite one over here? You'd love Beemallard for sure.
Everyone would get sick of that 15 year old by now. Mwahahaha, makes me laugh just thinking about him being here.
I think you should also know who you're talking to. I'm not exactly proud of it, but you know very well I'm someone who gets into fights and drama very often. Can't remember how many uproars I've already made now.
It still happens to this day on random places. Good luck man.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^'
Forgot one last thing.
Every time we zoophiles mention we do zoophilic stuff to our animals, they also get triggered.
What, you want us to stop talking from now on?
Let me remind you just regular threads catches their attention and fuels their anger. I'm not doing that much damage compared to anyone else just admitting to having sex with an animal here.
Not wanting to defend fencehopping here (just wanting to remind you of this), but you can't really dislike fencehopping because humans don't want you to have sex with their animals.
Let me just make it easy for you: No one wants us to have sex and kiss with any kind of animal.
No matter what you do here, you're destroying our image in a way.
It's not about your depression, it's about how you present your opinions in your rants. It's not about you specifically not deserving sex. The world doesn't owe you or anyone else a partner to have sex with for "putting the work in". You are unhealthily focused on getting it, and it makes me uncomfortable because at times you sound far too close to /r/theredpill for my taste.
Recently someone said in /r/morbidquestions
and it rings true to me, that's why it's very important to lose egocentric sentiments and expectations
So what makes sex to not be deserved and so different from other things?
If that one homeless man spends 2 years trying to find a job and tries to find all the information he gets? Doesn't he deserve a job even though he spent so much time trying to find one and would be grateful forever?
If that one friendless woman is looking for friends for 2 years, putting in all her effort into making new friends and have the most polite behavior, doesn't she deserve a friend even though she revolved her life around it?
Why should sex be any different than these? I have a willing dog.
There's a difference between the same ''kind'' of humans like me, they don't have a willing girlfriend that wants to have sex with them at all. They don't have a girlfriend that is too small to have sex with, even though everyone else has a big enough girlfriend of the same ''breed.'' I do.
We both ''deserve'' it. I spent so much time and effort into this, you wouldn't know.
There's a reason I became fucking depressed because of it.
If no one deserves sex, why are you all fucking animals every day? You don't fucking deserve it either then. Stop it now. Do it. Everyone should stop right now then. It's not important and nobody deserves it right?
Sorry, but that's the same logic.
If you bother to have sex with an animal, you should at least understand.
I'd wish humans like you would be in the same situation for a second... Sometimes you only understand things when you experience themselves, sadly.
And might I remind you that was a personal attack back then? Because he hates me for no reasons, and double standards are involved.
He abuses my information and thinks of me unfairly.
I have thousands of reasons why I'm obsessed with it, and you all are only making it worse.
I'm not going to bother explaining them, as literally nobody I've met seems to understand that certain humans value things over other things.
And I'd say that's pretty sad, considering we as zoophiles mostly put animals over humans.
It's like someone saying: ''So what if your animal is dead? Just get another one or something.'' to us.
I know it's kind of disgusting to compare this to an animal's death, but I couldn't think of anything else for now.
But you get my point. It's going in the same direction.
Do you need your daily reminder that your mother supports both "your" dog and your jobless ass? You don't know the first thing about effort. Get lost.
No, really. I have very good reasons for hating you.
Can you please at least explain what your point is? So what if I don't have a job and get supported by my mom? I am 18.
Yes, almost no one would at this point cam all do it on their own. I know no one who could, at least.
Could you afford a dog AND yourself at that age? If so, that's impressive.
I don't want your everyday job in a store or anything. I'm still studying myself.
There's actually many reasons why I don't have a job yet. If it involves too much human contact, I couldn't do it. If it involves calculating, I couldn't do it.
And finally, since I'm still in school it'll take away my time. I already feel bad for leaving her all alone when I'm in school.
And what do you mean ''your'' dog? She is on my name since forever, and I do have the money to support her. My mother just pays for her things. Except the 40's of euros I spend on her toys and treats a lot of the time.
And since I'm still studying and young, I get money automatically and can actually afford her.
I've had trauma in the past. I'm a bit slower than others and have trouble doing certain things. Now with my depression that doesn't help either.
I do know about effort, because I've put in effort in trying to have sex. You can't tell me it's not true, because to this day I'm still trying, and trying to get information.
For me, yes that is effort. It really is because of my depression and lack of optimism in it. It's something that wears me down way more than you think.
Of course I've put effort in other things in the past, but I really put a lot of effort into this.
Do you know what I've put into that? A lot of energy and time. Why would you judge me for that?
Why is everything suddenly so different when it's sex? What if it was something else that was considered ''not important''?
I seriously don't get it. Replace it with anything else and it's suddenly okay...
If you think I see my girl as unimportant like you claimed before, then you should stop assuming so much. Because I really do care about her.
I always put her up front in many cases.
Only I can decide this, you can't. You really think you may read minds like most humans do, but you really can't.
She's my most important thing, and no, not just because she has a vagina.
If it really was true, wouldn't I have trained her to have sex? Wouldn't I be pissed off when she denies such sex requests?
And if you think so, I think you should really look at some other zoophiles here. If you pay attention to them, it really looks like they're a bit obsessed with sex themselves. Yeah, having sex everyday, sex at 17, repeated fencehopping, etc. isn't an obsession with sex for sure... We suffer from a strange attraction, honestly... what are you even expecting?
Before you think it's an insult, it's not: But you fencehopped.
I'd say that's something completely done out of lust. You went out of your way to do that.
But you know what? That's not true. Because you told me you did it for her. I actually have no reason to deny what you said. Don't you realize you're one of the few who actually made me change my mind about a subject?
I'm not fond of fencehopping, but I am not strongly against it any more as I used to be. Because in the end, I did understand you. Yet you don't understand me and continue to be toxic to me.
I know I'm assuming a lot here, but I'm saying just in case it's what you think, since you've said it before.
You misunderstand me greatly, and it's quite sad to be honest, because it results in unnecessary hate. You treat me like anti-zoophiles treat us.
And what exactly is your reason for hating me? Because I said certain things? I've never done anything wrong.
I can admit my behavior I have displayed in the past months isn't appreciated, but if that is really the only reason... Seriously?
Have I offended you so much that you wanted to kill my girl? What is it exactly?
You're the bad one here, attacking me for no reason and wanting to take my girl away from me.
In case you don't know what I'm saying, you are throwing my IRL information around for ''fun.'' When that gets me in danger, you have killed her. No matter what you think, I'm a good animal owner.
I am suicidal, but I don't kill myself because she's still here. And if I had to, I'd die for her.
And even with my depression I still continue to do the same things as earlier. I am not happy, yet I try to hide it for her as best as I can...
My point is that pretty much all zoophiles had and have to find a way to be support themselves on their own before they could even consider the possibility of having a relationship with an animal. Did you have to go through that? No. You are supported by your fucking mother. Of course, nothing I will say will ever get through your thick skull, because I get it. Your life is soooo goddamn hard. You're 18 and you've never been laid. Boohoo. I'm about to cry.
...
Is that what I need to do to have the privilege of fucking a dog? Buy her 40$ worth of toys? Holy shit, I guess people were right. It is that easy!
I still don't get your point, because my mother promised me to support me, so there's no problem at all.
I had to go trough such thoughts, because I wanted to be sure I'd be giving her a good life and that we'd have enough money for her. And we sure do.
And even if my mother couldn't right now, I still have a lot of money I saved and get enough every few weeks.
I don't see a single problem.
And yes, my life is hard. I have many problems you aren't aware of, and the ones I already mentioned were enough to explain that I have a horrible life.
Anything I say won't get to you either because you're blinded by your own anger, or you could just be really dumb. I wouldn't know, honestly.
My point was is that I still spend a lot of money on her. I've spent more on her than anything.
You really aren't making much sense right now, because you can't hate me for that.
Oh yeah. I'm sure of it. Try getting a mortgage when a fucking shack in the woods costs a quarter of a million. Because that's what I need to get at least to have a dog. Because my mother would never support my dog and I under her roof.
I wish you got caught and your life ruined. Yeah, you got that absolutely right. You "deserve" absolutely no less.
What exactly is your problem now? I or my mother can support her and I'm doing absolutely nothing wrong.
This hasn't been the case for you, so you're mad at me?
You don't even have a single good reason for why I deserve to be caught and my life ruined.
I've done nothing unethical or wrong.
Really, all this only because you are jealous of me? You're way more immature and illogical than I thought.
And if you really think so, then you are a bad excuse of a zoophile, an animal lover. You surely do love animals if you want to kill one, and even want to ruin an innocent zoophile's life who'll even take care of more animals.
You want to take other's happiness away just because you don't have it yourself. Not even I am like that, which makes you way worse than me.
You might be a bit sick in your head, very sick. Your ethics don't make much sense.
Thinking someone's life should be ruined because they had a little more luck than you... Yep, I'm the fucked up one here.
Not even trying to insult you, but I'm not surprised why your life how it turned out to be. And I barely even know much about you.
I'm mad at you because you can't even be grateful for what you have. If you can't be thankful, then you absolutely don't deserve it.
You're coming here, whining endlessly like your life is some kind of nightmare. In my face. And the face of everybody stuck in the same situation I am. Fucking hell, can't you be grateful for what you have?... Sex or no sex, I would kill to be where you are. I'd butcher an innocent in cold blood and would never even think twice.
Will you shut up about not being to have sex with your dog, holy shit.
Tell me, why aren't you grateful of what you have?
At this exact moment, there are thousands of humans suffering. One example is that there's at least now one human starving to death, and it's obvious why. They didn't have food and luck fucked them over.
There's thousands of humans out there who would fucking endlessly torture to be in your situation. They are in so much pain that they'd do anything to be any of us.
You don't seem grateful of what you have right now. Why aren't you?
Do you know HOW grateful I would be if this happened just once? For that reason, I think most zoophiles here are also ungrateful, considering they all had PiV sex with animals. If I was in their shoes right now, you wouldn't hear me complain about anything.
Yet I still hear them talking about certain shit I've learned to accept. Do I say they should have their lifes ruined?
Again, I have many reasons why I'm not happy with this. I mean, I am really happy with her, but this lack of sex hit me hard because of many reasons.
I bet it wouldn't even help even if I gave you all my reasons, because it doesn't interest you one bit, which kind of defeats the purpose of even talking to you.
But here's something: Depression, the fact that I take things very seriously, etc. all play a part in this too. You don't understand me one bit.
They make this whole virginity thing to me even worse, and it's pretty self-explanatory why. They affect almost everything.
...You'd kill an innocent in cold blood for this, and guess what I would do for us to have sex?
Before you call that all fucked up, we all value different things. I take things very seriously and heavy.
It's not even any different than you killing for a dog. It's both something we want badly, to please both an animal and ourselves.
And by the way, I'd kill more innocents in cold blood for her life, not just one. Even if it had to be my friends or family.
I can completely ignore my misanthropy, and I still would do this.
And in the end...
You wish me to have my life ruined forever just because I'm not completely happy with what I have? I'd say your ethics are fucked up, but you lack them completely.
That makes absolutely no sense.
Have you ever considered that I don't even control such a thing? I tried accepting my fate and I tried to be happy with everything I have, yet I couldn't.
Also, did you know that I am grateful for my girl? I just am not grateful for not being able to have sex.
This is an extremely important thing you miss so much...
The problem is, you don't even want to understand me. It's extremely clear.
Tell me, what exactly is the point of still talking to me if that's true? You seem to be more angry than reasonable.
With what he has, it's very much out of his hands, much as he wouldn't like to admit it. Depression like his is inescapable and has a way of turning a good life into one of misery without so much as a taste of the solace of consistency.
Yeah. I need you to tell me this. Obviously I have no idea what depression is.
I trust that you do know what it is, of course. That said, the type of depression he has causes... acute problems, including neurodegeneration that considerably outpaces most other forms of depression. It's a dominant, hereditary trait and grows in severity over time, with the prognosis getting worse the longer it's left untreated. For him right now, what he sees as the only way to overcome it, if only temporarily, is that which he makes a point to talk about.
You already deleted your account, but...
I understand the railing against the idea that he's somehow owed sex, no objection there, it reflects poorly on him and if you were taking him to task for that I'd have merely silently cheered you on.
You can't expect a kid who lives at home to grok things he's never experienced. You seem to be projecting your anger at what I presume is difficulty getting established on him, as though he's setting property values and throwing obstacles in your way.
That's not his fault either. Keep in mind, your life could be a whole hell of a lot worse than it is now, should those who had a rougher time than you give you grief over having it so easy? I mean dude, you had a mother and a fucking roof!
He's a kid, he won't learn that shit until he's forced to, same as the rest of us. Want to get angry at someone, get angry with his mom, presumably she's taught him (and probably taught him like she was taught, so maybe it's grandmom/granddad to blame...who probably...)
And why exactly? Tell me now, what makes sex so different from anything else?
Everyone thinks they deserve a certain thing after spending so much time trying to get it.
Why is sex so different? Look, there's humans here who think they deserve animals.
Should we insult and manipulate them too to make them feel fucking horrible? I thought not.
I have a willing dog, I had a lot of optimism, I spent so much effort into it. ...And our only obstacle is my dick that's too big or her vagina that's too small. Oh, and of course the humans like you saying we don't deserve it, making me procrastinate even more.
Also, might I remind you that you're now on someone's side who says I deserve my life to be ruined forever because I'm not happy? I am happy with my girl, just not with the lack of sex.
I deserve my life to be fucking ruined forever because of that? Did you know he has been typing my real name and place around here? He wants me to get caught. Seriously, I expected way better from you. But you made me give up on everyone but AmoreBestia here.
It doesn't surprise me he's a non-zoo, since I'm clearly growing a bias against zoophiles here.
It's not really any different, it's not the action, but your insistance that you're owed it, that since you've paid a few dollars to the whore should let you do as you please. You can earn her respect by your actions, but you will never be owed anything. It sounds like you're treating her like an object, not the individual she is. Maybe that's just a poor choice of words on your part, but all I have to go on is what you say here.
I have no objection over the sex, just your attitude that it's owed to you for taking care of her. Providing for her is your responsibility, you took that on when you accepted to take care of her, nothing you do in that regard earns you any privilege. You can take what you're owed, but don't be surprised when others react to you in disgust.
How am I on the side of someone when my comment to them was to take them to task? I am only responsible for my own statements and actions. As for what you deserve? Not my problem, I deal with depression too, I've been hospitalized for it, I know full well the impact it can have. You don't deserve shit in life, get over it. People are born into conditions so fucking bad they'd do anything to have it as nice as you or I. You want happiness, you have to make it for yourself, nobody else is as vested in your life to do it for you.
Just in case I haven't made myself clear, I don't really care if you're happy or not, it really has zero effect on my life. I would hope you can find happiness, but that's your problem, not mine. I think you give too many shits about what other people think, happiness is fleeting, find what makes you less miserable, do it without harming others, live, and die, it's the best any of us can hope for.
If anyone says you can't ''deserve'' sex while they say you can deserve anything else, you're not making any sense.
Sex isn't any different from anything else. If you say you don't deserve anything at all, then that's fine even though I don't agree with it.
But I've heard different from another zoo, who thought he deserved his dog. Well guess what, he certainly didn't with his stupid ass logic.
How so? Because I really don't.
I do understand why you're seeing this, but I really don't see her as some kind of sex object.
Do note it's not just about me, but about her too.
Why else would I specifically want to do it with her? You can give me any other animal and I wouldn't have sex with them even if I got the chance to.
I have a feeling of guilt that I have PiV sex with another animal, I betrayed her. Not to mention I want to ''suffer'' with her. (Don't really know how to word it properly.) And I mean by that that if she doesn't lose her virginity, I won't either.
I want her first experience to be with me, but I also want my first experience to be with her. And note that I mean we both deserve it.
You say ''owe'' instead of ''deserve''. Note that there's a difference.
In fact, I've never even said that I am owed sex.
To be owed something, you'd need someone else involved. Like someone who owes you something, who's supposed to give you something. I'm not saying she owes me anything. With deserving something you only need one someone. Well in this case there's the two of us, but we both deserve it.
No one owes me sex, but we do deserve sex in my opinion. I mean, why don't we? And I've put a lot of effort into this too.
I think anyone deserves sex as long as they do it consensually. And if you put effort into it, you deserve it even more.
Really, it's not hard logic. More effort put / Progress made = You deserve it more.
I never said such a thing.
Even though I agree with you, does this mean you approve of fencehopping? No problem with that, but with this exact logic you do.
You can't just tell someone to ''get over it.'' That's like saying: ''Stop being poor!''
Feelings like these are out of your control, not to mention most of your life might be out of your control. And that means the problems just won't cease to exist.
I also take it you won't feel like shit when your animal dies? Because apparently everything seems so easy to get over.
I have no problem with that. I feel the same for everyone else.
If I was shot on the streets, currently choking in my own blood and no one would have helped me, I would not blame them. I wouldn't even be mad at them.
But you know when I would get mad? When they walk up to me, say I fucking deserved it and even pour salt on the wound for no good fucking reason. What? Because I'm not happy with life I don't deserve it? Or because I was a dick for a few months? And before I could even explain myself to help them understand, they close their ears and see me as some kind of enemy. That's why I deserve so much pain? Yep, very logical and rational of them.
And that's exactly what these shitty comments directed at me are.
Oh and I know exactly what that is. Oh, exactly... Let's just say that happiness is a few planets away. I already found what I want, now I just need to get it.
But you know, I think I already got my answer. Even though we as zoos suffer from this ourselves, there's a bias about sex.
Sex is often seen very differently than other things.
When you say ''I want to cuddle with her so bad!'' there's no problem at all.
When you say ''I want to have sex with her so bad!'' it's often treated different, even though it really isn't any different than the first example.
In the end, in both situations you are pleasing yourself and someone else.
Suddenly, someone's a ''sex object'' when you want to have sex. Why isn't someone considered a ''cuddle object'' when you just want to cuddle?
Why is it more wrong? If you think about it logically, it really makes no fucking sense.
Just because I want to have sex with her so fucking badly doesn't mean I see her as a sex object. Even then, at the same time our virginities aren't the only problems.
And just because you care about something very much doesn't mean you can't care about others things. What I mean is, even if I care a lot about sex doesn't mean I can't care about her or anything. Because she's in fact more important than sex, it's just that at the same time sex really is a big deal to me and affects me horribly. (For many reasons.)
Because if she was taken away from me, I would feel even ten thousand times more horrible than now.
And that's something that everyone really must keep in mind: I am affected by (certain) things very heavily.
You don't care about me, that's fine. But just because you misunderstand me you want to make me feel horrible and insult me? There's just something wrong with you.
Is it clear now? It's just other's opinions, but being misunderstood isn't something to be happy about.
Especially when they're wishing things upon you you clearly don't deserve or spread false information about you.
I'm fine with the anti-zoophiles saying shit like that since it's typical, but I always expected better of zoophiles.
I guess not. Zoophiles aren't exactly immune to things like biases and double standards.
Uhh, you mean like where I said in my previous comment, which you quoted
.
When you say things like how you deserve sex, or that it is owed to you, it comes across as objectifying her. As though just because you happen to provide something more than basic subsistence that she should have to fuck you because you're just so kind as to buy her some toys.
I don't know what you think, never have claimed to, but here's a clue for you: when multiple people make the same inferrence based on comments you've made, maybe there's something to what they're noticing.
Sure, nobody owes me sex either, but I deserve sex with your girl, don't I? If not, why not? What makes your deserving it more than mine? I think if you think about this and understand it, you'll understand what the objection is with being "owed".
Ah, yes, you will be owed it, no? If not, how are you defining "owe" vs "deserve". One deserves only what one is owed, no? One cannot be owed something we do not deserve, can we?
I can and did, it really is that easy. Let's explore that idea of a poor person for a minute. Let's say it's some poor guy, that he was born poor and it wasn't his fault, but that he doesn't want to be poor. Which is more likely to solve his problem, him making a plan and working to solve his problem or him waiting for someone to come along and give him enough money to not be poor? In order to not be poor he will have to accpet that his only way out is by him, actively doing something about it, him "getting over it" and deciding to do something about it.
Oh, you mean for the kind of actions which I called out as unacceptable to you which started this whole tangent? The kind of things I was defending you against?
What would you expect of people? If I insult you and treat you poorly repeatedly, should I be surprised if you presume that I will do so again. To expect otherwise you be pretty irrational, no? Admittedly, your comments have gotten significantly more intelligible, which is why I even bother with you now.
Ok, wallow in it, it makes me angry when you do so. Make me mad, ruin your life and be the most miserable person on the face of the planet, that will show me! You obviously need to get a grip, best of luck with that, I'm done here.
I've edited my earlier comment, so I recommend reading it again. Well, you don't really care but I'm saying that if you want to understand me, it's right there.
Then as I said, I have less of a problem with it. I mean, I don't entirely agree with it.
It's just that I don't like this unfair BS they say. Not to mention they say I deserve my depression and to get my life ruined, so in their logic it just doesn't make sense.
That makes no sense to me. This isn't really relevant, because this has nothing to do with objects nor do I see her as an object.
And I already said, we both deserve it. If I say she deserves it, do I objectify myself? Wtf man...
You know what's objectifying animals? When you say you deserve to have them.
To me that's not entirely true, but it makes more sense than what you said. Hopefully I don't need to explain.
What?
I said that to say that I'm good for her.
That's similar to anti-zoo logic.
''The majority of us is against bestiality! Seems a bit strange, doesn't it?'' This excuse holds absolutely no value...
Even then, you all misunderstand me. I see a lot of assumptions about me that aren't true.
I'm not saying you didn't? As I said, as long as it's consensual you deserve it.
But I doubt she would even allow you because she prefers me over even other dogs and I already give her enough sexual contact, so she isn't short on that, and I wouldn't allow either because we're in a relationship.
So, you haven't answered my question about fencehopping. So this is an obvious yes, I guess.
And I'm not you.
A lot of humans aren't you, either. Because still thousands of humans have problems like this and they can't just forget it all either.
Right now there's only one true path to happiness for me, and I can't reach it. You know exactly what that is.
And no matter what I try, I can't do it. I've put all my energy and optimism into that.
Oh you really misunderstand me. I am not waiting for anyone to give me help.
I am just asking for some fucking assistance, not completely relying on others. Then again, I ask for help and don't force it.
And I bet that poor human would also need some assistance. What if they're completely clueless? They must at least ask for some help.
Even then, I try things on my own. But at some point in life you can't do it all on your own no matter hard you try.
There's a reason things like allies exist. If we don't need them, why don't we get rid of them?
You know what I'm talking about. All the comments basically saying I deserve to suffer, for example?
I expect you to be a dick against me too, but saying I deserve to get my life ruined or suffer? Then you are seriously fucking sick in your head.
I've never even wished for anyone else to suffer or get their lives ruined just because they were dicks to me.
This isn't how revenge works. Not to mention someone already despised me greatly before I had this angry behavior.
You don't understand, I'm trying to improve.
But when someone is sick of life, do you expect them to be happy? Of course not.
It's called anger, if you didn't know. For some certain humans it's hard to keep their normal behavior if they forgot what happiness felt like.
I thought this was obvious.
But you know, it was nice talking to someone more rational once. It's a rare occurrence.
[removed]
Here's some logic and evidence: animals can't consent. I don't care if they sit and take it, they didn't tell you you could do it. There's a reason we don't allow adults to fuck kids, and that's because they aren't able to consent in a meaningful way.
You are sick fuck. If you think fucking a dog is okay, then why stop at dogs? Why say we can't fuck kids? Either you know it's fucked up to involve yourself sexually with a being that can't give you true consent, or you think fucking kids is cool. There's no space between those lines, because consent means the same thing for all of us. It means being of sound mind, using logic to consider all aspects of sex, and saying it's okay.
You need help. Serious help. You're sick. Please call a therapist, because I don't care how much your dog seems to be having fun, at the end of the day, that animal can't give you consent. If you don't think pedophilia is okay, then you have a strange fucking brain to find "zoophilia" (bestiality) okay. And if you find pedophilia okay, then you are even worse than you seem.
Here's some more logic: yeah, we can tell when a dog is hungry, but that's because we feed them and we know when they need food. My cat can't understand what I say, and I can't understand what he says when he meows. If he meows, I'll check his food. But sometimes he meows while he has food and water. So what does he want? Fuck if I know. You know why? Because most animals don't have language. You may think your dog WANTS you, but you don't know that for certain. That's just false, pure and simple. Assume all you want, but that's fucked to do.
So there, I took your bait, you sick fuck. Feel free to try and justify your gross habits, fucking psychopath. And yeah, I insulted you. You need it. You deserve it. This sub deserves to be shut down, and that's why I've reported it. It's hardly better than pedophilia. So yeah, let's have some fun. Let's go to the circus (as if we aren't already here, this place is full of clowns).
You have done a few things:
And nah, I won't need help. A shitfly is more worth than your opinion, it seems.
At the end of the day, you have repeated what many have repeated. So you have not convinced me the slighest.
Animals are adults (you seemed obsses with pedophilia there a bit, bud) and are sexually mature and they use their mating rituals to show their interest in sex with you.
Get ready to deny the evidence. 1... 2... 3... GO!
Oh, and I couldn't just ignore this:
Hey! Hey! Hey!
Buddy, I have a question for you.
Do you see that growling dog at that fence? Why don't you go pet them?
Growling isn't a part of their language, it's nothing, right? Just go ahead!
Whahaha, it amuses me how you always repeat the same debunked arguments.
Time to wipe that tear of my eye. Oooh...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^'
Oh by the way, It's almost 7 AM.
We'd rather take a sleep right now. And who knows? Maybe I'll treat ourselves today.
I'm craving for some sweet animal pussy right now. If that's what I gotta do that's what I gotta do.
You amused me in a way. I actually feel happy because of it. It's humans like you and your reactions that make me CRAVE for negative attention.
See ya ''tomorrow'' buddy! Oh and, don't hurt yourself on the way out! All that air in your head can quite heavy!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^'
sighs
Man, I'm against fishing but I'm really proud with the fish I caught today. 👌
EDIT: /u/30-30 don't you see? I'm only weeding out the more vocal anti-zoo retards by getting them all reported.
Look at how they bark, bark and bark! I'm only a good guy for zoophilia's future, am I not?
You fuck dogs. I am not even near embarrassed for confronting your sick ass.
You can't understand a dog. That's evidence, that's logic.
Yeah, no. That was gonna happen anyway. I don't feel guilty, but nice try.
Because you guys know what you are doing is wrong, and don't want anyone pissing on your sick parade.
No, animals are not adults. At least, not in a human sense. They don't think much beyond basic needs, like a human baby, and if you truly cared about them getting off, you'd get another dog and let THEM fuck, not stick your own appendages in them to satisfy your own sick fantasies.
It's language, sure. But it's not consent. Knowing a dog is scared and is trying to defend itself vs a dog trying get you to stick your appendages, which are not meant to be anywhere near it, inside the dog. It's not something you can understand based on simple observation.
Oh boohoo. Go to bed then, you freak. I'm sorry I somehow stopped you from getting your much needed shut-eye. It's not even midnight here, but you poor thing.
You know why? Because you know what you are doing is wrong, and you get off on the tabooness of it.
Since you want to talk about logic, I noticed you didn't respond to my point about pedophilia. Sure, dogs are "adults" after a certain age, sure they have mating rituals. But what stops a 30 year old human from having sex with a 14 year old human going through puberty? They have mating rituals too, and they can "consent" as much as a dog can. You want to talk about logic, yet you showed none of your own.
It continues to talk.
I don't fuck anything and never will.
Nice assumption.
Don't give your animals food and attention then, you can't understand their needs and what they want.
It wasn't, I gain no pleasure from this at all and am barely in the mood to.
But I'm a man of my words. I have no reason to lie and did it just because you commented.
Nice assumption, but I'm afraid for you that that is not true.
Do you have any evidence we thin- why am I even asking? Of course you don't.
Goddamn you are embarrassing yourself.
Sure they are. They are sexually mature fully developed beings. That is being an adult.
My girl refuses to have sex with other male dogs.
Also no, I wouldn't even allow that to happen. That would mean pregnancy, so suffering for pups.
Animals do prefer their own species, but they aren't picky. I think a human can easily satisfy an animal more than another animal can. All an animal can do is PiV sex, we as humans can specifically focus on their more pleasurable spots. Not to mention we can give them sexual contact for as long as they want.
And if you truly cared about the human you're having sex with, why don't you give them a better sex partner?
There's thousands of other humans out there who can pleasure them even more. Same logic is used, so if your brain gets a cramp don't panic yet.
Thanks for proving I am right and that you are wrong. Animals indeed have languages.
You failed horribly, sorry bud.
What makes you think we can understand if they're scared or not but cannot understand when an animal wants sex or not?
That's honestly pretty retarded, as we know an animal's mating rituals.
I'm distracted by an animal pussy. Sorry, can't sleep.
Nah, I'm an actual zoophile. I hate taboo stuff, but I do enjoy taunting humans like you with it.
I don't see how anything taboo is arousing in any way.
But that's your opinion, I showed nothing but logic.
You can't compare a 14 year old human to an adult animal. If you can't see the difference, then I honestly feel bad for you.
Does this ring any bells? ''Adult''? Yeah, 14 year old humans aren't fully sexually mature and not adults. Adult animals obviously are.
Well enjoy your time while you're still here, I guess. You seem a little frustrated, but I guess that's only better for my amusement.
I guess I shouldn't even have to tell you what I'm up to by now. Time to make someone orgam.
EDIT: You should've seen her! She enjoyed it!
Many sweet kisses from her...
Nice ignoring my point earlier. I am the only one around my pet. I'm all he has for food and attention. That's a logical fallacy. Not knowing what a pet says doesn't mean I don't know that they need food. He'd die without food. That's stupid to say.
No? No pleasure? Then why do it? Please enlighten me.
You guys ban people that disagree, and it says "don't abuse animals" in your rules, while you guys are discussing ejaculating in dogs, so you know, seems pretty clear to me, mate.
Read the second sentence after the one you cherry-picked. Adults, in a human sense, are fully matured people, in mind and body. That was my point. I didn't change much physically from age 15 to age 18, but does that mean I'm an adult and should be allowed to fuck adult humans at 15?
And again, you guys discussing having sex with animals. There's no embarrassing myself in this situation.
That's the natural way. You want to talk about dogs and nature and logic: dogs rape each other, just as you are doing to yours. Is that logical? For you to partake?
I offered. I personally am polyamorous and would prefer an open relationship. She doesn't dig the idea. Not my problem that she doesn't want to experience other people. I would like to, but I value my emotional connection with this woman more than my sexual desires. Nice try with the assumptions, though.
Animals have body language. Some animals have structured language. Dogs do not have structured language. Dogs rape each other, as I have said, and they don't fight. I've seen it myself. The male dog feels like the female dog wants to be impregnated, but she tries to pull away, can't get away, and ultimately resolves herself to it. You're so sick in the head, I wouldn't be surprised if your pet did this and you ignored it, and now she just deals with it, because it doesn't hurt. In the end, we're human, we make errors. Misreading body language is incredibly easy. That's why we as humans do not speak exclusively through body language. It leaves too much room for error, and is ultimately inefficient.
Distracted by arguing with someone you said you had no time for. You took my bait too, it would seem. What a predicament.
It's wrong to fuck animals. It's wrong by society's standards. Therefore, it IS taboo. And by zoophile, do you mean you want to have sexual relations with animals and find yourself attracted to them? I assume yes, as that's the common definition (in my short research).
Both can show interest in sex, both can carry children, therefore they are about as equal as can be, in your reasoning. What separates them is we as humans have decided that it's not okay to have sex with them, because they are not MENTALLY mature. Dogs don't show the same mental capacity that humans show. There's no measure for dog mental maturity, unless I'm wrong. You got studies that prove that wrong, Facts Man?
Again, I didn't change much, sexually, between 15 and 18. I probably grew a little taller. My mind certainly matured. I wanted sex as badly then as I do now. But as I said earlier, there's no measurement for an animal's mental maturity, as far as I know, because it's a human standard. So unless we're getting into what's natural vs what humans do, there's no reason to deny that standard.
Yeah, I'm frustrated that people like you exist, and think it's okay to molest and rape animals.
As for your last comment, again, you would do it anyway. I in no way changed your behavior by commenting here. Your attempts to make me feel guilty will not work. Try harder.
Eh? That's a new one on me, there's no shortage of disagreement here. If you'd bothered to read much of what gets discussed you'd know that already.
Anyone who can maintain a relatively respectful reply is pretty much welcome here. I like having people who will disagree with me, they can challenge my ideas and make me think in more detail. Sometimes they can change my mind too, I'm always happy to discard poor logic for better logic. Got some?
I mean, I have no proof, seeing as any responses removed are, ya know, gone. And I don't want to read anymore of this sub. It's absolutely disgusting to see discussion of tips to have PiV intercourse with animals, or people explaining how humans never interested them, etc. I can't stand it. I'll stick to this thread, which is about dealing with hate from the outside.
Am I then to presume you have a habit of making assumptions when you have, ahem, "no proof"? Your post history here would suggest that may be the case.
If you find it so disgusting then why do you remain? Do you honestly think your insults are going to change anyone's mind? Do you foolishly believe that the poorly reasoned objections you've offered haven't been discussed ad nauseum here? Many of us have considered these questions in detail because we're actually concerned about the non-human.
Have you considered opening your mind to the possibility that, maybe, just maybe, this is a topic which you don't agree with (which is A-OK) and that you can find it both disgusting and still not necessarily harmful or wrong?
You keep asserting that we're making assumptions and some people appear to be doing so, you included. You have an idea of what you think we do in your head, but it's quite apparent that what you think isn't what many of us would do or condone. I suggest that you attempt to inform yourself, first.
Why am I still here? Because I feel I'm witnessing a disgusting abuse of a power dynamic, and I feel the need to speak up. Don't speak on a public platform if you don't want people to judge you.
And no, I can't find it gross and harmless. You are abusing the power you have over animals, as a more complex being, to satisfy sexual desires the animals cannot understand. Even if you do it under the guise of "mutual pleasure", it's our responsibility, as more complex beings, to not take advantage of these situations.
So you're saying that a non-human animal doesn't have sexual desires? How is it that they have sex with each other and (he he he) with other species? Oh, did you miss that? There's no shortage of species on species sex occuring in "nature". There was a paper just earlier this year on snow monkeys making it with sika deer. I know man, WTF? Do you think it's the monkey or the deer doing the abusing?
There's no question that adult non-humans have sexual desires, if you don't grok that you really need to study some biology. Do they understand it? They understand that they want sex, but I don't know if they grok the nuances such as that sex leads to babies, they might not....I know a lot of human pregnancies that fall into that category, but hey, we're animals too.
I think most non-humans just aren't so hungup on sex like humans are. They feel an itch and they scratch it, they have their preferences on partners and sometimes that preference can be you or I. Doubt it? Explain Fido's leg-humping, he's certainly goal-oriented and seems to have made up his mind on the subject.
As for females, ever been around a bitch in heat? She'll solicit sex from anyone she's interested in and she's not subtle about it.
You seem to think that any non-human partner of a zoophile is some horribly abused creature. I can't count how many times I've had friends, strangers, vets, trainers, etc, compliment me on how well adjusted and happy my dogs are.
Did I ever say that animals don't have their own desires? The difference is that they do it out of nature to breed, and we do it with emotions such as love. Perhaps I'm wrong, and you do it (or condone it, at any rate) out of a desire to breed. However, we cannot breed with other animals, so that wouldn't make any sense.
The monkey has no power over the deer, or vice versa. We are the strongest, most powerful beings on the planet. We have a responsibility to be better and not abuse that power to get our own rocks off, even if it's done with all the care in the world. I think that statement covers the rest of your reply as well, so I'll leave it there. Not trying to ignore any of your points, so I'm pointing out that that last bit applies to the rest of what you said as well.
Yeah, that "love" thing, that's nature and horomones. Non-humans have those too and how do you know non-humans don't feel love? I seem to recall a couple of papers published a couple of years back where researchers were measuring seratonin levels and such in the blood to ascertain levels of "happiness". Evidence suggests you're wrong.
So if a stallion fucks me, being more powerful, he's abusing me? That aside, I disagree on the whole "humans are the most powerful", we're pathetic compared to bacteria, we don't even rate.
You keep assuming that power abuse is required, better minds than yours have explored that and found it not to be so. I suggest you read Peter Singer's "Heavy Petting". If you aren't familiar with who he is, you might want to read up on him before reading.
quick question, are you 100% vegan?
As I said earlier, saying something is "disgusting" is not a rational argument. It is a feeling based on prejudice and (in this case) possibly also hatred as well.
To those who are sexually attracted to non-humans, the concept of sex with an animal is NOT "disgusting" -- and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, some of those people think that human-to-human sex is disgusting. So "disgust" does not determine whether something is moral or immoral.
People that break rule 7 or 8 on their first few posts and are clearly from a hostile sub get an instant but appeal-able ban, usually. It's pointless for us to try giving those users three strikes and tempbans when they aren't here for the community anyway. The removed replies you speak of are 1-2 sentence comments consisting of, and I quote:
"you're a degenerate and you're abusing the family dog, it's disgusting and I wouldn't blame your parents if they disowned you tbh"
"Tears of Virgins"
"Dude this entire thing nsfl. Fuck"
"They said this would happen after legal gay marriage and we didn't listen."
"Cops need to bust down your door, you sick fuck. They will soon..."
And so on and so forth. They aren't contributing to the discussion, nor are they likely to in the future. There is also the issue of such comments derailing threads... which you've thankfully avoided.
No, but you know exactly what I mean.
According to you, animals can't say what they want. What if they walk up to you and you pet them?
They didn't ask for it and clearly don't show signs of understanding it according to you.
My fingers don't receive an orgasm nor do my fingers receive any pleasure.
In fact, it hurts most of the time. I'm doing it for her, although I do like it because she likes it. And I guess it's sometimes fun to play around with genitals, I guess.
Well, in this case I'm doing it for you. You're asking for it, and so is she!
EDIT: Nevermind this. I've been pretty sexual lately and quite enjoy it again. I guess you don't have to fear me again!
First off, I don't ejaculate in dogs.
Second, we ban humans that don't listen to the rules. There's rules in every place and if you don't follow them, of course you get banned.
There's a reason humans like you get banned. You can't behave yourself, because all you do is repeat ''omgg urr rapist!!!!111!!!! molesting!!! u guyz ned help!11!!!''
Sorry, but we prefer to talk to humans who are capable of using their brain. Doesn't seem the case with you.
Makes me think, I'm not saying we rape them but if we did, why is us raping animals bad but animals raping animals isn't?
But then again, none of that is true. Animals also do have consensual sex.
Also, didn't you tell me earlier to get a male dog for my girl? Yep, nice logic there buddy.
Assumptions? That's what you've been doing all this time.
But yes, of course your ass would like multiple female humans. One wouldn't be enough to satisfy you enough, right?
You've seen it, but my girl clearly does not like when male dogs try anything on her.
She was in heat and a dog was harrassing her. She came up to me and pointed her ass at my body.
Another time when her heat almost ended, a dog tried to lick for her vagina and I had to pry his disgusting ass off her, trying to rape my girl and she was also uncomfortable.
And she also clearly resists when she isn't in the mood. When I try to insert a finger while she isn't in the mood or anything else, she resists.
She quickly turns around, pulls a specific face and stands in a specific way.
They may not fight, but they sure do resist and actual zoophiles will stop immediately when they see it happen.
And again, you're assuming a lot.
This is why we ban humans like you. Don't act retarded or act retarded and get banned.
I've already told you I don't.
We are different than animals. Their body language is more clear than ours.
I can read animals easier than humans. We know what these mating rituals mean because they use the same ones for their own species, or in some cases are just straight up obvious.
If an adult animal uses their mating rituals, they consent. Simple.
It's not hard to understand and not hard to miss. You may be delusional, but we aren't.
If that's bait it's pretty shit. But no, I am not distracted by you. I'm just replying?
And you're not making me angry in any way (unless you count the fact that I'm dissapointed to be the same species as you) so good luck with your bait, mate.
First, no.
Second, so?
I still don't do it for the taboo.
Well my attraction has faded mostly, but yes.
This means that I don't like it because it's taboo, but because it was my attraction.
You can't be attracted because something is taboo, then it would be a kink or a fetish.
That makes zero sense, doesn't mean they can be compared.
Adult humans can also show interest in sex and carry children. Your point is...?
Oh my... your stupidity almost bothers me.
Do you know what mature means? That they are fully developed.
Adults are fully developed. They are fully developed because they don't grow any more.
Man, even kids learn this shit. How old are you again? Mind if I give you a few tips for elementary?
All I said was proof enough. We know that animals do mature.
It would make zero sense if they didn't. Do you seriously expect them to mature and grow forever?
Holy shit...
And what exactly is your point? Okay, good for you?
I think you should be more concerned about your brain, as it clearly seems to lack an important feature: Logic.
No surprise you didn't change much, you seem to have the mind of a 5 year old with your insults and lack of intelligence.
Also, you were still developing at that time, even if you don't feel it yourself. Also, sexual maturity happens earlier than being an adult. The age of consent is when you are sexually mature.
For animals it's harder to know when they're sexually mature, so we wait until they're adults or close to being adults so they understand what sex is, so they have the ability to have consensual sex with either animals or humans.
Nice assumption without evidence, but no. I don't think it's okay to that as I wouldn't want anyone to hurt animals.
I really wouldn't, I have less interest for sex. Well, there's a specific thing that I'd like very much, but that's not possible.
I did it just for you, if you are going to deny that then well good for you, it won't change the facts that I still did it because you kept replying.
A few last things, though.
Here's something to think about: Where do you draw the line?
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?
Again, why do you think animals can't consent to humans but can to their own species?
No intelligence or thoughts are needed, other than understanding what sex is. And they do know that because they are sexually mature and can choose to make the first move in sex.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'
Also, I want to apologize.
I'm sorry for having actual logic that your brain can't comprehend. I wish you luck in life and hope that no animal suffers from your lack of knowledge about their languages and signs.
Amen.
EDIT / PS: You've proven my point in the first comment. Your kind only insults and does not rely on logic, as said by me.
[removed]
Why would you assume the therapist would think is wrong too? In fact I went to a therapist one, or well my mom forced me to go, and he knew my interest right, and he said I was completely fine and stable.
Okay let's play the argue yourself game :D this is exactly how you sound like :3
Here's some logic and evidence: animals can't consent. I don't care if they sit and let them be killed, they didn't tell you you could do it. There's a reason we don't allow people to kill each other, and that's because they aren't able to consent in being murdered.
You are sick fuck. If you think eating a cow is okay, then why stop at cows? Why say we can't eat kids? Either you know it's fucked up to involve yourself into eating a being that can't give you true consent, or you think cannibalism is cool. There's no space between those lines, because consent means the same thing for all of us. It means being of sound mind, using logic to consider all aspects of life, and saying it's okay.
Why are you assuming I'm not vegetarian...? What is with you people assuming shit like monogamy and being an omnivore? lol
Here's some logic and evidence: trees can't consent. I don't care if they sit and let them be cut down, they didn't tell you you could do it. There's a reason we don't cut people in half, and that's because they aren't able to consent in being taken down.
You are sick fuck. If you think eating a vegetables is okay, then why stop at vegetables? Why say we can't eat people? Either you know it's fucked up to involve yourself into eating a being that can't give you true consent, or you think veganism is cool. There's no space between those lines, because consent means the same thing for all of us. It means being of sound mind, using logic to consider all aspects of life, and saying it's okay.
:D :D :D
Why? Because vegetables can't feel. They have no thoughts. They have no emotions. Humans and animals can feel, they can grow bonds with one another, they can love. There's many more layers to humans and animals than to plants.
But I am most certainly not cool with the cutting down of trees. Assumption #4 on this sub. And that's not because they can feel, it's because they grow for many many years, taking a long time, and they are necessary for our planet's survival, while paper and other products are not.
Nice logical fallacies tho.
Well they can feel some vegetables are able to react to touch just like humans.
Nor an underdeveloped fetus, does that mean you are pro-abortion?...
Admit it this is not an argument of objective logic this is whether you think it's good of bad because you think it's degrading for the human to have sex with an animal; you don't give a shit about the animal, just about some fake human honour.
Yes I am. (Assumption #5?)
I don't think it's degrading. I think it's gross that you are using animals for sexual pleasure. That's what I find gross. That's what my problem is. The animals are being used, no matter what kind of bow you try to put on it. They don't understand what you are doing, they don't understand that they are powerless to you and you are taking advantage of that power dynamic. That is my problem.
No I am not (Assumption #1) LOL There are many non-zoos, purely romantic zoos, or virgin zoos around here. In fact most people here haven't had sex with animals.
But well humans are animals so we are talking about interspecies I just tell you:
Does this affect you in any way? does this represent a threat to you?... be selfish man, stop worrying about other's people issues; this does not concern you, go and do stuff that really matters rather than attacking people that love animals more than you'll ever do.
You aren't using animals for sexual pleasure? Then you must fall into one of the other categories you mention: non-"zoo", which makes me ask why you are defending it so religiously, purely romantic, which is much more harmless but still makes me irk because of the power dynamic, or virgin, which means you WANT to use animals for sexual pleasure.
Does it affect me? No. Neither does rape of anyone, for that matter. Does that mean I shouldn't speak up? What kind of logic is that?
Yeah well if the day comes I'd not mind :3 And by the way I am female, I wonder how in the world I can rape an animal. Has a dog ever humped at you, consent him, you'll see what he does. :D
None, I'm using your own strategy; I'm not making any effort to answer this.
Rape does affects society as a whole. us having consensual sex in private with our pets does not affects you nor society.
Suck it. Is not our problem if you find it gross.
That is your problem, not our problem, not the problem of society. it is only your BIGOTED problem.
Again, unless you can give objective scientific evidence of an actual problem, then suck it up. You have not proven how using them is wrong. You have not proven how having more power over them makes it wrong. You only claim is wrong, you don't prove why is wrong. And don't use HUMAN examples, because that only proves that using humans is wrong, it doesn't prove that using animals is wrong.
I think you're correct. MessedUpPro's insistence on requiring an animal's human-like "consent" (but ONLY in terms of sex, and not in terms of anything else, such as slaughter or spaying/neutering), is likely because the whole "consent" argument is a smokescreen that is being used to hide his underlying prejudice and disgust towards zoosex.
If he cared that much about animals, he'd be on meat-eating Reddit subs right now trying to get people to stop eating meat and stop the cruel treatment of animals on factory farms (which, by the way, doesn't involve their "consent"). Or he'd be telling people who artificially inseminate animals how wrong that is because it doesn't involve their "consent".
That's what I mean, it's because people just can't imagine how a relationship with an animal works, that doesn't mean it's impossible, true zoos are really loving towards their partners, and won't dare to hurt them, I don't mind animal rapists being arrested, but a true zoo really wants something mutual; meanwhile there are horrible instances of abuse towards animals out there, yet, it's us, somehow, a ridiculous minority that is into inter-species love.
This is all people thinking on animals in terms that they are too inferior to have a relationship with, it's a very selfish thinking, like if the pride of the human race was on hands and we have to have the perfect imagine, but guess what, there's no God observing us, and if there was then he'd be more upset on how we have treated our friends of the middle east and africa, on how we have destroyed the biosphere leading animals to extinction, on how we kill each other, on how many children are starving, on how we butcher so many animals; not in some small group of animal lovers that are so much into them that don't mind getting into a sexual relationship with them.
It may have to do with speciesism -- that is, a prejudice (kind of like racism or sexism) in which humans think that they are "superior" to all other species, and that humans are "special", and that non-humans are inferior -- and in this way of thinking, they believe that if a human has sex with a non-human, they are "degrading" themselves to the "lower level" that the non-human is on. (Which is a fallacy).
Speciesism is wrong -- it is a prejudice and not an accurate way of looking at things. Humans are animals, and they are not "above" other species (morally).
Why are so many states (in the United States) banning sex with animals, yet allowing slaughter (something much worse) to continue being legal? Slaughter is what they should be banning, not sex with animals.
I once heard from a guy here that once tolerance increases, a rise of legal bans start happening in order to keep things in check. That it happened to homosexuality before they got rights.
However the only difference, is that we are such a minority, the legalization of drugs is on the way, but us, who knows, we are so small.
⇾ says we assume shit
⇾ assumes shit himself like saying we want to hurt them on purpose or like the taboo of it for example
⇾ k
⇾ thinks he makes sense xDDDDDDDDD-no
No, I don't think you are doing any of this on purpose. I think you are doing it because you're sick and need help. Yeah, my outburst probably didn't help, but you were begging for a good outburst with your smug attitude about how everyone that disagrees with you are "special" or "tards". You get what you get.
You've said it before. ''You all know you're doing something wrong.''
But nah, none of us are sick and need help. And yeah, I was begging for crybabies like you.
You're so idiotic that it amuses me. I'm a big misanthrope who hates humans for their stupidity, but this is the kind that actually amuses me in a way.
I've said my piece. You are indeed sick. It's not normal to hate humans and want to have sex with animals. Seek help. Thank god you can't reproduce, though...
Where's the evidence that I am sick? Are you a doctor? Can you diagnose me trough my posts? No? Oh, right.
And yes, it's normal to hate humans. I have many reasons and hating humans can be pretty common.
And wanting to have sex with animals isn't normal, but that doesn't prove anything. Still, there's many different attractions so it's not as abnormal as you think.
And seeking help? Do you know how much value that holds to me?
I'd say less than none, because you keep me from wanting help even if I even needed it.
And yeah, I won't reproduce. It's both unethical and fucking disgusting because I'd have to have sex with a human. Ugh, yuck.
More humans = more suffering for both humans AND animals too. Wait, the whole world actually.
Well, there's already one of the 1000 reasons why I hate humans: They fuck everything up, especially nature.
And hey, if I could, I'd breed with animals for sure though!
As an aside, do you honestly think none here have gone that route? I have, know what I was told? If nobody's getting harmed, who cares. It's interesting that even the professionals you want us to see agree with us that it's a non-issue.
I don't supposed that it has occurred to you that if he does get the help you recommend, then he will be able to reproduce?
[removed]
What the fuck? Fuck no?
That's the point. If you (or any of us) were to go down to the brain laundry as he recommends, we would come out happy little clones and begin breeding just like him.
It told us to get help, not get brainwashed. We zoophiles can't get help for something we don't need help for.
Not to mention our attraction just can't be wiped off of us, nor the fact that I'd still hate and be disgusted by humans and their bodies.
If you can somehow brainwash me into breeding with a human, then holy shit you must be a god because I'd rather die than do that.
Is not normal to hate woman and want to have sex with guys. Do you tell gays to seek help? You tank god that gays can't reproduce? At this point, not only we can see you are zoophobic but also homophobic. As you arr using homophobic arguments against zoosexuals.
Are you here to try to understand or to rub your zoophobia around?
Is your belief supported by scientific evidence? If not, you are no different from homophobes who call any gay mentally ill.
You mean vegan? Because vegetarians still support the murder of millions of animals.
There's a huge difference between dogs and kids. Kids are not developed, they are immature. An adult dog is just that, a fully formed adult with an adult sex drive.
Kids also interact with human society, being messed with sexually at an immature age can cause complications. Dogs don't interact in such a manner.
Why is consent necessary for a mutualy pleasurable, but to you abhorent, encouter but not necessary for other actions? Neutering an animal is done merely for the convenience of the human who owns it, does that require consent?
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 does it seem that consent is only required if it involves genitals and enjoyment?
My sex drive is the same now as it was when I was 15 (20 now). I don't really understand what the difference is in your mind? The only reason I wouldn't want a 30 year old woman coming on to me at 15 is because I wasn't mentally prepared for that kind of interaction, which isn't something you can measure in animals (that I know of). I was physically and sexually ready, however.
That's a fair point, but why does that mean we should treat animals with less care? Are animals lesser to you?
My cat isn't neutered. You guys REALLY like assumptions around here... That's the third attempt at labeling me with the norm (monogamy, omnivore/carnivore, and now pro-neutering). That argument may work with other people, but that shit don't fly with me, buddy.
You can, but you'd be a sick fuck for that too. Doesn't mean I agree with the ability to do so.
See: two responses back.
What is "AI"? The only "AI" I'm aware of doesn't work here, I don't think? Unless you do mean "Artificial Intelligence". Forgive my ignorance, I'm trying to understand what you mean here. But again, you assume I'm cool with the treatment of animals for beef consumption...
Not at all, in fact I'm not the one insisting that they're incapable of making decsions, that's you.
Uhh, no, I never implied that you did these things, but that our society accepts these. You can't play the "society defines what's right and wrong" game and then ignore it when it's convenient for you, well not and get any respect. I have no idea what you eat, fuck, or how you treat non-humans. I've deliberately avoided the word "you" for that reason.
Artificial Insemination, widely used in agriculture.
If we treat children as if they can't make decisions, despite the reason for it, why treat animals like they can? They don't think the way adult humans think. They just don't. They think like child humans, if anything. Why not treat them with the same respect and care as a human child?
Then why use that argument? I don't agree with it. I am not saying society defines my own thoughts. I have my own thoughts on these things. I do believe children are incapable of making sexual decisions, and I do believe animals are far too innocent to be subjected to your sick, perverted habits. That doesn't mean I accept it because society told me to. I don't agree with a lot of what society calls normal. But you guys? Yeah, I can't get behind you selfishly using animals for sexual pleasure. It's sick.
Ah, yes. I know of this. Don't agree with that either. It's not natural. Kinda like sticking a human dick in a dog.
I've largely got no issue with this, aside from the adult != jouvenile thing. Why are you here instead of campaigning for PETA? You could save far more suffering railing against farming than you would save here, you should see the shitstorm that happens here when people treat non-humans like objects.
And you're free to have and express your opinion. I thiink you've not given this much actual thought, I'm entitled to my opinion too.
Lots of things are "natural" that we don't want, rabies, cancer, babies that die. Something being "natural" isn't a measure of it's rightness or wrongness.
I know some feminists who think that about any man and a woman. Doesn't make it right.
PETA is a whole can of worms I don't even want to open here... Not that their heart isn't seemingly in the right place, but I mean... Ah, nevermind on that one.
However, even if I did agree with PETA, how does that stop me from saying anything here? Why does it have to be one or the other?
So you're okay with artificial insemination then? That was what I said was unnatural, so you must be saying it's okay to do that..?
Feminism has nothing to do with this. An animal is powerless against you. I don't care how much care you try to use, you are abusing your power over them. For example, I don't condone anyone that gets off on the idea of having sex with mentally ill people, if they are the caretaker of said person. They have power of the person, and they would be taking advantage of it to fulfill sexual desires, and that's wrong. That doesn't mean I think mentally ill people are incapable of having sex, but the power dynamic at play creates a disgusting element. That can never not exist with animals, as humans are completely and always more powerful over animals. At least, in our modern world.
No, no, that's the can you brought here, opened, and now don't want to address. All of your comments have been 100% in that camp, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Your hypocrisy is showing.
I think it depends on the circumstances. That things aren't always black and white. I think that forced insemination is probably the wrong choice, but in some cases (I'm looking at you, Pandas) it might be excusable. In other situations it might be the right action, it depends.
It's the same logic, that's why I mentioned it. You're free to disapprove, I'm OK with that. You see, I realie that you don't know what I do because you've never asked, that means you're way out there in assumption-land.
I've tried to let you discover it on your own, but you're apparently too blind to see it, that you're projecting what you think is happening instead of bothering to try and find out what might actually be happening. It's OK, it's pretty common, but it makes you look foolish and it undermines you at every turn.
Just because you can't envision it doesn't mean it can't exist. Before Leewenhoek invented the microscope people couldn't envision microscopic life, doesn't mean it didn't exist, just that they were ignorant of it.
It's late, I have other things to do. Maybe I'll see if you've bought a clue tomorrow.
Not necessarily. If a non-human animal (such as a horse) is the one doing the penetrating, and the human is the one receiving sex (from the horse), then it can be argued that the non-human is in a more powerful position than the human.
Non-human beings are not equal to mentally-ill people.
Humans are not the most important, nor the most "special" species. They are an animal species just like any other animal.
Even if a sexual interaction between a human and non-human occurs and there is a slight power imbalance, this does not mean that such an interaction is automatically immoral. For example, keeping a pet confined to a house is done without its consent, and one could argue that keeping them confined to a house for their entire lives is exerting "power" over them -- that doesn't make it automatically immoral. Similarly, spaying/neutering is something done to animals without their "consent", yet it is socially accepted by society (I personally find spaying/neutering to be immoral). Spaying/neutering is a human exerting more "power" over the animal. So why only criticize sex with animals, something arguably benign compared to all the terrible things (such as slaughter) that happen to animals, when there are so many other things that are far worse to an animal's well-being?
And that is objectively strong how? And that IS A PROBLEM HOW?
Can you name in an objective way, why it is wrong? Can you prove that the same applies to zoosexual relationships?
This is not true. Again, comparing the younger members of one species (humans) with the mature members of a variety of other species is a fallacy. A dog thinks like a dog, and a horse thinks like a horse -- their minds are not equal to that of young humans.
Non-human animals are capable of feeling sexual pleasure. It is wrong to assume that humans are the only species capable of sexual pleasure.
A human that has sex with a non-human is not "selfish". In fact, it could be argued that zoos care more about their animal's well-being than non-zoos (due the intimacy component).
And when a human has sex with a non-human, it is wrong to assume that a human is "using" a non-human. As I said before, if a non-human is penetrating a human (with the human receiving sex), then it could be said that the human is "being used by" the non-human, not the other way around.
Even when the human is the one doing the penetrating, sex between a human and non-human can occur in a mutually pleasurable way.
Saying "it's sick" and "perverted" is not an argument, it's just prejudiced, bigoted name-calling. Interspecies sex, whether it involves a human or not, is not "sick", and it is not "perverted". It may not be normal, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Something to think about: why is it that when a human puts their arm into an animal's sexual organ to artificially inseminate it, this is considered "normal" and "legal", but when someone puts their penis in there (something arguably less harmful), it is considered wrong and illegal? That doesn't make sense, and is hypocritical.
Unfortunately I want to disagree here - not because sex is special, but exactly because ..humans way too used to use (getting/sucking more than they willing to give) everyone else :/ so, sex part fails too :/
Everything in the universe is 100% natural. You sound more and more like bigots.
Again, more bigoted words.
Seems that all your complains revolves around, "I'm a zoophobe, you should stop fucking dogs because I say so"
I treat dogs as if they can't, I'm always there to supervise their decisions. If is see they make a choice that is likely to get them harmed, I stop them.
Captain obvius.
Speculation, irrelevant.
Because having sex with them is disrespectful to them? Because having consensual safe sex with them is careless?
If your belief supported by scientific evidence? Of that is only your zoophobic subjective opinion?
Tell me, so what if it is selfish? If the animals is not being forced or harmed, what is the problem?
You finding that to be sick is YOUR PROBLEM. If you don't like it, sad day for you. But we will continue doing it because we like it. Unless you can give an objective reason for why we should stop, we will keep doing it.
It doesn't. What it means is that the implications, associations, and values we place on things are irrelevant to animals. When someone teaches a dog not to get up on the couch the reasons they taught it are irrelevant to the dog. When people play sports with their dogs winning games and having a hobby is irrelevant to the dog.
Hell, the act of owning a pet can be seen as a big violation of consent and autonomy. From our perspective we are bringing an animal into a specific social dynamic with certain implications. The animal doesn't know about or understand any of these and can't agree to them. Even if you obtain your pet by building trust with a feral animal until it decides to live in your house these implications and this dynamic is still there from the perception of humans.
From the animal's perspective our human social system just doesn't exist to it. It's completely irrelevant to the animal. What's relevant to it is if its needs are met and if its interactions with the human are pleasurable or painful.
You're not wrong, but in the end, we are more powerful than the animals. We have more control. And anyone using that control and power to abuse the animals sexually is disgusting. Non-sexually too, obviously, but that isn't the discussion here.
We control the animal's resources, yes. This puts us in control in one sense. I'm skeptical though that animals perceive us as being in control of them. If you ask an animal to do something and it does, it's not because it's deferring to your authority, it's because it's getting something out of it, be that food, attention, or, if you're cruel, avoiding pain.
I'd agree that people sexually abusing animals is disgusting, but I'd disagree that sexual contact, in and of itself, is abusive. An argument could be made for acts where the human is doing the penetration that the body language is more subtle and that there's more things that can go wrong. I'd disagree that means it's always abuse, but I find that fair.
That argument is harder to make for acts where the animal is rubbing its genitalia against the human (female dogs hump to masturbate) or the animal is penetrating the human. It's hard to argue that a dog humping someone's hand is being harmed or at significant risk of being harmed outside of freak accidents. If the animal isn't harmed and isn't at significant risk of harm, where is the abuse?
First of all, humans are animals. Second, your "power abuse" argument is flawed. For example, what if a non-human animal (such as a horse) has sex with a human, and that non-human is the one doing the penetrating (and the human is the one receiving sex?) In that case, one could argue that the non-human has more power than the human, because the non-human is engaging in sex with it's own free will, and the human is passively receiving sex. In the case of large animals such as horses, the animal has the potential to kill a human.
You keep saying that interspecies sex is "disgusting" -- that is not a rational argument. If you think interspecies sex is "disgusting" ONLY when it involves a human, (and you're OK with interspecies sex between a deer and a monkey), then that is speciesism -- a prejudice in which humans are seen as having more "value" than non-humans.
Logically, if you think that interspecies sex (when it involves a human) is "disgusting", then it follows that you would find other forms of interspecies sex (such as a dog having sex with a pig) "disgusting" as well.
While sexual contact between a human and a non-human CAN be abusive, interspecies sex (involving a human) is not inherently abusive. So when you make broad statements such as "it's abuse" (referring to all sex with animals), that's wrong.
And doing that is called ANIMAL ABUSE. And we ar not in favor of animal abuse.
[removed]
You weren't, other 15 year old may be ready. Most countries age of consent is 15 or 16 because at that age most humans can give legal informed consent. Even with a 30 year old.
They are not being treated with less care by us. We treat them with even the same or more care than the normal dog owner.
He didn't accuse your of neutering animals. So, you are making ASSUMPTION.
So, having consensual sex with animals makes sick fucks? What is the exact objective definition of sick fuck? Or, people are sickfuck only when you feel like it?
And if you don't agree with us having consensual sex with animals, why you don't agree? Can you give a rational non-bigoted objective reason to disagree? Are we raping them? Harming them? Damaging you or your property? What if your problem with it? Because so far, the problem seems to be "yuck I think is weird and gross" that is your problem, not our problem.
Artificial insemination.
See this (what I said in a different part of the thread):
Do you see this as being hypocritical? (Because I do). If people criminalize sex with animals due to a lack of "consent", then it follows that they could also criminalize artificial insemination for the same reason -- yet they don't. Similarly, slaughter should be banned because it is murdering an animal (without their consent) for profit, and is far worse than sex with an animal ever could be -- yet slaughter (wrongfully) continues to be legal.
So then what about these situations in which an animal doesn't "consent":
Being artificially inseminated, being confined to factory farm cells, being slaughtered, being exploited for dairy products, being spayed/neutered, being hunted, being confined to a house
None of these things involve the animal's "consent", so why is "consent" all of a sudden required when it comes to sex? Most of the (above-mentioned) activities are far worse to the animal than sex (with a human), yet they are all legal and accepted by society. (Meaning it is legal to murder an animal but illegal to have harmless sex with an animal, which is not the way it should be).
Sex is not a "big deal" for non-humans the way it is for humans. From the non-human's perspective, sex is a natural function which does not have any "morality" attached to it. So your comparison between (young) humans and non-humans is flawed, because humans have that moral attachment throughout their lives, whereas non-humans don't. As others have said, a non-human animal that has reached maturity is not equal to an immature being of another species (in this case, humans). That is a fallacy. When I say "non-human that has reached maturity", I mean, for example, a dog that is no longer a puppy.
Ultimately, sex occurring between a human and a non-human is not inherently wrong. Saying things like "it's sick" and "it's disgusting" are not arguments -- they are attacks that are probably based on prejudice and bigotry.
To be fair, people are treating you unfairly by making various assumptions about the opinions you hold.
Still, your arguments are not very good. So far it seems to come down to the usual "dogs = children" and "power imbalance".
We could argue all day why the equating adult dogs with human children is a bad comparison, but I'd rather ask the question why make this comparison in the first place? I know, I know, there is good evidence that children are harmed by sexual contact with adults, so you only have to connect dogs with children and don't have to actually argue why and how dogs are harmed. Let's not go the easy way: How and why are dogs harmed, without comparing them to children?
The power imbalance seems like a classic half truth. Yes, you can force dogs to do a lot of stuff. But people who care about the mental well-being of their dogs will try to build a relationship where they openly communicate what they like and dislike, and are encouraged to "say no" to things they dislike. Here is a random article about what I mean: http://www.rover-time.com/should-your-dog-be-allowed-to-say-no/. Taking it a step further, although in a different context, service animals are intentionally trained to express "intelligent disobedience", meaning they will not comply with commands when they decide by their own judgement that it's a bad command.
They are only completely powerless if you intentionally raise and train them into an environment where this is the case.
Reddit is stopping me from commenting to everyone in a timely manner, and it's really pissing me off. But that's beside the point.
Why? Because children struggle to know better when an adult takes advantage of their power as an adult to seduce a child (child meaning anyone under 18, by the way, but I'm mostly thinking the age of puberty, 13-16, not 7 year olds).
They aren't harmed in a way they can understand, but neither would a person with down-syndrome, if their caretaker was jerking them off for a mental disability kink. I know that changes from the age argument, but I feel it all fits under the umbrella of power. The caretaker has power, the adults have power, and here, the owner has power.
I never said "force". The dog may well be having fun doing this act. See, my initial outburst was because the person I responded to had the fucking balls to say that people that don't subscribe to the idea that we should fuck animals are "special", so I went off. I have had zero prior engagement with this community. I now better understand what makes me mad about this situation. Apologies if it sounded like I was saying people here were forcing dogs to do anything.
What really upsets me is that the dog has no way of understanding that their owner is doing this because they have deep-rooted sexual and mental problems. The dog just knows it feels good. However, it's our responsibility, as higher, more complex beings, to treat dogs with respect, and not use them to get ourselves pleasure. We are not animals in the traditional sense. We have transcended behaviors like fucking anything that moves (for the most part). We have a responsibility to not do it. I don't want caretakers using mentally disabled people for their kinks, I don't want 30 year old people seducing teenagers, and I don't want pet owners using pets for their kinks. I don't care if all parties get off, or even if only the mentally disabled/kid/pet gets off. It's our responsibility to be better and not use them to fulfill our desires.
The doesn't mean that you aren't using them, as I've stated above.
Again, the dog may well feel pleasure, but at the end of the day, you are using the animal for your own sexual gain, and they don't realize it. It's not okay, even if they can stop you, because they don't understand that they are being used.
Except for the fact that many animals (dogs in particular) are empathetic and therefore have the capacity to realize what they are doing is causing pleasure, happiness, amusement, discomfort, pain or indifference. As well as a dog being able to determine whether or not a situation is "fair" to them.
You can assert this, but it doesn't make it true, or relevant.
If there is mutual pleasure and no negatives, how are they being used? With a 13 year old kid it's different entirely, they're likely not sexually mature, so will be potentially developmentally harmed AND are likely not versed in the risks of sexual contact. The former is avoided by being certain your partner is finished developing sexually. The latter doesn't really apply since there isn't really any risks given the separate species.
Our desires...and theirs.
Zoophiles are the least of your concerns if you are bothered about animals being "used" for the benefit of a "higher" being without their understanding.
People with intellectual disabilities still have every right to their sexuality and to have sex with other people. You should look up what organizations who represent people with intellectual disabilities have to say about this issue.
It is true that there is a higher potential for exploitation and abuse, and with pets it seems even higher, because unlike people with intellectual disabilities they have no relatives who can seek legal recourse on their behalf.
I don't actually know how to make this situation better, my only idea is that in the interest of animal rights, all pet owners, zoophiles or not, should have to regularly bring their animals to a vet who would look for physical and behavioral signs for abuse. It would probably be very expensive and there are probably not enough vets for that...
It's a normal paraphilia and unbiased mental health professionals tend to view it as unproblematic.
Agreed.
[removed]
/u/fuzzyfurry wrote:
this is lazy debating on the part of /u/MessedUpPro (and many others we've encountered who've come here to argue/debate with us), and the crux of my problem with this particular post (and probably several others) of his (hers?).
i feel compelled to apologize on behalf of this subreddit for the person you're referencing here.
first: "problems" .. i disagree. our sexuality is just different from the vast majority of humankind.
second: .. why does that matter? why does the dog need to understand that if ...
please help me understand why that matters. oh, wait... that's right:
if i may suggest this... what if showing them respect involved understanding that they are adults of their species who are capable of asking for sexual contact? .. even outside of their own species?
you keep talking about "use". if mutual pleasure is the goal (and i assure you, for anyone who truly cares about their animal, that IS the goal), then at worst, it's mutual use - the non-human is also using us to get pleasure. at best, it's shared pleasure - neither human nor non-human is using the other.
and again... why do you have a problem with them not knowing the human is getting pleasure from sex? (although as /u/BadBoy003 pointed out, many non-humans are capable of understanding human facial expressions) especially now that you say you can believe that people here aren't forcing their non-human partner into sexual situations?
edit:
one more thing i forgot that i wanted to point out.
let's talk about fetch.
if the dog doesn't understand that you enjoy playing fetch with it as much as it enjoys fetching, does that make it wrong? why is sex a special case? define the special kind of harm that is done in a sexual scenario that both dog and human find pleasure in. the lack of understanding on the dog's part that you point to above just doesn't seem like harm.
Legally and by dictionary, a child is anyone under age 12. Over that they are teens. Calling a 17 year old a child is disingenuous.
And you have not proven that taking advantage of animals without harming them is OBJECTIVELY WRONG. Where there is plenty evidence that taking advantage of young humans is wrong because it results in physical or emotional harm. And animals are not children, so you should not compare them, you are doing a false analogy fallacy.
We are not having sex with down sindrom animals. And doing that with a human is RAPE/statutoryrape. Because society can't allow humans to take sexual advantage of humans without their consent. With animals, WE ARE GETTING THEIR CONSENT. Unlike that person did with the downsindrom person.
By law, you must get legal inform consent from HUMANS. From animals, you only need to get non-legal consent.
If you want to bark at the right tree, then find a forum with animal rapists, because you are in the wrong place.
The dog doesn't understand why the owner rubs his ears or belly, but the dog understand that it feels good. And so, the dog consents to it. So, who the fuck cares if the dog doesn't understand why the human does a sexual act on the dog? If the dog is enjoying it or find it neutral, what is the objective problem with it?
Also, where is the evidence that zoosexuality is always rooted on sexual or mental problems?
And who says that using them as sex toys (in the worse case scenario) is showing disrespect to them? like you said, the dog understand nothing, how can you insult or disrespect a dog if the dog doesn't understand that he is being insulted or disrespected?
Also, other animals are as complex if not more complex than humans, so get of your high horse.
WE ARE LITERALLY ANIMALS.
Wishful thinking fallacy.
Wishful thinking fallacy.
That is already illegal for rational reasons.
Bigot. If they are consenting adults, let them be.
Bigot. Again,if they are consenting adults, let them be.
Again, Wishful thinking fallacy. What you wish is not reality. You can't force your subjective opinion on us or anyone else, at least not without proper scientific evidence.
You have not provided a single rational objective reason for why it is bad to use animals in a harmless way.
Are you even a vegan? If not, you are using animals in a harmful way, as yo eat them you require murdering animals against their will.
And why is not OK? Can you give an objective reason for why it is not OK? Because all you have given are subjective reasons. No different from homophobes who say that gay sex is not OK even if it is consensual.
Seems that you've got a considerable amount of replies to sort through, but I can promise a bit more civility given my personal detachment from this community's demographic.
While they can't consent from a legal standpoint, they can, as others have asserted, offer nonverbal consent by means of their body language. The people here form a strong dialogue with their nonhuman animal partners, and discerning pleasure and displeasure is part of that understanding.
False dichotomy, but I'll respond to this. We are dealing with adults. As an example, a two year old dog is 20 years old with respect to how it has aged and matured. They are sexually, emotionally, and cognitively mature, and can display behavior indicative of an understanding of their sexual organs; particularly the consequences of stimulation. Saying they have the intelligence of three year olds or something is a handy shortcut, but the reality of the situation is that their minds aren't younger, but simply different. Not fundamentally so, mind, but still not terribly comparable to children..
I agree with the three elements you proferred concerning consent. The first and third are possible and present with nonhuman animals, and the second point is something I'd like to touch on. Consent exists for humans, in the form that it does, because it's best suited to humans.
Dogs, horses, etc, can't be expected to know the things humans are expected to know when engaging with one another, and they can have offspring because of it, as well as contracting no small number of STIs between themselves. Informed consent is important to prevent undue trauma, unwanted pregnancy, and the spread of STIs predominantly. The latter two aren't relevant here as sexually transmitted zoonoses are extremely rare and there exist near insurmountable prezygotic barriers for hybridized offspring being conceived. The former point is more suited to individuals where the implications of sexual contact can be negative or harmful rather than actual harm. Zoophiles as a rule of thumb are going to be caring enough that there won't be physical trauma caused to their partner in any capacity, and respect their agency such that they have the freedom to continue or stop as they please. Consent on its own is sufficient if we are to act in consideration of the nonhuman animal, and of the greatly reduced risks of such contact, since they're really just consenting to a flood of oxytocin. There are exceptions of course, but those exceptions usually exist outside of this community.
I'd say the subtler points of consent from nonhuman animals does have a certain possibility for error, but the same is also present in some human-human sexual dynamics, with even more layers(though I can't attest to the frequency of the following). False enjoyment/faked orgasms, verbal consent when they don't actually want it or because they feel obligated, consenting after being 'convinced', etc. All things that can muddy the waters for humans as well. Nonhuman animals generally don't have so strong a concept of emotional deception, so it's not too hard to get a read on them during the act as well, if need be. That's why looking for continuous consent is important, though.
I'll say, too, that a human partner would be more attentive to and able to detect consent continuously more effectively than a nonhuman animal. The thing about language is, while it isn't spoken, we do have a considerable understanding of much of it, like with canines. Considerable enough that any discomfort or discontentment would be easily picked up by an experienced caretaker, if avoidance behavior isn't observable.
This is of course from another comment of yours. So, there is a frequent assumption that all sex is penetrative here. There are actually a good number of zoophiles here that have never had penetrative sex for one reason or another, but have masturbated or performed oral stimulation on their nonhuman partners, obviously without any use of force. I have it on good authority that zoophiles derive a great deal of their satisfaction from observable enjoyment being displayed by their partners during these acts.
On to the power dynamic, I think there are several things to consider here. One, humans proferring themselves. This is particularly relevant to male nonhuman animals, but either way a human isn't in a position of power when they themselves are being mounted, and leave the decision in the paws/hooves of their nonhuman partner. Second, is that there are instances where the nonhuman animal is much, much more powerful than the human is. This is something that our horse zoos can attest to; they work in tune to the desires of their nonhuman partners or chance serious injury(none has been suffered here to date). And three, well, there are instances where peoples' nonhuman animal partners are the ones offering, themselves... forcibly on occasion... even when said zoophile isn't up to the task for one reason or another.
I've already discussed the adult bit, but... this idea of solving sexual satisfaction with another nonhuman animal is a bit off. It's a solution, but it isn't necessarily a better solution. One of your most significant premises is that nonhuman animals can't consent, but even the observable consent through body language might not be considered by a prospective canine suitor. They even have a smaller brain for considering it, and might not stop when avoidance behavior or signs of discomfort are shown with their partner. Your average zoophile, on the other hand, takes that as a sign to stop immediately.
I assume you don't think every instance of nonhuman animal intercourse is rape, but the approach you offered seems riskier, frankly. You said yourself that you've seen male dogs force themselves on others. That would never be done by one of our users, and if it did, it's something that would be condemned with prejudice. One of the most significant things to note about humans in instances like these is that they still have a preference to bring pleasure to their partners, while a dog would likely be considerably more self serving. A zoophile getting another dog to serve as a sexual partner for an existing dog is in a sense like introducing a risk that you can shift blame to in the event that something goes wrong between them.
You're responding emotionally, you just keep repeating the same arguments over and over and never actually address the points presented to you. It's trying to teach physics to a brick wall
Is emotion always wrong? If you are taking advantage of the fact that a dog can't understand your sick fantasies, they just enjoy being stimulated, then how is that not morally incorrect?
[deleted]
It's morally wrong because the dog doesn't know that you are doing it for your fantasies. They just know it feels good. Would you be okay with a caretaker sucking off a down-syndrome sufferer, because they have a kink for mental disabilities? Just wondering where your line is.
Sorry, but I believe that's a fallacious comparison because one is a mentally disabled human and one is a mentally sound nonhuman.
If you want to ignore that. I'll entertain your comparison
And their pleasure. I could argue you having sex with your human partner is based off your fantasies too.
In this instance, I'm assuming that said individual is 20 years or older. You have to consider if they realize and understand the risks, pregnancy, STDs etc (none of which apply to non-human-human relations) and then determine whether doing so could harm them in the future.
The rightness or wrongness of this has nothing to do with them having a kink towards handicapped people, it has to do with whether or not it causes harm, pleasure, or just indifference.
But once again, a mentally handicapped human is not a mentally sound animal. It's easy to say a disorder makes something wrong or bad but that isn't the case really. A foot fetish for example, is a disorder, it deviates from standard penis in vagina intercourse. But it isn't wrong, because it doesn't cause harm
I however would say that some mentally handicapped people, if not most, would develop and mature sexually; many people with say, aspergers, or autism, will develop to be able to have partners without any problem. And there are cases with psychosis, like schizophrenia, where the sexual desires of the person are left untouched, and many people manage to have a relationship with helps a lot them to keep reality and fantasy in check.
Simply things are not just black and white.
[deleted]
You're getting overwhelmed here, with many different people responding, so I apologize for jumping on as well, but...
No. A zoophile does not have sex for their own fantasies, any more than anyone else who has sex with anyone else. Would you say that a heterosexual male who has sex with a human female is "doing it for their fantasies"?
I think that's a very warped way of looking at things.
Zoophilia, like traditional heterosexuality, homosexuality, or other such categorizations, is a sexual orientation. It has a sexual fantasy component, but it also has other components - a romantic orientation component, an emotional connection component, a behavioral component, a sexual attraction component, and an identity component.
You will have a poor understanding of zoophilia if you try to understand it as a fetish or a kink. Again, it is best understood as an orientation.
So the act in itself isn't what is reprehensible? It's what is going through the zoophile's mind that's the problem? That's a scarily Orwellian way to look at things...
[removed]
Morality is subjective. So, doing that is neither moral or immoral. And it is irrelevant if it is moral or immoral.
From an objective point of view, how it is harmful to the animal to take advantage of them WITHOUT HARMING THEM or how it is harm to you or to society?
What argument you have to claim that people should not take advantage of animals WITHOUT HARMING THEM. What is the problem with taking advantage of animals WITHOUT HARMING THEM?
[removed]
I am SO sorry I missed this. In the off chance that you might look in again, here are some questions for you. (I'm a horse kinda guy so I'll have a little different viewpoint.)
Can you name anything farther from "childlike" than a stallion? They are living all over this planet wild and free without human aid or intervention.
Do you consider me incapable of consent. He comes to me after all.
Do you know what "dressage" is? It's mostly about achieving perfect communication between horse and human. Riding and driving are both filled with standard methods of communication.
There's much more but these will do for a start if you are up for it.
Nobody has ever been able to prove that claim, but good luck.
Moving the goal post fallacy. An animal sitting there and taking it is the animal giving implicit consent for the action to be done on him/her. As the animal is perfectly capable to stop the act but chooses to not do it because the animal doesn't mind ir or even likes it.
That logic only allies on animals who didn't tell you that you could do it. Does not apply on animals that did asked humans to do it. Even so. Animals can still consent to actions done by humans even if they didn't ask for it.
Example: how many times a dog has consented to a belly rub from me even that they didn't come to me asking for it? HUNDREDS of times. The fact that the dog allow me to give him a belly rub, is proof that the dog doesn't mind it or like it, that is the dog giving implicit consent for me to give him a belly rub. Same behavior and logic applies to sexual action.
You are sick fuck. If you think fucking a dog is okay, then why stop at dogs? Why say we can't fuck kids? Either you know it's fucked up to involve yourself sexually with a being that can't give you true consent, or you think fucking kids is cool. There's no space between those lines, because consent means the same thing for all of us. It means being of sound mind, using logic to consider all aspects of sex, and saying it's okay.
Sorry, but insulting us doesn't proves that they can't consent to sex. And you have not yet provided scientific evidence that animals can never consent to sex.
Pedophilia/pedosexuality is OK. Fucking children is not OK. Fucking children and pedophilia are two totally different things. one is a sexual act and the other is an a traction (not a sexual act)
Fucking children is not OK because it harms children. Where fucking animals with their consent causes them NO HARM.
Have you consider learning cat language? Is clear that you don't know it.
95% or more of the sex that zoosexuals have are with dogs or horses, two animal that have non-vague language.
I think my dog fucking me and knotting my ass and cumming inside of me. Or my bitch rubbing her clitoris till orgasm in my finger, is enough proof that SHE and HE wants me. I'm 100% certain of that.
You are doing a wishful thinking fallacy. You wish to believe that we are not certain when we actually are. And all scientific evidence proves that animal language can be understood by humans. Is damn obvius when an animal wants sex or not. At least obvius to people who has learned their language.
And now you are death fish. You got fried. All your argument are fallacious and lacking in valid evidence, you prove nothing but that you are a ignorant bigot.
And you are also a pedophobe. I won't be surprised if you are also racist and homophobic.
I mean, it may be consensual but you're fucking with an animal. I mean, you don't see how thats weird?
Well, I do know that zoophilia is weird. I have an unusual attraction and it's not normal because it's very uncommon.
Although... I would say it's not that abnormal as you think. There's a reason behind this, and that's obvious: I have an attraction. Everyone has an attraction, except asexuals.
Like anyone else, I have a desire for a romantic and sexual partner, except I seek for an animal instead of my own species.
But so what? I don't want to pull this ''special snowflake'' card but I'm happy that I'm different from other humans.
And hey, even though I know this is weird, it doesn't feel weird. I don't pay attention to that, so what if it is?
I honestly don't understand why you would care about the weirdness of something. I mean, it's kind of the instinct we have.
We see something weird, we react to it in a negative way because humans are afraid of the unkown.
Yet I have learned to accept weirder things, why can't other humans do the same?
If you think about it logically, who the fuck cares?
Well i agree, it's not really any of my business nor anyone elses, the only reason i got involved was how aggressive you were being to, how you put it, ''anti-zoophiles''. With something so out there you can't blame people for being judging of it. And to me this argument is too close to home to the pedophile argument of ''well shes only 12 but she likes it i swear''. You have to consider whether their old enough to really make that decision, and if they aren't, how can animals be expected too?
Makes sense, because I'm only trying to get other's attention.
I mean, they kind of do the same by taunting us or tagging certain users in hate posts.
No problem with just teasing back, right? Because as you can see it really works.
I actually understand their concern very much. I actually love animals and wouldn't want to get them hurt either.
But the thing is... most of them have such a fucking attitude and won't listen. No matter what you tell them, they are opinionated and won't change their mind.
I see anti-zoophiles make a lot of excuses when they don't know what to say back.
And a lot of them don't even rely on logic. It's very clear they are also mostly controlled by their emotions.
''Ewwww'' and ''Poor animals'' are good examples. It implies they're disgusted, so they stray away from it.
And they are horrified because they don't see animals the same way because in such human's minds they're ''cute'' and ''adorable''.
Because at some point animals are considered sexually mature. This is different for many animals.
When they're adults, it's 100% sure they are sexually mature, because that's how development works.
That's why real zoophiles wait until they're adults. I'll give an example, dogs are adults at the age of 2 for sure.
Its not really about being sexually mature. Technically a 13 - 14 year old human is sexually mature, which is what puberty is, but thats not really the point.
[removed]
To clarify, dog zoos wait 2-3 years because they're adults at that point.
One of the things I like about horses is that an adult horse is a fully capable adult in all senses of the word. They live free and independent of humans all over this planet. So consent from a horse has meaning. A horse that chooses to invite me into his family is making a real choice because he wants to, not because he is hungry.
Your argument is a red herring fallacy or a poisoning the well fallacy. Human relationships are irrelevant when the topic is relationships with non-humans.
A 6 month old chihuahua is already a fully sexually mature dog. Not comparable to a 12 year old human. Same goes for a 1 year old middle sized dog. Or a 1 year old +months on huge breeds. Dogs age faster than humans, that is why they die faster than humans where they only live like 15 years if you are lucky.
We are having sex with ADULT animals, and the very few that likes to have sex with puppies, well, puppies don't get emotionally traumatized by sex unlike human children, so, it is not the same thing.
So are you stating a 6 month old dog has more intelligence and reasoning skills than a 12 year old human?
So I take it that you are an exclusive Dendrophile? Because if you're not, you're fucking animals too.
If you can't differentiate between an actual animal and a human, and/or you are doing it to prove a point, thats horribly sad. You cannot even get close to a universe where that comparison is apt.
Humans are in the animal kingdom, was their point.
Exactly. And not always as superior as some like to imagine. For example: want to play tug of war with a horse?
yes i do. Id probably get my arm torn clean off, but HORSEY!
Injury would depend on the horse. I have known many that would play and tease you while taking care not to harm you. That is exactly why I frown on fencehoppers. Being with a horse that knows you and likes you is the biggest safety factor available.
This is the only example you can think of? Oh boy....your focus on the "strength" of horses is utterly disturbing. My radar says "gay masochist" all the time....
In any contest there is strategy and there is tactics. Then there is 30-30.
I am curious though. With your obvious dislike of all things America, why did you choose a symbol so wrapped up in the ultimate Americanism, Texas?
Nice try to deflect...but not good enough, try harder..
To answer your rather irrelevant question: I don´t connect the character to "ultimate Americanism", I view the character as an idenpendent entity/symbol and am not really a fan of the 80s cartoon series or the setting in which it takes place. Not a fan of "Western" movies, not a fan of the "cowboys vs. indians" stuff either. But I´m a huge fan of horses (who would´ve thought that ;)) and also very much into post humanism and cyborgs...now you do the math yourself.
The whole cartoon could have taken place in a medieval Japanese setting, or a medieval European setting with knights , or even a totally unconnected setting, doesn´t matter...what mattered was a visual representation of how I felt , a symbol for how I perceive myself and not at all a symbol for any type of "Americanism".
I don't think there is a zoosexual who will disagree with the statement that zoosex is weird/abnormal.
[deleted]
oh no im gonna die because my internet buddy told me omg :((
[deleted]
[deleted]
I'm struggling here. Should I challenge you and try to waste my time educating you? Because most of the time it's the most loud idiots with football mom-like behavior that are opinionated and stubborn.
It's basically no use, but your stupidity sucks me in. You see, when I see a lack of intelligence I want to fix it.
Here's something to think about: Do animals say ''yes'' or ''no'' to their own species? I mean with human language, of course.
Obviously not, so why should we need a ''yes'' or ''no'' from an animal in human language? This makes less than zero sense.
And now, we don't assume they're horny because they have clear signs of being horny, Do you know when your dog is hungry or thirsty? I certainly hope you do, because I'd feel bad for any animal you'd take care of. Because you'd assume they're hungry or thirsty.
This would result in you making an animal starve or overfeeding them.
Animals have mating rituals, and that is a clear way of showing they are horny and want to have sex. It's also ''Yes, let's have sex now.'' in their language so it's consent. They use this for their own species but also others if they are interested.
If your brain can't comprehend that, then good luck in the future. I recommend staying away from any animal in the future, as you clearly don't understand them.
Also, your comparison did not even make sense one bit. Try again. (Or rather don't, because your stupidity is starting to bother me.)
[deleted]
Oh look, an excuse to deny the truth.
Well, at least you know that I'm right and you aren't, otherwise you wouldn't run away.
And hey, you started replying so you wanted to argue. So your logic is really lacking.
How old are you btw? From my guess it's 12-15~
[deleted]
No, you are avoiding what I say. If you can't disprove what I say, I am right.
I just told you exactly why in that comment why it's not rape. Should I repeat it for you?
Here's something to think about: Do animals say ''yes'' or ''no'' to their own species? I mean with human language, of course. Obviously not, so why should we need a ''yes'' or ''no'' from an animal in human language? This makes less than zero sense. And now, we don't assume they're horny because they have clear signs of being horny, Do you know when your dog is hungry or thirsty? I certainly hope you do, because I'd feel bad for any animal you'd take care of. Because you'd assume they're hungry or thirsty. This would result in you making an animal starve or overfeeding them. Animals have mating rituals, and that is a clear way of showing they are horny and want to have sex. It's also ''Yes, let's have sex now.'' in their language so it's consent. They use this for their own species but also others if they are interested.
And no, I don't fuck animals and never will.
Even if I did, so what? There's no point in bringing it up.
[deleted]
Then what does give me the right to fuck an animal? They're horny and ask for sex, we answer them.
With the same logic, you shouldn't have sex with a human either.
Your logic is lacking again.
You still haven't told me how old you are, so I'm guessing I guessed right? Because that doesn't seem like a very rational and mature reply.
[deleted]
Your age doesn't matter, but your behavior makes me suspicious that you may be a very delusional child. And of course, I just want to know if you're a childish adult or not. Would tell a lot more about you.
And nothing gives you the right to fuck a human with the same logic.
And we were meant to live in caves without computers and all the stuff we have today. Animals aren't supposed to be domesticated either.
Also, we were all meant to be heterosexual. Are you against homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, etc. too?
Doesn't mean we don't have the right to something if we aren't meant to do something. Your ''point'' makes absolutely no sense and is very vague. It doesn't matter what we were meant to do. If we can have consensual sex with animals, then we should if we want to.
Give me a reason why we shouldn't.
Sorry bud, but this really isn't your subject.
Oh look, the classic ''its all obvious right???'' card.
No, no it isn't.
...And your point is?
So what if it is? The law doesn't decide what's right or not.
Surely there's one law you don't agree with. Don't deny that.
DISSSSS-MISSED!
OK. Now that we've got that established, how does it work when the human just stands there and the horse fucks the human?
[deleted]
Having actually done that more than once, I suspect that I realize more about it than you do.
So am I to take it that it is OK as long as the animal is stronger than the human and initiates the sex?
[deleted]
How is it wrong?
So how is it wrong?
[deleted]
Absolutely nothing according to a fair number of tests for both structure and content.
And that isn't an answer to a direct question.
edit (5 hours later): I guess it's past his bedtime.
[removed]
Alright, this is the 3rd time within the last day I've tried to view this post, but I can't see any of the comments. Why this ONE post? There are over 100 comments it says, but not a single one shows up...Ugghh!
im not having any problems.
Maybe try this? it aint a perfect fix, but it should work
Ahh yes, I can see all the comments there. Thank you! I dunno why it's just this one post.
[deleted]
what
WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU COMPARE BEING ZOOPHILIC TO BEING PART OF THE LGBT+ COMMUNITY? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?
im sorry please dont hurt me :..(
If you can't figure it out, just ask.
Immediately stop citing this bullshit that has NOTHING to do with the situation zoophiles find themselves in. I haven´t seen trains loaded with "zoophiles" traveling to Treblinka, Bergen-Belsen and all the other extinction camps. Stop this bullshit NOW. I have jewish ancestry and I find it so gross you´re even hinting at a possible comparison to the holocaust. Honestly, what´s wrong with you? You´re basically the same level of retard as ZETA who once published a picture of a David´s star ...with a fuckin´greek lower zeta photoshopped right in the middle of the well known (at least in Germany) yellow 6 pointed stars jews were forced to visibly sew onto their clothes....I´m embarrassed and angry about so much openly displayed stupidity, twisted thinking and self absorbance. Go and hit your head against some history books, old man! Maybe and hopefully, some of the content will simmer through into your brains and you realise why you´ve stepped in fat shit here...
Not amused 30-30
Postscriptum: Maybe you wanna look up the man you aren´t hesitant to quote...Niemöller initially was an adorer of Hitler and only rose his voice against the Austrian runner up of the 1933 Charlie Chaplin doppelgänger contest after the church came under fire from the nazi ideology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niemöller
You know one of the things that I really like about the Jews? They don't deny their history, they hold it up as an example for future generations. That's a stark contrast to many religious and political groups today who pull down monuments and remove names because they don't like being reminded their failures or others successes. An extreme example being Al Qaeda blowing up other peoples' temples.
Niemöller learned from his mistakes and some doozies committed by others. The translation I chose was the one he favored. I don't care how you think it relates to Zoophilia or anything else! I am making a simple but powerful statement about politics and why there are times that being your brothers' keeper is more than just necessary.
How many ways has it been said? "A violation of anyone's rights is a violation of everyone's rights." "Anyone who gives up rights in favor of security deserves neither."
Fantastic as it seems, you are not the center of the world.
Show me the concentration camps with millions of "zoophiles" in them, show me the trains, the Gestapo capturing the "zoos" out of their beds at 4 AM in the morning, show me the "flea markets" selling all of the belongings of "zoos" for a nickel to anyone interested, show me the "zoo" mass graves and I might, MIGHT consider talking to your deluded ass again....
You are not talking to or about me now.
so i found the comment (i hope) you meant to reply to, and i think this is relevant
[deleted]
ok