Not a zoophile, but I just wanna say I support you guys. (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2012-08-06 00:52:06 by [deleted]
Hey guys, I'm not a zoophile, but I just wanna say you guys are all okay with me. (Unrelated, but while I'm here, kinda sad to see a lot of porn here, rather than thought-provoking material.)
Unless there's some zoosadists in here. If you're a zoosadist fuck you.
Very nice to hear.
First, sex sells. Most realize that zoophilia has a deep relationship side. However, sometimes you body takes over and you masturbate to porn.
There may be some ethics about zoosadism and there may be some way to find out. I take an Ethical Instrumentalist view on zoosadism. Whether it is morally good or bad, it may be better for the community to consider it morally bad. It's like a lesbian bar. They don't debate whether gay men are good or bad, only discourage them from entering.
I think a lot of people take a consequential view on violence towards animals. How is this? Is eating meat not violent towards animals? I am not trying to debate consequentialism verse deontological ethics or about eating meat. I just want people to admit they allow violence towards animals based on its consequences. It is a bit hypocritical, but I think this is because people don't want to think about animals getting hurt. We don't want to be violent, but we must eat, whether our food is plants or animals.
In /r/zoogold (a private zoophilia subreddit) I have a rule prohibiting zoosadism. I am vegetarian, but I don't have any problems with others eating meat. I do admit that I kill plants for food.
"Gay is the new black."
This phrase had been used to state that African-Americans should vote for Gay Rights. Many African-Americans hated this, because Gay Rights was being compared to slavery emancipation and other civil rights.
The philosophical problem is whether groups should "piggy back" on other groups.
"Zoo is the new gay." ???
How has gay rights been helped and how will this help zoophiles?
Substantive Due Process states that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." It was used in Lawrence v. Texas and Brian Cutteridge says that it will help zoos as well.
For the Love of Dog: On the Legal Prohibition of Zoophilia in Canada and the United States. -- Brian Cutteridge
One of the unofficial mottos for zoophilia is "Don't be stupid, or, at least, tell no one." If you read about Brian Cutteridge, you'll see that people don't want to debate. They want to jail people. The public doesn't care. If you want to debate, go to a university. Racism and homophobia still exist in America. Why would zoophiles think they won't have any problems?
And welcome to the forum.
(This isn't my blog.) A nice blog.
http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/tag/zoophilia/
I find certain, generally accepted or ignored practices to be worse than zoosadism, so I definitely agree. But I'm not gonna get into a bunch of nitpicking about how I feel about zoosadism versus meat either. Very interesting post, and I'll probably check out the blog sometime tomorrow. :)
It's a great blog!
I was wondering what happened to you, you haven't posted in a while :(
Edit: didn't see that it wasn't your blog until after I posted...derp.
Considering that zoosadism is far more sinister and cruel even, sometimes, than factory farming, and that it's wholly unnecessary, I would say it's much worse than meat. Also considering that it's zoosadism that is probably the main reason we continue to be prosecuted as you have stated, I'd think you'd be a little more critical of it.
As far as people not caring, I think you'll find that offline this is the case, but not so much online. There was a time when homosexuality was something that people didn't care about and simply wanted gone, and now it's probably the most prominent civil rights movement out there. I feel that the people who say that zoos should just stay in their shadowy little corner, even with the anonymity available on the internet, are the ones who can't handle a proper debate themselves.
To the author: thank you for your support. It does mean a lot to many of us for non-zoos to come out and say so, and I believe it's folks like you who will carry one of the most important corners of the eventual zoo rights movement.
I'd say zoosadism is much less bad than factory farming is:
Both involve the torture of animals but only factory farming necessitates killing.
Factory farming involves torture over many months, zoosadism only minutes to hours.
The animals involved experience mostly suffering due to factory farming, the animal typically has a life with much pleasure before and perhaps after zoosadism.
Factory farming gives humans a much lower form of pleasure than the sexual pleasure given by zoosadism.
I get the feeling the same bias that makes people oppose bestiality and then go home and eat a steak is at work here; sexual things are more immoral than non-sexual things on account of being sexual.
To me, the torture of an animal is definitely worse than killing one. As far as how long the animal is tortured and how pleasurable their life is, I think we're running on different ideas of what zoosadism is. Zoosadism is most famous in cases of horse-ripping, which is definitely worse than factory farming and can go on for just as long - and the animal is most certainly not having a pleasurable life outside of the incidents themselves.
And I'm a little disturbed that you think sexual pleasure is more worthwhile than essential amino acids and iron. Animals kill each other for food, and we are animals. It's not a frivolous thing. Animals, however, do not seem to generally derive great pleasure from the very prolonged torture of another individual. This, I think, suggests to us what is a more "higher-form" activity.
In factory farming animals are constantly subject to torture up until their deaths.
Maybe but you'll need to explain why.
I'm talking about the consumption of meat simply for gustatory pleasure which is less pleasurable than sexual pleasure.
Those who think they eat meat for 'essential nutrients' and/or do not know of the conditions involved in its production have the defense of ignorance which would elevate their actions above those of the zoosadist so long as they remain ignorant.
X could be; murder, rape, or cannibalism rather than eating meat.
Except for those human animals that do derive great amounts of sexual pleasure from it.
Edit: I want to make it clear that I certainly don't think that zoosadism is in anyway justifiable, just that factory farming is worse.
Frankly, although it is disgusting the conditions some of these animals live in in factory farming, it's certainly better than having your flesh intentionally torn away over the course of months or years. That is the example I gave in horse-ripping. I wonder if you're even familiar with it, and that it is what people tend to mean when they say, "zoosadism".
I'm not sure how the requisite of essential nutrients is ignorant.
Animals kill each other for food and they have good reason to, which is also a reason that we share. Please don't turn my arguments into straw men.
You've yet to describe why you think one individual's sexual pleasure is worth as much as the same individual's physical health, and why the former might still be worth the prolonged agony of another that exceeds that that would be necessitated by the latter.
I wasn't and that specifically does sound like it would be slightly more bad than factory farming. I'll agree then that some zoosadism is more bad than factory farming but not always and not hugely so when it is.
Because it's untrue that you need to eat meat to get the essential nutrients that you need in order to survive so anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant. Vegetarians can get every dietary nutrient they need without meat (vegans need vitamin B12 supplements produced by bacteria).
The fact that many non-western human populations have existed for thousands of years without meat consumption is testament to this fact that you can easily verify for yourself with a quick internet search.
I explained above how it's not a reason we share. If you understand that this is the case then the 'animals eat meat so it's okay' argument fits the general form I set out previously and is clearly an unsound argument.
It's not sexual pleasure vs. physical health; it's sexual pleasure vs. gustatory pleasure. Sexual pleasure is more pleasurable than gustatory pleasure.
I think we can both agree that human sexual and gustatory pleasure are both nowhere near being worth such a thing.
We're getting a little off-topic now, but you're ignoring the fact that while yes, obviously it is completely possible to live as a vegetarian in the first world and even be healthy in doing so, there is a fair amount of stuff that, in layman's terms, is not essential but pretty good to have that you can only get from meat. Non-essential amino acids high among them.
You're also ignoring the fact that no nation outside of the Far East has, at least to my knowledge, been able to survive only on plant substances without the use of synthetic supplements. So yes, a few non-Western cultures have practiced vegetarianism for a very long time, but only because their particular areas happen to produce the fruits and vegetables needed to replace meat products in their diet. Interestingly, while we admire many of these cultures for their human philosophy, it is cultures like those of the Celts and the Plains Indians that we turn to when we want to think highly of the natural world.
I personally abhor factory farming as much as you do, so don't get me wrong on that. Although in the context of zoosexuality I will take a harsher stance on zoosadism and would strongly encourage everyone else to do so as well, I would happily see the practice of factory farming banned. I simply believe that for both health reasons and for philosophical reasons, being that a subsistence hunter or fisherman is much more connected to the natural world than a pill-popper, and a rancher is closer to animals and their psychologies, ironically, than a vegan, that all meat-eating should not be painted with the same brush.
That, along with the aforementioned health benefits from decent meat that you really can't reasonably deny suggests that meat-eating is much more than gustatory pleasure, regardless of the source. It is a necessary thing for strong physiological development and disease prevention, the same as any other natural food source. I would say this qualifies as "good reason".
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174005000422
I think that all meat eating is immoral (but outside of factory farming not at zoosadist levels of immoral) because depriving an animal of a future of value/acting against it's preference to live (either works fine) because you're too lazy to plan a vegetarian diet/enjoy the taste of meat is totally unjustifiable.
The only thing missing from a vegan diet is vitamin B12. It's in milk, and it's in eggs so vegetarians have no problem whatsoever here.
Plants need the same 20 amino-acids we do and in fact because they are not heterotrophs they must produce all 20 amino-acids themselves. It follows then that you can get all 20 amino-acids from plants alone without the need for meat.
Unless you think that Far Easterners are a different species with different dietary requirements them being able to do it shows that we are able to do it.
You too have access to all the fruits and vegetables you need to replace meat from your diet; it's called a supermarket.
Please don't just say that without any explanation, explain why.
Can we stop it with the appeals to nature; one would think that a zoophile would realize how nothing of an argument they are.
"Bestiality is unnatural, unnatural things are bad, therefore bestiality is bad!"
That's true and I was always specifying factory farming earlier. Eating organically farmed meat is still immoral but it's not zoosadist levels of immoral.
You're right it's also a convenience thing, but being too lazy to change is no more excusable than liking the taste.
I don't think I ever claimed that eating meat was unhealthy just that not eating meat can be just as healthy if you put effort in.
Edit: Let's assume for a second that you are right and that eating meat is healthier than not eating meat and that we could say with confidence that eating meat will allow you to live for one year longer.
Do you value one year of your life above the many hundred and perhaps thousands of years of animal life that you would need to take away in order to obtain it? If yes, justify it.
For one thing, we need 23 amino acids. For another, the question is not that something in your diet is completely lacking, but that there is low bioavailability - that is, that it's there, but there's very little of it. This is why you need things like beans that replace certain proteins that are otherwise limited.
Your argument, I assumed, was a historical one, which is why I noted that vegetarianism only occurred historically in the Far East.
I just did explain my philosophical reasons: meat-eating has always brought us closer to nature and to animals. This is important to many. I once raised cattle and I hunt and fish today, myself.
Bestiality is unnatural and therefore wrong. The animals that we tend to love do not tend to rape each other when left to their own devices. Zooerasty, on the other hand, is not uncommon in the natural world. I understand this is not your argument, but neither was my appeal to nature an argument for anything but the philosophical justification you were asking for.
Death is a necessary thing in the world. As a human being, I expect to die of cancer, a heart attack, or perhaps even suicide. Rarely do we live out our full term. For prey animals, it isn't unreasonable to suggest that they expect to die in the jaws of a predator, whether that be a human or another animal. This is simply the way of life, and were it disrupted, ecological problems would be unavoidable. Imagine if every cattle farm in the world ceased producing meat, or in the case of a hunting culture going vegan, imagine if an entire predatory species was removed. Morality is far more than who lives and who does not: it is about balance. The suffering inflicted by a species that is grossly overpopulated certainly outweighs that inflicted upon a species to keep that balance, as we ourselves demonstrate.
Your final argument would apply to any even moderately carnivorous species in the world. I don't think I need to outline and reiterate the various problems with this.
You've given up arguing that we need meat for any nutritional purposes now it seems. Now your in entire reasoning behind eating meat is a well embellished appeal to nature. Take away all the trimmings and your argument is simply:
It should be clear that the second proposition is questionable; rape, murder, and cannibalism are natural and these things are not things we ought to do to be "closer to nature" (whatever that means). Conversely language, art, and music are unnatural and nobody thinks we ought to give these up.
Because the second proposition is rejected by anybody who doesn't, for example, support murder and reject the arts, your argument for eating meat is unsound.
Your concern for the ecosystem is amiable but unjustified; you or any one person not eating meat is simply not going to cause the release of billions of farm animals into the wild. Moreover if we need to regulate the ecosystem to maximize good (even if you think good = balance) then we are perfectly capable of doing so with or without any meat consumption.
Also;
Morality is (according to Wikipedia anyway); " the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong)." If you think that balance, in and of itself, is a morally good consequence then explain why.
If we could do so (obviously we can't now) without disrupting the ecosystem (and therefore creating more suffering than we alleviate) than we would be morally justified in eliminating carnivores from nature altogether (if we like them for aesthetic purposes we could keep a few breeding groups in captivity and feed them something artificial).
Besides; you're a moral agent and they are not. You're responsible for the easily avoidable suffering you knowingly cause and they are not. You're capable of answering that question and they are not.
Edit: Forgot to add this, when I said; "eating meat is always immoral..." I should have added an; "unless the animal was already dead, killed for morally justified purposes (e.g. 'killing it to save two others' and even 'killing it to protect the ecosystem' so long as that's the actual reason and not an excuse.) or you need to in order to survive."
...You just admitted that we need meat for nutritional purposes. I don't usually argue something when it's already been won.
You're ignoring my argument completely. Cannibalism does not serve a purpose. Rape is rare in most non-human species. Murder... well, I personally think that there is a time and place for it. I am not taking a natural approach but a utilitarian approach. Kindly reread my posts.
I'm wondering how you plan on controlling species populations without killing things either directly or indirectly, in likely a much more ham-fisted way than a quick blow to the skull.
Balance is moral because unbalance generally requires suffering, which we both seem to be primarily against, in order to regain balance. Consider the relevant example of overpopulation.
I find it rather abhorrent that you consider eliminating all carnivores from nature. You clearly know nothing about ecology if this is the case. Even as the blog you linked states, "Our ignorance of the potential ramifications of our interventions in the natural world remains profound. Efforts to eliminate certain species [...] would have many unforeseeable and potentially catastrophic effects."
As far as being a moral agent, I recommend Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals (Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce, 2009). A well-received volume and more have been written on the subject stating that you are wrong.
Considering you have failed to notice my other arguments involving expected cause of death and returned to your argument that meat is not necessary despite a rather thorough scholarly source without adding an academic retort, I think you should backtrack a little before responding here.
I wrote my argument out in full in an edit which I think you missed, nothing you've said has actually refuted any of it:
Might as well detail my argument a little more (Note: this argument is not speciesist; it works for human animals and non-human animals).
Killing animals deprives them of a future of value or acts against their preference of living and regardless of which of those stances you take (it only matters for the abortion debate) you'll think that killing an animal for no reason whatsoever is wrong.
First; it is not wrong to kill an animal if it has no preference to go on living because it has no future of value which is why euthanasia is not morally wrong.
Second; it is also not wrong to kill an animal if the consequences of killing it are such that they provide greater 'utility' than that which is lost by the killing itself. Realistic examples of this all involve either killing an animal to save two or more animals (e.g. preserving the ecosystem), killing an animal that is not a moral agent to save one that is (e.g. a human killing a few non-human animals and eating them to survive), or conceivably killing an animal with little preference to survive/future of value to provide some great pleasure (so long as the animal doesn't suffer much because of the killing). There's also the 'utility monster', where the wrongness of killing is counteracted by some extremely great pleasure, but there's no real world examples of such a thing so it's not worth considering here.
Third; if the consequences of the killing do not have greater 'utility' than that which is lost then the killing is wrong. No fleeting human pleasure; sexual, gustatory, or otherwise, is great enough to provide this utility. Neither is our vanity, or our convenience. I think you'll agree that it's wrong to kill human animals for for these reasons (e.g. killing orphans for food because they taste nice, it's more convenient than going to the supermarket, or because you'll look foolish for not doing it), and from that it follows that you must think it's wrong to kill non-human animals for fleeting human pleasure, vanity, or convenience, unless you can give a justification for this discontinuity.
So the argument against the killing of animals for food when plant based alternatives are available is as follows:
Killing an animal without providing sufficient utility to overcome the wrongness of killing is morally wrong.
Killing an animal for food when plant based alternatives are available doesn't provide sufficient utility to overcome the wrongness of killing.
Therefore; killing an animal for food when plant based alternatives are available is morally wrong.
We ought not do things that are morally wrong.
Therefore; we ought not kill animals for food when plant based alternatives are available.
I didn't, I said "let's assume so" because it's irrelevant. If we found that the brains of orphans produced an extremely nutritious foodstuff when squeezed, would you justify the killing orphans on those grounds?, presumably no, so why do you justify killing animals for nutrition?
Then frankly you simply don't understand the utilitarian approach very well at all or are bad at displaying your understanding. My argument above is completely and utterly utilitarian, please read it.
Basically it's not just about serving a purpose (i.e. producing some utility) it's about maximizing total (or perhaps average) utility. If killing a million Jews produces some utility it doesn't matter unless that utility can overcome the wrongness (loss of utility) of killing a million Jews.
But it's nutritious!
I don't.
You've not even bothered to define this 'balance' thing. I think this is irreverent either was because killing animals to increase total utility is perfectly justified and I've said this.
Read what I wrote:
Space.
Okay, some animals might have weak moral agency too as well as being moral patients. Doesn't that make killing them for food even more abhorrent?
I guess you're trying to argue that if other moral agents do bad things that makes it okay for us to do it?, it should be obvious why that is a shit argument though.
That moral argument is entirely subjective. Personally, I feel that killing for the sake of one's own betterment, even if it's a life merely for enhanced health, is perfectly justifiable, particularly in the case in which the individual being killed is of a species that has historically been killed for that purpose and has doubtless adapted to it in a myriad of ways, including psychologically. As far as the utilitarian aspect, you have yet to disprove both my and your own source's claim that a predator-prey relationship is necessary for proper ecological balance.
Yes, I would have orphans killed if it proved to be beneficial. Particularly because they are orphans and are likely not of significant emotional worth to many. I assume you used this as a shock argument, but from a utilitarian perspective as well as one that acknowledges human overpopulation as a problem, it doesn't work. Nor, indeed, does your invocation of Godwin's Law.
Cannibalism is the exact opposite of nutritious. This is why it is seldom practiced by animals, whether human or not.
I didn't assume the word "balance" needed defining. Are you entirely unfamiliar with the simple fact that if a predator is removed from an ecosystem that its prey will increase in number to the eventual point of environmental collapse if the niche is not refilled?
Speaking in impossible hypotheticals does not help your argument. Essentially what you're saying is that eliminating all carnivores would be good if there was no downside, which is tautological.
No, killing someone that has moral agency is not inherently wrong. You are coming from a perspective in which life itself is sacred and worth a great deal, whereas I am coming from a perspective in which it is not. Comfort is, but life does not necessitate comfort, nor does the loss of life necessitate discomfort. I take as little offense towards shooting and eating a wild deer as I do killing a known rapist.
My argument, once again, is not one from nature: it is not a suggestion that because animals do it that we should as well. It is an argument of utility which you have failed to address beyond the short-term individual level.
This is a useless thing to say.
That's not at all utilitarian it's [objectivist] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29). You can be an objectivist if you want, but before you commit to it you might want to read some of the scathing criticisms of objectivism to try and understand why it's the laughing stock of philosophers everywhere.
I'm pretty sure I said, repeatedly, that maintaining ecological balance is good because of the catastrophic consequences that could easily result in a massive decrease in utility.
Humans practiced cannibalism for thousands of years and enjoyed it greatly. Kuru isn't a problem unless it occurs within a close-nit group for many generations.
Animals do it a lot too see the wiki: "Cannibalism is a common ecological interaction in the animal kingdom and has been recorded for more than 1500 species."
Again see: objectivism.
It's called a reductio.
Objectivist*
Is murder morally acceptable then?
I guess I lose because of funny observation some guy came up with :(
Holy shit, do you even read what I write? I agreed with this repeatedly.
I guess the trolley case, the doctor and the vagrant, the violinist, Maxwell's demon, Schrodinger's cat, and so on, are all just "impossible hypotheticals" to you also?
They're called thought experiments.
I'm saying it would be good if we could control for that particular downside.
Never said it was...
No I'm not, you'd know that if you actually took the effort to read what I wrote. I'm coming from a perspective where a life with a future value is good, or it's wrong to kill things that have a preference for living.
Thanks you dolt, that's why I said; future value (e.g. future comfort) or preference to live (which implies the life isn't uncomfortable).
Yeah wild dear who have done nothing to decrease utility and won't do anything to decrease utility in the future are comparable to a rapist who's already decreased utility and is likely to decrease utility int he future.
Wow.
Edit: fixed the links!
No, a subjective argument built on your own unfalsifiable morality is useless.
I don't see how my sentiments are at all objectivist, particularly when given my other arguments. Objectivism is political; it really doesn't have any meaning here.
You've not said anything of the sort. If you did, and you just have, it would contradict your entire line of reasoning. If you feel that the biosphere must have balance, then you must also feel that carnivorous behaviour is a necessity.
You ought to learn that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, for one thing. For another, a variety of diseases are much more easily transmitted through the consumption of an individual, as you know; when both are of the same species, the number of these diseases skyrockets. It has nothing to do with some exclusive disease to cannibalism and everything to do with an increased risk of all diseases. This is basic. And yes, many species have documented cannibalism. The vast majority of the time, this is a part of infanticide. I'm sure you can make the connection between this and a lower health risk. In the end, whatever I throw at you, good luck proving that cannibalism is even healthy, let alone "good for you".
You need to learn a little about objectivism. The statement that something should be done because it has greater benefit than cost is not objectivism. Objectivism is the assertion, applied politically, that everything one does should be for one's own benefit with <i>no</i> regard for other individuals. Is this what you're suggesting I am supporting?
Yes, murder is morally acceptable, in some cases, those being when murder is more beneficial to the population than it is detrimental. Simple.
Impossible hypotheticals have no place in a legitimate argument. We deal with reality or a theoretically possible reality, not one in which basic laws of nature must be broken. A thought experiment still assumes these basic facts exist. Even something like the Chinese Room is theoretically possible to one extent or another. A world in which there are suddenly no predators without any detriment to the remaining biosphere is not, and again, using it as an example of something that would be good is tautological.
You actually did say: "Okay, some animals might have weak moral agency too as well as being moral patients. Doesn't that make killing them for food even more abhorrent?"
All things that are not both suicidal and capable of killing themselves have a preference for living. Unfortunately, if they all lived, we would have a major problem on our hands, as you have, according to your last post, agreed with multiple times. If you agree with me, why are you resorting to multiple logical fallacies, including reductio ad absurdum, ad hominem, and impossible theoreticals, not to mention Godwin, to support a contradiction?
Killing a rapist is utilitarian because it <i>prevents</i> future <i>detriment</i>, not only for oneself but for society. Killing a common deer properly for food and other utility <i>allows</i> for future <i>benefit</i>, not only for oneself but for the local environment.
EDIT: Hell if I'm going to edit my formatting for Reddit. :P lern2html
It really means a lot to hear that. It's so disheartening to see even the most logical people switch to pitchfork and torches mode at the mere mention of zoophilia. Thanks for the support.
No problem. I can't blame them, really; it's such a taboo subject, and whenever it's brushed, it's said in a negative light. That, and the fact that it's such a "weird" concept, kinda wires most people to freak against it.
EDIT: I realized I sounded like a dick there. I just meant to say that even logical people are subject to bias.
*kinda sad to see a lot of porn here, rather than thought-provoking material."
I created the group /r/zoosexuality with my alt for this very reason.
Thanks and another new subscriber here.
Me too :)
I do appreciate it but I wonder; what prompted this?
I've had some difficult accepting zoophilia as acceptable. My emotions were like "Jesus Christ what the fuck" and my brain was like "dude if nobody's getting hurt, then what's the problem". To make it worse, I'm a furry, and I wanted to stay far away from any mentality that might suggest that I'm a zoophile or anything of the sort, to avoid any association between the fandom and zoophilia.
I realized that the mentality of basing moral logic on postulates like "it's just wrong" is just as bad as the mentality that denied other people rights in the past, and, even though the idea of zoophilia had revolted me, I still realized that it's something I should find morally acceptable. It still revolts me emotionally, but not as much as before.
This was awhile ago, but just recently I was chatting to a zoophile, and I thought of you guys.
It means a lot to hear a sympathetic voice. Just like the queer community needs 'straight allies,' it's really important to know that there are people who can look past the ick factor.
As for the content on this subreddit, it is indeed more porn than substance unfortunately. We have the private subreddit r/zoogold which has more issues-based threads, but in general most of the members are content to be lurkers and not activists or even vocal advocates. But for me, just knowing they're there is important.
Thank you. And I agree. Duck zoosadists. :D
Aaaaand my life is gone. :|
Thank you, that is the most worthy support we can get.
Zoosadists are sociopaths and or psychopaths. In other words, they are not capable of caring about anyone or anything other than themselves. They are not able to feel empathy or guilt. Sucks to be them. Sounds like hell on earth.
Sorry about that. I put a little notice about porn in the sidebar, but it seems that people are ignoring it. This isn't meant to be a porn subreddit, but I don't know how delete-happy I should get.
If you'd like to see some nice intellectual discussions, check out my board at knotty.me :)