Notices
Results 1 to 83 of 83
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By Screams of Silence
  • 1 Post By inow

Thread: Zoophilia

  1. #1 Zoophilia 
    Forum Freshman The Vegan Marxist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20
    Me and a bunch of my friends were talking about this topic the other day, and trying to put it within a scientific perspective. No biased opinions, no bullied mindset. Just trying to understand why such commit these acts. My main arguments were that we seriously don't understand the science behind the brain activity towards whether or not animals informally consent to such or not, nor do we understand whether or not these emotional feelings towards animals are out of mere choice or a genetic trait, like homosexuality (not trying to compare homosexuality with zoophilia at all, just through the possible correlation of it being a genetic trait).

    Am I wrong about these questions and are actually already answered? How do we go about in understanding this minority, yet reality of our current society? Is it wrong, is it right? How do we go about in treating such?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I am ignorant in this area, but two possibilites occured to me.

    Might this be akin to the imprinting that ducklings and other creatures have in identifying their mother? If, for whatever reason, the awakening sexual interest in an adolescent coincides with some positive non-sexual experience involving animals, the two could become confused.

    Secondly, some people seem to be attracted to the bizarre and extreme simply because it is bizarre and extreme. This is an area which I think has been well researched.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I just have to walk my dog.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Recently read about Kluver-Bucy syndrome where anterior parts of the temporal lobe and the amygdala lead to patients trying to eat or have sex with anything in the vicinity. The case study was a man arrested for having sex with the pavement. Maybe this is a similar pathology in the neural network?
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Zoophilia is a difficult umbrella term for a wide range of behaviors though.

    It ranges from furries, who roleplay as animals and wear animal suits but are not attracted to actual animals, to people who have non-physical erotic attractions to animals, this could be like people who get some sort of sexual satisfaction from cuddling up with a cat or dog in their bed and maybe touching themselves, to the far extreme of engaging in some sort of penetration.

    I'm guessing there's little reliable research on the subject.

    Edit: I'm guessing there are overlapping psychological conditions at play. According to the wiki, exclusive interest in animals is very rare and usually presents itself in individuals with several varied paraphilias. Some zoophilic practices are routed in Sadism, while others have deluded perceptions of the animal reciprocating the sexual interest.

    Basically, so few zoophiles have been examined by psychiatrist that there is little data, and no real reliable basis to speculate on anything. We do know it's been around for all of human history, since we have artwork depicting it in Asia, and myths from Ancient Greece that involve zoophilic relations.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman The Vegan Marxist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20
    Interesting. Could this play out like homosexuality, being that of a genetic event (again, not trying to compare zoophilia with homosexuality)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Well all sorts of human behaviors have genetic causes, we could speculate on genetic predispositions to murder or rape as well.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Well all sorts of human behaviors have genetic causes, we could speculate on genetic predispositions to murder or rape as well.

    Don’t you think that environmental influences play much bigger role that our DNA?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Hippocampus
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Well all sorts of human behaviors have genetic causes, we could speculate on genetic predispositions to murder or rape as well.

    Don’t you think that environmental influences play much bigger role that our DNA?
    I think environmental influences work on a framework of possibilities that are only possible with certain genetic components. I.e. if we don't have the genes to produce a properly functioning brain, we can't be made into a murderer by our poor childhood. At some level genes are always having some sort of effect.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Sense zoophilia does exist, I assume some animals are more preferred than others. I could be wrong but I think the animal of choice would have to be the dog. Because they are more available an of a size an temperament that's workable. I think cats can be ruled out for obvious reasons. Not sure what the farmers choice would be, but sheep must have a reputation for a reason. When somebody says I'm an animal lover, do you have to wonder if they are coming out of the closet? (Just kidding)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    I'm going to go off the cuff here, maybe Google some of this later. But couldn't a large swath of sexual behavior be put down to simple horniness?
    Orgasm's do involve a literal flood of neurotransmitters, much like say, heroin.
    Couldn't some episodes of animal sexual abuse arise merely out of opportunity and satial need?
    I've heard that many individuals engage in homosexual behavior in prison, but are per say not gay. That much of this boils down to attempts to find an adequate simulation of genital intercourse?
    Popular examples being "warm apple pie" and "liver in a milk carton".
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    I'm going to go off the cuff here, maybe Google some of this later. But couldn't a large swath of sexual behavior be put down to simple horniness?
    Orgasm's do involve a literal flood of neurotransmitters, much like say, heroin.
    Couldn't some episodes of animal sexual abuse arise merely out of opportunity and satial need?
    I've heard that many individuals engage in homosexual behavior in prison, but are per say not gay. That much of this boils down to attempts to find an adequate simulation of genital intercourse?
    Popular examples being "warm apple pie" and "liver in a milk carton".
    Yes, but those people wouldn't be zoophiles per se, and aren't likely the people out there consuming Danish bestiality porn.

    @Lance, as mentioned above not all zoophiles engage in penetrative acts with animals, some just masturbate while cuddling up to them and such. While some just engage in animal themed role play with other human beings. It's a broad category of sexual paraphilia.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4
    Other animals perform inappropriate sexual acts too, at the right time of year. sounds like its biological, not psychological.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    New Member SydneyNightshade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    3
    I can shed any light on the subject you may need.

    I assume some animals are more preferred than others. I could be wrong but I think the animal of choice would have to be the dog. Because they are more available an of a size an temperament that's workable. I think cats can be ruled out for obvious reasons
    You are half correct in your assumptions, Dogs are the animal of choice because of their availability and ease of care, many zoophiles/zoosexuals prefer other animals but either (a.) don't have access to them, or (b.) don't have the resources to fully take care of such an animal.

    I would also like to add that cats can be the object of a zoophile/zoosexual's affection, sexual penetration or intercourse for that matter is not a necessity for love. So, frankly any animal can be the object of affection.
    Interesting. Could this play out like homosexuality, being that of a genetic event (again, not trying to compare zoophilia with homosexuality)?
    Most zoosexuals have reported that they have had feelings of attraction towards animals for as long as they can remember, all the signs and symptoms are similar between homosexuality and zoosexuality except the object of affection in question is completely different, scientifically speaking.

    As far as the nature VS. nurture argument, the same can also be applied to homosexuality, take for instance a woman who becomes lesbian because she feels she has been treated poorly by males in her life, the same can be applied to the odd zoosexual who has been treated poorly by humans all of their life. This is not the majority of each orientation, but it is obviously not improbable.

    If you'd like any more info, please let me know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    I can shed any light on the subject you may need.....If you'd like any more info, please let me know.
    I am always suspicious when people assume the role of authority on a subject without so much as a hint as to why anyone should accept such a thing.

    SydneyNightshade, could you please divulge a bit about yourself so we might have a reason to take some of what you say as more than just hot air? Are you a Zoophile?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    New Member SydneyNightshade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    3
    SydneyNightshade, could you please divulge a bit about yourself so we might have a reason to take some of what you say as more than just hot air? Are you a Zoophile?
    I am a zoosexual, I've been in the community for almost 10 years of my life and have known I've been attracted to animals for 17 years-which is most of my life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman The Vegan Marxist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by SydneyNightshade
    SydneyNightshade, could you please divulge a bit about yourself so we might have a reason to take some of what you say as more than just hot air? Are you a Zoophile?
    I am a zoosexual, I've been in the community for almost 10 years of my life and have known I've been attracted to animals for 17 years-which is most of my life.
    Was it an event that just seemed natural to you, or was there something particular that led you to zoophilia? That is if you can really remember. 17 years is a long time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    New Member SydneyNightshade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by The Vegan Marxist
    Quote Originally Posted by SydneyNightshade
    SydneyNightshade, could you please divulge a bit about yourself so we might have a reason to take some of what you say as more than just hot air? Are you a Zoophile?
    I am a zoosexual, I've been in the community for almost 10 years of my life and have known I've been attracted to animals for 17 years-which is most of my life.
    Was it an event that just seemed natural to you, or was there something particular that led you to zoophilia? That is if you can really remember. 17 years is a long time.
    When I first discovered myself, it felt natural.

    It was purely sexual at first, but then again-I was a kid, I wasn't exactly mentally developed enough to experience love first hand, once I was a teen, that's when the feelings came along, I didn't tell anyone, I didn't even know what it was, I just thought it was something people go through because no one ever talked about it, no one ever talked about homosexuality either, so all through my teen years there was lots of confusion and questioning myself.

    With the discovery of others like myself, the confusion became less and less over time. When I finally felt comfortable and confident with myself, I came out about who I was.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    13
    First off, I'd like to commend the OP for making a thread in a non-biased and non-judgemental way, and thanks to Sydney for bringing this discussion to my attention.

    Now, allow me to speak a bit on this issue.....

    First, there has been very little study done on zoosexuals but what little work has been done, most notable being Dr. Hani Milestki's thesis, has concluded that zoosexuality is closer to a sexual orientation than a paraphilia. Milestki concluded that there is nothing that "leads" people to zoophilia and that these people often love their pet as a spouse. Really, zoosexuals are animal lovers, nothing more nothing less. It is not about horniness. They just simply express that love in a different way.

    For some, such as sadists, it is not about love or intimacy. It's these people who are in the news, these people are the reason zoosexuals are seen as abusers, when these people are something different altogether, and are not representative of zoophilia.

    While rare, there are zoosexuals who are only interested in animals sexually. These people are often no different from anyone else. I'm sure we've all met at least one in our lives and did not know it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quite obviously, you guys have to at least understand why people see this as a mental dysfunction more than anything else? I am simply fascinated by how someone could develop in that direction. Miletski's stated conclusion seems a bit limited in definition to me. After all, a very large part of who we become is determined by our environment since birth, ergo, chances are good that it is indeed a developmental thing.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,099
    Quote Originally Posted by SydneyNightshade
    When I first discovered myself, it felt natural.

    It was purely sexual at first, but then again-I was a kid, I wasn't exactly mentally developed enough to experience love first hand, once I was a teen, that's when the feelings came along, I didn't tell anyone, I didn't even know what it was, I just thought it was something people go through because no one ever talked about it, no one ever talked about homosexuality either, so all through my teen years there was lots of confusion and questioning myself.

    With the discovery of others like myself, the confusion became less and less over time. When I finally felt comfortable and confident with myself, I came out about who I was.
    When you say 'felt natural', did you actually doubt it was natural? You were a kid, sexually aroused, yet too immature mentally to experience love first hand. This could easily be interpreted as a Freudian Slip. I don't know what kind of upbringing you had but it sounds as if it might have been repressive.

    I think the only natural part of all this is the introspection aspect. You didn't really find yourself, you found others like yourself. You now feel more comfortable, so perhaps that's all you really were looking for.

    What animals are you attracted to? Surely it isn't every beast that swims, crawls, slithers or walks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quite obviously, you guys have to at least understand why people see this as a mental dysfunction more than anything else? I am simply fascinated by how someone could develop in that direction. Miletski's stated conclusion seems a bit limited in definition to me. After all, a very large part of who we become is determined by our environment since birth, ergo, chances are good that it is indeed a developmental thing.
    Absolutely, I can easily see how someone could perceive zoophilia as a mental dysfunction, just as I can easily see how gay bashers would see homosexuality as being a disorder. As humans, we naturally fear that which is different and that which we do not understand. Classifying those that are different as a mental dysfunction is a way to justify our natural prejudice without having to analyze or question it. As my homophobic friend drunkenly told me not too long ago "I just can't stand f*gs, there's something wrong with them". It becomes easier to accept our intolerance if there is something "wrong" with those we do not understand.

    As far as how one could "develop" in that direction, your guess is as good as mine. I used to think it was a by product of childhood sexual abuse, but in reality zoophiles who were abused are in the vast minority. As Miletski stated, there is no determining factor that can be isolated and pinpointed as the "cause" of zoophilia. Zoophiles come from all economic, ethnic and religious backgrounds. This is why it is better classified as a sexual orientation. It really is the nature vs. nurture argument here, and as far as I can see it, for all its unnaturalness, it is in fact nature as opposed to nurture, though in some cases environmental factors could weigh in more than others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

    When you say 'felt natural', did you actually doubt it was natural? You were a kid, sexually aroused, yet too immature mentally to experience love first hand. This could easily be interpreted as a Freudian Slip. I don't know what kind of upbringing you had but it sounds as if it might have been repressive.

    I think the only natural part of all this is the introspection aspect. You didn't really find yourself, you found others like yourself. You now feel more comfortable, so perhaps that's all you really were looking for.

    What animals are you attracted to? Surely it isn't every beast that swims, crawls, slithers or walks.
    First off, I'm sorry about the double post. If you guys have a rule against double posting, my apologies.

    Most zoosexuals do doubt that it's natural, as you can well imagine. It's like having all the same doubts as gays have at first, but 10 times worse. In fact, Miletski said that some zoos exhibit many of the exact same type of symptoms of stress and depression as gays who are still in the closet.

    And no, zoos are not attracted to every creature under the sun. Most commonly, a zoophile is attracted to one type of animal and that's it. Most common are horses and dogs. It's not uncommon for a zoo to be attracted to one and not the other. Some like both though. Other animals include sheep, bears, big cats, dolphins and donkeys. There's probably more, but that's all I can think of hearing about at the moment. In some pornography snakes are used, but I believe this is solely for shock value. Obviously bears and big cats are just a pipe dream, like lusting after a movie star while knowing they'll never actually be with one. I don't think anyone is actually dumb enough to try lol

    Zoos are interested in animals that can consent and reciprocate the love bestowed upon them. This excludes small dogs, house cats and any other animal too small for the *cough* acts. It also excludes most reptiles, as I highly doubt crocodiles and other reptiles are capable of feeling love, sexually or platonic.

    But the most important factor in an inter-special relationship is trust. Everything revolves around trust, no matter what type of animal the human is with. Without trust, there can be no consent, and without consent there is no relationship. Zoos are very in tune with their lover's body language, which is why you would be hard pressed to find a healthier, happier dog or horse than one that lives with a zoo.

    To the zoo, the animal is everything, which means taking the best possible care of it. Check ups at the vet are never forgotten, hazardous household items are never within reach, the first sign of sickness and they go to the vet, to a zoo, the animal comes first, no matter what species it is. Afterall, for an animal to accept you as its lover is the ultimate display of trust and affection, it is the responsibility of the human to be worthy of such trust and devotion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    First off: A sincere thank you to you all for the opportunity to participate on this forum. Intelligent discussion is RARE, but somewhat commonly found here.

    The following is just my opinion, but I will do my best to keep this as grounded, and backed up with my own perspective as possible, to encourage responses.

    Both homosexuality and Zoophilia are utterly dysfunctional sexual behaviors. It is also my opinion that both are rooted in the genetic make up of the individual, but life style choices and behaviors are also GREATLY influenced by environmental condition. I believe this to be a combination of both, but I certainly do not believe that one or the other is mandatory for such a condition to exist in the people that it does. This does not mean in any way that these behaviors are evil, wrong, or any other derogatorily derived motive. They are simply dysfunctional (defective via predisposition) because no natural reproductive outcome is possible. Plain and simple. Pleasure is not a biological ends to a means, but rather a rationalized motive, so I have a hard time not thinking of either behavior as ill productive because they produce no results. Or do they?

    Could behaviors such as those sexually non conventional actually be VITAL with respect to a far larger environmental picture's functionality and survival?

    There is no question that highly populated and developed areas of the world are fast becoming over populated as a result of medically facilitated betterment with respect to lifespan. There is also no question that horrifying, yet all too real natural disasters such as the Tsunami recently experienced in Northern Japan, do in fact curtail specific global populations, but is that REALLY enough? Could it be that these behaviors represent nature's own human birth control? This is certainly not to suggest that these behaviors are somehow naturally reactionary to the progressively growing environmental populous, but rather just something that existed right from the start that serves as a natural population control.

    Possible?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge

    Could behaviors such as those sexually non conventional actually be VITAL with respect to a far larger environmental picture's functionality and survival?

    There is no question that highly populated and developed areas of the world are fast becoming over populated as a result of medically facilitated betterment with respect to lifespan. There is also no question that horrifying, yet all too real natural disasters such as the Tsunami recently experienced in Northern Japan, do in fact curtail specific global populations, but is that REALLY enough? Could it be that these behaviors represent nature's own human birth control? This is certainly not to suggest that these behaviors are somehow naturally reactionary to the progressively growing environmental populous, but rather just something that existed right from the start that serves as a natural population control.

    Possible?
    Interesting take on the matter. It does seem plausible, however homosexuality and bestiality is very common within the animal kingdom, though often for different reasons than the ones that cause humans to partake. I used to simply think homosexual behavior in animals was just limited to the zoo, where male animals are often kept in the same cage. Kind of akin to "prison sex" if you will.

    However, such homosexual behavior is well documented in wild animals as well, it is not uncommon for male lions to strengthen bonds by mating with one another, whether they live in a coalition OR in a pride with two or more males. So homosexual behavior is well documented in domestic, captive AND wild animals.

    And of course the bestiality I speak of are instances of dogs humping humans' legs, dogs humping (or at least attempting to hump) cats, and zoologists have observed bull elephants mounting rhinos and other large animals. In many of these cases it could be a show of dominance, but we can never be certain.

    In the end, whatever the reason, homosexual and zoophilic behavior is observed in many species, and is certainly not limited to humans. So while your take is very interesting and thought provoking, I tend to disagree. (I do agree that the world is vastly overpopulated, and that humans need to stop with political correctness and address this problem and draft real, albeit tough, decisions on what to do about it)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    As Miletski stated, there is no determining factor that can be isolated and pinpointed as the "cause" of zoophilia. Zoophiles come from all economic, ethnic and religious backgrounds. --> This is why it is better classified as a sexual orientation. It really is the nature vs. nurture argument here, and as far as I can see it, for all its unnaturalness, it is in fact nature as opposed to nurture, though in some cases environmental factors could weigh in more than others.
    I don't agree that it follows. There are many more similarities between people than there are differences in terms of our common genetic drivers and the qualitatively limited set of possible ways we have available to us based on this for making sense of the world. Sexual abuse is not the only possible explanation for this.

    Classifying those that are different as a mental dysfunction is a way to justify our natural prejudice without having to analyze or question it.
    I will openly say that I am very uncomfortable in the presence of male homosexuals and find the idea abhorrent. BUT, I don't judge gay men per se, more the idea of it. I absolutely don't "hate gays" and believe they deserve every freedom heterosexual people enjoy, including full marriage. Similarly, I don't hate zoophiles, but I find the practise exceedingly abhorrent.

    I am also very open to the idea that it might be a predominantly genetically determined phenomenon, but the influence of environment plays a very big part in nearly every aspect of our development and I have not found Miletski's conclusion particularly rigorous. As far as homosexuality is concerned, I am pretty sure that it is entirely normal (however one chooses to define "normal") and is varyingly influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. I am not similarly convinced of the normalcy of zoophilia. Despite this, I don't judge zoophiles either. They don't hurt the animals as far as I know.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Screams of Silence
    Interesting take on the matter. It does seem plausible, however homosexuality and bestiality is very common within the animal kingdom, though often for different reasons than the ones that cause humans to partake. I used to simply think homosexual behavior in animals was just limited to the zoo, where male animals are often kept in the same cage. Kind of akin to "prison sex" if you will.

    However, such homosexual behavior is well documented in wild animals as well, it is not uncommon for male lions to strengthen bonds by mating with one another, whether they live in a coalition OR in a pride with two or more males. So homosexual behavior is well documented in domestic, captive AND wild animals.

    And of course the bestiality I speak of are instances of dogs humping humans' legs, dogs humping (or at least attempting to hump) cats, and zoologists have observed bull elephants mounting rhinos and other large animals. In many of these cases it could be a show of dominance, but we can never be certain.

    In the end, whatever the reason, homosexual and zoophilic behavior is observed in many species, and is certainly not limited to humans. So while your take is very interesting and thought provoking, I tend to disagree. (I do agree that the world is vastly overpopulated, and that humans need to stop with political correctness and address this problem and draft real, albeit tough, decisions on what to do about it)
    I believe that the above emboldened quote supports or reinforces the idea, not cancels it out. In fact, it's thee biggest reason to promote the idea seeing how it does not seem to serve any other purpose. For the condition to happen in animals would seem to strongly align itself with a natural order of things. If it were only found in certain controlled or conditioned animal behaviors, or only in humans, then it would seem to be less probable. Remember, we are referring to BOTH zoos and homos. I am definitely not certain, but I don't believe there has ever been a documented case of an animal insisting on a human partner. I am simply stating that for such a strong and real base instinctual orientation to be present in so many, for whatever differing reasons person to person, the only real measurable socio-physical results is infertility.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,099
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    I am definitely not certain, but I don't believe there has ever been a documented case of an animal insisting on a human partner.
    Nor have I heard of a human initiating sex with an elephant or a wolverine. I would think certain animals are excluded from a zoo's date book, such as extremely wild beasts. What are the zoophile's favorites? The domesticated or tame? How many of them can we relate to a human sexual term? i.e. pussy, wool, beaver..... tough to sound serious here.

    I wonder how many people become zoophiles just because they are self conscious about their genitalia. Underdeveloped or oversized equipment might be too much of an embarrassment for some. Zoophiles may represent some of those with the lowest self esteem attributed to a human.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos


    Nor have I heard of a human initiating sex with an elephant or a wolverine. I would think certain animals are excluded from a zoo's date book, such as extremely wild beasts. What are the zoophile's favorites? The domesticated or tame? How many of them can we relate to a human sexual term? i.e. pussy, wool, beaver..... tough to sound serious here.
    I never cease to be surprised anymore. I assume some animals are excluded, for example I don't see how one could be with a alligator, or boa constrictor. Then again one of the most famous tiger trainers in history, Mable Stark, was often mounted by her tiger Rajah during their act to simulate a wrestling match. She wore white leather pants instead of black for obvious reasons. It's even rumored that she slept with the tiger, and that the tiger killed her husband when he tried to enter their bed. I'm sure more accurate info on her can be found via google

    I would imagine the animals would have to be at least "smart" enough to understand what is going on, as zoos do not violate consent. "Favorites" tend to be dogs such as german shepherds, huskies and labs, while others favor equines.

    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    I wonder how many people become zoophiles just because they are self conscious about their genitalia. Underdeveloped or oversized equipment might be too much of an embarrassment for some. Zoophiles may represent some of those with the lowest self esteem attributed to a human.
    And you would be wrong. Zoos really are attracted to animals, not everyone is looking for or wanting the same thing in a relationship. In fact, I have a zoo friend who wishes that he was "smaller" down there because he sometimes causes female dogs discomfort if they have never had sex before, in which case he stops. He says it's quite frustrating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,099
    Quote Originally Posted by Screams of Silence

    I never cease to be surprised anymore. I assume some animals are excluded, for example I don't see how one could be with a alligator, or boa constrictor. Then again one of the most famous tiger trainers in history, Mable Stark, was often mounted by her tiger Rajah during their act to simulate a wrestling match. She wore white leather pants instead of black for obvious reasons. It's even rumored that she slept with the tiger, and that the tiger killed her husband when he tried to enter their bed. I'm sure more accurate info on her can be found via google

    I would imagine the animals would have to be at least "smart" enough to understand what is going on, as zoos do not violate consent. "Favorites" tend to be dogs such as german shepherds, huskies and labs, while others favor equines.
    Nor am I surprised. I guess if you're walking the dusty jungle floor and an elephant wishes to engage you in sex then he doesn't wait for your consent.

    I'm thinking the shepherd's who place their consenting ewe's back legs in rubber boots so they can't run away consider this consent. I think you can train a dog to do many things, including consenting to a sexual encounter with its master. I wonder how much whispering Cesar would have to do to break that habit? I'll bet zoo's don't cater to wild stallions or mares.

    If one does then I'll take them seriously. Zoo's have issues. A smart understanding consenting beast is a delusion. If there is a lot of consensual sex between humans and animals then what about extreme sex between the two, like rape for instance? I guess that's where the elephant comes in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    The problem here is that there is simply no naturally rational (or presently found rational reason) explanation for a "Zoo" other than a person with a completely dysfunctional sex life, and some very SERIOUS psychological issues, EXCEPT, for the remote possibility, that these individuals were born with the "birth control" trait. (whatever that might be if there is such a thing)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    The question is irrelevant, human biology is not a fine tuned machine, lots of shit doesn't have a "rational reason." No one designed detached earlobes with a master plan, they just got carried along for the genetic ride.

    You're asking all the wrong questions. How we treat zoophilia should depend on how zoophiles are affected, how animals are affected, and how society is effected by the tolerance or suppression of the behavior.

    I tend to agree with zinja that zoophilia manifests in delusion about animals, but there simply isn't the data around to suggest that all zoophilia manifest that way. Hurting animals is not acceptable, as long as zoophilia doesn't extend into that domain I don't see an ethical problem with it. On the other hand, we have to consider how it effects the mental health of the zoophile. Are they more damaged by the condition (if it can be shown to cause delusions) or by the social alienation society imposes on them. These are the relevant questions.

    I don't think enough relevant data on the subject exists to answer the questions though.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,099
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    I don't think enough relevant data on the subject exists to answer the questions though.
    Probably right.

    I was just wondering if there is a word for an animal that lusts for a sexual encounter with a human?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    The question is irrelevant, human biology is not a fine tuned machine, lots of shit doesn't have a "rational reason." No one designed detached earlobes with a master plan, they just got carried along for the genetic ride.

    You're asking all the wrong questions. How we treat zoophilia should depend on how zoophiles are affected, how animals are affected, and how society is effected by the tolerance or suppression of the behavior.

    I tend to agree with zinja that zoophilia manifests in delusion about animals, but there simply isn't the data around to suggest that all zoophilia manifest that way. Hurting animals is not acceptable, as long as zoophilia doesn't extend into that domain I don't see an ethical problem with it. On the other hand, we have to consider how it effects the mental health of the zoophile. Are they more damaged by the condition (if it can be shown to cause delusions) or by the social alienation society imposes on them. These are the relevant questions.

    I don't think enough relevant data on the subject exists to answer the questions though.
    1st emboldened above:

    Not that you understand anyhow. That's a VERY ignorant thing to state in relation to sexually dysfunctional behavior.

    2nd emboldened above:
    We already know via what's been stated in this forum alone that animals DO IN FACT get hurt sometimes via Zoophilia. So, WTF about their rights? (the animals that is) Have any of us, other than those claiming to be in regular communication with their bed buddies, determined whether these animals are PERMANENTLY psychologically DAMAGED as a result of their Zoophilia experiences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge

    1st emboldened above:

    Not that you understand anyhow. That's a VERY ignorant thing to state in relation to sexually dysfunctional behavior
    Provide a reason why? "Sexually dysfunctional" is a loaded term, who gets to determine what is functional and what is dysfunctional. It comes down to a value judgment, and it is irrelevant. All that matters is whether harm is being done. There is no reason to draw ethical conclusions out of biological states. Naturally "rational" is not a meaningful term, you're just attempting to apply the naturalistic fallacy, which is only valid if we accept a teleological interpretation of nature. Since I don't believe in any deities who set up the world with ontological purposes, I do not accept the naturalistic argument for morals.

    I don't see what you think I don't understand, I have a university degree in a biological science. I'm sure I'm perfectly capable of understanding any point you want to make, merely hand-waving and calling me wrong does little to convince me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    2nd emboldened above:
    We already know via what's been stated in this forum alone that animals DO IN FACT get hurt sometimes via Zoophilia. So, WTF about their rights? (the animals that is) Have any of us, other than those claiming to be in regular communication with their bed buddies, determined whether these animals are PERMANENTLY psychologically DAMAGED as a result of their Zoophilia experiences.
    Yes, but not necessarily all the time. Heterosexuality sometimes results in the harm of other human beings through rape. I already said people shouldn't be hurting animals, what has to be established is what harm is being done if any. There simply isn't enough data, for all I know the vast majority of zoophiles never hurt animals.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Another way to look at it is that animals simply don't have the capacity to legitimately give consent, just as a child does not have the capacity to give responsible consent. The animals in the end do what we tell them to do. It is not as if they routinely initiate sex with any kind of idea of what they are dong. It is also not a matter of being sexually mature, because these days some kids in their early teens are perfectly capable of bearing children.

    On the other hand, I am perfectly happy to cook chopped up pieces of animal for dinner.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge

    1st emboldened above:

    Not that you understand anyhow. That's a VERY ignorant thing to state in relation to sexually dysfunctional behavior
    Provide a reason why? "Sexually dysfunctional" is a loaded term, who gets to determine what is functional and what is dysfunctional. It comes down to a value judgment, and it is irrelevant. All that matters is whether harm is being done. There is no reason to draw ethical conclusions out of biological states. Naturally "rational" is not a meaningful term, you're just attempting to apply the naturalistic fallacy, which is only valid if we accept a teleological interpretation of nature. Since I don't believe in any deities who set up the world with ontological purposes, I do not accept the naturalistic argument for morals.

    I don't see what you think I don't understand, I have a university degree in a biological science. I'm sure I'm perfectly capable of understanding any point you want to make, merely hand-waving and calling me wrong does little to convince me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    2nd emboldened above:
    We already know via what's been stated in this forum alone that animals DO IN FACT get hurt sometimes via Zoophilia. So, WTF about their rights? (the animals that is) Have any of us, other than those claiming to be in regular communication with their bed buddies, determined whether these animals are PERMANENTLY psychologically DAMAGED as a result of their Zoophilia experiences.
    Yes, but not necessarily all the time. Heterosexuality sometimes results in the harm of other human beings through rape. I already said people shouldn't be hurting animals, what has to be established is what harm is being done if any. There simply isn't enough data, for all I know the vast majority of zoophiles never hurt animals.
    First off, I apologize for the term"ignorant", because it is most likely myself that's ultimately ignorant, HOWEVER, when I refer to "sexually dysfunctional" in the context of biology, the ONLY definition of sexually dysfunctional that I can come up with is sex that is not reproductive due to obvious limitations resulting in no reproductive outcome. What's not to understand? We cannot refer to the abstract or perception based opinions of "what is sex", so why not stick with the more than ample information that we do know for a fact? If a creature does not reproduce biologically according to it's OBVIOUS physical orientation and instinctual aptitude, how is this not sexually dysfunctional in the most critical manner possible?

    With respect to the latter paragraph, what kind of "data" can we hope to gain that will illuminate the mind of animals? Do they have a mind? Since we know that there are those who sexually prefer to have feces rubbed all over them and their partners during sex, if neither is harmed according their own testimonies, does that make such an activity right or wrong or more importantly, "natural"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge

    First off, I apologize for the term"ignorant", because it is most likely myself that's ultimately ignorant, HOWEVER, when I refer to "sexually dysfunctional" in the context of biology, the ONLY definition of sexually dysfunctional that I can come up with is sex that is not reproductive due to obvious limitations resulting in no reproductive outcome. What's not to understand? We cannot refer to the abstract or perception based opinions of "what is sex", so why not stick with the more than ample information that we do know for a fact? If a creature does not reproduce biologically according to it's OBVIOUS physical orientation and instinctual aptitude, how is this not sexually dysfunctional in the most critical manner possible?
    No, that's entirely wrong. You're beginning with a prescriptive idea that things have purposes, they don't. Reproductive sexual drives exist because they are selected for. It is neither obvious or an instinctual aptitude if others exist. You're merely applying value judgments to nature. That simply isn't how biology works, you're acting as if their is template genetic code that exists in which difference can be measured from, it doesn't work that way. That an idealized "normal" human being exists, which is just a fallacy and misunderstanding of how biological organisms come to exist.

    You're probably trying to imply that some sexual behaviors are maladaptive, because they are not reproductive. However, even that is not so simple, if they were heavily maladaptive they would have likely been removed from the population. The problem is that most of these sexual behaviors have historically not prevented human beings from reproducing. Moreover, their is evidence that male homosexuality is linked to female fecundity, which would suggest from a gene level view that the "gay genes" are actually pro-adaptive. There is also the matter of kin-selection to take into account, and certain sexual behaviors (like sex for enjoyment alone) provide selective advantages because they promote social cohesion and pair bonding which improves the survivability of offspring.

    Saying sex is just for reproduction is a silly prescriptive teleology. It's something the Catholic Church certainly agrees with, but they think a lot of stupid shit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    With respect to the latter paragraph, what kind of "data" can we hope to gain that will illuminate the mind of animals? Do they have a mind?
    I don't particularly care about the minds of animals, the data I was referring to was the behavior of the zoophiles, we don't even know reliably how they are treating animals and relying on our imagination is not very useful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    Since we know that there are those who sexually prefer to have feces rubbed all over them and their partners during sex, if neither is harmed according their own testimonies, does that make such an activity right or wrong or more importantly, "natural"?
    There is no such thing as unnatural behavior, otherwise it would be supernatural. It makes such an activity entirely irrelevant to my concerns and the concerns of society because no one is being harmed. I might as well speculate on whether collecting stamps is right, wrong, or natural.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    13
    There is a very interesting book on animal sexuality that anyone of a scientific mind may like to read: http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exu.../dp/0312192398

    Bruce Bagemihl writes that Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was a "labor of love." And indeed it must have been, since most scientists have thus far studiously avoided the topic of widespread homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom--sometimes in the face of undeniable evidence. Bagemihl begins with an overview of same-sex activity in animals, carefully defining courtship patterns, affectionate behaviors, sexual techniques, mating and pair-bonding, and same-sex parenting.

    He firmly dispels the prevailing notion that homosexuality is uniquely human and only occurs in "unnatural" circumstances. As far as the nature-versus-nurture argument--it's obviously both, he concludes. An overview of biologists' discomfort with their own observations of animal homosexuality over 200 years would be truly hilarious if it didn't reflect a tendency of humans (and only humans) to respond with aggression and hostility to same-sex behavior in our own species. In fact, Bagemihl reports, scientists have sometimes been afraid to report their observations for fear of recrimination from a hidebound (and homophobic) academia. Scientists' use of anthropomorphizing vocabulary such as insulting, unfortunate, and inappropriate to describe same-sex matings shows a decided lack of objectivity on the part of naturalists.

    Astounding as it sounds, a number of scientists have actually argued that when a female Bonobo wraps her legs around another female ... while emitting screams of enjoyment, this is actually "greeting" behavior, or "appeasement" behavior ... almost anything, it seems, besides pleasurable sexual behavior.

    Throw this book into the middle of a crowd of wildlife biologists and watch them scatter. But Bagemihl doesn't let the scientific community's discomfort deny him the opportunity to show "the love that dare not bark its name" in all its feathery, furry, toothy diversity. The second half of this hefty tome is filled with an exhaustive array of species that exhibit homosexuality, complete with photos and detailed scientific illustrations of the behaviors described. Biological Exuberance is a well-researched, thoroughly scientific, and erudite look at a purposefully neglected frontier of zoology. --Therese Littleton
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    13
    On the issue of consent, a friend of mine wrote an excellent essay about consent in the world of zoophilia, here's a brief part of it, posted with permission:

    It's the age old question: Does my dog let me pet him on the head because he likes it, or because he's afraid of the repercussions of refusing?

    The foremost considered issue when considering zoosexuality for most people is that of consent. Can an animal consent to sex? Popular wisdom says no. Before determining whether they may consent however, one must consider what consent is and what it means.

    Consent, most essentially and basically, is agreeing to participate in an action, or to have an action done upon you, of your own free will. But there's more to it than that. You must have proper knowledge of the action, and all information about the proposed situation that may affect your decision. You may consent to have sex with a person, but your decision may have been different had you known that they were married; if he/she did not tell you that, your ability to consent was tampered with. One must also make the decision autonomously, without threats or coercive rewards.

    So how much of this really applies to animals? An animal can say yes or no, though they cannot speak human language; it is obvious for even the densest of humans that a dog's snarl or a horses raised hoof means "back off". Similarly, animals will ask for sex, though the signals can be less blatant and thus one must pay attention to their behavior to interpret it, especially as we in polite society have been taught to ignore them. The issue, however, is simple; if an animal wants sex, it will ask for it or consent to sexual advances; if it does not, it will resist, fight back or at the very least make it clear with reluctant body language. At that point the action becomes immoral should the human continue their actions, for they are obviously forcing sex upon a being who doesn't want it.

    Most of the considerations humans take into consideration are non-issues for animals. Animals know everything they need to know; so far as their sphere of knowledge and consciousness is concerned, as far as it is relevant they are autonomous beings capable of giving voluntary consent. Saying that animals cannot consent because they simply cannot understand something that humans would need to understand to consent is an inherently unfair exclusion; if an animal cannot understand something, how can it be relevant to them? And why on earth would we expect the same levels of understanding for a different species, who by definition has a different capacity and requirement for understanding the world? To expect the human of the non- human is to expect the unnecessary and the unobtainable.

    There is also the concern that a particular animal's loyalty to an owner would make it unwillingly consent to his/her advances. This is patently anthropomorphizing; even if an animal is completely devoted to its owner and is utterly gentle and submissive, it will not censor its own reactions. Even the best dog in the world will bite it's owner if it is being hurt of feels threatened. If it does not want to have sex, at the very least it will pull away and act uncomfortable, at which point the person (who should be fluent in the species' body language, just as you'd speak a common language with your human partner) should stop. If they do not, then it has become rape. Rape is rape regardless of species, and rape is immoral.


    On the flip side, can humans understand what sex means to an animal? It can be very difficult to understand certain behaviors, given the language barrier, not to mention the species barrier. However, it is not impossible. Animal trainers and handlers must understand body language, often their lives depend on it, as is the case with elephants, wild cats, or wolves. As far as sex goes, sex may not always be an expression of love or even affection (as is true in humans); male-male mounting behavior in many species is an expression of dominance and aggression. However, these differences do not mean that we are unable to understand non- human sex. We must simply observe and study, and as in the case with most behaviors, both human and animal, more research is needed.

    Now, my own thoughts on the issue:

    All of that said, yes I do believe animals can consent to sex with a human of its own free will, in so far as the scope of their relevant knowledge of the situation is. Animals do not attach most of the emotion that we do to sex. To them, it's just a fun act that leaves them feeling good. To say anything more would be anthropomorphizing. A dog does not care if it's "unnatural" or if some people think it's immoral. They can and do consent to sex, and they will even ask for it. Some may say that there is a line being crossed in indulging your dog's sexual appetites when he/she asks for it, but that is an entirely different argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    The question is not if they give consent or not. It is pretty obvious that they often do, though I am very sceptical of the claimed knowledge of animal behaviour by Zoophiles. Just look at that famous youtube video of the donkey doing its damnedest to hump an unfortunate guy that went for a dump. It is also obvious that they have sex on their own in nature and are perfectly capable in that arena.

    The question is if they can give legitimate consent in human-animal setting. For that the focus has to inevitably turn towards the humans and what, from their perspective, constitutes legitimate sexual behaviour and consent.

    That is why I brought up statutory rape. It can be argued that a child of 14 can give consent, as can the mentally challenged like a Down Syndrome sufferer. The fact that they often have sex with their peers does not make it ok for them to have sex with normal responsible adults. That is where abuse comes in. Abuse does not necessarily mean forced sex.

    One has to think about the mental effects of the act upon both the human and the animal, as well as how that affects either's behaviour towards other humans. It is a mental health issue as well. Homosexuals are cleared in this, because they have been an integral part of our society from as far as we can tell. They fit the bill of being "normal" and "natural" in our society and have always played a significant part in our growth as a species, whether conservatives will admit to it or not.

    The same cannot be said of Zoophiles as far as I am concerned. Their behaviour is in fact "abnormal" and not the behaviour of a mentally sound individual, i.e. their behaviour does not engender the kind of cultural norm that has been beneficial or acceptable to human culture in the past. Mental hospitals are not filled only with people that affect others or themselves in violent ways. They are filled with people that have deviated too far off of the standard that is deemed normal human behaviour and thought patterns. Abnormal behaviour is not limited to that which can cause physical harm.

    I do not mean to say Zoophiles need to be confined to mental hospitals per se; I am just using it as a point of illustration. But their behaviour needs to be curtailed and the offenders need to be under some kind of treatment, because their behaviour and mental states do not fall within the parameters of what is "natural" and "normal". They qualify as mentally ill as far as I am concerned, in no small part because of the feelings of romantic love that supposedly often accompany the physical attraction.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge

    First off, I apologize for the term"ignorant", because it is most likely myself that's ultimately ignorant, HOWEVER, when I refer to "sexually dysfunctional" in the context of biology, the ONLY definition of sexually dysfunctional that I can come up with is sex that is not reproductive due to obvious limitations resulting in no reproductive outcome. What's not to understand? We cannot refer to the abstract or perception based opinions of "what is sex", so why not stick with the more than ample information that we do know for a fact? If a creature does not reproduce biologically according to it's OBVIOUS physical orientation and instinctual aptitude, how is this not sexually dysfunctional in the most critical manner possible?
    No, that's entirely wrong. You're beginning with a prescriptive idea that things have purposes, they don't. Reproductive sexual drives exist because they are selected for. It is neither obvious or an instinctual aptitude if others exist. You're merely applying value judgments to nature. That simply isn't how biology works, you're acting as if their is template genetic code that exists in which difference can be measured from, it doesn't work that way. That an idealized "normal" human being exists, which is just a fallacy and misunderstanding of how biological organisms come to exist.

    You're probably trying to imply that some sexual behaviors are maladaptive, because they are not reproductive. However, even that is not so simple, if they were heavily maladaptive they would have likely been removed from the population. The problem is that most of these sexual behaviors have historically not prevented human beings from reproducing. Moreover, their is evidence that male homosexuality is linked to female fecundity, which would suggest from a gene level view that the "gay genes" are actually pro-adaptive. There is also the matter of kin-selection to take into account, and certain sexual behaviors (like sex for enjoyment alone) provide selective advantages because they promote social cohesion and pair bonding which improves the survivability of offspring.

    Saying sex is just for reproduction is a silly prescriptive teleology. It's something the Catholic Church certainly agrees with, but they think a lot of stupid shit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    With respect to the latter paragraph, what kind of "data" can we hope to gain that will illuminate the mind of animals? Do they have a mind?
    I don't particularly care about the minds of animals, the data I was referring to was the behavior of the zoophiles, we don't even know reliably how they are treating animals and relying on our imagination is not very useful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    Since we know that there are those who sexually prefer to have feces rubbed all over them and their partners during sex, if neither is harmed according their own testimonies, does that make such an activity right or wrong or more importantly, "natural"?
    There is no such thing as unnatural behavior, otherwise it would be supernatural. It makes such an activity entirely irrelevant to my concerns and the concerns of society because no one is being harmed. I might as well speculate on whether collecting stamps is right, wrong, or natural.
    Before I go ANY further, PROVE this statement to me in a linear formula that is undisputed by empirical science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Screams of Silence
    Most of the considerations humans take into consideration are non-issues for animals. Animals know everything they need to know; so far as their sphere of knowledge and consciousness is concerned, as far as it is relevant they are autonomous beings capable of giving voluntary consent.
    This is delusional. Plain and simple. Otherwise, prove it.


    edited: because I realize this is a quote, my comments are NOT aimed at the author of this post, just the quoted comment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Screams of Silence
    But Bagemihl doesn't let the scientific community's discomfort deny him the opportunity to show "the love that dare not bark its name" in all its feathery, furry, toothy diversity.
    Are you SURE it's the Scientific Community's "discomfort" that perpetuates this man's scientific denial?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I do not mean to say Zoophiles need to be confined to mental hospitals per se; I am just using it as a point of illustration. But their behaviour needs to be curtailed and the offenders need to be under some kind of treatment, because their behaviour and mental states do not fall within the parameters of what is "natural" and "normal". They qualify as mentally ill as far as I am concerned, in no small part because of the feelings of romantic love that supposedly often accompany the physical attraction.
    I really do believe with respect for the Zoophile community, most likely, SERIOUS mental help is required, but there is still room for doubt in my own "beliefs" at this point. I do not in ANY way feel that Zoophilia parallels homosexuality other than the fact that both behaviors typically result in a biologically nonproductive outcome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Hi Nulledge, rather in future make one post in stead of several after another if you don't mind. Thanks

    I really do believe with respect for the Zoophile community, most likely, SERIOUS mental help is required, but there is still room for doubt in my own "beliefs" at this point. I do not in ANY way feel that Zoophilia parallels homosexuality other than the fact that both behaviors typically result in a biologically nonproductive outcome.
    I agree. I am willing to be convinced otherwise. I just don't see that happening.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    I do not in ANY way feel that Zoophilia parallels homosexuality other than the fact that both behaviors typically result in a biologically nonproductive outcome.
    They are exactly parallel. They are sexual activities that have been taboo in various societies. The only difference is that one has achieved a little more social acceptability than the other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge

    Before I go ANY further, PROVE this statement to me in a linear formula that is undisputed by empirical science.
    I shouldn't have to, you're expressing a teleology, which implies there is a reason and consciousness behind the existence of biological function, rather than something that came about via random mutation and natural selection.

    When I ask you what the purpose of a hammer is, that is answerable because the hammer is a consciously created object. The purpose of sex may be reproduction under the condition that two people get together with the sole object of procreation. The purpose of sex as a biological function removed from value judgments does not exist. What you are providing as a purpose for sex is merely a quality that has led to sex being selected for, which is often used in shorthand by popular science writers, but is not proper. Otherwise, you are implying there was a conscious design of sex for a specific purpose, rather than a set of conditions which merely resulted in sex coming into existence.

    I.e. While a biologist should say chameleons have camouflage because it improved their survivability relative to non-camouflaged chameleons.

    While a teleological explanation is chameleons have camouflage in order to protect themselves against predators. We can understand this statement to mean the first in a less exact way, but we invite the possibility of making the mistake that this implies there actually is an objective purpose to camouflage. Moreover, teleological statements are non-explanatory they define the is rather than the how of something and so are often reductive and highly subjective.

    Finally, your choice to define sex merely as for the purpose of reproduction highlights how reductive and simplistic teleological thinking about nature is. I can easily disagree with you and say sex is about pleasure, bonding, or stress release and that reproduction is the least important function, especially since sex resulting in offspring is relatively infrequent. What are the guidelines to determining what the purpose is other than our subjective preferences?
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER

    I do not mean to say Zoophiles need to be confined to mental hospitals per se; I am just using it as a point of illustration. But their behaviour needs to be curtailed and the offenders need to be under some kind of treatment, because their behaviour and mental states do not fall within the parameters of what is "natural" and "normal". They qualify as mentally ill as far as I am concerned, in no small part because of the feelings of romantic love that supposedly often accompany the physical attraction.
    How offensive and demeaning, do you not hear yourself?

    Is this not your own arbitrary judgment? Ask 100 people what "normal" is and you'll get 100 different answers. Why should your opinion be placed any higher than anyone elses? Social norms change with the wind, things that were considered abhorrent and were the cause of executions generations ago are now commonplace. How is zoophilia any different? What gives YOU the authority to determine if someone's behavior needs to be "curtailed" or not if that behavior causes no harm to anything?

    It is natural and commonplace for people to deem others mentally ill if they are disgusted by or do not understand their actions. Prove to me that this is not what you are doing. Show me some real concrete reasons why your words are no different than the words of a bigot. Researchers have shown that zoophiles can live normal, healthy and productive lives. Give me a concrete reason, why you are right and science is wrong. Prove to me that your judgment is not clouded by repugnance.

    And this is not aimed just at you, I ask all who have made this claim to provide proof that they are right, and the conclusions of several world renowned experts are wrong.
    Alex Anders likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    They are exactly parallel. They are sexual activities that have been taboo in various societies. The only difference is that one has achieved a little more social acceptability than the other.
    Thank you, it's nice to see someone looking at this without letting their own personal bias and repugnance get in the way. One does not need to understand or even condone a behavior to acknowledge there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

    PS~ Sorry about the double post, but I can't figure out how to multi-quote.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,099
    Quote Originally Posted by Screams of Silence
    Researchers have shown that zoophiles can live normal, healthy and productive lives.
    If Ted Bundy was your neighbor you'd say the same? Serial killers are normal and psychopaths are mentally stable by your definition.

    Zoos who claim animals consent to sexual encounters with humans are delusional, a form of mental illness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Is this not your own arbitrary judgment? Ask 100 people what "normal" is and you'll get 100 different answers. Why should your opinion be placed any higher than anyone elses? Social norms change with the wind, things that were considered abhorrent and were the cause of executions generations ago are now commonplace. How is zoophilia any different? What gives YOU the authority to determine if someone's behavior needs to be "curtailed" or not if that behavior causes no harm to anything?
    Of course it is my personal judgement, but it is NOT arbitrary. Did you not read anything of what I have said, or are you simply not able to see beyond the bits that offend you? I don't have authority, nor did I claim any at any time. The fact that social norms change is a poor argument, because it leaves out any specifics of the issue under consideration. From that week premise you could say the same about murder, mental abuse or racism.

    It is natural and commonplace for people to deem others mentally ill if they are disgusted by or do not understand their actions. Prove to me that this is not what you are doing. Show me some real concrete reasons why your words are no different than the words of a bigot.
    It is in my posts. I have throughout my whole participation in this thread compared homosexuality to zoophillia. Did you miss that? I clearly stated that I find male homosexuality disgusting as well, but I believe it IS natural and normal in that it has been part of our development as a species for a long time and that a large percentage of people have a strong homosexual persuasion. There is also no indication that it harms anyone or that it fits the bill of being either a form of mental illness or anti-social behaviour. I have made my case for why I think zoophillia does not satisfy these criteria. I believe it has to be curtailed, because as far as I can tell it is a form of mental illness with negative consequences. I am NOT advocating confinement, but treatment; and this while your laws will have you put in jail.

    Give me a concrete reason, why you are right and science is wrong.
    That is a loaded request, because the science does not unanimously affirm your particular view, nor does it unanimously support my view either. I have discussed why I hold my viewpoint. Please read my posts again before flying off the handle again. I understand that you might find my statements offensive, but if they are correct, what is wrong with calling someone that is mentally ill in my opinion mentally ill? I thought we were having an adult discussion here.

    And this is not aimed just at you, I ask all who have made this claim to provide proof that they are right, and the conclusions of several world renowned experts are wrong.
    Again, this is a loaded request. Your "several world renowned experts" are not the only ones qualified to "make conclusions", nor are they the only ones that have. One look at the Wiki page on zoophillia will tell you that. My views seem to align with both the Humane Society of the United States and the established view in psychiatry, which is that zoophillia is a type of paraphilia, i.e. a mental disorder if "the paraphilia causes distress or impairment to the individual or harm to others". As I have pointed out, I believe it is abuse of animals and causes harm.

    The Wiki pages: Zoophillia, Paraphillia. I am aware that Wikipedia is not a great source in and of itself, but those pages provide a good oversight of the subjects and do provide citations for the points I have made.

    Now, will you actually read what I have said please?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

    If Ted Bundy was your neighbor you'd say the same? Serial killers are normal and psychopaths are mentally stable by your definition.
    That is nothing short of hyperbolic nonsense. Do zoophiles kill animals? No they do not. Scraping the bottom of the barrel here, you're lucky I even responded to such hyperbole

    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Zoos who claim animals consent to sexual encounters with humans are delusional, a form of mental illness.
    Not MY definition, the definition of well respected researchers. Research has proved your above statement wrong. Try arguing on facts and logic, and less emotion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Of course it is my personal judgement, but it is NOT arbitrary. Did you not read anything of what I have said, or are you simply not able to see beyond the bits that offend you? I don't have authority, nor did I claim any at any time. The fact that social norms change is a poor argument, because it leaves out any specifics of the issue under consideration. From that week premise you could say the same about murder, mental abuse or racism.
    That's just it. You don't have authority, and neither do I. Those who ARE authorities disagree with your assessment. There is no indication that animals are harmed by zoophilia, so it does indeed follow that societal norms could one day change to accept this, just as they did for gay and interracial relationships.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    It is in my posts. I have throughout my whole participation in this thread compared homosexuality to zoophillia. Did you miss that? I clearly stated that I find male homosexuality disgusting as well, but I believe it IS natural and normal in that it has been part of our development as a species for a long time and that a large percentage of people have a strong homosexual persuasion.
    Natural? Why? Because it occurs in nature? Hmm, so does zoophilia. Interesting article: http://scienceblogs.com/observations...hen_animal.php

    If you want to think of homosexuality as a natural part of human evolution, then why not think of zoophilia as a natural part of our evolving relationship with animals? Think about it: We have lived in close contact with domesticated animals, let's use dogs as an example, for at least 10,000 years. Some archeological findings indicate that relationship may go back even further distant in our history.

    During this time we have used dogs to pull sleds, help us hunt and locate game, police dogs are trained to take the bullet instead of the human officer (wonder if they really consent to that?). We have invited them into our homes and hearts, allow them around our children, to guard us while we are asleep and protect our homes while we are away. We have constructed pet cemeteries, animal hospitals etc. We treat them as our children, our friends, our brothers, they are truly man's best friend in every sense of the word. There are dogs who have DIED protecting their owners. With so much emotional friction between the two species, is a romantic love not a natural progression in our bond with them?

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    There is also no indication that it harms anyone or that it fits the bill of being either a form of mental illness or anti-social behaviour. I have made my case for why I think zoophillia does not satisfy these criteria. I believe it has to be curtailed, because as far as I can tell it is a form of mental illness with negative consequences.
    What negative consequences? There is no indication that zoophilia causes harm, and if the zoophile is capable of living a an otherwise normal, happy and productive life, then why must they be subjected to "treatment"? I fail to see any reason for this other than your own negative perceptions about it. I mean, even now with it currently defined as a mental illness (as homosexuality used to be as well), the DSM-IV asserts that unless accompanied by stress or is hindering a person's life or happiness, no treatment is recommended. That's in the very Wikipedia link you provided!

    Your assertions are contrary to the very science that currently deems it an illness.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I am NOT advocating confinement, but treatment; and this while your laws will have you put in jail.
    Which is a prison without bars. Sorry if that does not make me feel much better. Still, your assertion, as I said, is contrary even to the currently established scientific opinion on zoophilia.

    Besides, if indeed it is an orientation as researchers have implied, then no amount of treatment will alter the behavior and would cause more damage to the individual than if they are allowed to continue. We have already seen this tried in gays. It didn't work


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Again, this is a loaded request. Your "several world renowned experts" are not the only ones qualified to "make conclusions", nor are they the only ones that have.
    Yet the only ones qualified to make conclusions all make basically the same one, that no treatment is needed. A lesser but still significant amount assert that is not even a mental illness and is more accurately defined as a sexual orientation. I have not hear ONE credable piece of research that concludes anything contrary to what Miletski and Beetz and others have concluded.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    My views seem to align with both the Humane Society of the United States
    A political organization with its own agendas. Please, spare me, they are hardly better than PETA


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The Wiki pages: Zoophillia, Paraphillia. I am aware that Wikipedia is not a great source in and of itself, but those pages provide a good oversight of the subjects and do provide citations for the points I have made.

    You did not read own link very well. Here, let me help: The DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) requires that the individual does not receive the diagnosis of zoophilia, as with most other paraphilias, unless it is accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the individual


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Now, will you actually read what I have said please?
    I have. And regarding your links, no offense, but I think I read them better than you did.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I clearly stated that I find male homosexuality disgusting as well, but I believe it IS natural and normal in that it has been part of our development as a species for a long time and that a large percentage of people have a strong homosexual persuasion.
    Wait a minute. Kinsey's study found that zoosexuality was 40 to 50 percent among people who lived near farms.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia

    The Kinsey reports controversially rated the percentage of people who had sexual interaction with animals at some point in their lives as 8% for men and 3.6% for women, and claimed it was 40–50 percent in people living near farms
    It was common enough to be mentioned in the Bible:

    Leviticus 18: v 23
    "Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it, that is a perversion. "
    Leviticus 20: v 15
    "If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal."
    Deuteronomy 27: v 21 Bestiality
    "Cursed is the man who has sexual relations with any animal,....."


    The best argument against it may be the potential for spreading disease.

    Health and safetyMain article: Zoophilia and health
    Infections that are transmitted from animals to humans are called zoonoses. Some zoonoses may be transferred through casual contact, but others are much more readily transferred by activities that expose humans to the semen, vaginal fluids, urine, saliva, feces and blood of animals. Examples of zoonoses are Brucellosis, Q fever, leptospirosis, and toxocariasis. Therefore sexual activity with animals is, in some instances, a high risk activity. Allergic reactions to animal semen may occur, including anaphylaxis. Bites and other trauma from penetration or trampling may occur.
    But then again, a similar argument is used against homosexuality, with the AIDS epidemic and such.

    Maybe we need to have safe animal sex education in our elementary schools.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I think society uses animal treatment as indicative of a person's intangible ...um, goodness. We all know that boy who delighted in crushing bugs was rotten at the core. Even if the sociopath acts charmingly, by his treatment of animals we just know. Animal welfare cannot be defended rationally. I think that for this to serve as sociopath detection mechanism, it must not "compute" in the sociopath mind. In other words, if you have your heart in the right place, you just know.

    I've wondered about the contradiction between society's concern for animal welfare and... KALSTER said it best:
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    On the other hand, I am perfectly happy to cook chopped up pieces of animal for dinner.
    The contradiction rides, I think, because animal welfare is not (and should not be) rational.

    Zoophiles seem to occupy the moral high ground here. Their care for animal welfare is above average. And their hearts are in the right place.

    Still I think good arguments could be made for human exceptionalism.

    ***

    In hive species, a portion of the population is genetically set to assist the hive while not breeding. Humans are a hive species, so it would be unusual if we were all genetically disposed to breed. I imagine the most rudimentary way to produce a non-breeder would be to remove heterosexual instincts. From birth a human non-hetero (queer) may develop in different ways. A queer will develop sexual drive like anybody else, and focus this upon some object... just not necessarily a potential mate as sex object.

    KALSTER had remarked that homosexuals "fit the bill of being 'normal' and 'natural' in our society and have always played a significant part in our growth as a species" and I agree. But I'd extend the credit more broadly to queers in general. Personally, I don't care who or what people do for sex, so long as they're a credit to humanity by for example shouldering some loads parents can't.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

    I shouldn't have to, you're expressing a teleology, which implies there is a reason and consciousness behind the existence of biological function, rather than something that came about via random mutation and natural selection.
    WILL keep it to one post per topic at a time. Sorry about that. GREAT forum BTW!

    No, I am not expressing a "teleology" whatsoever. I am using the most critical function within the science of biology as it pertains to sex, as a determining factor in "functional sex". How is that Teleology? Reproduction is the only thing we can attribute to sex with respect to it's essential function within nature. All else is completely subjective. Certainly neither of us would be here having this discussion without as much.

    Any action can CERTAINLY have a critical, scientifically determined reason, WITHOUT the same having a "consciousness behind it". Correct?

    edited: for the purpose of having a single post instead of 2 or 3.


    Nulledge wrote:
    I do not in ANY way feel that Zoophilia parallels homosexuality other than the fact that both behaviors typically result in a biologically nonproductive outcome.
    Harold14370 wrote:
    They are exactly parallel. They are sexual activities that have been taboo in various societies. The only difference is that one has achieved a little more social acceptability than the other.

    Not according to basic observations. One is party to animal/human sexual relations, and the other, human/human relations. One has the overt and obvious ability to enter into, progressively develop, and thrive in a relationship, all WITH mature human consent. Can't do that with an animal to the best of my understanding. You may "think" you can, and that of course is the ONLY place where I see obvious delusion at work.

    For me, this is NOT a "morals" or culturally derived programming issue as related to "taboo behavior". It's about Zoophilia, and whether or not it's a sexually dysfunctional mental disorder. I believe that to be the case, PRESENTLY, unless more information can be supplied that would offer a better light within which to see and examine the issue scientifically.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Zoophiles seem to occupy the moral high ground here. Their care for animal welfare is above average. And their hearts are in the right place.
    Thank you for *getting it*

    Most zoos belong to animal advocacy groups, Zoophiles love animals, that is indisputable.

    Yes, zoophiles occupy the moral high ground here. The very people clamoring for consent often do so while in the process of eating a juicy steak. The same people will turn a blind eye to the meat industry, to the common practice of training police dogs to take the bullet instead of the human officer. The same people are fine with forced mating by breeders....the list goes on. Where is the outrage here, certainly animals do not consent to these practices? It seems to me like people only care about consent when it is convenient to their lifestyles.

    While animals can and do consent, those who violate consent by eating meat or wearing leather really have no place in questioning if zoos violate consent. After all, even if animals could not consent, surely killing them for food against their will is worse then making sexual advances against their will? This is all moot since animals have the capacity to consent, but the hypocrisy is astounding.

    And one thing that always gets a cynical chuckle out of me are the breeding practices that are deemed illegal when a zoophile practices them, such as the masturbation of male dogs and horses. If a breeder does it, it's ok. But if a zoophile does the very same thing it is illegal and a form of "mental illness". The hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    Harold14370 wrote:
    They are exactly parallel. They are sexual activities that have been taboo in various societies. The only difference is that one has achieved a little more social acceptability than the other.

    Not according to basic observations. One is party to animal/human sexual relations, and the other, human/human relations. One has the overt and obvious ability to enter into, progressively develop, and thrive in a relationship, all WITH mature human consent. Can't do that with an animal to the best of my understanding. You may "think" you can, and that of course is the ONLY place where I see obvious delusion at work.
    Those are certainly differences, but are they differences that matter, or are you just attempting to justify your own set of taboos while disparaging other similar taboos? As pointed out by others, there are plenty of things we do without the consent of animals. We ride horses. We milk cows. We shear sheep. So what? Will the animal be traumatized or embarrassed in some way? Will psychological scars be left? The only difference here is that there is a sex act which you find repugnant for personal reasons. I think you are using the same kind of reasoning that says homosexual acts are wrong because they do not result in reproduction. In other words, it identifies a distinction, but not one that really matters.

    For me, this is NOT a "morals" or culturally derived programming issue as related to "taboo behavior".
    I still think it is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,099
    Quote Originally Posted by Screams of Silence
    Not MY definition, the definition of well respected researchers. Research has proved your above statement wrong. Try arguing on facts and logic, and less emotion.
    You don't have to shout. Zoos can have sex with any animal they choose and I'm OK with that because that's what zoos do. By my definition zoophilia is abnormal, unless a very significant portion of the population participates enough in such a pursuit that it becomes abnormal not to.

    One guy has sex with animals and another with a watermelon, are they both normal?

    In any case I'm not going to quibble over a zoophile's right to bop some animal, I'm focused squarely on the consent issue. Just how does the animal communicate their consent? A nod, a lick, a gaze, soft cuddly sounds, go into heat, scent marking, tail waggle...just what is it that zoos perceive as consent. Sorry....what zoos know is consent? The fact is that consent seeking zoos look for any sign that they could interpret as consent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Sophomore MiguelSR1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    San Diego C.A. United States
    Posts
    141
    A very interesting theory to examine that can shed more light on this inquiry is "anthropomorphic intuition"
    Imagination is key to the logic of thought, a greatest eternal truth.

    ME
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

    You don't have to shout. Zoos can have sex with any animal they choose and I'm OK with that because that's what zoos do. By my definition zoophilia is abnormal, unless a very significant portion of the population participates enough in such a pursuit that it becomes abnormal not to.

    One guy has sex with animals and another with a watermelon, are they both normal?

    In any case I'm not going to quibble over a zoophile's right to bop some animal, I'm focused squarely on the consent issue. Just how does the animal communicate their consent? A nod, a lick, a gaze, soft cuddly sounds, go into heat, scent marking, tail waggle...just what is it that zoos perceive as consent. Sorry....what zoos know is consent? The fact is that consent seeking zoos look for any sign that they could interpret as consent.
    Who's shouting? I emphasize words in different ways, sometimes I CAPS, sometimes I use *bullet points*, sometimes I use the italics or bold. Not shouting, just emphasizing. Or if you were referring to my testy tone, well is that not understandable since you compared zoophilia to murderers?

    Animals can signal consent in many ways. Dogs, both male and female hump legs. Females in heat will "present" themselves by turning their behind towards you, in a very obvious way that has been known to cause non-zoo friends of mine to make crude jokes. Sometimes they do not even need to be in heat to make such presentations.

    Sometimes males will consent by trying to mount during heavy petting. I learned this from a male pitbull whom I was NOT trying to have sex with. Later, when I worked with big cats I learned the term "heavy petting" from my mentor, who told me never to engage in too much heavy contact with the male lions, because they can become aroused and lions are extremely dangerous when in that state.

    One interesting way of signaling consent that have heard of are from people who only have sex in their bedrooms. Their dogs will run to the bedroom door and once opened they will hop on the bed with a wagging tail, obviously having associated this place with the act.

    But consent is not just shown proactively, it can also be shown by what the animal does not do. Still using dogs as the example, as a trainer and vet tech I have witnessed female dogs bite at studs even when in heat, because they have not accepted this particular male as a mate. In cases such as this, manual stimulation of the male is needed for artificial insemination, because finding another suitable stud is often not an option. By contrast, if a female in heat accepts a human as her mate in the place of a stud, can this not be considered consent? Actually, the female doesn't need to be in heat to accept sexual advances. I'll explain later in this post

    The most important component in a zoosexual relationship, or hell ANY relationship for that matter, is trust. Without trust, I do not believe consent is possible, which is why I condemn zoophiles who "hook up" with other zoophiles to share animals. I simply do not believe an animal can consent to sex with a person it just met. On the flip side, I have witnessed females out of heat bite males who try to mount, and have seen that very same female accept a human's advances, but the trust level between the human and bitch was extremely high.

    **Somewhat graphic descriptions are in the next part of this post, be warned**

    The hardest forms of zoosexual relationships to prove as moral would be those between a man and either a female dog out of heat, or between a man and....I really can't think of a way to describe this without it sounding gross, so fuck it I'll be blunt....a male dog on the receiving end. I believe a man and a female dog can have consesual sex, I am skeptical as to whether a man and a male dog can have consensual sex, although I don't discount the possibility. I have seen male dogs allow themselves to be mounted...ahem....all the way by another dog, so I suppose it's possible that some male dogs would not mind a man doing the same.

    The absolute most convincing form of consensual zoophilia would be between a male dog and a human female, which is actually pretty common. You *might* be able to convince me that a man "pitching" to a male dog is abusive, even if the dog does not resist. I will never be convinced that a woman allowing a male dog to mount her is abusive. Ever. I would not even know how one could argue such a position.

    In the end, it is up to the zoophile to be fluent enough in his partners body language to determine consent. I have known zoos to complain about their dogs not being in the mood, so obviously they weren't just looking for "any sign" to justify sex. They were looking for THE signs that signal consent.

    It's easier to determine "no" than "yes", growls, tensing up, moving away....there are many ways one can tell the animal is not keen on the idea. Likewise, my bitch used to smack me with her paw if I ignored her advances when she was in heat. In all honesty, she could be quite forceful and frankly it could get annoying at times. Consent? I do believe so! (More like demanding)

    I would almost wish I could offer more vivid examples, I can think of a few that would drive my point home even more effectively. However I do not wish to get this thread locked or have my posts edited for content so I'm doing my best to keep things PG-13
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Screams of Silence
    The hardest forms of zoosexual relationships to prove as moral would be...
    Screams of Silence,

    Please "prove" to me anything, I mean absolutely anything, that an animal perceives or interprets based on human interaction.


    edited for the purpose of creating a single post with multiple responses within it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    Harold14370 wrote:
    They are exactly parallel. They are sexual activities that have been taboo in various societies. The only difference is that one has achieved a little more social acceptability than the other.

    Not according to basic observations. One is party to animal/human sexual relations, and the other, human/human relations. One has the overt and obvious ability to enter into, progressively develop, and thrive in a relationship, all WITH mature human consent. Can't do that with an animal to the best of my understanding. You may "think" you can, and that of course is the ONLY place where I see obvious delusion at work.
    Those are certainly differences, but are they differences that matter, or are you just attempting to justify your own set of taboos while disparaging other similar taboos? As pointed out by others, there are plenty of things we do without the consent of animals. We ride horses. We milk cows. We shear sheep. So what? Will the animal be traumatized or embarrassed in some way? Will psychological scars be left? The only difference here is that there is a sex act which you find repugnant for personal reasons. I think you are using the same kind of reasoning that says homosexual acts are wrong because they do not result in reproduction. In other words, it identifies a distinction, but not one that really matters.

    For me, this is NOT a "morals" or culturally derived programming issue as related to "taboo behavior".
    I still think it is.
    You could be right, but the fact that I am doing my best to keep from being morally judgmental here excludes the notion that I can base my premise on that which is acceptable or not. "Taboo" is subjective and an entirely human perception to the best of our knowledge at that. A result of conditioning.

    But you see, for those logical reasons to be weighed successfully, they have to work both ways. That is to state that if a person is convinced or programmed at a very early age that homos or zoos are bad people, and their rationale is based on such teaching, there must exist the exact same propensity for those participants within these sexual orientations to be nothing more than convinced or programmed, of their own desires for the specific sexual orientation they act within.

    Honestly, and again this may be flawed because of sheer bias, some of the most respected and intelligent scientists that I know personally, are in fact homosexual. There is simply no aspect of their lives that I can find delusion within. Again, my opinion is most likely completely unqualified.

    In this Zoophile issue, it seems we have far more than sexual behavior at work here. We have a belief system as well. Belief system's come into play when human beings feel they have a need for personal communication beyond their normal means. That is to state that belief systems most often hinge on the inability of humans to communicate naturally or inherently, with that which they feel strongly drawn to via personal convictions, needs or basic desires.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge

    No, I am not expressing a "teleology" whatsoever. I am using the most critical function within the science of biology as it pertains to sex, as a determining factor in "functional sex". How is that Teleology? Reproduction is the only thing we can attribute to sex with respect to it's essential function within nature. All else is completely subjective. Certainly neither of us would be here having this discussion without as much.
    It's entirely teleological to say that you know what the ideal is, based on your subjective valuing of a single aspect of sex. "Essential function within nature" is an entirely meaningless term. You're also trying to shift the focus onto a single obsession with reproductive sex. Even if we take your teleological approach, your conclusions don't even follow. It doesn't matter if sex is used for reproduction, it doesn't follow that sex can only be used for reproduction.

    Your argument obscures the realities of biological science in order to advance your biases. Speaking of "natural" or "functional sex" is pointless. If a trait is carried on there must be a reason. Does it improve fitness, is it carried on a side-effect of something else, or maybe it is just neutral to fitness like a detached earlobe.

    What is the purpose of hair? You might say to keep in warmth. Ok, then what is the purpose of variant hair colours? If we took your approach to biology we would have to debate whether blonde, brown, or red hair is better at holding warmth. It should be obvious to anyone that such a discussion is just banality and not explicative at all. Instead, we should be looking at what could lead to one colour being selected for another, such as sexual selection. And we should consider the genetic factors involved. Moreover, is red hair dysfunctional hair because it is different from brown hair?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    Any action can CERTAINLY have a critical, scientifically determined reason, WITHOUT the same having a "consciousness behind it". Correct?

    edited: for the purpose of having a single post instead of 2 or 3.
    No, a quality that leads to something being selected for does not make anything a "scientifically determined reason." Nor does it make it a purpose. Especially since we know selection is far more complicated and that more than any single consideration is always at play.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge

    No, I am not expressing a "teleology" whatsoever. I am using the most critical function within the science of biology as it pertains to sex, as a determining factor in "functional sex". How is that Teleology? Reproduction is the only thing we can attribute to sex with respect to it's essential function within nature. All else is completely subjective. Certainly neither of us would be here having this discussion without as much.
    It's entirely teleological to say that you know what the ideal is, based on your subjective valuing of a single aspect of sex. "Essential function within nature" is an entirely meaningless term. You're also trying to shift the focus onto a single obsession with reproductive sex. Even if we take your teleological approach, your conclusions don't even follow. It doesn't matter if sex is used for reproduction, it doesn't follow that sex can only be used for reproduction.

    Your argument obscures the realities of biological science in order to advance your biases. Speaking of "natural" or "functional sex" is pointless. If a trait is carried on there must be a reason. Does it improve fitness, is it carried on a side-effect of something else, or maybe it is just neutral to fitness like a detached earlobe.

    What is the purpose of hair? You might say to keep in warmth. Ok, then what is the purpose of variant hair colours? If we took your approach to biology we would have to debate whether blonde, brown, or red hair is better at holding warmth. It should be obvious to anyone that such a discussion is just banality and not explicative at all. Instead, we should be looking at what could lead to one colour being selected for another, such as sexual selection. And we should consider the genetic factors involved. Moreover, is red hair dysfunctional hair because it is different from brown hair?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    Any action can CERTAINLY have a critical, scientifically determined reason, WITHOUT the same having a "consciousness behind it". Correct?

    edited: for the purpose of having a single post instead of 2 or 3.
    No, a quality that leads to something being selected for does not make anything a "scientifically determined reason." Nor does it make it a purpose. Especially since we know selection is far more complicated and that more than any single consideration is always at play.

    I apologize for not being clearer. You are attempting to suggest, that what I am suggesting hypothetically here, is in fact based on my personal bias? That is UNTRUE. Please go back, stay completely unemotional, and read carefully what I have written. I am not obsessed on anything, neither am I responding as a result of my own personal programming.

    If we ourselves can repeat a specific action that is an essential function within a specific field of science, this being in a controlled condition, or if we can observe that same action repetitively in nature, with the critical and empirical means by which science remains unbiased and as accurate as possible, we can ASSUREDLY credit scientifically determined reasons with respect to specific fields of scientific interest, without any of your perception based mumbo jumbo.

    Stop hiding behind the human perception angle. It's not even wide enough to cloak your own bias it seems.

    What reason can you give me that would accurately suggest a species benefit as a result of Zoophilia? Personally, I can think of no less than five reasons that consenting sex with another human being are species beneficial to both parties involved. Can we do that with human/animal relations? Kinda tough to do when the animal cannot speak for itself, isn't it? This is NOT about subjective programming, this about scientific reality. The type of perceptive quandary that you throw into the mix here merely serves to make the position one that is untenable via science. That's nonsense.

    Edited: For the sake of my own learning and to admit that I did not understand how or why this forum member is leaning so heavy on Teleology which I have spent the last few minutes digging into.

    First off, quoted from Wiki:
    A teleology is any philosophical account which holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature.
    So, Teleology begins with the assumption that mankind HAS inherent final cause as related to species benefit. However, if these same observations in proof carry over to his environment's natural observations, philosophically, that person is a "Teleological"? Ultimately propagation and continuation of that species is critical to final cause. I would call that as inherent a benefit as a benefit can get with respect for intrinsic finality.

    Teleology also contends that man is separate from the rest of nature because of his inability to "know" nature. I certainly do not believe that's the case.

    If any scientist can honestly look at nature and not know 100% for certain that there is abundant evidence to conclude that nature does in fact reflect purpose and intrinsic finality, that scientist is lost until they manage to open their eyes. I can do nothing about that.

    To be as frank as possible, it would seem that those claiming that Zoophiles and animals are within a natural and functionally sound relationship, are assuredly practicing teleology. They are making the assumption, as they interpret animal behavior and characteristic, based upon extrinsic finality as represented by teleology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    I apologize for not being clearer. You are attempting to suggest, that what I am suggesting hypothetically here, is in fact based on my personal bias? That is UNTRUE. Please go back, stay completely unemotional, and read carefully what I have written. I am not obsessed on anything, neither am I responding as a result of my own personal programming.
    Yes, it is based on your personal bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    If we ourselves can repeat a specific action that is an essential function within a specific field of science, this being in a controlled condition, or if we can observe that same action repetitively in nature, with the critical and empirical means by which science remains unbiased and as accurate as possible, we can ASSUREDLY credit scientifically determined reasons with respect to specific fields of scientific interest, without any of your perception based mumbo jumbo.
    No, this is simply sophistry. Observing that sex leads to reproduction does not imply that sex's purpose is reproduction, or that it can't have purposes other than reproduction. Moreover, you make the mistake of assuming because it does leed to reproduction that this matters or means anything. It doesn't. Nature is just something that exists. There is no proper way for nature to exist, there is just how it exists or how it does not exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    What reason can you give me that would accurately suggest a species benefit as a result of Zoophilia? Personally, I can think of no less than five reasons that consenting sex with another human being are species beneficial to both parties involved. Can we do that with human/animal relations? Kinda tough to do when the animal cannot speak for itself, isn't it? This is NOT about subjective programming, this about scientific reality. The type of perceptive quandary that you throw into the mix here merely serves to make the position one that is untenable via science. That's nonsense.
    No, I said that your obsession with zoophilia being dysfunctional sex is meaningless. I said there wasn't enough data to conclude anything relevant about zoophilia, and the question of whether it is a mental illness or something someone is born with is irrelevant to the social acceptability of the practice.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    So, Teleology begins with the assumption that mankind HAS inherent final cause as related to species benefit. However, if these same observations in proof carry over to his environment's natural observations, philosophically, that person is a "Teleological"? Ultimately propagation and continuation of that species is critical to final cause. I would call that as inherent a benefit as a benefit can get with respect for intrinsic finality.
    No, teleological is thinking that begins with the assumption of reason or purpose to any action or existence. Propagation of a species is irrelevant, if species didn't propagate they would not exist, so of course propagation is selected for. There is no final cause. Life didn't come into existence with the goal of propagation, it continued to exist because a tendency towards reproduction arose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    Teleology also contends that man is separate from the rest of nature because of his inability to "know" nature. I certainly do not believe that's the case.
    I'm not aware of this meaning, but Teleology is connected to numerous philosophies, and different ones are not my concern.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    If any scientist can honestly look at nature and not know 100% for certain that there is abundant evidence to conclude that nature does in fact reflect purpose and intrinsic finality, that scientist is lost until they manage to open their eyes. I can do nothing about that.
    This is nonsense. There is no purpose or finality in biology. Biology is the result of a culmination of random events and non-random selection, there is no purpose to it. The notion that life's purpose is to propagate is yet another arbitrary value judgment attached to nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    To be as frank as possible, it would seem that those claiming that Zoophiles and animals are within a natural and functionally sound relationship, are assuredly practicing teleology. They are making the assumption, as they interpret animal behavior and characteristic, based upon extrinsic finality as represented by teleology.
    I don't have an opinion on whether they are in a functional relationship. However, the word "natural" is thrown around by those who assume moral superiority in a loose and meaningless way. Natural just means part of nature, and unless zoophiles were created by Zeus, they are natural.

    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge

    No, I am not expressing a "teleology" whatsoever. I am using the most critical function within the science of biology as it pertains to sex, as a determining factor in "functional sex". How is that Teleology? Reproduction is the only thing we can attribute to sex with respect to it's essential function within nature. All else is completely subjective. Certainly neither of us would be here having this discussion without as much.
    It's entirely teleological to say that you know what the ideal is, based on your subjective valuing of a single aspect of sex. "Essential function within nature" is an entirely meaningless term. You're also trying to shift the focus onto a single obsession with reproductive sex. Even if we take your teleological approach, your conclusions don't even follow. It doesn't matter if sex is used for reproduction, it doesn't follow that sex can only be used for reproduction.

    Your argument obscures the realities of biological science in order to advance your biases. Speaking of "natural" or "functional sex" is pointless. If a trait is carried on there must be a reason. Does it improve fitness, is it carried on a side-effect of something else, or maybe it is just neutral to fitness like a detached earlobe.

    What is the purpose of hair? You might say to keep in warmth. Ok, then what is the purpose of variant hair colours? If we took your approach to biology we would have to debate whether blonde, brown, or red hair is better at holding warmth. It should be obvious to anyone that such a discussion is just banality and not explicative at all. Instead, we should be looking at what could lead to one colour being selected for another, such as sexual selection. And we should consider the genetic factors involved. Moreover, is red hair dysfunctional hair because it is different from brown hair?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    Any action can CERTAINLY have a critical, scientifically determined reason, WITHOUT the same having a "consciousness behind it". Correct?

    edited: for the purpose of having a single post instead of 2 or 3.
    No, a quality that leads to something being selected for does not make anything a "scientifically determined reason." Nor does it make it a purpose. Especially since we know selection is far more complicated and that more than any single consideration is always at play.

    I apologize for not being clearer. You are attempting to suggest, that what I am suggesting hypothetically here, is in fact based on my personal bias? That is UNTRUE. Please go back, stay completely unemotional, and read carefully what I have written. I am not obsessed on anything, neither am I responding as a result of my own personal programming.

    If we ourselves can repeat a specific action that is an essential function within a specific field of science, this being in a controlled condition, or if we can observe that same action repetitively in nature, with the critical and empirical means by which science remains unbiased and as accurate as possible, we can ASSUREDLY credit scientifically determined reasons with respect to specific fields of scientific interest, without any of your perception based mumbo jumbo.

    Stop hiding behind the human perception angle. It's not even wide enough to cloak your own bias it seems.

    What reason can you give me that would accurately suggest a species benefit as a result of Zoophilia? Personally, I can think of no less than five reasons that consenting sex with another human being are species beneficial to both parties involved. Can we do that with human/animal relations? Kinda tough to do when the animal cannot speak for itself, isn't it? This is NOT about subjective programming, this about scientific reality. The type of perceptive quandary that you throw into the mix here merely serves to make the position one that is untenable via science. That's nonsense.

    Edited: For the sake of my own learning and to admit that I did not understand how or why this forum member is leaning so heavy on Teleology which I have spent the last few minutes digging into.

    First off, quoted from Wiki:
    A teleology is any philosophical account which holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature.
    So, Teleology begins with the assumption that mankind HAS inherent final cause as related to species benefit. However, if these same observations in proof carry over to his environment's natural observations, philosophically, that person is a "Teleological"? Ultimately propagation and continuation of that species is critical to final cause. I would call that as inherent a benefit as a benefit can get with respect for intrinsic finality.

    Teleology also contends that man is separate from the rest of nature because of his inability to "know" nature. I certainly do not believe that's the case.

    If any scientist can honestly look at nature and not know 100% for certain that there is abundant evidence to conclude that nature does in fact reflect purpose and intrinsic finality, that scientist is lost until they manage to open their eyes. I can do nothing about that.

    To be as frank as possible, it would seem that those claiming that Zoophiles and animals are within a natural and functionally sound relationship, are assuredly practicing teleology. They are making the assumption, as they interpret animal behavior and characteristic, based upon extrinsic finality as represented by teleology.
    I apologize as I cannot continue this posted discussion. You are simply NOT living in the real world. Most everything you just stated is a mere cop out. Absolutely no different than a teenager arguing with their parents over the merits of a nice recreational LSD trip. It's ALL circular logic that leads nowhere. Everything with respect for human behavior that is inherently perceptual is subjective to your mind. That's sad. What will you ever conclude? Possibly that there are no conclusions. I welcome ANY proof or substance to what you might offer here, but as of this point, not a shred of useful information has come from you on the subject of Zoophilia. Just philosophical nonsense as applied to science. NOT science itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge

    I apologize as I cannot continue this posted discussion. You are simply NOT living in the real world. Most everything you just stated is a mere cop out. Absolutely no different than a teenager arguing with their parents over the merits of a nice recreational LSD trip. It's ALL circular logic that leads nowhere. Everything with respect for human behavior that is inherently perceptual is subjective to your mind. That's sad. What will you ever conclude? Possibly that there are no conclusions. I welcome ANY proof or substance to what you might offer here, but as of this point, not a shred of useful information has come from you on the subject of Zoophilia. Just philosophical nonsense as applied to science. NOT science itself.
    No, I'm afraid you don't understand what circular reasoning is. Nor have I said anything about stuff depending on being perception, merely that your conclusions are based on your personal biased perception. There is no logical way to derive your conclusions from observations of nature. You are the one who is not practicing science.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,099
    Quote Originally Posted by Screams of Silence
    [
    Or if you were referring to my testy tone, well is that not understandable since you compared zoophilia to murderers?
    All I said was that if Ted Bundy lived next door then you could very well believe he was the average neighbor.

    An excerpt from a study of paedophiles that relates to a zoophile's thoughts on animal consent:Many paedophiles are motivated by the belief that children can give meaningful and informed consent for others to violate their bodies. Others firmly believe that God made children for adults to abuse. Some paedophiles convince themselves that they are `doing the child a favour' by educating the child in sexual matters.

    I don't see much difference when the word children is substituted with animal and paedophile with zoophile. It's a fantasy world festering in delusional thinking.

    Dogs humping legs is purely pack behavior. Go ahead and look it up if you wish but I assure that in the wild pack, less dominant dogs(who do not get to breed with the alpha female) will attempt to hump the alpha male, but not out of love. More like acknowledging who's boss while relieving some tension and anxiety.

    By the way, when my cat presents its hindquarters to me it always means scratch its back. When it rubs my legs it's probably marking me with its scent or again needs some attention. I guess if I was looking for some sex then I could interpret it as consent, but I would need my head examined first.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69 In conclussion... 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    I have attempted to be as specifically reason oriented, and as unemotional here as possible. I have never used the word "wrong", "evil" or "sick" to describe the behavior represented by the sexual practices of Zoophiles.

    I have however, read some of the most one sided and completely inept scientific observational delusions within this thread, that I have ever come across. With respect for the Zoophile community, the bottom line here seems to be "if you yourself, can't read an animal's mind to find out the animal's "thoughts", then they agree with my thinking and no matter what observations can be made clearly to the contrary, well that's just your opinion, and BTW, you're opinions are biased and all your conclusions are unsound"

    That might as well be like stating, "Bugs Bunny agrees with me. He told me so"

    How in the name of science can we hope to arrive at ANY form of understanding with this type of defensive, one sided, reasoning at work?

    Give me SOLID FACTS as to why Zoophiles are acting perfectly healthy with respect to having sexual relations with their PETS/PARTNERS.

    If you cannot, just like every other form of questionable behavior that may in fact represent mental illness, your behavior will be considered aberrant by the psychologically sound scientific community until determined differently.

    This thread belongs in pseudoscience AT BEST.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70 Re: In conclussion... 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    I have attempted to be as specifically reason oriented, and as unemotional here as possible. I have never used the word "wrong", "evil" or "sick" to describe the behavior represented by the sexual practices of Zoophiles.
    No, but you did call it dysfunctional (which it may be in social terms) and unnatural (which is a meaningless term).

    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    Give me SOLID FACTS as to why Zoophiles are acting perfectly healthy with respect to having sexual relations with their PETS/PARTNERS.

    If you cannot, just like every other form of questionable behavior that may in fact represent mental illness, your behavior will be considered aberrant by the psychologically sound scientific community until determined differently.
    Some may be suffering from delusions, others might not be. We don't have any large sample or thorough studies to determine this. You have begun with the a priori assumption that they are "abnormal" (which is only true in the statistical sense) and dysfunctional. There is no reason that we should accept this assumption off the bat. It's quite possible many are delusional and can't live functional lives, but it seems to me equally possible that many do not have delusions about the animals.

    And as has been raised by others and myself before, it doesn't necessarily matter. Why should we care? Assuming we're all living in liberal societies with respect for individual autonomy, then we have to admit that if they are doing no harm to others then it is none of our business.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71 Re: In conclussion... 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    No, but you did call it dysfunctional (which it may be in social terms) and unnatural (which is a meaningless term).
    There is nothing meaningless about nature. That is an assumption and cannot be proved. Only accepted or not. Nature defined as pointless or purposeless and non intentional, is utter bullocks. If this is not so, prove it beyond doubt. You have made the assertion with respect to this consideration, it is your obligation.



    Some may be suffering from delusions, others might not be. We don't have any large sample or thorough studies to determine this. You have begun with the a priori assumption that they are "abnormal" (which is only true in the statistical sense) and dysfunctional. There is no reason that we should accept this assumption off the bat. It's quite possible many are delusional and can't live functional lives, but it seems to me equally possible that many do not have delusions about the animals.
    Socially speaking (which is ALL we can do in this case), that which is not the statistical norm, is assuredly abnormal or aberrant as related to observational studies related to sexual practices among human beings. No question as we are NOT referring to accepted or proved inherent traits within human beings, but rather CHOICES they have made concerning that which extrinsic to them.

    And as has been raised by others and myself before, it doesn't necessarily matter. Why should we care? Assuming we're all living in liberal societies with respect for individual autonomy, then we have to admit that if they are doing no harm to others then it is none of our business.
    We should care because we are pack animals and it is instinctual to our healthy mental faculties *to* care. It helps to insure our survival. We are NOT separate from nature. That's ludicrous. Because we are a part of nature, like all living things, we have an obligation to protect that which we can only perceive knowingly as innocents. The poster was as RIGHT as right can be that compared domesticated species of animals to children. Because of their *natural* instinctual state of existence being altered via the immense conditioning and programming that domesticated animals recieve, there is absolutely *no way* to discern the real *natural* reaction to these sexual practices imposed upon them. They are in FACT, innocents.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1
    I have vaguely skimmed through this thread, and have wanted to note something in particular about zoophilia:

    Consent is something that humans have coined for humans. In the animal world, there is no consent. You do not see two animals performing coitus and expect that one, on bended knee, asked to do the dirty deed, so to speak. There is courting, yes, but if the male dog [for this example] was aggressive enough in his ways, he could in fact, successfully breed with the bitch.

    While it may not necessarily be a common thing in zoophilia, I have known quite a few friends of mine who do partake in it, who almost complain about how their dogs bother them when they are in season, or generally, in heat.

    In fact, I also know of a story about a stallion who literally pinned a man to a trailer, got his pants down, and then went forth to mate with the man. There are also other stories, one especially on TheOatmeal.com, in which the author tells a story of when he was almost in the same predicament as the man above.

    Now, neither of them had done anything in the ways of 'persuading' the stallions in general about having sex with them. All it took was their guard to be down, and then they almost got forcibly taken. Male dogs, also, if not trained properly by their zoosexual owners, will try and mount them when the want arises them. Albeit, if the dog is not properly ''trained", he normally will not do such a thing, that does not dismiss the facts that dogs, and horses, and all other animals, are just as sexually driven as humans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    I have vaguely skimmed through this thread, and have wanted to note something in particular about zoophilia:

    Consent is something that humans have coined for humans. In the animal world, there is no consent. You do not see two animals performing coitus and expect that one, on bended knee, asked to do the dirty deed, so to speak. There is courting, yes, but if the male dog [for this example] was aggressive enough in his ways, he could in fact, successfully breed with the bitch.

    While it may not necessarily be a common thing in zoophilia, I have known quite a few friends of mine who do partake in it, who almost complain about how their dogs bother them when they are in season, or generally, in heat.

    In fact, I also know of a story about a stallion who literally pinned a man to a trailer, got his pants down, and then went forth to mate with the man. There are also other stories, one especially on TheOatmeal.com, in which the author tells a story of when he was almost in the same predicament as the man above.

    Now, neither of them had done anything in the ways of 'persuading' the stallions in general about having sex with them. All it took was their guard to be down, and then they almost got forcibly taken. Male dogs, also, if not trained properly by their zoosexual owners, will try and mount them when the want arises them. Albeit, if the dog is not properly ''trained", he normally will not do such a thing, that does not dismiss the facts that dogs, and horses, and all other animals, are just as sexually driven as humans.
    What is you point precisely? BTW, "consent" as you put it, is NOT limited to human beings. For all we know, "consent" with respect to human perspective may in fact merely be an extension of what's within all animal's instinctual mapping. There are species of animals that are assuredly monogamous through out their entire lives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    For all we know, "consent" with respect to human perspective may in fact merely be an extension of what's within all animal's instinctual mapping.
    Rubbish. If this were the case, then all living creatures would "consent" to being injected with heroin until they die since that's what their "mapping" would suggest should happen.

    Consent is an active choice made by a mind which understands clearly the details and ramifications of the decision. Consent requires the ability to predict, estimate, compare, and finally accept the potential risks and future consequences which come as a result of their decision.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    For all we know, "consent" with respect to human perspective may in fact merely be an extension of what's within all animal's instinctual mapping.
    Rubbish. If this were the case, then all living creatures would "consent" to being injected with heroin until they die since that's what their "mapping" would suggest should happen.

    Consent is an active choice made by a mind which understands clearly the details and ramifications of the decision. Consent requires the ability to predict, estimate, compare, and finally accept the potential risks and future consequences which come as a result of their decision.

    You're personification is not an absolute, merely a perception as determined by the human mind, for the human mind. You are not qualified to think for an animal, neither is the human mind an absolute template for all things perceived based upon perception.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    For all we know, "consent" with respect to human perspective may in fact merely be an extension of what's within all animal's instinctual mapping.
    Rubbish. If this were the case, then all living creatures would "consent" to being injected with heroin until they die since that's what their "mapping" would suggest should happen.

    Consent is an active choice made by a mind which understands clearly the details and ramifications of the decision. Consent requires the ability to predict, estimate, compare, and finally accept the potential risks and future consequences which come as a result of their decision.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    You're personification is not an absolute, merely a perception as determined by the human mind, for the human mind. You are not qualified to think for an animal, neither is the human mind an absolute template for all things perceived based upon perception.
    The logic of my point is independent of my being human, nor does it rely on one's ability to perceive the world from an animal's perspective. It was objective and specific to the concept of consent. Would you like to try again?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    For all we know, "consent" with respect to human perspective may in fact merely be an extension of what's within all animal's instinctual mapping.
    Rubbish. If this were the case, then all living creatures would "consent" to being injected with heroin until they die since that's what their "mapping" would suggest should happen.

    Consent is an active choice made by a mind which understands clearly the details and ramifications of the decision. Consent requires the ability to predict, estimate, compare, and finally accept the potential risks and future consequences which come as a result of their decision.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    You're personification is not an absolute, merely a perception as determined by the human mind, for the human mind. You are not qualified to think for an animal, neither is the human mind an absolute template for all things perceived based upon perception.
    The logic of my point is independent of my being human, nor does it rely on one's ability to perceive the world from an animal's perspective. It was objective and specific to the concept of consent. Would you like to try again?
    Nope. You cannot merely avoid reality by stating you are "independent from it". You have ZERO conclusive evidence to support your position. That's because you do not have a position to support, and are merely arguing for the sake of arguing.

    What is your point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4
    i am a zoophile... at a hard point in life, not sure what to do..came out of a mental hospital for my depression about a weeks ago
    i havent read all the posts but if u have any questions on zoophilia u can ask.in my definition there are only two animals that can actually "love you back"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4
    Dolphins. dolphins can love you back and its something that science has only partly explained. the rest is something we can only prove by experience. btw i do not mean any disrespect to anyones views on the subject, i just wanted to let out my opinion.<br>if anyone wishes to make fun of my beliefs on this then go right ahead but keep in mind you will never have <u>true</u> proof, neither do i but only time will tell the outcomes of zoophilia in the world.<br>my attraction to dolphins has made me and absolutely destroyed me. depression.<br>i just have to wait. and talking to people who might understand or will at least listen helps... it helps a lot.<br><br>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by Screams of Silence View Post
    On the issue of consent, a friend of mine wrote an excellent essay about consent in the world of zoophilia, here's a brief part of it, posted with permission:

    It's the age old question: Does my dog let me pet him on the head because he likes it, or because he's afraid of the repercussions of refusing?

    The foremost considered issue when considering zoosexuality for most people is that of consent. Can an animal consent to sex? Popular wisdom says no. Before determining whether they may consent however, one must consider what consent is and what it means.

    Consent, most essentially and basically, is agreeing to participate in an action, or to have an action done upon you, of your own free will. But there's more to it than that. You must have proper knowledge of the action, and all information about the proposed situation that may affect your decision. You may consent to have sex with a person, but your decision may have been different had you known that they were married; if he/she did not tell you that, your ability to consent was tampered with. One must also make the decision autonomously, without threats or coercive rewards.

    So how much of this really applies to animals? An animal can say yes or no, though they cannot speak human language; it is obvious for even the densest of humans that a dog's snarl or a horses raised hoof means "back off". Similarly, animals will ask for sex, though the signals can be less blatant and thus one must pay attention to their behavior to interpret it, especially as we in polite society have been taught to ignore them. The issue, however, is simple; if an animal wants sex, it will ask for it or consent to sexual advances; if it does not, it will resist, fight back or at the very least make it clear with reluctant body language. At that point the action becomes immoral should the human continue their actions, for they are obviously forcing sex upon a being who doesn't want it.

    Most of the considerations humans take into consideration are non-issues for animals. Animals know everything they need to know; so far as their sphere of knowledge and consciousness is concerned, as far as it is relevant they are autonomous beings capable of giving voluntary consent. Saying that animals cannot consent because they simply cannot understand something that humans would need to understand to consent is an inherently unfair exclusion; if an animal cannot understand something, how can it be relevant to them? And why on earth would we expect the same levels of understanding for a different species, who by definition has a different capacity and requirement for understanding the world? To expect the human of the non- human is to expect the unnecessary and the unobtainable.

    There is also the concern that a particular animal's loyalty to an owner would make it unwillingly consent to his/her advances. This is patently anthropomorphizing; even if an animal is completely devoted to its owner and is utterly gentle and submissive, it will not censor its own reactions. Even the best dog in the world will bite it's owner if it is being hurt of feels threatened. If it does not want to have sex, at the very least it will pull away and act uncomfortable, at which point the person (who should be fluent in the species' body language, just as you'd speak a common language with your human partner) should stop. If they do not, then it has become rape. Rape is rape regardless of species, and rape is immoral.


    On the flip side, can humans understand what sex means to an animal? It can be very difficult to understand certain behaviors, given the language barrier, not to mention the species barrier. However, it is not impossible. Animal trainers and handlers must understand body language, often their lives depend on it, as is the case with elephants, wild cats, or wolves. As far as sex goes, sex may not always be an expression of love or even affection (as is true in humans); male-male mounting behavior in many species is an expression of dominance and aggression. However, these differences do not mean that we are unable to understand non- human sex. We must simply observe and study, and as in the case with most behaviors, both human and animal, more research is needed.

    Now, my own thoughts on the issue:

    All of that said, yes I do believe animals can consent to sex with a human of its own free will, in so far as the scope of their relevant knowledge of the situation is. Animals do not attach most of the emotion that we do to sex. To them, it's just a fun act that leaves them feeling good. To say anything more would be anthropomorphizing. A dog does not care if it's "unnatural" or if some people think it's immoral. They can and do consent to sex, and they will even ask for it. Some may say that there is a line being crossed in indulging your dog's sexual appetites when he/she asks for it, but that is an entirely different argument.
    This is well and tightly reasoned but it could be disturbingly easy to bend this to being a justification for consentual sex between children and adults. The reasons we give for not having sex with children are much the same as for not having it with animals. When we say that consent is real if it is proportional to the intellect and experience of the party involved we are on a slippery slope.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4
    Look, dolphins react to human action, they can in many different ways. Some of u people.. How about we start off by just simply saying weather we agree about it or not. Just stay away from reasons, or if this and that are possible. Let's just see what everyone thinks then we could ease in to the more complex reasons! It's like u guys haven't gotten anywhere!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4
    Sry just wondering are u against this or just not have an answer......or with it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge View Post
    The problem here is that there is simply no naturally rational (or presently found rational reason) explanation for a "Zoo" other than a person with a completely dysfunctional sex life, and some very SERIOUS psychological issues, EXCEPT, for the remote possibility, that these individuals were born with the "birth control" trait. (whatever that might be if there is such a thing)
    You do realize that a pretty large fraction of American men lost their virginity to animals when we were a farming society. Done as a pranks, curiosity and or just sexual relief--non of which were strong symptoms of serious psychological issues.

    Now don't get me wrong, I think it's morally wrong because it's taking advantage of an animal, that by definition lacks human cognitive abilities to choose, but I think you've overstated it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Anders View Post
    Dolphins. dolphins can love you back
    Like in the book "wet goddess"?
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; November 23rd, 2011 at 08:19 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •