Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by Egon1982, May 18, 2017.
I have a concern.
It's not. It's hatred towards someone fucking an animal that can't actually give consent, and goes under animal abuse: The sexual exploitation department.
For there to be prejudice there have to be a lack of understanding. A lack of knowledge. In the case of zoophilia, that is not the case, as the vast majority is against it.
I could answer that one bluntly, but I'd probably get banned for it, so fuck that.
I would say the bigger issue in this thread is the use of "zoophile" to mean "person who engages in recreational sexual acts with animals" (let's not forget that there are people who sexually stimulate animals as part of their job duties - where did you think the semen used for animal insemination came from?). Without placing value judgments on it either way, all the word means is "someone who is sexually attracted to animals" - there's no prerequisite for acting on the attraction there. Can we agree that sexual attraction outside of one's species is an accident of wiring, and not itself an act of sexual violence?
Note that I am in no way against getting animals not specifically intended for breeding fixed - all my cats have been altered (save for one that died from complications associated with a condition that was discovered when she was brought in to be spayed - if she'd lived, she'd have been), and my ferret was put on a chemical castration implant (surgically castrating male ferrets in early life has been linked to later development of cancer). BUT having recently been sterilized myself, I will say that I highly doubt that spaying/neutering is painless. The pain is relatively brief, sure, and arguably the benefits outweigh that period of discomfort for the animal, but to claim there's no pain is doing your position more harm than good.
Is the ethical concern with sexual contact with animals the fact that they have four legs, then? Does this mean that sexual contact with e.g. birds, primates, and/or the whale family is fine? :V
Most people seem to agree that the ethical concern is with the inability of animals, particularly in dependency situations such as with domestic or captive animals, to give unambiguous consent. Sapient cartoon ponies capable of speaking human languages would logically speaking be just as capable of informed consent as humans of a comparable age, so the ethical concern at that point would be largely void, leaving only any "squick" factor. So while sexing up a cartoon pony might, hypothetically, scratch a zoophile's itches, condemning the fantasy because it superficially resembles sex with a non-sapient horse seems to be more moralizing for the sake of moralizing than actually problematic.
"Why do arabs sentence gays to death?"
They don't, lol. I think the correct term you are looking for is "Arabic countries". Or alternatively, "Some Muslim majority countries with Sharia law", depending on which statement you actually want to convey. Also I want to clarify that I am specifically referring to government, and not individuals. In case there is any ambiguity there.
Also if you think racism is solely about hate, then you might want to do some more studies on evolution. Granted, no amount of knowledge makes racism ethical or justified, but you might benefit from expanding your understanding on why it exists in both humans and some animals.
I may have to disagree with you to some extent. I abhor rape and consider it a grave offense which should be punishable by law if anything is. On the other hand, I think that consent can be conveyed quite well without the need for words. Two humans can consent through body language alone. If they are opposed to being involved they would fight back against an advance or express fear. A lack of interest would provoke no response or a negative one. If they are interested, they would actively signal as such. If the animal in question is capable of such communication, I don't see how it could be a matter of consent.
On the matter of prejudice I partially agree in so far as prejudice does require a lack of understanding. I disagree with the argument that a vast majority opposition to something makes it wrong. I don't think most people have put much if any thought into their opinion on zoophilia beyond "I'm not sexually attracted to animals, so there must be something wrong with people who are." Such an opinion is formed without using logic and is a textbook example of prejudice.
You don't understand animals and their sexual behavior. You're biased. You're human supremacist. You think the popular opinion is right. Trying to convince you otherwise is pointless. You will never understand zoophilia for what it is.
You might have a politically incorrect opinion, be careful. Everyone is the same and the social-economic status differences is caused solely by racism. Period
I literally cannot tell if you are trolling me right now or not.
I'm not sure I agree with you. It is my experience that while everyone has similarities, no two people are alike, and the differences in their lives are the result of valuing things differently, being at a different phase in their life, and making decisions which have consequences later in life. Racism isn't a non-factor, but it may well be overplayed nowadays. Yes, Racism may mean someone won't let you join their No Homers club, but I doubt racism is responsible for how the fishermen on one end of the boat caught more than the fishermen on the other end of the boat.
I was sarcastic, how else will you dodge censorship
With air quotes.
If the animal were to be the one to initiate (animal dick in human hole), wouldn't they be consenting? In such a circumstance, the only one I could see as being injured is the human. I suppose it's still not really an informed decision, so perhaps this is still unfair, but regardless, they would be giving their consent.
Interspecies mating/sex is extremely rare in the animal kingdom. In humans, the act and/or attraction to animals is much higher. Why do you think that is?
Any sentient being should be fully capable of communicating on a level befitting their intelligence. In our case, words, gestures and clear signs. Animals are not able to convey consent on a standard that is undeniable proof of it to us humans, which is words. This isn't a matter of whether the animal gives genuine consent or not. This is a matter of whether the animal is treated properly, whether the animal have rights and fully understand what entails to such a relationship. It's the humans who start these kind of relationships in the majority of cases.
The vast majority being against something is in most cases, justified, although there are always exceptions. Animals don't truly understand what is going on. We do. And it's our responsibility to make sure our animal companions aren't mistreated/exploited/abused. Hey, if you wanna be attracted to and/or have a "consensual" sexual relationships with an animal, go right ahead. However, if or when you do, expect the baggage that comes with it.
Once we start acknowledging and accepting behaviour that can basically be considered degeneracy by a lot of people, we're going to have to start going further down the road/rabbit hole in terms of what is acceptable behaviour of someone of our intelligence. After zoophilia, what comes next? Child porn? Rape? Where does it end? Where do you stop? At some point our species will simply be a pile of degeneracy.
I will never understand wanting to fuck an animal that can't really give consent in the first place, let alone can express themselves in words.
Actually animals with which people have sex are extremely similar to humans. You could not find a single thing humans have but animals don't. Human species just have relatively bigger brains, I don't see how that makes us so much different. We all like similar things including good sex.
Neither do you. What you see is a perspective, not the truth.
Is there an official, scientifically accurate list of "animals with which people have sex"? I would like to take a look at it, sounds like an interesting read.
..though joking aside, your arguments are becoming increasingly more bizarre with each post, to the point where you're starting to look like some kind of not very subtle troll .з.
Oh for the love of god, can people stop trying to justify that zoophilic type behaviour is a morally correct thing to do already? You people are the reason this fandom continually looks like it consists of animal abusers. We all know that blaket statements aren't true, but it doesn't help the broader community every time it is brought up in regards to the furry fandom. Will say it's entertaining though, good drama.
Nah, it's a very narrow, unscientific list. Maybe there are folks who bang snakes or platypuses, you never know!
Also, the idea of exclusively zoophilic forum amuses me quite a bit - it's exactly the kind of crap I expect to see in Deep Web, not on surface. I'm against zoophiles personally, but the fact that such forum can exist makes me happy about current "wild-westian" state of the Internet
Absolutely, and there are indeed cases of great apes and porpoises initiating sex with humans--and it makes sense, given their high intelligence.
I'm usually careful about getting into that in mixed company until it comes up, though, since I don't want to give zoophiles any extra fodder to claim, "Ooh well my dick accidentally fell into the chimpanzee and here we are."
Potentially digging myself into a deeper hole here, but I'm not actually arguing that it's a morally correct thing to do. Rather, I was just saying that it's not necessarily so evil since the animal won't always be abused in every circumstance.
Zoophiles don't even always do sex, so my initial post was mainly about saying that it's probably unfair to be so explicit with calling zoophilia rape.
I will relent my argument saying "zoophilia" is unethical, I considered attraction to animals to be just as bad as bestiality but on a sliding scale acting on an attraction to animals is not the same as doing it. I kept using that word as if it were the same as bestiality.
I still think bestiality is a very, very gray area where it would be difficult to legally help an animal suffering abuse or to cover the person having sex with an animal who did not abuse said animal. The animal in question cannot speak and say if the behavior was 100% consensual.
I read somewhere about a popufur artist that she did have to manipulate the animal and coerce it to perform that behavior, even though an animal usually humps your leg or acts sexual it's usually doing that because of feelings it has and does not understand and people are usually trying to condition that behavior into it's habit. There are repercussions and flaws when that does happen sometimes, unfortunately.
Honestly the biggest reason I disagree with zoophilia as being ethical is simple: creation and spreading of zoonotic diseases. I'm more about the "needs of the many outweigh the selfish and horny needs of the few" ethical perspective. I mean, in case anyone wanted my opinion on that. All the other stuff about rights and justice I feel is irrelevant compared to the potential of spreading new sexual diseases to the human population just because someone couldn't keep it in their pants with a chimp.
Omg i threw up in my mouth i am so disgusted. Poor animals! ;^;
And there's an argument I can can behind.
No, that is misinformation. STDs are species specif and do not cross species barrier. There a few zootonic diseases you can get when having sex with an animal, but you get same diseases by eating contaminated meat or getting bitten, so it does not count. Whereas with human, we have huge STD risks.
Separate names with a comma.