Zoophilia

[Serkat]

Hello, animals do not consent to being played with, getting slaughtered, being used to test medication, living in cages laying eggs for us or being repeatedly artificially inseminated so as to produce milk for us without ever seeing their children. Yet it seems that once the topic changes to sexual intercourse between human and animal, the animal rises to the position of a dignified, almost human-like creature which shall only be touched after having given its consent, which it obviously can't. So it is now considered animal abuse to have sex with animals. Yet we have to note that many animals, such as dogs, cats, horses, mules, donkeys and pigs are clearly able to defend themselves in the case of them feeling they are being treated in a dangerous way. It is certainly possible to combine animal abuse and animal sexuality. Yet, if we do not use weapons or physical restriction to initiate sexual contact with the animal, the element of abuse vanishes. Please explain your view on this. I would like you to not refer to your aesthetic liking of the concept of zoophilia, as clearly ones personal tastes and preferences are no valid guideline for the ethical judgment of persons who feel different than you do. I am now tending to think that bestiality should be legal and those who engage in it should be subject to psychiatric treatment. The display of fecal matter in combination with sexual activity is not appealing to most, yet this is allowed here in Germany. Why not bestiality?

[O'nus]

Unfortunately, most cases of sexual animal abuse are forced via some form of bondage. However, I think you are referring to when animals, under their own volition, fornicate with a human. Although very odd and obviously frowned upon in our society, would be the form of the animal consenting to reproduction. The human consenting would obviously also be frowned upon. I think the argument comes into the similar path with children. The days of antiquity had catamites in which young boys would offer themselves to elders for money. In modern times, this type of activity would be the catalyst to chaos. (Hell, I am afriad of even mentioning it). However, the argument is over whether or not the catamite had the ability to rationally decide that what they were doing was the best course of action for them and if they considered alternative methods. My point here is, under that same logic, what about a young child (under 10) consenting to fornicate with an adult - is that alright? This is where the problem arises because the law would have to be rather universal and would obviously apply to both humans and animal rights. Otherwise, it is subject to selectionism rather than eclecticism. What do you think...? ~

[Shark Rider]

I agree with O'nus. I've done some researches and I can also add that genarally, big animals such as: horses, bulls, (when some1 is crazy enought), pigs or even dogs are being attached with chains or stuffs like that to hold them. What i mean is that people are forcing those animals to have sex with humans. And because humans don't want to get hurt they tight them. You don't call that abuse? Or even forced sexual relations? And also ppl who decide having sex with animals, well it's their opinion. You can't kil them because of that. But most of the times animals prove signs of desagreement. Have you heard of the movie "Zoo"? I haven't seen it but it's about the death of Kenneth Pinyan. A guy who died after having a sex with a horse. There's the link to the movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_(movie). And theres a link with some more details of how he died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Pinyan. ( a perforated colon) Yeah i was shocked when i saw that. I personally think that Zoophilia should be forbidden because its dangerous not only for the animals but for humans too.

[O'nus]

I agree with O'nus. I've done some researches and I can also add that genarally, big animals such as: horses, bulls, (when some1 is crazy enought), pigs or even dogs are being attached with chains or stuffs like that to hold them. What i mean is that people are forcing those animals to have sex with humans. And because humans don't want to get hurt they tight them. You don't call that abuse? Or even forced sexual relations? I think he was referring to, most importantly, when animals are free to do as they like and deliberately fornicate with a human. For example, recall how many times you see dogs humping peoples legs? Say a human responds in the same way. I know it seems very odd, but is it wrong? And also ppl who decide having sex with animals, well it's their opinion. You can't kil them because of that. But most of the times animals prove signs of desagreement. Have you heard of the movie "Zoo"? I haven't seen it but it's about the death of Kenneth Pinyan. A guy who died after having a sex with a horse. There's the link to the movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_(movie). And theres a link with some more details of how he died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Pinyan. ( a perforated colon) Yeah i was shocked when i saw that. I personally think that Zoophilia should be forbidden because its dangerous not only for the animals but for humans too. I do not intend to be coy, but I want to show you the problems with this argument (not yours, but the whole thing) and how someone could respond to this. I would speculate that more people have died from choking on food and food poisoning than sex with animals. I am not suggesting that it is more likely (because it happens more most likely due to simple ubiquity) however, does this mean we should deter the amount of eating as well because of its danger? What do you think...? ~

[Serkat]

Unfortunately, most cases of sexual animal abuse are forced via some form of bondage. Yes. I think that this is probably the biggest problem. We would have to prove the abuse in order to prosecute it. Since we are talking about a relatively small number of cases here, it is simply much easier to simply ban all kinds of bestiality and presume that anyone who engages in it does so without regard for the animal involved. But, as with drugs, would the legalization not allow us to regulate this behavior so that all creatures involved can be happier with it? Couldn't we even train animals to be voluntarily attracted to humans on a sexual level and then let zoophiliacs have their way with them without having to hurt innocent creatures? It would be sick, but it is possible, no? If we would do this with children, we would take away their future autonomy by willfully manipulating them for our personal gain. This would be wrong. However, in animals, there is nothing to be taken away because they are animals, used for personal gain in the first place. There is no autonomy, free will or dignity to be taken. We manipulate and use them, even by training them to be good pets, do we not? I think the argument comes into the similar path with children. The days of antiquity had catamites in which young boys would offer themselves to elders for money. In modern times, this type of activity would be the catalyst to chaos. (Hell, I am afriad of even mentioning it). However, the argument is over whether or not the catamite had the ability to rationally decide that what they were doing was the best course of action for them and if they considered alternative methods. My point here is, under that same logic, what about a young child (under 10) consenting to fornicate with an adult - is that alright? This is where the problem arises because the law would have to be rather universal and would obviously apply to both humans and animal rights. Otherwise, it is subject to selectionism rather than eclecticism. I think that the analogy between animals and children is not valid. Animals can never give informed consent, they can only nonverbally communicate their readiness. This is also under the presumption that bestiality shall only occur with animals of mating age. Children cannot give informed consent only in so much as that an adult can and that the child will later on be able to do so as well. An animal well never be able to do so, though. In interaction with animals, the interaction is based on the level of primitive instincts while in humans we have the element of psychology and consciousness which plays no role at all in animals. In animals the notion of "informed consent" is only an extrapolation of their nonverbal behavior while in children the lack of informed consent is a fact, resulting from the possibility of even giving it which is purely human. I agree with O'nus. I've done some researches and I can also add that genarally, big animals such as: horses, bulls, (when some1 is crazy enought), pigs or even dogs are being attached with chains or stuffs like that to hold them. What i mean is that people are forcing those animals to have sex with humans. And because humans don't want to get hurt they tight them. You don't call that abuse? Or even forced sexual relations? Yes, this is abuse, something that should not be allowed. However, there are cases of animals clearly having an affectionate sexual relationship with a human with no physical restriction taking place. We have all seen dogs hump legs, cardboard boxes and plush animals. And also ppl who decide having sex with animals, well it's their opinion. You can't kil them because of that. But most of the times animals prove signs of desagreement. Yes. And this sign of disagreement should be respected, as with human sexuality. As noted above, some people do claim that their animals do not show such signs and engage in the sexual act on a purely voluntary basis. Have you heard of the movie "Zoo"? I haven't seen it but it's about the death of Kenneth Pinyan. A guy who died after having a sex with a horse. There's the link to the movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_(movie). And theres a link with some more details of how he died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Pinyan. ( a perforated colon) Yeah i was shocked when i saw that. I personally think that Zoophilia should be forbidden because its dangerous not only for the animals but for humans too. I have not seen this movie, however I do know the case of Kenneth Pinyan. I have seen the original footage of him taking the 20(?) inches, not a pleasant thing to look at. Case in point, this horse didn't look so much as if it was being forced or showed signs of disagreement. Clearly it would have ejected, hell, not even gotten an erection, if it would not have been comfortable with the situation. It has done this various times to various people, as has been well documented. Bestiality can be dangerous, but this is no argument for bannage, as many dangerous things are legal and people should be free to chose in what kind of danger they engage in. I think he was referring to, most importantly, when animals are free to do as they like and deliberately fornicate with a human. For example, recall how many times you see dogs humping peoples legs? Say a human responds in the same way. I know it seems very odd, but is it wrong? Yes, this is exactly my point.

[Shark Rider]

I think he was referring to, most importantly, when animals are free to do as they like and deliberately fornicate with a human. For example, recall how many times you see dogs humping peoples legs? Say a human responds in the same way. I know it seems very odd, but is it wrong? Yes i agree, but when a dog is humping your leg it's just an instinct. A simple instinct of reproduction. When a male human has an erection is the same thing. Usually when this happens the male thinks of a female of it's specie. So when the dog is doing that it's not because it wants to have relations with you. Most of the times humans use this "instinct" of the animals to have sex with them. Or they just masturbate the animal untill it gets hard on. You"ll never see a horse already with a full erection just because it saw a nacked girl. NO. ALL of the times the horses (or other animals) don't have an erection in the begining. So whether the animal is tight or not there's a reason why it's called "animal abuse". And also something else, if you think of it, the animals that humans are having sex with are always "peacefull" animals. Horses are generally peacefull when raised. Dogs...there have been reported accidents with those species (can't find the site now) but generally they wont hurt you either. Pigs, how can possibly a pig hurt you? I use to have a pig back there in my country. And trust me, there's no way it can hurt you badly. (there's still a little possiblity). Snakes, well, ALL of the times someone is holding the head of the snake and the girl is having fun with it's tail. Sooo...as you see usually they're all raised animals. Now, what happens if a human tries to have sex with a wild animal? Let's take a tiger for an exemple. I've already seen a picture of a girl having sex with tiger but it was a cub. I'm talking here about an adult individual. Not raised. The woman (or man) will end up in a hospital if he/she is still alive. Take any other specie that doesnt live with humans. That is not used to humans. The result will ALWAYS be the same. So, what i mean is that animals don't want to have any sexual relations with humans. But just because horses, dogs, pigs, or all those species are raised by humans and are used to us, they are afraid. And they won't try to hurt you even if you try to kill them. For exemple if you try to kill a sheep or a pig or whatever farm animal. They'll run away but they won't attack you or try to kill you. And then if you compare it with a lion, the lion will jump on you and if u don't have a gun it will kill you. So animals DON'T want to have sexual relations with humans. I do not intend to be coy, but I want to show you the problems with this argument (not yours, but the whole thing) and how someone could respond to this. I would speculate that more people have died from choking on food and food poisoning than sex with animals. I am not suggesting that it is more likely (because it happens more most likely due to simple ubiquity) however, does this mean we should deter the amount of eating as well because of its danger? What do you think...? I'll have to agree on this one. But let me give an other exemple. In Australia there have been reported around 60 shark attacks for the last year. ONLY 10 of them were deadly. As you say "more people die from food" , or natural desasters, cancer, or car accidents. But you know how many sharks die because we kill them? around 10 000 (in the world) every year. this is the same exemple as the one you gave me above. "So, around 10 people die every year because they have sexual relations with animals. But it doesnt matter because other ppl die everyday from something else" An then: "10 humans died last year because of a shark attack! We have to KILL the sharks because they're dangerous." you see...what i meant to say here is that people like to see the things like they want them to be. And most of the times whey prefere skipping to face the reality. EDIT: By the way, is a thread like that allowed?

[Alric]

I don't think the laws have anything at all to do with abuse. I think some people think its sick so they use abuse as a cover to force other people to stop. Its all about controling others, and forcing them to follow your moral guidelines. As for me, I don't care and I don't want to know what you do in your own home.

[O'nus]

But, as with drugs, would the legalization not allow us to regulate this behavior so that all creatures involved can be happier with it? Couldn't we even train animals to be voluntarily attracted to humans on a sexual level and then let zoophiliacs have their way with them without having to hurt innocent creatures? It would be sick, but it is possible, no? For what purpose? I do not see a reason to encourage beastiality or advocate it. If anything, I would say punish animal abuse and when a human fornicates with an animal forcefully, that would then be abuse. Otherwise, it is simply "animal erotica". I think that the analogy between animals and children is not valid. Animals can never give informed consent, they can only nonverbally communicate their readiness. This is also under the presumption that bestiality shall only occur with animals of mating age. Children cannot give informed consent only in so much as that an adult can and that the child will later on be able to do so as well. An animal well never be able to do so, though. Animals can give passive consent. Just as you have said, if they did not like doing it, they would resist. Otherwise, since we cannot truly communicate with animals, they can consent by simply being passive or participating. A child can give consent because they can say "yes" or "no". Of course, this can easily move to forceful abuse, but the point here is that I think you are trying to say that the child has yet to have found the ability, or comprehension, to say "yes" or "no". However, an animal is even less capable of this reasoning as it cannot even communicate with us. I think it is very valid because they show a problem in the subtextual double-standard of yours. By this, I mean, if you advocate that animals ought to be able to fornicate with humans, you should also advocate children being able to fornicate with elders. In interaction with animals, the interaction is based on the level of primitive instincts while in humans we have the element of psychology and consciousness which plays no role at all in animals. Does not behaviourism say that all human actions and consequences are instinctual and simply the result of our synapses? Yes i agree, but when a dog is humping your leg it's just an instinct. A simple instinct of reproduction. You mean to tell us that a dog thinks it can rear offspring by humping my leg? How about dolphins that masturbate by rubbing up against the viewing glass? Monkeys that masterbate in zoo's? They are all forms of empty hedonistic motivation. Furthermore, are you going to make the leap to say that humans do something more "special" than simple fornication? Behaviourism is easily prepared to argue that all things you do are simply the result of your physiological make-up. Any further modifications can be easily attributed to a self-indulgent and arrogant definition (ie. "humans were made by God, and only humans, are the purpose of the entire existance of everything"). When a male human has an erection is the same thing. Usually when this happens the male thinks of a female of it's specie. This is simply not true. I think you will give room for this as you said usually. However, the fact is that humans can be aroused by a plethora of things besides the opposite sex. NO. ALL of the times the horses (or other animals) don't have an erection in the begining You will pardon me if I ask you for evidence on this... (Bad joke). Animals are perfectly capable of initiating sexual acts. The simple dog humping your leg is a mundane example of this. Sooo...as you see usually they're all raised animals. Now, what happens if a human tries to have sex with a wild animal? Let's take a tiger for an exemple. I've already seen a picture of a girl having sex with tiger but it was a cub. I'm talking here about an adult individual. Not raised. The woman (or man) will end up in a hospital if he/she is still alive. Take any other specie that doesnt live with humans. That is not used to humans. The result will ALWAYS be the same. So, what i mean is that animals don't want to have any sexual relations with humans. Actually, that makes perfect evolutionary sense for animals to isolate their reproduction to there related genus and region. It is actually consistent with evolution to only reproduce with those things that you can survive with (ie. domesticated animals). Although this is very awkward and weird in our society, it is simply true. This is why you will find things like "cabbits" (the result of a cat and a rabbit having sex). Animals can resist. All animals have the capability to fight back. Humans are capable of perceiving this because, if the animal resisted, the human would then have to apply force. Hence, abuse. As I said before, the animal is capable of consenting by being passive. I'll have to agree on this one. But let me give an other exemple. In Australia there have been reported around 60 shark attacks for the last year. ONLY 10 of them were deadly. As you say "more people die from food" , or natural desasters, cancer, or car accidents. But you know how many sharks die because we kill them? around 10 000 (in the world) every year. this is the same exemple as the one you gave me above. "So, around 10 people die every year because they have sexual relations with animals. But it doesnt matter because other ppl die everyday from something else" An then: "10 humans died last year because of a shark attack! We have to KILL the sharks because they're dangerous." you see...what i meant to say here is that people like to see the things like they want them to be. And most of the times whey prefere skipping to face the reality. I never said that we should focus on other means to how people are dying. My point was that your logic ought to be unviersal and apply to all facets of life. Otherwise, you are subject to bias and selectionism and, simultaneously, an illogical conclusion. My point was that fornicating with animals is likely to be just as deadly as fornicating with humans. Did you forget about all the sexually transmitted diseases? What about AIDS? You said that having sex with animals should be banned because it is unhealthy. However, having sex with your own species (humans) is just as bad. I am not sure where you were going with the latter part. Dramatic responses to minor consequences? (Kill all sharks because they killed 10 humans?). I am not sure what you are trying to say there. What do you think...? Edit By the way, is a thread like that allowed? No kidding. I find it odd that I am arguing it. The implications are odd and I simply do not like them. Personally, I would never advocate abuse of any kind. ~

[Shark Rider]

You mean to tell us that a dog thinks it can rear offspring by humping my leg? How about dolphins that masturbate by rubbing up against the viewing glass? Monkeys that masterbate in zoo's? They are all forms of empty hedonistic motivation. Furthermore, are you going to make the leap to say that humans do something more "special" than simple fornication? Behaviourism is easily prepared to argue that all things you do are simply the result of your physiological make-up. Any further modifications can be easily attributed to a self-indulgent and arrogant definition (ie. "humans were made by God, and only humans, are the purpose of the entire existance of everything"). What i meant is that when the dog is humping you leg it doesn't think that it can reproduce. (or anything of that kind) I meant that it does it just because it's excited and just because of it's instinct. The same as you said "Dolphins that masturbate by rubbing up against the viewing glass Monkeys that masterbate in zoo's. They are all forms of empty hedonistic motivation. " That's what I meant but i guesse it wasn't clear enought. Sorry if it's the case. This is simply not true. I think you will give room for this as you said usually. However, the fact is that humans can be aroused by a plethora of things besides the opposite sex. Again i guesse my english wasn't good enought. So what i wanted to say here is that the instinct that a dog has when it humps your leg is the same instinct when for exemple: you're watching TV and suddenly you feel you penis erected. And you don't know why, but it just happened. It doesn't has to be because you saw a girl or boy or whatever it is. Just a feeling you get. You will pardon me if I ask you for evidence on this... (Bad joke). Animals are perfectly capable of initiating sexual acts. The simple dog humping your leg is a mundane example of this. lol. your joke got me stock! well anyways, I've been living in a farm long time ago and i can tell that i've never seen an aroused horse just because it saw a woman or human or whatever it is. Except if it gets that "instinct" that a dog gets when it humps your leg. And that's the time when usually humains have sex with horses. Anyways... you can't say that ppl walk around the street ans suddenly they see a horse that has already an erection and the woman/man decides to have sex with it. (or maybe that happened but it was a luck) Actually, that makes perfect evolutionary sense for animals to isolate their reproduction to there related genus and region. It is actually consistent with evolution to only reproduce with those things that you can survive with (ie. domesticated animals). Although this is very awkward and weird in our society, it is simply true. This is why you will find things like "cabbits" (the result of a cat and a rabbit having sex). Animals can resist. All animals have the capability to fight back. Humans are capable of perceiving this because, if the animal resisted, the human would then have to apply force. Hence, abuse. As I said before, the animal is capable of consenting by being passive. I dont really understand what u want to say here, but the fact is that they're always raised animals... i've never seen wild animals. And cat& rabbit having sex... damn. I saw that in google. So freaking wierd. My point was that fornicating with animals is likely to be just as deadly as fornicating with humans. Did you forget about all the sexually transmitted diseases? What about AIDS? You said that having sex with animals should be banned because it is unhealthy. However, having sex with your own species (humans) is just as bad. Yeah good point. But the risk of death is higher when having sex with animals because humans can use all kinds of protections ex: condoms (this is just my opinion) I am not sure where you were going with the latter part. Dramatic responses to minor consequences? (Kill all sharks because they killed 10 humans?). I am not sure what you are trying to say there. I was trying to say that all those movies JAWS, Shark Attack are making ppl hate sharks and that's why they kill them. And also because all of the attacks and deaths. But when it cames to zoophilia, even if ppl die because of it nobody, cares about it and nobody wants to bann it. Even if the movie "zoo" came out, nobody cares. I guesse what i meant to say is that Sharks were a major problem in countries near the oceans or seas. And thats why all our community started to hate them. However, now, in some countries they're protected from the laws. But, zoophilia, is not that major. There's even ppl that don't know it exists. And nobody cares about ppl dieing because of it. You see...in both ways humans die, but the one way is ignored by society. (zoophillia in the case) sooo...uhm excuse me if you don't understand anything. My english is not that perfect yet. PS: and i saw that video of MR. Hands. I felt bad about him. they reported that he was dead like 1h later. The pain must have been intence.

[O'nus]

What I was saying is that it actually makes evolutionary sense that humans typically fornicate with domesticated animals because they are in the same relative geological genus. Humans and domesticated animals are the same evolutionary genus, so it actually makes sense that they focus on those rather than wild animals. This is a disgusting topic, lol. ~

[Casualtie]

This is a subject I'd only be able to talk about on the internet.. From what I've heard, there are only a few animals (dolphins, monkeys, and of course, humans) that have been scientifically proven to have sex for pleasure. Now, I haven't developed a well thought out opinion on the topic of animals outside this grouping, but I do think that if the animal is enjoying it, why the hell not?

[27]

Yeah, it's tough to defend this kind of thing but, as long as no one is torturing, abusing, or forcing the animal, eh, let the sick bastards do whatever the hell they want.

[O'nus]

Yeah, it's tough to defend this kind of thing but, as long as no one is torturing, abusing, or forcing the animal, eh, let the sick bastards do whatever the hell they want. My point here is that, should you not be able to use the same reasoning for children? If no, why not? ~

[Shark Rider]

well..after all, it's their life. You can't tell them what to do. But personally i think it's just desgusting. I would even say sick (in a bad way)

[27]

My point here is that, should you not be able to use the same reasoning for children? If no, why not? ~ No, you shouldn't. Animals don't have the same rights as humans. Simple as that. Children cannot give informed consent because, well, they're not informed. They don't understand what they would be consenting to. Beyond that, (God, I hate talking about this kind of stuff) sex emotionally scars children that can't understand it. I'm not so concerned about that with animals.

[Photolysis]

I'm of the opinion that as no one (or thing) is hurt, then what people chose to do in private is their business. However, I believe it's nonsense when people say animals cannot consent, because almost everyone who makes that argument seems to expect a human-esque response. I'm making the assumption here that the animal isn't being raped, restrained, or in any way forced here - which is completely and utterly wrong - and is acting under it's own free will, but there are a lot of kinds of animal that can easily overpower a human and/or make it very clear they don't want something. As an example, a Horse is about 200 times stronger than a human and can quite easily escape or fight back if not restrained (which as I said above is completely wrong). If you have a pet, you probably know the signs it makes when you're doing something it doesn't like. If you pet your cat and it gets agitated and eventually claws at you and tries to escape, how can you claim that isn't consenting (or not) to the action? Animals can most definitely concent to an action, and this entire argument about it being wrong (other than some finding the idea disgusting, unhealthy, or whatever) seems to be that animals cannot communicate in their own way. The only reasonable counter-argument in my opinion is that it can be seen as taking advantage of something much less intelligent, and how a person is essentially trying to fool the animal via natural instincts. However this can arguably apply to those humans who are stupid as well, and whilst many would say it is unethical, there is no law against it. There are many assumptions about animal communcation, behaviour, and intelligence here though. Incidentally, with children they're not intelligent enough to give informed concent, and it would be taking advantage at best ...

[O'nus]

No, you shouldn't. Animals don't have the same rights as humans. Simple as that. Children cannot give informed consent because, well, they're not informed. They don't understand what they would be consenting to. Beyond that, (God, I hate talking about this kind of stuff) sex emotionally scars children that can't understand it. I'm not so concerned about that with animals. Why do animals not have the same rights as humans? You say that children are not informed, but then, are animals invariably more informed? Are you saying that animals do understand their actions whereas children do not? Is it not the abusive acts that emotionally scare children? Incidentally, with children they're not intelligent enough to give informed concent, and it would be taking advantage at best ... Are animals more intelligent than children then? What is the difference? I think there is a good response to what I am asking of you two, but I am curious what you two come up with. ~

[Photolysis]

Are animals more intelligent than children then? What is the difference? I'll readily admit I'm struggling to explain exactly how I feel about this in words. With animals, I'm also making the assumption they are of 'mating age', and are as 'mature' as they're going to get, intelligence-wise. The decision is being made with as much thought as they are able to put in, or close enough. They are able to make the decision to the best of their abilities. With a child, they are clearly not old enough, and no way near mature enough (out of their potential intelligence/maturity/whatever). In most places this value is somewhat arbitrary, but we'll stick with it. In most cases they will be nowhere near being best able to make the decision. With intelligence, it depends on how you define it and what criteria. But I don't think that's the problem

[27]

I'll readily admit I'm struggling to explain exactly how I feel about this in words. Me too, my brain's starting to hurt. Morally, compairing zoophilia to pedophilia can be like compairing eating meat to becoming a cannibal. Animals don't have the same rights as humans.

[O'nus]

I'll readily admit I'm struggling to explain exactly how I feel about this in words. With animals, I'm also making the assumption they are of 'mating age', and are as 'mature' as they're going to get, intelligence-wise. The decision is being made with as much thought as they are able to put in, or close enough. They are able to make the decision to the best of their abilities. With a child, they are clearly not old enough, and no way near mature enough (out of their potential intelligence/maturity/whatever). In most places this value is somewhat arbitrary, but we'll stick with it. In most cases they will be nowhere near being best able to make the decision. With intelligence, it depends on how you define it and what criteria. But I don't think that's the problem Yes, that's touching on what I would lean towards. Developmentally speaking, children are not sexually aware or necessarily capable until puberty. However, what about after puberty? Say, a 13 year old male fornicating with any other aged person? Is that wrong? I think this is where the debate centers itself with things like the young boy and his teacher (I cannot remember their names). And, as far as I know, animals do not engage in sexual activities until a similar form of sexual development. Under that notion, I would say we would have grounds to formulate a policy. That is, as long as you are willing to allow those that pass puberty to engage in their own discretion. What do you think...? ~

[Daeva]

However, what about after puberty? Say, a 13 year old male fornicating with any other aged person? Is that wrong? I think this is where the debate centers itself with things like the young boy and his teacher (I cannot remember their names). With animals, I'm also making the assumption they are of 'mating age', and are as 'mature' as they're going to get, intelligence-wise. A 13 year isn't intellectually mature, O'nus =) As several have said before, if an animal didn't want it they just wouldn't do it. If a dog likes the way something tastes, it's going to lick it. They lick humans all the time of their own free will, on the face and arms, so when a human presents something with a little more 'flavor' it's just as apt to lick that. There is no forcing the dog there, which is likely one of the most common animals when it comes to this sort of thing. There have been so many sexual acts in the history of man that have been considered perverse, immoral, etc. This is just another one of them and give it enough time and given enough time it'll slowly become more and more accepted just as every other of those sexually based acts has/is.

[Shark Rider]

Ok, in the very begining of the whole stuff... there's a question we should answer to: Who are zoophiles? I've done some resarches and i've found that zoophilies exist for VERY long time. In fact "zoophillia" is a greec word. ζωον (zôon, "animal") and φιλία (philia, "friendship" or "love"). So, the other question is: Should we encourage that? It has been proven that since Internet exists a lot of people said that they started to have a sexual feeling for animals( the same with homosexuals) 0r at least, that's what they say. Now, if you think about it ... without internet a lot of things wont exist today. I mean that if there's a zoophile, he would be scared to say it and so nobody will know that he's one. (i dont know if you still follow my point, anyways) But since Internet came and all those videos were posted a lot of people became aware of zoophilia. And a lot of them even became. I know this sounds very stupid or crazy but just think about it. If there was NO internet and videos of zoophilies couldn't be diffused, wouldn't there be less beastiality? Or even if there was the same number, wouldn't they be scared to say it? I guesse the answer is yes. So, basicly in all countries bestiality should be banned. Or if it's not, at least all videos in Internet should be stopped. And something else. Imagine you have a little sister or brother. And one day you see him/her watching bestiality movies. Or even worst, getting fuc*** by an animal. Do you think that when she/he was small he knew what bestiality was? NO! But because of all those videos and stuff he/she descovered zoophiles and then tried it? How would you feel then? Wouldn't you want Zoophilia to be banned?

[Daeva]

The Videos/DVD's would be put out in another manner if the internet didn't exist, but it does that's not really an issue. If you banned said videos, they would still be out there and if anything that would make some people even more curious about them because they are banned and actually, I think they are banned in many places so the servers that do host such things have to be carefully selected as to avoid legal problems. You can't stop the videos on the interwebz. If I walked in one day on my little brother getting laid into by a dog, I'd likely laugh, tell him I knew he was gay, and then give him crap over it every now and then but, in all honesty I wouldn't care. Why should I? It's his choice. It doesn't take the internet to be curious about an animal. All it takes is some raging hormones and a bit of open minded-curiosity. I've heard of cases were the stuff just ended up 'happening' between a particularly close pet and its owner and the owner made no effort to stop it when it started because they were either just curious or aroused.

[O'nus]

A 13 year isn't intellectually mature, O'nus =) You have said a very interesting thing. For now you imply that we must set an age or behaviour to certify being intellectually mature. What is it then? Puberty was the most logical one to follow from the previous line. With the line you imply, can we use the same logic with application to the handicapped? Be careful in your wording, for you are treading on fragile grounds. As several have said before, if an animal didn't want it they just wouldn't do it. If a dog likes the way something tastes, it's going to lick it. They lick humans all the time of their own free will, on the face and arms, so when a human presents something with a little more 'flavor' it's just as apt to lick that. There is no forcing the dog there, which is likely one of the most common animals when it comes to this sort of thing. How can you not say the samething for a young human? Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for pedophilia or anything! I just want to clarify your justification and reasoning. There have been so many sexual acts in the history of man that have been considered perverse, immoral, etc. This is just another one of them and give it enough time and given enough time it'll slowly become more and more accepted just as every other of those sexually based acts has/is. It used to be perfectly fine to be a homosexual and fornicate with younger boys. Simple do a search for "catamite" to see for yourself. Even Foucault History of the Flesh has shown that, conclusively, sexuality has never truly been repressed. I know this sounds very stupid or crazy but just think about it. If there was NO internet and videos of zoophilies couldn't be diffused, wouldn't there be less beastiality? Or even if there was the same number, wouldn't they be scared to say it? I guesse the answer is yes. So, basicly in all countries bestiality should be banned. Or if it's not, at least all videos in Internet should be stopped. And something else. Imagine you have a little sister or brother. And one day you see him/her watching bestiality movies. Or even worst, getting fuc*** by an animal. Do you think that when she/he was small he knew what bestiality was? NO! But because of all those videos and stuff he/she descovered zoophiles and then tried it? How would you feel then? Wouldn't you want Zoophilia to be banned? Are you saying that the external is what causes humans to have sexual urges? ie. we would never how or what sex was if it were not for others telling us? (I am reforming this from your zoophilia example). Unfortunately, this is simply not the case. There are many cases out there of people who find themselves having sexual urges for something they themselves may not have known existed. For example; I have dealt with people who have balloon fetishes and furniture fetish (yes, visit www.furniturporn.com to see for yourself, the sad part is; it is work safe). I myself have a fetish that I never knew of (and it is not pedophilia!) and I had to do research to figure why or what it is. These fetishes are not necessarily implanted more or less given opportunity to express. You may want to divulge into nature vs nurtue, however, with sexual urges; it is strongly inclined to nature as that is entirely what it is. ~

[Daeva]

You have said a very interesting thing. For now you imply that we must set an age or behaviour to certify being intellectually mature. What is it then? Puberty was the most logical one to follow from the previous line. With the line you imply, can we use the same logic with application to the handicapped? Be careful in your wording, for you are treading on fragile grounds. There is no specific age when someone magically matures, just like there is no specific age when someone is 'ready' for sex, but we have a set age for sex don't we? At the age of 18 a person is, generally, expected to have attended school long enough to be able to go out and be a functioning member of society and either get a job or go to college (Even though plenty don't do that, of course). At 18 a person can vote, a person can smoke, a person can buy porn, a person can have sex. Kids make very stupid decisions every day. Teenagers do too, everyone does yeah but between 13-18 they are really rampant. Therefor I'd be more apt to say an 18 year old is intellectually mature then a 13 year old. At least the 18 year old has gotten past a lot of the mistakes and learned from them, or so I'd hope. None of that came out as clear as I'd hoped to be able to put it out, though I hope you can at least get the point of what I was trying to say, if you can't I can try to clarify some. How can you not say the samething for a young human? Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for pedophilia or anything! I just want to clarify your justification and reasoning. How did kids get brought up in this thread in the first place? These really aren't two topics that one would think 'mesh.' We don't ride kids, we don't kill and eat kids, we don't keep kids as pets. Kids and pets do not get the same line of reasoning. We can't talk to pets some years after the act occurred and find evidence of emotional scars as we can with humans. We've seen the effects that a child doing something like that with an adult can have on that child's psyche, but I haven't heard of too many cases of a pet having an emotional breakdown from getting to sample it's owner taste. It used to be perfectly fine to be a homosexual and fornicate with younger boys. Simple do a search for "catamite" to see for yourself. Even Foucault History of the Flesh has shown that, conclusively, sexuality has never truly been repressed. No, it hasn't ever been repressed everywhere, but at the same time such acts were never accepted everywhere either. Of course, things don't have to be repressed by the masses to be considered immoral and perverse and thus looked down upon.