Thread: Zoophilia

Originally Posted by Daeva

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?

There is a general age range for sexual capability and it revolves around puberty. The psychological field still maintains Freuds genital stage as the onset of initial sexual development.

As for the latter, are you implying that legalities is what determines intellectual competence and sexual capability? On what justification?

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.

Just as you said, there is no specific time that a person becomes mentally competent or mature (better yet, can you even define that?). There are a plethora of humans who cannot even do addition at the age of 18, just as there are a plethora of people who cannot read. So, yet again, what is the justification for that?

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.

I see that you are implying that experience is an integral function to mental development. If this is the case, what of those people who are isolated from an external environment and cannot experience much else besides a room? Is that approach universal?

How did kids get brought up in this thread in the first place? These really aren't two topics that one would think 'mesh.'

They really do in the sense of being able to apply the same logic to animals as you would to children. Reasoning and logic ought to be universally applicable unless it is to be subject to bias and manipulation. Don't you think? Of course, this presumes that there is no difference between animals and humans, which is another debate (to some people), but I see that the debate has not needed attention.

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.

For the first part of what you said here, all I have to say is go visit Africa or read some reports on the warlords there. You might find yourself surprised at how they treat children. Furthermore, have you seen how many parents deliberately kill their children? Of course, it is not a norm, but it does happen.

The latter is simply subject to the point of language. We can talk to people, but not animals. Furthermore, if a child deliberately engaged in a sexual activity, free of abuse and manipulation, but society eventually teaches them that it is wrong - who is the manipulative one then?

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.

I think my previous response holds to this one.

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.

Right, but policies and justifications ought to be universally applicable in order to be cogent and acceptable. Don't you think...?

~