Zoosexuals

[RevolverNo9]

Obviously one cannot object to bestiality as immoral, however, (putting aside the seperate debate about whether animals should have certain guarentees) I would suggest that entering into a sexual reletionship with an animal is symptomatic of an individual's social inadequacy. Sex functions as a part of human, social relations. If someone takes part in intercourse with animals he or she is completely negating this function, suggesting, among other things, a possible inability to empathise with others or to relate successfully to others individuals in a social context.

[razboz]

Originally posted by RevolverNo9@Sep 6 2006, 03:19 PM
Obviously one cannot object to bestiality as immoral, however, (putting aside the seperate debate about whether animals should have certain guarentees) I would suggest that entering into a sexual reletionship with an animal is symptomatic of an individual's social inadequacy. Sex functions as a part of human, social relations. If someone takes part in intercourse with animals he or she is completely negating this function, suggesting, among other things, a possible inability to empathise with others or to relate successfully to others individuals in a social context.

can you prove that sex is a full part of social interaction in humans? i have plenty of freinds without having sex with them...

i think what you mean is that bestialitists prefer animals to humans as a rule. I do not know this to be eihter true or false, but i dont think assuming it is is correct.

[Luís Henrique]

Perheaps not by a rational higher entity but the biological function of sex is procreation.

But function is not equal to intention.

And I hade sex some thousands of times in my life, but I only intended to reproduce in very rare occasions.

Women can have sex after they are no longer able to reproduce; they are able to have sex while they are pregnant, or in their infertile days. Men who have aspermia can still have sex. You can't reproduce via anal sex, or oral sex.

So?

Justify this Luis. I just said that it is morally wrong to rape anything , be it man, woman or beast. Therfore the person should be reprehnded if it cannot be proved that the creature was consenting.

And if cannot be proved that the perp is insane. Which I believe is the case of most "zoosexuals".

To answer somone question about swiss apes and voting and so on, apes have the same rights, but not the same obligations as humans. They cannot vote and so on. Nor do they pay tax because they do not have income. I forgot to precise this particular peice of legislation is not yet in vigour and has to be ratified i think by the popele (but not apes).

If they don't have the right to vote, the right to buy and sell, the right to marry humans, the right to go to school... what "rights" do they have?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

But animals can give consent! If they do not want you touching them, they will react! (Ask mare if you do not believe me.)

No, they can't.

Have you ever seen a horse pulling a chart? Do you think he "consented" in doing this work?

But you have yet to show why it is a psychological disorder. Unless you think that thinking that non-human animals can think and react to pain/pleasure is a psychological disorder.

Animals can think? Perhaps they can "think" that is time that their master should be home, or that if their prey isn't in one hole, it must be on the other one. They can't understand the difference between the onthologies of Democrit and Epicurus, though.

I fail to see what pain/pleasure has to do with this. Obviously animals are able to feel pain, and perhaps they can feel pleasure. So what? What is so special about "pain" that gives it such the status of be-all end-all of sociology?

Evidently, zoophylia has nothing to do with that. Perhaps some zoophyles believe animals can think and feel pain; perhaps some don't. Perhaps some people who believe animals can think or feel pain are zoophyles. The overwhelming majority aren't.

The reason that zoophylia is a psychological disorder (or perhaps I should say "the symptom of a psychological disorder") is clear: zoophyles either misbelieve that they can be in a significant relationship with an animal (and in this case they are clearly delusional), or they don't care about whether their partner enjoys sex or not (and in this case they are pathologically egocentric).

You are right, as I said above a better example would be "interracial" sex.

This is even worse. Let me make something clear: Blacks, Jews, Basques, Chinese, Roma, are not irrational animals. The argument that if Blacks have rights, then dogs should have them too, is a racist argument.

I would say no, because there is no real evidence to suggest what he thinks is true actually has a basis in fact. The two cases are different.

They aren't, because there is no real evidence to suggest that animals can correspond to human sexual love.

Luís Henrique

[BuyOurEverything]

The reason that zoophylia is a psychological disorder (or perhaps I should say "the symptom of a psychological disorder") is clear: zoophyles either misbelieve that they can be in a significant relationship with an animal (and in this case they are clearly delusional), or they don't care about whether their partner enjoys sex or not (and in this case they are pathologically egocentric).

I don't see how your first point differs at all from people who feel that they have a meaningful relationship with their pet. People can love their pets, and enjoy playing catch with them without being 'delusional'. Obviously, anyone who thinks they have a serious relationship charactaristic of a human one with an animal is delusional, but I see no evidence that many zoophiles believe that.

As to your second point, maybe they just view the animal as an object, like a dildo. Is someone who masturbates with a sex toy "pathologically egocentric"?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

As to your second point, maybe they just view the animal as an object, like a dildo. Is someone who masturbates with a sex toy "pathologically egocentric"?

Someone who mistakes a goat for a sex toy is extremely delusional.

Beastiality is sex. An animal is a sexual partner. Not an inanimate sex toy.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Quills@Sep 4 2006, 12:18 PM
Also. Sex with animals is not rape. That's like saying killing animals is murder. Human things cannot be apllied to animals.

can animal abuse, a human concept applied to animals, be applied to animals?

well, i do think i answered my own question.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do@Sep 5 2006, 05:42 PM
I just realized something nobody seems to have mentioned so far in this thread: if non-human animals can't give consent and we should be allowed to do whatever we want with them, should we be able to do the same with humans who can't give consent?

You can't tell the difference between a human and an animal? The former is protected by human society. The latter is not.

[BuyOurEverything]

Someone who mistakes a goat for a sex toy is extremely delusional.

Beastiality is sex. An animal is a sexual partner. Not an inanimate sex toy.

I don't see why. We use animals as things all the time. We eat them and wear them. Also, we play catch and shit with dogs all the time, why is sex inherantly different?

[Mare]

How does it hurt an animal to have sex with it?

Can my 6 inch wee-wee really hurt a 1200+ pound horse?

[ahab]

Originally posted by Mare@Sep 7 2006, 12:23 AM
How does it hurt an animal to have sex with it?

Can my 6 inch wee-wee really hurt a 1200+ pound horse?

can a 2 inch needle hurt you?

[Hiero]

Human communication with animals is very limitated due to their low intelligence. There is no way you can intepret the actions of animal to conclude they want to have sex. If you think that the dog is winking at you and wants to get it on, you are crazy.

I think you have problems if you believe you can have relationship with an animal, like a human to human relationship. Maybe it is a pyschological problem that makes it hard to realise the reality of the human world. Im not sure, im not educated in that field. However an animal is an animal, they interact best with their own specieis. Humans interact best with humans and can fully define themselves and acheive their goals with humans. So I wonder if you (mare) can not fullful basic human interactions, so you have the illusion that animals can fulfill this role. Though we can never know without observations, since you could be in denial of you inability to interact with the human world.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy maybe@Sep 4 2006, 12:27 PM
Having consensual sex with other animals is in no way depraved.

How can you have consentual sex with an animal?

The dog in my household continually shoves her arse against my foot, I think I know what she wants (not that I give it to her).

Animals don't have a sex drive in the same sense as humans do. If a dog wants to have sex it does so because it want's to procreate not satisfy some sexual desire.

Sexuality is a human construct and cannot be applied to other species of animals, espcially ones who cannot comprehend that notion of sex in the first place.

Obviously sexuality is a subjective thing, but I think there are aspects to sexuality which are universal. Sexuality is a formed, intellectual and emotional feeling, which is developed over the course of your life.

Animals do not and can not have that, no matter how much someone may think they can. An animal does not "consent" in the sense that it freely commits to an act of sexuality.

The idea that your dog makes sexual advances at you implies that it has the desire to have sex with different species of animal. I think that would be a very difficult assertion to maintain.

I think it can be safely assumed that dogs don't want to have sex with humans.

[Hiero]

I think it can be safely assumed that dogs don't want to have sex with humans.

Unless the dog hasn't been raised properly. People are told how to raise dogs so they are submissive. Otherwise, since they are away from the pact they think humans are dogs. Like with little children, they may be to rough with them at play, so they are taught to be gentle and submissive to the children. Though im not sure about the possibility of a dog thinking a human is a possible mate. Im just going off what new dog owners tell me.

[The Feral Underclass]

Dogs maybe coerced into believeing that a human is a dog, but that does not mean they want to have sex with humans.

[Mare]

Originally posted by ahab+Sep 7 2006, 04:57 AM--> (ahab @ Sep 7 2006, 04:57 AM)

Mare

@Sep 7 2006, 12:23 AM
How does it hurt an animal to have sex with it?

Can my 6 inch wee-wee really hurt a 1200+ pound horse?

can a 2 inch needle hurt you? [/b]

AHAB: That has to be one of the most idiotic counters I have ever come across. It is illogical to compare a human penis to a sharp 2" needle. Also one must consider a horses cock can reach as long as 2feet. Trust me ---> the mare's vagina is more than able to take a 6 inch cock with no problem.

[TC]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension@Sep 7 2006, 09:50 AM
Animals don't have a sex drive in the same sense as humans do. If a dog wants to have sex it does so because it want's to procreate not satisfy some sexual desire.

Dogs don't have sex because they want to procreate; understanding the connection between sex and reproduction is much more abstract and less obvious than recognizing the connection between sex and pleasure. I'm sure it doesn't occur to a dog that if they have sex with another dog they'll get pregnant or get another dog pregnant, and they've worked out in their heads intellectually that this is something they want to do for some reason. Instead i'm sure they just do it because it feelings good, the reproductive aspect is basically an unintended side effect as far as they're concerned. Of course natural selection has led to behaviors that result in reproduction but that doesn't mean that the animals desire to do that for that reason.


If anything, i think humans are probably the only species that has the intellectual understanding required that they will actually have sex for the deliberate purpose of procreation (in addition to the ususal reason why people have sex).

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Zoosexual oppresion!

Sudan man forced to marry Goat.

A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his "wife", after he was caught having sex with the animal.

The goat's owner, Mr Alifi, said he surprised the man with his goat and took him to a council of elders.

They ordered the man, Mr Tombe, to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) to Mr Alifi.

"We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together," Mr Alifi said.

Mr Alifi, Hai Malakal in Upper Nile State, told the Juba Post newspaper that he heard a loud noise around midnight on 13 February and immediately rushed outside to find Mr Tombe with his goat.

"When I asked him: 'What are you doing there?', he fell off the back of the goat, so I captured and tied him up".

Mr Alifi then called elders to decide how to deal with the case.

"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife," Mr Alifi told the newspaper.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4748292.stm

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Tino Rangatiratanga@Sep 4 2006, 11:42 AM

WTF? You should be at least given a warning point for that sort of statement. Having consensual sex with other animals is in no way depraved. You are only a small step away from saying that queer sex is depraved or a mental illness

I'm not making that "small step". It's not a small step.

I think you just unconciously equated gay sex with animal sex.

I would never equate the two as you have done, as it is downright offensive to gays.

Fucking beasts is simply revolting and indicates some pretty heavy mental degeneration.

Yes. It symbolises a pretty extreme case of a human being's alienation from other human beings.

And,yes, it's an extremely serious insult to gay people to equate 'Zoosexuality' with homosexuality.

[apathy maybe]

If you had an animal that could consent (assuming that the majority cannot), would those who believed that animals cannot consent admit that it would be all right to have sex with that animal?

What about if aliens came to Earth and desired sex with humans, would that be alright?

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+--> (Luís Henrique)To clarify: I don't think anyone should be forbidden from making sex with animals. It's just a clear sign that the person in case isn't mentally healthy, but it should have no legal implications (outside from those prompted by the animal in question being a property of a third party, that is).[/b]

But you have not answered why you think that it is not mentally healthy! (Oh wait, you did, see below.) Or even why it is less healthy then masturbation.

Originally posted by RevolverNo9+--> (RevolverNo9)Sex functions as a part of human, social relations. If someone takes part in intercourse with animals he or she is completely negating this function, suggesting, among other things, a possible inability to empathise with others or to relate successfully to others individuals in a social context.[/b]

Sex functions as a part of human, social relations. If someone masturbates (with or without toys) he or she is completely negating this function, suggesting, among other things, a possible inability to empathise with others or to relate successfully to others individuals in a social context. Does that sound right? No, then your argument is invalid; yes then your argument is invalid.

Originally posted by Luís Henrique
The reason that zoophylia is a psychological disorder (or perhaps I should say "the symptom of a psychological disorder") is clear: zoophyles either misbelieve that they can be in a significant relationship with an animal (and in this case they are clearly delusional), or they don't care about whether their partner enjoys sex or not (and in this case they are pathologically egocentric).

I think BuyOurEverything adequately addressed this point.

Originally posted by Luís Henrique
This is even worse. Let me make something clear: Blacks, Jews, Basques, Chinese, Roma, are not irrational animals. The argument that if Blacks have rights, then dogs should have them too, is a racist argument.

I too agree that people are not (generally) irrational animals. I never said that "if Blacks have rights, then dogs should have them too". What I meant was that some people consider people who are not of their 'race' to be inferior. Some people consider that animals not of their species to be inferior. Some people consider people not of their 'race' to be not of their species. I am arguing for rights for animals, not because they are "no better then blacks", as you seem to imply I meant, but because non-human animals are equally deserving of respect as humans.

I am attempting to show how your attitude is similar to racists, saying that this is itself racist is amazing.

Originally posted by LH

Originally posted by apathy maybe

Originally posted by LH
My neighbour believes that he must use a tinfoil hat in order to avoid being controled by evil Martians. It doesn't affect me in the slightest, but I say that he has mental problems. Am I a reactionary?

I would say no, because there is no real evidence to suggest what he thinks is true actually has a basis in fact. The two cases are different.

They aren't, because there is no real evidence to suggest that animals can correspond to human sexual love.

Just because you do not look for the evidence does not mean that it is not there. However, having sex with non-human animals is not the same as saying that you can have a meaningful and fulfilling relationship on the same level that you can have with a human, with a non-human animal.

Originally posted by Hiero
Human communication with animals is very limitated due to their low intelligence. There is no way you can intepret the actions of animal to conclude they want to have sex. If you think that the dog is winking at you and wants to get it on, you are crazy.

Sure... What if it was a chimpanzee or a dolphin? What if it were a chimp that had been taught sign language?

Originally posted by Hiero
I think you have problems if you believe you can have relationship with an animal, like a human to human relationship. Maybe it is a pyschological problem that makes it hard to realise the reality of the human world. Im not sure, im not educated in that field. However an animal is an animal, they interact best with their own specieis. Humans interact best with humans and can fully define themselves and acheive their goals with humans. So I wonder if you (mare) can not fullful basic human interactions, so you have the illusion that animals can fulfill this role. Though we can never know without observations, since you could be in denial of you inability to interact with the human world.

I have to say that I don't recall saying anything about relationship in this thread. I always thought it was solely abut the sex. Because I also am not educated in the field, I would hesitate before saying that a relationship between a human and even an intelligent non-human animal would be like a human/human relationship. However, I believe (based partly on Mare's posts and also on my general knowledge), that it is perfectly possible for a human to have sex with an animal (consensual or not) and still live a happy and fulfilled life within human society (as much as anyone can anyway).

TAT

@
How can you have consentual sex with an animal?

You ask it ... Duh! It might be that the way you ask is not verbal, it might be physical (touching it for example). Ask Mare.

Vanguard1917

Yes. It symbolises a pretty extreme case of a human being's alienation from other human beings.

WTF? WHY! No one has yet really explained why! Is masturbation an example of a human being's alienation from other human beings? Am I alienated because I masturbate? Is Mare alienated because he has sex with his dog and his (human) girlfriend?

And,yes, it's an extremely serious insult to gay people to equate 'Zoosexuality' with homosexuality.

I apologises if I did insult anyone. But I stand by my claim that saying that having sex with animals is somehow a sign of a psychological disorder or 'yucky' is similar to saying that gay sex is a sign of a psychological disorder or 'yucky. Both are forms of sex which can be (in my opinion anyway, presumably also in the opinion of some non-human animals who have sex with humans) consensual, both do not hurt others, people who participate in either are perfectly capable of living 'normal and fulfilling' lives within human society.

As soon as you start denigrating one form of sexuality, it is only a small step before you start denigrating other forms of sexuality.