-
02/07/2012 7:18:00 PM
Who would have thought that rimmers and felchers would be getting married? Male homosexuals consume fecal material often leading to fulminant gastrointestinal upset, but hey, to them sex in filthy public restrooms is like an aphrodesiac. Sick and getting sicker.
-
02/04/2012 6:01:00 PM
You should kill your family member. This is sick shit.
-
02/04/2012 6:00:00 PM
And pedophilia is creepy to pedophobes. And incest is creepy to incestophobes. And necophilia is creepy to... everyone.
Get real. Your logic is flawed. Sex with animals is NOT okay by ANYONE'S standards. It's not a legal issue. It's a moral and ethical one. If zoophilia is okay, then why necrophilia? Answer me that. A corpse isn't even living so the matter of consent isn't even there. Why is that considered taboo?
-
02/04/2012 5:57:00 PM
Yeah, and a drugged girl at a barcan consent too, right? You sick freak. Go kill yourself.
-
02/04/2012 5:54:00 PM
That's a ridiculous comparison.
-
02/04/2012 5:48:00 PM
This is some sick shit. Are there seriously no sexual ethics anymore? If bestiality is okay, then why not incest? Why not necrophilia? If you are a zoophile, I would encourage you to kill yourself. I'm serious. Commit suicide. You are a sick person and you need to die. You will never be accepted beyond your sick community so don't bother fantasizing about starting a rights movement. No matter how you twist it there is NO way to justify this kind of behavior. Sick, sick, sick, sick people.
-
QueerChristianScholar 01/12/2012 1:22:00 AM
Perhaps it would be better not to go to either extreme...not to discriminate against two same gender humans who love each other...and not to allow or approve of perversions such as attraction to inferior animals.
-
01/08/2012 5:15:00 AM
they dont you sick fuck
-
01/08/2012 5:13:00 AM
furfag
-
01/08/2012 5:11:00 AM
goto antizoophilia channle in youtube
-
01/08/2012 5:08:00 AM
that is animal abuse you sick fuck
-
Ffff 12/20/2011 9:19:00 PM
Pedophilia is the next sexual rights movement. People's ideas begin with the belief that sex with children equals child abuse— a premise no pedophile would accept. They describe sex that does not resemble descriptions of how serial killers raped and tortured children. Their assertion makes it not an issue of cruelty but of morality.
Pedophiles I spoke with say they are as opposed to forcing sex upon children as the rest of society is opposed to the rape of humans.
As this group gains confidence, pedophiles figure to be more open and then more outspoken in their demands for personal liberty and against discrimination. Improbable as it may seem, pedophiles might yet prove the new frontier in the battle for sexual civil rights.
1.A true pedophile dos not force sex on to the child or rape them or hurt them.The child like a lover to them just like 2 human lovers.Its a shame people in the united states are so closed minded about it.
-
Gestur 10/12/2011 4:18:00 PM
Well I would argue as former pet owner of 2 birds that not in the best interest of the birds to be locked up in cage. When I allowed the one of the bird to fly (other had broken wing and couldn't fly), it seemed to be more happier during those moment rather time it was locked up in the cage. So keeping an animal locked up in cage, as a pet, is cruelty against nature. When I think back to that time I feel that I committed a crime against nature. Thus keeping animal as pet you are already braking down animals natural survival instinct or on fram for that matter. So when you think about it zoos seems to be only with love with animals that are already pets, frams (and circus?) but never animals that are truthly wild, so zoo that tries to have sex wild animal will most likley end up seriously injured or dead in less than five minutes. Never owned an dog as pet so I cannot relate how dog owners feels about the stuff I have been saying. But no animal is supposed to be locked up in cage or kept as pet for a human.
-
10/09/2011 5:05:00 PM
reported
-
10/09/2011 5:02:00 PM
Jacob Kissinger just ignore that 1 i posted it the first time with hes account wondered why it did not show up at frist.
-
10/09/2011 4:59:00 PM
zoophile is nothing to be ashamed of wish more people would see that.I
myself im 1.I see all this crap like o that's gross o that's cruel to
animals.a true zoophile dos not force sex on to the animal or rape them or hurt them.The animals like a lover to them just like 2 human lovers.Its a shame people in the united states are so closed minded about it.
-
10/09/2011 4:57:00 PM
zoophile is nothing to be ashamed of wish more people would see that.I myself im 1.I see all this crap like o that's gross o that's cruel to animals.a true zoophile dos not force sex on to the animal or rape them or hurt them.The animals like a lover to them just like 2 human lovers.Its a shame people in the united states are so closed minded about it.
-
Blue62 10/06/2011 9:42:00 PM
She just said she wasn't sexually attracted to animals. Just because someone supports something, doesn't mean they participate in it. What you said, is like saying "You're a straight man and you supports gay rights? Well why don't you just go fuck a man, then!"
That being said, I don't support zoophiles, as I don't believe animals understand well enough as to what is going on. In the animal kingdom, most animals just have sex to reproduce, and are either indifferent, or appear to be raped, as they thrash around and struggle. It's not really an act of 'love' to most species.
-
Disgusted 10/04/2011 1:51:00 AM
You are one sick twisted fuck. Go fuck a goat then.
-
10/03/2011 6:54:00 PM
You're a fucking idiot and you are no better than these sick fucking weirdos.
-
Dsth5y 10/02/2011 7:41:00 PM
bigot!
-
Xxsophiexsmithxx 08/22/2011 12:17:00 AM
I am a 16 year old girl from the uk and I am not a zoopile myself but I do love animals with a passion and I plan to train into a career that would benefit them when I am older and I just want to express my view on this subject. I believe that People who accuse 'zoos' as rapists or sick are prejudice. All this bullcrap about them 'raping' animals is absurd! Animals can give consent when they wish to mate. If you try and force an animal to mount you they will just walk away and if you attempt to penetrate an animal that does not what to be penetratedten they will attack you, simple as. And the notion that 'zoos' are like child rapistists is absolutely appalling. 'zoos' have sex with adult animals that are sexually developed not puppies and foals. People who belive this to be true are no better than the scum that enforce their pig ignorant views upon Society. Because they are far too narrow-minded or are in fact sick themselves to bring impure reasons behind this kind of love, they create a stigma around good people. And the the reason why they link gays to 'zoos' is because being gay seemed sick and wrong even though two people love each other with all their hearts. Things that we should realise are the facts that HUMANS ARE ANIMALS! WE ARE NOT SUPERIOR TO THEM, WE ARE EQUAL LOVE IS A BEAUTIFUL THING, WHETHER IT IS BETWEEN A HUMAN (MALE/FEMALE) AND ANOTHER HUMAN (MALE/FEMALE) OR BETWEEN AN ANIMAL (MALE/FEMALE) AND ANOTHER ANIMAL (MALE/FEMALE) OR EVEN AN ANIMAL (MALE/FEMALE) AND A HUMAN (MALE/FEMALE)Love is wonderful in any form, shape or size and it should not be tainted with the thoughts of idotic people xxxxx
-
Bcdolphinlady 07/21/2011 9:39:00 PM
a good case of rabies will cure anyone of this .
-
uglyD_p 06/16/2011 7:17:00 PM
I love animals dogs horses cats cows raccoons rats fish birds goats pigs sheep deer lamma amoing `god' and/or nature zoophilia pride zoo exclusive pride. I love animals so much I have become vegetarian vegan because I just can not see my self eating the flesh of those animals I love so much. Fight agents those that advocate un-regulated meat of any kind. How ever you slice it flesh is not cute when gaz'd upon. When has eating the flesh of any liveing thing not been life threatening?
-
Cash5150 05/02/2011 7:16:00 AM
WoW this is gross. If gay wasnt enough now dogs and cats are at risk. Wow. an eventhough wikipedia is providng this as "proof" that zoo-animal rapers are ok doesnt mean it is.
-
concernedgirl 08/29/2010 1:16:00 PM
Its good to finally hear from someone who identifies as zoosexual and has from a young age. All to many times we never hear story of zoophiles growing up and their struggle. I really don't think it should be likened to the gay rights movement, seeing as they have nothing to do with each other at all, but its good to see we are finally facing the facts about it and that its not going to go away.
"A bazillion cultures worldwide have prohibited this behavior" lol, and I like how the one person against it in the article uses a statistic he pulled out of his ass. Fear mongering tactics always end up sounding retarded.
-
CarlMinez 08/10/2010 2:15:00 AM
A man who finds pleasure in abusing or hurting animals is an evil man. But he is not a zoophile.
- How wonderful to read an article that tries to understand the very people our society is so impulsively condemning. Hopefully, in a not to distant future, zoophiles will fight to be recognized in the same way society has recognized and tolerated homosexuals.
-
arlenice 06/17/2010 8:05:00 PM
As in the days of Sodom and Gomorha,and the days of the flood; so shall the end days be. This is a sign of the end of this world as we know it. People would be lovers of themselves, more than their love for God. .. children would turn against their parents and parents against their children; there will be floods and wars and rumors of wars (Mathew 24: and Revelation 21, 22...etc. May all repent and ask for forgiveness. God wants us to have a change of heart and to do that which is good.
-
Dr James D Smith 09/23/2009 9:15:00 PM
Did you know?
Our DNA varies so much, we could easily be classed as our own species, individually.
This enables forensics to tell whom you are.
Humans like to classify whom they are as a single species.
That's a delusion.
It would discriminative and sexualist to say that those whom like different species 'under the global classification'.
Evolution - it's actually still labelled a 'theory' by 'Charles Darwin'.
Biology - we don't know enough about, though one can tell by mutual representation whether another entity is enjoying sexual activity or not.
All animals are living organisms characterized by voluntary movement.
Force only exists when that animal cannot move or is brutally harmed into doing so. - Zoophiles love their animals, they'd never dream of doing this.
Are 'humans' the only species we can copulate with?
No! Unlike a lot of people think, on the biological scale, all that needs to match up is the Chromosomes.
Though there's no Animals on Earth that we know are compatible, but there's nothing stopping a different species from being compatible with our DNA.
Hybrids can exist over large distances, though, it's more common to be 'closely related'.
All Animals have 'Chromosomes', it's a double stranded piece of DNA. The female has one more half a strand of DNA.
Actually, you can see how Chromosomes piece together like in a metaphase, by throwing a load of similar shaped, magnet-ended into a bowl, you can see how they connect together.
However, (loosely speaking of the example) genetic determination depends on the chemicals the Chromosome is made of. If the two chemicals don't fise, they fall apart. Only chemicals that are fusable, fuse. Hence, they become unpredictable due to their complexity, though every connection is entirely dependent on the genetic make-up.
The definition of complexity, is just as much as how the cosmos is built, seen as they all use the same forces. With the many forces of determination, the universe gives the impression everything occurs quadratic, when truly it is linear. Without going into great detail. It's only supreme to us, because it's too complex for our mind to enquire every last bit.
Complexity occurs over time, though 'natural selection' is a bad term to use. Whatever's not successful enough, will die out before it gets a chance to get big, usually.
We're no more supreme to any Animal, because all species have survived over many years of successful reproduction, and such 'genes' are less 'developed', but more 'successful'. Though, whatever environment your genes get used to over time, the more those genes become compatible (acclimatization). The genes improve, and all those genes in the parent's body become altered, hence when producing young, they are much more suited to the environment, under the bounds that change is not too extreme.
So, just enjoy what you've got; you've got it!
Thus, that being a very bad excuse, the right answer would be to 'live and let live'.
If you've got no reason for it, keep your opinion to yourself, or stop suppressing others. That's easy!
It's called 'civilisation'.
Regards,
James
-
anonymous 09/23/2009 7:29:00 PM
I am as liberal as they come. Heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, asexual. Transgendered, transsexual, transvestite, hermaphrodite. Masturbation. Mutual masturbation. Orgy. Oral sex. Anal sex. 69. Real dolls. Missionary position under the covers with the lights off only. WHATEVER floats your boat. Straight marriage. Gay marriage. Hell, polygamy - why not? Couples, thruples, quadruples. My one and only stipulation is that everyone involved be an adult homo sapien. (Unless it's masturbation, in which case, go to town.)
-
Dr James D Smith 09/12/2009 12:25:00 AM
Melissa,
May I add from your example of having sex with a wild animal, is the same with wild human beings.
I dare you, to go up to the next murderous person, and start molesting them.
You wouldn't need to worry about anything, anymore.
A dog most certainly won't reject attacking you for attacking it.
Or don't you know/own an animal?
Why do you think 'zoosadists' duct-tape or sedate animals whom don't show their consent?
They do it to stop them from getting away, or ripping them apart.
If you don't believe me, just try it on any stranger - dog, cat, or human.
They won't let you!
But if that dog, cat, horse, mongoose, or human knows you... They'd understand that you coming towards them for a passionate cuddle or sexual intercourse wouldn't mean you're about to come on top to fight or to smoother them.
Besides, what makes any of you think that we'd attempt to force, anyway?
When a male wants to have intercourse with a zoophile, they sniff around you, and start becoming intimate.
Orally at first, then, when you can tell from his body language (any genuine dog whisperer can tell you this), you can turn around and let 'him' do it 'to you'. It's nothing to do with coercion, especially on bottom.
Can you force a dog to mount you? No!
It's natural! Any non-zoosexual 'pet' owner or 'zoologist' can tell you, when horny, in their conscious discretion, they masturbate with anything (sofa included).
Regards,
James
-
Dr James D Smith 09/11/2009 11:29:00 PM
I'm guessing you believe 'gay zoophiles', are straight, then?
We never mentioned the 'straight zoophiles' joining the gay advocacy.
You can't call a non-zoosexual a zoosexual, by species-orientation, yes.
But some zoophiles are 'gay', and others are 'straight'.
Hence, those whom are 'gay', are 'gay'.
I believe it's rather delusional to not see that.
'Gay' means (in-particular for a male) to be attracted to the same sex.
If 'gay' doesn't apply to other species.
Then tell me why that recent 'penguin couple', were called 'gay'.
Regards,
James
-
Melissa 09/10/2009 5:30:00 AM
This is really disgusting, freaks. There's a huge difference between being gay and wanting to screw animals, freaking sick stuff. People shouldn't be allowed to rape animals, and that's exactly what it is. Here's an idea, go find a Cougar or Tiger and try to mount that, you won't have to worry about anything anymore.
-
Dr James D Smith 09/07/2009 1:03:00 AM
Interspecies Matings are clearly available on Google!
http://www.google.us/search?q=interspecies+mating
Here's what Wikipedia says...
Looking back in history, current research into human evolution tends to confirm that in some cases, interspecies sexual activity may have been responsible for the evolution of entire new species. Analysis of human and animal genes in 2006 provides strong evidence that after humans had diverged from other apes, interspecies mating nonetheless occurred regularly enough to change certain genes in the new gene pool.
In the wild, where observation is harder, genetic studies have shown a "large number" of inter-species hybrids, and other investigations describe productive and non-productive inter-species mating as a "natural occurrence".
This is more visible in domesticated species and animals in captivity, as domestication commonly selects for increased breeding rate (and so an accelerated breeding cycle has commonly arisen in domesticated species over the centuries), and also because these species are more easily observed by humans. Nevertheless, animals have been observed in the wild to attempt sexual activity with other species or indeed inanimate objects. Attempts by wild moose to obtain sex from domestic horses are apparently well known by wildlife specialists.
But last but not least, love over rules all that, anyway!
Beat you all!
Equality For All!
-
Dr James D Smith 09/07/2009 12:50:00 AM
Haha, 'mother' nature says no to interspecies?
I guess Santa Claus exists, too.
Please, valid arguments only.
Those 'gay' penguins broke up, and never had a successful intercourse.
Believe it or not...
All Mammals share the same hormones used in love and sex.
Making them 100% compatible psychologically, if mature.
... Providing one's not scared of the other (prey and hunter).
The unsuccessful animals died out way before now, and we're looking at one of many systems. Where it doesn't matter either way. So live and let live.
Both humans and non-humans are under the influence of hormones. Or do you believe that a eunuch without memories of sex would want to 'do it'?
Well, believe it or not, being driven by hormones, water and elementary atomic clockwork (hence fatalism), it's kind of obvious what happens is dependent on multiple predominant forces.
So we all don't really 'consent', we're forced by other forces whom are also forced. I believe the answer lies in chemical science. But I guess you're all biased enough to ignore simple universal dynamics?
It doesn't matter.
What is, is what is.
If it was any different, I'm sure you'd find something else to moan about.
If you want to see wild animals commiting interspecific sexual activity, many encounters can be found on the internet under the phrase of keywords 'interspecies mating'.
But I can't say many like to film wild animals mating, anyhow, do they?
Believe you me, only yesterday I saw a man being chased by a bull who then got raped by it. Nonetheless, it's as common as the male horniness comes.
It just makes me laugh how some people ignore the truth.
If we fall in love, it's only 'natural' to have passions with intimacy. Or do you think we should skip the love and rape like every other bestialist and deviant that decides to take on our sexuality?
Why do people condemn zoophiles more than bestialists?
And further to 'Sharon', the double-poster, may I say.
It's spelt 'consensual', not 'consentual'.
And you can't stop 'gay' zoos from being 'gay'. There are straight zoos and gay zoos, whatever you say.
Thank you Michael.
Why does 'consent' not matter if 'harm', but if 'pleasurable', it's bad?
Besides, it's 'natural' for all animals to intend.
'ssss' there are plenty of Swedish drawings of bestiality.
In fact, the Cro Magnon had a large interest in sheep and women (and I see the connection, sorry to the sheep).
Remember, we were all 'wild' back then.
We don't all have sex lambs. I set my heart on a dog.
'Brian', I have to say, 'you can talk', yes it's Brian from Family Guy!
May be you should commit suicide for homicidal thinking, society would be a lot safer without you.
If you class zoosexuality as having sex with the dead, and immature beings. You're severely confused.
No animal can consent until mature.
My dog's mature.
Having sex with dead animals is just sick to me, and many others.
My dog's alive.
CommonSense02 is one the slippery slope, not us.
Ditto, Michael. Link to related items of the article. Not like the spammers above.
Kind Regards,
Jim
-
Michael 08/31/2009 2:23:00 PM
For those of you who may want to see 'COMING SOON' - The film that sparked a Bestiality-Rights revolution (mentioned in Thomas' original article) you can now download it through Amazon.com's Video On Demand.
To rent it go here: http://www.amazon.com/COMING-SOON-Sir-Tijn-NTSC/dp/B002LPFV1K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=digital-video&qid=1251661309&sr=1-1
To purchase it go here: http://www.amazon.com/COMING-SOON-Sir-Tijn-NTSC/dp/B002LPMXRU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=digital-video&qid=1251661309&sr=1-2
To get the DVD go here: http://www.amazon.com/COMING-SOON-Sir-Tijn-Po/dp/B001CB154G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1215720554&sr=8-1
-
Qwerty 08/31/2009 10:20:00 AM
CommonSense02, doesn't sound like you've accepted anything.
Let's be less of a hypocrite since you're basically just trying to force people to accept your beliefs as well.
So lets cry less, go pray to your fake god and maybe you'll be saved since the world is obviously ending.
-
Brian 08/30/2009 12:42:00 AM
This is despicably sick and twisted. If those afflicted with such mental illness can't get help, they should commit suicide. This ranks with pedophilia and necrophilia for depravity.
-
CommonSense02 08/29/2009 9:17:00 PM
We warned America that gay marriage was a slippery slope, and next would be polygamy and bestiality. We were told that was nonsense.
Well, look what's happened. Right as predicted, the gays forced homosexual marriage to be accepted, and next is bestiality, the next deviancy. Slippery slope.
ENOUGH. We need to start the backlash RIGHT NOW, not only against the bestiophiles, but against gay marriage to force this sort of depravity even further down and out of sight, where it belongs. We never should have accepted it. LOOK WHAT HAPPENED! WE WARNED YOU!
-
ssss 08/29/2009 7:33:00 PM
Just wondering where you people got your "facts". Being that I study cave paintings and that I've never seen any "cave drawings" attesting for humanity's "carnal desire to lie with animals", I'd like to know where you made this up.
But of course! The arrows being shot as bison are actually phallic symbols right? That we sexual repressors can only see on the surface.
Get a life and stop having sex with lambs or at the very least get your damn facts straight!
-
Michael 08/26/2009 9:52:00 PM
To all the people screaming about "informed consent", would you consider all pet owners kidnappers since they keep their animals locked on their homes, on leashes without "informed consent"?
And forget about the whole meat issue...
-
Cassandra Morrison 08/26/2009 5:13:00 PM
Only if the animals give informed consent will I listen to these people. Otherwise I will continue to consider them mentally ill.
-
SHARON 08/26/2009 12:23:00 AM
Okay Folks, I found that, by the time I finished this article, my thoughts and feelings truly solidified. Here is the fundamental difference between gay sex and bestiality. It's pretty simple: Consentual and Non-consentual. Boom. There is not a chance in hell or high-water that I would want my sexuality associated organizationally with a group of people that think it's okay to have sex with anyone, or any living creature, in a non-consentual manner. Puh-leez!
-
SHARON 08/26/2009 12:22:00 AM
Okay Folks, I found that, by the time I finished this article, my thoughts and feelings truly solidified. Here is the fundamental difference between gay sex and bestiality. It's pretty simple: Consentual and Non-consentual. Boom. There is not a chance in hell or high-water that I would want my sexuality associated organizationally with a group of people that think it's okay to have sex with anyone, or any living creature, in a non-consentual manner. Puh-leez!
-
phoebehoo 08/25/2009 6:17:00 AM
sorry,I can't accept that love.
http://www.oahk.com/content/ri-chang-ru-he-guan-li-xiang-gang-li-an-gong-si.shtm
-
anonymous 08/24/2009 7:10:00 PM
Of course animals can consent to intercourse with each other! They "speak the same language." Animals have an instinct to reproduce just like we do - which is the primary reason for intercourse. Not the ONLY reason by any means! But mother nature made sure we'd all perpetuate our respective species by making sex pleasurable. Is it also a form of emotional bonding and just plain fun? Damn straight. Humans are the only species that gets involved with other species to such an extent. (Yes, I've seen the video of the lioness that adopts the baby gazelle, but that's an astronomically rare example.) I'm not trying to pull a "nature never intended" card because that argument is lame and excludes homosexuality which I think is perfectly natural and normal. (Just look at the bonobos and the gay penguin couple at the SF zoo - who also happen to be wonderful adoptive parents.) But you have to admit, when you domesticate an animal you screw with and stifle his natural, wild instincts. Pets in our homes, especially, consider themselves one of us, and us one of them. So, are those misdirected instincts going to encourage your golden retriever to try to hump your leg? Yeah. But I still contend if given a choice - and not already conditioned and accustomed to intercourse with a human - a dog is going to opt for another dog over a human if given a choice. And until someone can show me an example of two completely wild animals of completely different species voluntarily copulating with each other(i.e. sloth and deer, chimp and tiger or zebra and hyena - and don't point out lygers - those are usually domesticated and part of the same sub-species, like wolves and dogs) then I say the human imagination is a vast and wonderful thing but some things are still better left to fantasy and roll play. (And for the sake of open-mindedness, if someone could show me such a thing, I would definitely reconsider my position.)
-
ConcretelyAmbiguous 08/24/2009 5:04:00 PM
Let them do whatever they want!
Other than these things that NOBODY CAN DO
http://concretelyambiguous.com/i-told-you-so/bet-you-cant-do-this-too/
-
Renee 08/24/2009 1:35:00 AM
Wow. I have some many questions about this but have no idea where to start. How can one be attracted to an animal? I mean I have seen some pretty animals in my lifetime but never thought of having sex with it. To each its own I guess but I dont think that animals can consent to having sex with a human. A dog that pursues another dog is doing what it was born to do. I dont think that I could ever understand how a person wants to have sex with an animal.
I do think that they need to stop trying to associate themselves with the gay rights. I have family members that are gay and I am appauled that someone that wants to have sex with animals would bring the gay rights into this.
Sexual relations should be human and human, and animal to animal.
-
Phoebe 08/23/2009 8:58:00 PM
Tom:
Good, well-thought out story. Thank you. Now, as a non-zoophile myself (my primary attraction is to amputees), I'd nevertheless like to raise a few points defending the zoos, just for the sake of argument.
1) In this country, most non-human animals are considered property. The above posters don't seem to have a problem with this. It would appear that it's okay to turn Bessy into a Big Mac, but it's not okay to put your cock inside of her as you lead her to the abattoir. Reasonable?
2) In the animal kingdom, most sex is rape-ish. Watch two dogs of any gender: the Top Doggy will sniff around, try to mount the Bottom Doggy, and the Bottom Doggy will keep wandering away. Sometimes, s/he'll growl. Eventually, if Top Doggy is persistent, Bottom Doggy will relent. This isn't the most gruesome form of rape imaginable, sure -- but similar human behavior has caused a fair number of scandals on college campuses. It's "date rape"! And humans who date-rape their dogs are probably nicer about it than dogs who go after their own kind. At least humans will buy the bitch dinner after. (Alpo!)
3) The good Senator should be glad there are men out there who enjoy sex with dumb, furry mammals. Oughtta give her hope.
- Phoebe
-
Dr James D Smith 08/22/2009 11:50:00 PM
On a more lighter note...
Homosexuality and Zoosexuality do have something in common...
They aren't by statistics, the overall current 'norm'.
Whatever you want to say, there are nearly as many homosexual zoosexual males, as there is heterosexual zoosexual females.
That says a lot about the animal consent issue, too.
If male animal are preferred sexually, then there is no chance, to say that all 'zoosexuals' are coercive, desperate people whom force animals. Because they are rarely, by figures, on top.
However, beyond those whom use the internet, especially those in rural areas, where animal relationships are more likely, because there's plenty of room and time to fall in love with an animal and/or have sex with them.
If the figures are unto a million IPs yearly, then may be, that's a hint that people are into Googling the keyword 'bestiality', 'zoophilia', and 'zoosexuality'.
In fact, some zoosexuals think 'bestiality' means 'sex with animals', in a way, the dictionary says this.
We do, though, hope that zoosexual will be the meaning of purely 'sex with animals', bestiality 'rape', and zoosadism 'cruelty, zoosexual or not'.
That way, the only discrimination that exists, are on those who actually harm animals. And it's natural to reflect harm as something you wouldn't like, hence nobody would. That's why we object to harm. Whereas zoosexuality isn't harm/rape, rather a sense of two-way pleasure over an/a intimate interspecific relationship.
Not all zoophiles are zoosexual.
And only a few zoosexuals are bestialists, as will other sexualities have rape kinds and deviants.
Understand me?
Homosexuality and Zoosexuality are different dimensions.
Despite recent theories and claims that the binary genders are different species, anyway.
One relationship (if a single/array) has the following properties...
Gender-Orientation: - Male, Female, or Other.
Species-Orientation: - A Species (There Are Many).
Age-Orientation: - An Age (Usually Put Into Human Years).
A sexual orientation can contain many different things, polysexualities, fetishes, -philias, orientations, etc.
Regards,
James
-
Michael Miller 08/22/2009 10:02:00 AM
The film, COMING SOON, mentioned towards the end of the article is still streming for free here: http://www.comingsoon.cz
Watch it while you can!!!
-
dont worrybout it 08/22/2009 3:03:00 AM
this surely is a sigh that the world is about to end. I know that heterosexuals have done more to damage the institution of marriage than any "minority group" but come on, seriously? I'm sure right now somewhere in seattle a gay male has just finished reading this and is now scared straight. this is some truly scary shit
-
Dr James D Smith 08/22/2009 1:00:00 AM
Interesting article.
I have to say hurrah to EFA's step.
Though, I do have my doubts and concerns.
I'm developing ways to keep the right term.
The most successful terms model, to me, thanks to the zoophile community, is...
Zoosexuality - Having Sex With Animals.
Zoophilia - Loving Animals.
Bestiality - Inappropriate Sex With Animals (Rape, Fence-Hopping, Bribery, etc).
Zoosadism - Non-Zoosexual Or Zoosexual Physical/Psychological Cruelty To Non-Human Animals.
I believe the zoophile community twisted 'bestiality' (originally meaning 'sex with animals') to make this word, that sounds like 'bestial' and 'brutal', mean zoosexual 'rape'.
Zoophiles adopted 'zoophilia' as the love for the animal, only.
Zoosexuality is used to refer 'just' sex with non-human animals, with no modifiers like 'rape', 'love' or 'sadism' included.
Accordingly, if you love the animal you have sex with, you're called a 'zoophilic zoosexual'.
Basically, an animal lover who has sex.
This article displays a modern concept of the pro-zoo arguments becoming ever much stronger.
For as long as the anti-zoo keep comparing adult animals to premature animals, they'll never set the boundaries of any truth. It's all moot on the anti-zoo side.
I do have my concerns, though.
While true zoophiles do become potentially 'protected' and 'accepted', more openly.
I fear bestialists and zoosadists will be also accepted.
And that's the problem.
This is where the anti-zoo argument strains.
It's hard for zoophiles, because if we did get more accepted, that'd happen.
And if we don't get more accepted, we'd still be under threat from vigilantes, social isolation, and the law.
We definitely need protection laws, if we can't be accepted more widely.
I've always agreed on equality.
But I feel bad, having to apply anyone, even us, with favour. After all, I don't believe we should have any extra protection or acceptance than any other sexuality.
However, that threat to us, is at large.
And I hope, that if this move ever does become successful, bestialists and zoosadists don't abuse it.
If the move works, let's hope the move is for zoophilic zoosexuals only, and not the whole of zoosexuality.
But most countries already have anti-cruelty and animal liberation laws, so why ban zoosexuality, knowing it will affect us, and that zoosexuality isn't bad. And that sadism, trespassing, and bribery is already illegal. Why so many laws. Why not protection? Why are we so classed as bad? Why are we made to equal rapists and sadists, whom share out sexuality? We aren't them. It's comparing different types of a criterion, and classing the whole as the same thing, despite the appliant differences. You get zoosadism, etc, in non-zoosexual cases.
To many 'whys' and 'buts'. May be they should say, 'why not'? For a change.
Sorry for my English.
http://www.zoounity.co.cc/
-
Britt 08/21/2009 6:10:00 PM
Here's what I think:
What ever dunks your cookie.
I don't agree, but I'm not going to slander those who do.
I just ask one favor.
Do NOT compare your values with those of homosexuals. We don't deserve this kind of backlash, we have enough already.
This is YOUR ballpark, don't drag us into it as an argument for your beliefs.
And I don't care what anyone says..I do believe it is possible for one animal to have consent with another animal, no doubt. But as far as humans go..we are a selfish breed and believe we own the rights to anything we touch. I don't believe "God" talks to people and I don't believe that animals can communicate consent to a human..it is just assumed. We like to hear and see what we want.
When a dog is beaten it will still come back to it's owner in what can be assumed as giving consent to beat it again.
I've owned MANY pets...and still have no clue what they are thinking. I just hope that feeding and loving it platonically is enough to not destroy the short life they live.
-
maxfeld 08/21/2009 6:33:00 AM
I'm truly annoyed with style of this NewTimes article. It isn't a story about undestanding ans including zoophiles in the gay rights movement (which we in our entirety don't want), but an article about the fervor of to pass corrosive restrictive laws.
NewTimes has chosen to inflame (heteroes) and insult gays with misleading and obnoxious headlines
-
Malcolm Brenner 08/21/2009 12:11:00 AM
Anyone who says "animals can't consent" has never lived on a farm, spent much time in the woods or watched Discovery Channel or the Animal Planet for very long. If female animals could not consent, then every sex act in the animal kingdom would be rape, and clearly this is not the case.
Female animals show consent by allowing males to smell or lick their hindquarters and by "flagging," i.e. exposing their hindquarters to a male with the tale cocked to one side so their vulva are showing. Mares, as any horse owner knows, can "wink" their clitoris at a stallion. Finally, females give consent by allowing the male to mount them!
But more than that, female animals in heat can be the sexual aggressors, mounting the male and performing other actions to make him take notice of them. These are readily observed behaviors, not subject to interpretation. I have witnessed (and in some cases photographed) them in mammals, birds and even insects.
This notion that "animals can't consent" reflects more on our paternalistic and patronizing attitude toward animals than it does on their actual behavior. If you want to do something positive for animals quit picking on us zoos and switch to soy milk, free-range meat and eggs.
-
anonymous 08/20/2009 8:45:00 PM
There are people who genuinely think it's OK to have sex with children, i.e. NAMBLA. They don't see anything wrong with it, have formed an association to protect/promote/legitimize it. They can speak calmly and intelligently about it and present well thought out arguments defending it. It's still sexual/child abuse no matter how you slice it. I'm super liberal, but some things really are just wrong. Maybe if someone invents a machine that translates animal sounds into human language, then the animals can consent. Until then, keep your hands to yourself.
-
wizzle wuzzle 08/20/2009 4:56:00 AM
6 pages dedicated to zoophiles? I'll be keeping my eye out for you freaks cruising the dog parks.
-
anonymous 08/19/2009 9:37:00 PM
being gay is pretty creepy to homophobes. that's part of why they're homophobes... the very idea of laying with the same sex both repulses and scares them. i could comment on the similarity between conservatives explaining how they feel gay marriage is strange, immoral and offensive (and amongst the more traditional hard-liners, any gay activity at all) and those who have the same opinion of zoophiles.
i could say "they're not harming the animals" and be technically right for the people in the actual zoophile community, but even that's somewhat subjective. who's to say that raising a pet in an inter-species sexual or emotional environment isn't harming it? it could be very damaging to the animal, we have no idea really.
i think the legality of the issue should come down to a couple factors. one, what is a pet considered (property? not property?) and what are you allowed to do with/to that pet, and why? obviously they don't have rights, but we acknowledge they feel pain and probably emotions (you ever seen a dog that's been kicked around its whole life by shitty owners?) and we protect their treatment as such under the law. should there be an age of consent as with human beings? is there an age where attempting sexual contact with an animal won't mentally harm it, assuming it consents? (my definition of consent would be where the human is clearly submissive and the animal is exerting some kind of domination or otherwise demonstrating sexual interest in the human)
how far do you want to take it? are you just going to protect them because you think it's gross or because you actually care about the animals' treatment? and does it end at animals?
-
Betty 08/19/2009 8:06:00 PM
Thank you for this insightful and unbiased article. It's by far the most in-depth report I've ever read on the subject. A family member of mine came out to me as a zoophile some years ago and I've struggled (and mostly failed) to accept it - but your analysis has given me food for thought. I've long been interested in animal intelligence, and I wonder now if some animals - like the dolphin Mr. Brenner mentioned - should have a separate legal consideration. Especially in an instance where the human is the one in the vulnerable position, not the animal.
-
Chaz Stevens 08/19/2009 5:13:00 PM
Oh, you just got to love the GOP here in Florida with their recent legislation. It's quite legal in our state for some dude to pork Lassie in the ass, but folks of the same sex wanting to get married? No way. That's immoral to them 'Publicans.
This whole issue is really creepy to us folks who love their dogs. You know - that wholesome love. Rin Tin Tin. Here Boy. Fetch. Good boy. Which, in my estimation, doesn't include blowing My Dog Skip.
Hey Beck, the next time I take my doggie to the park, should I be on the lookout for dudes in trench coats mingling about in the darker areas?
Seriously dood. Consider therapy.
