In a debate concerning zoophilia…
This is a long post, and if you’re still interested, here are the contents:
- An introduction
- The primary fallacy
- Animals can’t speak?
- The pedophilia comparison
- The common double-standard
- The “not natural” argument
- Animals don’t have sex for pleasure
- Animal welfare… or zoophilia hatred?
- And here are some facts
- Comment on this blog
- …and some post-entry babble
An introduction…
I’ve recently had a rather interesting (and rather annoying) debate in a forum on one of Sweden’s larger newsletters, in the comment section of an article about a woman who have been collecting signatures from the locals in order to make “tidelag” illegal. Tidelag is the Swedish word for the act of a human having sex with animals. It wouldn’t be quite correct in translating it to “bestiality” for some reasons, mainly that if you have some insight in the matter you’d know that there are two poles of the whole animal-sex-loving spectrum – zoophiles, who claim they love animals, and bestialists who the zoophiles claim only see animals as sex objects, not really caring whether the animal wants or likes the sex or not.
Tidelag does not mean “sexual abuse of an animal”, something that the opposition usually try to claim. Just like gaming doesn’t mean “accumulating fat and ruining your physical fitness” or just like driving a car doesn’t mean “deliberately polluting the environment and killing the rainforests”. Tidelag means “sex between human and animal” and nothing more. Even though many are pursuaded by this sort of intentional fallacy, it must be pointed out that it is indeed a fallacy and as such has no weight in a serious debate.
Yep, it’s one helluva infected subject and as with many other things in today’s society, you shouldn’t think or reflect on things like this for some reason. Questioning some morals and stereotypes makes you evil, it seems. But, I don’t care, and if a subject is labeled “Don’t Reflect Upon This Yourself!” then of course I’ll have to do just that.
Though my views can’t be other than (until I’m somehow convinced otherwise), my own sexual preference is not on debate here. Defending a minority doesn’t automatically make you part of the same minority.
In Sweden, sex with animals isn’t illegal. However, cruelty to animals is illegal. In this debate, I’m questioning the reason behind wanting to make tidelag illegal, because if – as my opposition claims – tidelag is cruelty to animals, then the law is redundant since we already have a law against cruelty to animals.
I’m taking a defensive stance towards the zoophiles (link contents subject to change) who love animals and would go great lengths to ensure that their “partners” don’t get hurt, but instead enjoy their time. As I’ve gotten explained to me; a true zoophile loves, meaning that if the animal doesn’t like sexual contact or may get harmed by it, then that zoophile will respect that. Just as one of us wouldn’t rape our lover if he/she stated that she didn’t want to have sex. From all I’ve seen in the years, I know for a fact that animals may even like having sex with humans. And, they may very well not. The important thing to understand is that it’s not a black and white subject. While some people are totally disrespectful to others, some are the absolute opposite, as with all groups of the human species.
[ Added ] An interesting thing about sexual minorities or subjects like these are that the ones who should have the best knowledge are never asked; in this case the animals and the zoophiles, nor in many cases veterinarians. As soon as you have been witness to, or experienced, animal sex and thus can claim you know what you’re talking about, then you’re excluded from the ones allowed to speak. In media (and sadly in the ruling circles of a society), those whom the subject refers to are seldom those who get to speak to give their side of the story. That’s not democracy, that’s censorship and on the border to dictatorship. It’s, in every case, not fair. If you are really sure that you are right, then you shouldn’t be afraid that someone else got to question you.
Keep in mind that you’re free to comment on this blog. Keep to the subject though, and no flaming or trolling or any sort of attacks on my or anyone else’s person. I believe in democracy, not in censorship. But I also believe in valid arguments; arguments that are not based solely on opinion.
The primary fallacy
After a long while of debating, she usually claiming that tidelag is always cruelty to animals, and me claiming that it doesn’t have to be cruelty and if it was, it would already be illegal, I asked a simple and non-retorical question for her. Twice… since she couldn’t give a straight answer the first time. It was in Swedish, so the direct translation might make it look weird.
Do you think our justice department would have more cases to take care of if tidelag were made illegal?
It’s a very simple and very relevant question. But, as I mentioned, she couldn’t give me a straight answer for it but dogded it completely. I then asked again, pointing out that it wasn’t retorical (as she seemed to want me to think that she thought it was). A whole day went by and I finally got her answer, of which I wasn’t surprised at all. Let’s look at the possible answers for this question…
Yes! - Of course, those who burn for making tidelag illegal claim – no they know that tidelag is cruelty to animals! The natural answer for them would be “Yes”, since now they can catch all those who do this evil thing. Right? Well, the more absolute they can shout this “Yes”, the more they shoot themselves in the foot. Cruelty to animals is already illegal in Sweden. If they stand by their belief that they still would get more cases, then they automatically admit that tidelag doesn’t always have to be cruelty to animals since that’s already illegal.
No. - Well, simply put, then it’s a reduntant law.
Maybe… - Uhm, well, if you really want to make a change to the law – the force that ultimately controls our society – then you have to be damn sure, and not try to slither yourself out of it.
What did she answer, you ask? She said yes, of course, in capital letters…
Animals can’t speak?
Well, the debate went on forever, covering subjects like “animals can’t say no”… well, yes they can. Animals are masters in showing when they don’t like something, or if they indeed like something. If you have an animal and can’t understand that simple communication, then I wonder why you have an animal in the first place. “But they can be trained!” well yes, but does trained automatically mean that they suffer? We train animals all the time to do things for us, to pull or lift heavy objects, to be sent after violent criminals and apparent danger, is that cruelty to animals? No, that’s apparently somehow justified. Do you want to give your faithful dog a handjob, to relieve some sexual tension that you know he’d appreciate? No, that’s not justified, that’s cruelty!
Try it yourself! To clearly illustrate that animals can say No with a capital “n”, try gently grabbing and holding the tail of a cat (preferably a non-castrated cat or female cat) for a couple of seconds. Still saying that animals can’t say “No”, or that they can’t defend themselves if they wanted?
And of course, opposite of what some have tried to claim, animals can also say “Yes” – they have definately a will of their own, as opposed to just acting on instict like robots. Meaning they can actively show what they want, and strive to do so. An example is when I was with a friend who just got a new cat. I had the balcony door open as to get some fresh air into the room, and the cat tried to walk out on the balcony to explore. I wasn’t really comfortable with that because of the risk of him falling down (or simply jumping away) so I turned him around before he got the the door and pushed him into the room. About 10-15 times or so, until he realized that it wasn’t going to happen. So, instead of going straight for the door, he made the effort to go around the whole room, behind as many things he could find as to avoid being seen by me, until he got to the door. That’s not just “acceptance” or “instict“, that’s wanting to get to the door. So of course, an animal can both say “yes” and they can say “no”, and they can work hard to enforce either one of those answers.
[ Added ] But say you still believe that this isn’t enough proof that animals can express their wishes; you may claim that even though animals have a clear body language, you can never be sure what they really want. That is true; but you can easily say the same about humans. What someone says doesn’t necessarily have to mean what they want, we humans can even sign contracts “proving” that we want something, when we in fact might not want to sign it. So, using the “you can never be sure even though someone clearly says yes/no”-reasoning, we should ban all interaction with others, humans and animals alike, due to the fact that we can never be sure.
But of course, the stereotypical difference between bestialism and zoophilia is that the first simply doesn’t care about what animals say. When you don’t care, you can hurt someone both physical and mentally, and that’s cruelty to animals – but that is something that is already illegal.
The pedophilia comparison
Something that I found totally irrelevant was my opponent’s comparisons with a child and the animal getting “sexually abused” (her words, not mine) – that the two are the same and must therefore suffer the same. They can never be the same, and here are some of the reasons:
1. A child is weak, and cannot defend itself. An animal can usually defend itself pretty well.
2. A child isn’t a sexual being yet. An animal is a sexual being (if it’s adult, ofc).
3. A child is small, and may very easily get physically injured. An animal is adult and can cope with sexual activities.
4. A child is a human, and destined to grow up in a society where pedophilia is demonic and the victims for pedophiles are Victims with a capital V. If the child didn’t mentally and/or physically hurt at the time of the incident itself, the risk is almost infinite that the child will suffer from it as it grows up and learns how much of a victim it really was (I’ve mentioned the victimization by society in this post, when talking about my own sex debut).
An animal doesn’t learn things like these, they simply don’t share the same values as us humans and never needs to live in a society where things like these get taught or even makes a difference. They don’t learn the obligatory human response that nakedness or sex is shameful, they never get told that they’re “victims” of anything, they decide all that for themselves. They (usually) don’t need to be told what’s right and wrong, because it makes no difference for them, only for us. Do I like this? Yes, then it’s good. Do I dislike this? Yes, so I’ll try to avoid it. And in some cases… Does my alpha/leader like me doing this? No, then I should try to avoid it. Yes, then it’s good, because then I prove I’m needed.
Of course there are other cases where (1) the animal may rendered defenseless and unable to say No and (2) the animal may be a cub it’s not yet a sexual being and (3) the animal may be small and get hurt – in which case it’s a clear case of cruelty to animals, which is already illegal. However, if the animal is in fact adult and big enough, it may like the sexual contact, to get relieved of sexual tension when pets and similar usually cannot. Point 4 is what truly separates humans from animals, and makes it impossible to really compare pedophilia to zoophilia.
The common double-standard
Another thing in the debate that I found interesting was that when I asked one of my most active opponents if she thought that mass breeding animals for slaughter was cruelty to animals (since death is, and I think most would agree, the ultimate abuse) and she answered that there was nothing wrong with killing animals, with the argument that we “need” meat. That is a lie; humans don’t need meat, we can get all we need from plants, just ask a vegetarian or a vegan. This sort of double standards is rather common. You may mass breed for the only purpose of killing them, but don’t you dare give them sexual pleasure!
Many who are against tidelag actually get surprised and puzzled when they are told that this way of thinking is double standards and that it doesn’t make sense (some even try to claim that the point is irrelevant). Well, of course it surprises them – they have never thought about it! Most haven’t thought about the subject much at all, as I’ve mentioned before, because some things aren’t meant for you to think about in our society. You must not think or reflect upon the subject yourself, but you’re supposed to express these intensely burning opinions as if they were your own (and you get applauded for it). Let’s take these double standards and make an easy to understand example out of it:
Human: Hi there. Hm, what shall we do…
I was thinking about sex, how does that sound?
Hm? Oh, darn I just remembered,
I can’t have sex with you, I’m sorry.
Heh, yeah, I’m sorry for proposing something as absurd as that!
How about I just kill you instead?
*sound of bolt forcing its’ way into someone’s brain*
… or even more simplified [ Added ] …
Someone: Can I put my penis in this animal’s vagina? (Or vice versa)
Double-standard: No, that would be animal abuse. How could you even think such a thing, you sick bastard, you should be put to jail and had your privates removed with a rusty knife.
Someone: Ok, but can I put this steel bolt through its’ skull/knife through its’ throat/high voltage electricity through its’ body toasting his/her brain while he/she slowly dies?
Double-standard: Yes of course! Everybody knows that we need meat (just ask a vegetarian)!
…[ Added 6/3-08 ]
Someone: Can I relieve this animal’s (and perhaps my own) sexual needs?
Double-standard: No, that’s animal abuse! Cut off its’ genitalia instead!
The “not natural” argument
Another argument (used fairly often in this discussion) is that tidelag/zoophilia is wrong, because it’s not natural for the animal. That it puts the animal in a situation that isn’t natural for it, and hence it’s very important that we protect them from this unnatural injustice.
…so, is it natural for an animal to wear a leash?
…is it natural for an animal to be confined into appartments, or into small fields with electrical fences, or into cages making it impossible for them to move anything but their head – completely stealing away their freedom?
…is it natural for an animal to be taught that its’ alpha leader is a human, and not someone of its’ own kind?
…is it natural for an animal to eat its’ food out of a bowl each day and never get to hunt; something that’s imprinted in their very genes?
…is it natural for an animal to get trained to do tricks?
…is it natural for an animal to get strapped up to pull literal tons of cargo through difficult terrain?
…is it natural for an animal to have its’ sex drive repressed, leading most pets to never get to experience sexual pleasure even once their entire lives?
…is it natural for an animal to get its’ genitals cut or hormones controlled, just because we aren’t sometimes comfortable with letting them have their natural sex drive?
Answer – no, it’s far from “natural”. So shouldn’t all these things be banned too? No, because apparently, these things are totally fine compared to having sex.
Animals don’t have sex for pleasure
You hear this quite often. Ok, I have a hard time figuring out how someone have come to this conclusion, but I guess that one can make qualified assumptions from studying their behaviour in certain situations. Let us just assume that it is true. Animals (apart from certain species apparently such as some apes and dolphins) don’t have sex for pleasure, meaning they don’t seek out sex for pleasure in their natural environments.
This is used when claiming that animals can’t feel pleasure when having sex with a human (regardless of who is “on top”, on the “giving and receiving end”, so to speak). This is a faulty argument however – a fallacy. Why? Well, from what I have read and heard about this theory/report, it says just that “animals don’t have sex for pleasure“.
What it does NOT say is “animals feel no pleasure from having sex“.
I think it is quite safe to assume that both animals and humans, considering our reproductive organs work and look more or less the same, feel pleasure from having sex. Some argue that from an evolutionary perspective, feeling pleasure from sex is a really good trait. Most “normal” human without much artificially added substances (drugs, etc) would probably say that sex is the ultimate short-term physical (and in some cases mental) pleasure, and some that the lust for it can be near overwhelming when put in an erotic situation. I have a very difficult time thinking that animals don’t feel pleasure from sex, from what I have both seen and read.
Animal welfare… or zoophilia hatred?
Something I realized quite early in the discussion but didn’t mention is that this woman (and many others who argue just like her) claims that she argues for the sake and welfare for the animals. If she cared that deeply, she’d be a vegetarian or even vegan, completely against those points I just mentioned because they are unnatural for the animal, they steal away their freedom, and can very well cause suffering in form of frustration and anxiety, if not pain and plain death. The true subject is her hate against zoophiles – which she proves by claiming that zoophilia should be illegal when cruelty to animals already is illegal. If zoophilia is cruelty to animals (her words), then zoophilia is already illegal – something that I’ve tried to explain to her over and over without any success. Add to this that she doesn’t think killing an animal has anything to do with this discussion.
And here are some facts
The “animal protection” insitution in Sweden sent 1600 surveys to vets, police and many other animal care centers and experts. Their survey asked for cases where animals had come in, hurt, from humans having had sex with them… during the last 30 years. They found… 209 cases. That means maybe 6-7 cases per year. And, most of those 209 cases apparently, are cases where horses gets cut in their sex organ areas (don’t ask me why anyone would do that, or why anyone concluded that it had anything to do with sex), but those cases are completely illegal since they’re 100% cruelty to animals. So, they end up with the number of ~10, in 30 years. Yeah, frightening numbers. I would guess that many more than ~10 animals per day in Swedish meat industry die a painful death. Not to mention those hundreds who are killed, by bolts or electricity, suffocation, throat-slitting and so on (which are common ways of slaughtering animals for the meat industry).
Listen to SR’s report (Swedish Radio) by following this link. Note that it’s only in Swedish.
They also mention that for some, touching a horses butt is sexual abuse, while jacking off stallions to inseminate mares is completely fine, which is a standard procedure. When asked about it, K.A. (a woman working for the animal protection institute) hesitated for about 10-15 seconds, then more or less stuttered ‘uh… well… it has been found that it is just an accepted way of using animals’.
Comment on this blog
Feel free, as always, to comment on my blog. You can find a link at the bottom of the entry called “comments”. Click it, and you will be taken to a page where you can enter a comment. Feel free to discuss, as long as you can base your arguments on something other than your opinion. Meaning, it’s completely irrelevant and uninteresting that you think tomatoes taste bad with the argument that they’re nasty; because then you’d have to define “nasty” and we’d just end up discussing individual opinions, not facts. Trolling, flaming, name calling and insinuating things about my (or any other commenter’s) personal lives, has – of course – no place in a serious debate. But I won’t delete your posts just because you disagree with me and can give valid arguments for doing so.
I don’t believe in dictatorship where some people’s voices are quieted, and I don’t believe in having a comment section that gets moderated in advance. Many blogs I’ve seen utilize some some sort of “I’ll decide whether I want your comment or not” attitude, which means that anyone who disagrees with them won’t get heard – only those who agree.
Let’s make one thing very clear: I’m very much against cruelty to animals, and I’ve said it many times that if I ever see someone being deliberately cruel to an animal, I’d probably get to spend a long time in prison. Absolutely nothing angers me more than disrespect and cruelty to animals. But I don’t see true zoophilia as animal cruelty, quite the opposite in many cases.Oh, and I’m not an internet troll. Anything I stand for in text, I stand for in real life. The only thing I seek to provoke, if anything, is thought.
Interesting facts; this blog entry has both scared someone (which only tells me that someone who doesn’t agree with me thinks I’m dangerous because my words carry weight against his, otherwise he would just have ignored it), and is according to the same person apparently full of double standards. And, someone wanted me to give sources for my claims that children are small, that animals have claws and teeth and that animals actually do have a sex drive. Someone also claimed that my arguments here were somehow too long to be relevant. Also, the same lady I had the original discussion with finally, after being cornered, claimed that even defending zoophilia should be illegal. So much for democracy and free speech! Dictatorship, anyone?Now when she cut off all respect by trying to ban free speech, I’ll finally post the link to the original article (you can try the link, but it seems the article got pushed out of their system the 6th of November 2007) itself where you can read the comments on your own. What she says now, or not, I care nothing about, after proving she’s defending her double standards and wishes to silence those who don’t share the same values. Note that the article and its’ comments are all in Swedish.Finally someone else found her way to the newspaper homepage and started discussing. The reason to why not many people express themselves in that forum is that it’s just the commentary section of a now a two week old article, sadly. In a similar discussion that emerged a week after the news article was posted, many more people have vented their opinions in the subject and to my content, most people seem to reason more or less like I do. Then there are a few others who give the standard arguments against tidelag, and when they get any opposition, they scream and shout “you’re stupid and sick”… Well, not strange, because they simply can’t defend their claims when they’re full of double standards. Unless they claim that forcing animals to do dangerous work and being bred and kept in minimal spaces only to be slaughtered isn’t in any way abuse or cruelty towards animals… something which a certain woman actually does.[ Added ] Another article (Swedish) sprung up on the same site. This time simply explaining that someone had sex with a horse.Other sites of interest:….. “Animals can approach humans for sexual reasons too. Ever owned a dog? They’ll come right up to you and start poking at your crotch. What if you don’t have pants on at the time? And what if you maybe enjoy a little complication-free oral sex? You go to jail for it? It’s not like you shoved your meat into their face and raped them. The animal isn’t hurt, so animal abuse doesn’t apply.”
- ….. “Vidare accepteras av alla en platonisk kärlek mellan människa och djur (hur mÃ¥nga pussar inte sina hundar), men steget över till en sexuell relation ses mindre roat. Argumentet brukar vara att samtycke saknas, men när gav hundar och andra djur senast samtycke till kastrering, märkning, insemination och avlivning?Man kan tydligen handskas hÃ¥rdhänt med djur pÃ¥ en mängd olika sätt som inte väcker folks anstöt, men sÃ¥ fort sex kommer in i bilden blir det annat ljud i skällan. Detta kan inte vara av omtanke av djuren, utan har helt andra grunder, att det handlar om människans välbefinnande, att slippa se sÃ¥dant.”
- Blogge Bloggelito (in Swedish. Read at your own risk; there are disturbing images embedded in the blog)
….. “Indeed, we may be a small minority, scorned by the majority who may consider our movement to be immoral or perhaps even twisted. But who is truly twisted and immoral, those who yearn to live with animals as partners and love them as equal creatures, or those who violently abuse nature, raise themelves above the rest of creation and, for their perverse comfort, destroy everything and everyone around them?”
- Equality for All (english site, trying to show how zoophilia is love, and not hate as some tend to believe)
Links relevant to this blog post:
- Zoophiles (wikipedia, definition of zoophilia)
- Zoofili.se (Swedish information site about Zoophilia, what it is and isn’t)
- SSI, Zoofili (Svensk Sexualpolitik Idag, blog posts about Zoophilia)
- “Right and wrong” (about victimization by society, etc)
- SR: Vår Grundade Mening (Swedish Radio, facts about the frightening numbers)
- Expressen: Protest mot tidelag (Swedish newspaper with debate in comment section)
- Expressen: “Förgrep sig på häst” (Swedish newspaper, also with short debate)
- Expressen, articles in 2008 (Swedish newspaper articles in 2008)
- TantrikBlog: Makthavarnas lögnaktiga dubbelmoral (Really good Swedish blog post about the lying and the double standards in our government, 2008)
Other Swedish blogs about…
zoofili, djurskyddsmyndigheten, djur, sexualitet, djursex
This blog is registered in Skövde on bloggkartan.se (a geographic map of blogs in Sweden)
A well thought out and logically structured presentation of a highly emotive issue.
Without going to extremes in view or swamping readers in data, I think you hit most of the important points.
The biggest problem in attempting a reasonable discussion is often the “yuck factor”. As you noted, you could not get a reasonable response to a reasonable question -most likely because this person was simply reacting without thinking.
Awareness is the first step towards enlightenment and your presentation may help in spreading a bit of awareness of the facts as opposed to the “yuck”.
I would like to talk of this but in process of signing up I discovered that you have chosen your venue poorly.
“Pedophilia, Incest and Bestiality: Users may not publish written, image or video content that promotes pedophilia, incest and bestiality.”
Bernard
I’m not really -promoting- anything (that would be saying “fuck with animals, it’s good for you!” which I’m not), I’m reflecting and discussing, but I see what you mean. I shall do something about this as soon as possible, as I’ve recently discovered that authorities, hosts, can be quite narrowminded and unprofessional.
But seeing that so many other blogs on this engine talk of similar things, I don’t understand why my blog would really stand out.
Thanks for pointing it out though.
So there – you gave me the little push I needed to do what I’ve been postponing for quite some time… a complete backup. Something I’ve been planning for a while also is moving the blog to a more openminded platform which will happen shortly.
But again, I still believe you are wrong about the “promoting” part. Yet you can’t be sure with hosts, so thanks again
It isn’t how you, I, or your ISP feels. It’s a weapon that your opponent can and sooner later will use against you.
I am one of the people that you are talking about, an old Zoo. I have had many hours of work wasted and many excellent resources trashed because someone complained. Legality, policy, contract, none of that matters.
I have been targeted as a paedophile even though it is well established that my sexual tastes run to the polar opposite. And I am far from alone. Google “ASAIRS”, “Randy Pepe”, “Zoobuster”, “Equamour”.
If you are willing to fight for logic and rationality, I would like to be a resource for you. You have done an excellent job, so far. There are a few nuances missing though.
Bernard
The first thing to be done is a proper definition of terms.
Simplest is “bestiality”. It refers to the physical act of giving or receiving sexual pleasure with a living non-human. Relationships, emotions, and motivations are not mentioned, just the physical act.
“Zoophilia” is best explained as having a social relationship with a non-human. Sex may or may not be a factor. What is needed is communication and a recognition of the other as an individual with a certain parity in the relationship.
I dislike the use of “love” because it is possible to love an object. A Zoophile recognizes a non-human as a being equal in status to them self.
Bernard
It’s true, I have been a little incorrect when defining “beastiality” as something bad, when it’s just like the word “intercourse” (if “intercourse” is restricted only to human-human relations) which only means the act of sex itself. I guess it’s like a triangular scale, with “sex” in one corner, “love/affection” in one corner and “rape” in the last, where bestiality is “sex”, zoophilia is “love/affection” and well… what should you call the “rape” side, where the human simply don’t give a damn about the animal?
I hear what you say about “love” but I still see there’s a difference between loving something and loving someone (human, animal). I mean, you can love strawberries and you can love your partner, and there’s usually a whole set of emotions there that just doesn’t apply on strawberries (usually, hehe). But is it more correct, you think, if I add “affection” to my definition of zoophilia? Because I admit now that my definition of zoophilia seems very restricted to love as in being in love, “marriage” almost, and that sort of thing, while human-human sexual relations more than often are just “affectionate” and mutual but not really deep “love”.
Sorry for my late response. And, happy new year to you all!
I too was targeted by the “ASAIRSincâ€, “Randy Pepe†guy. And I’m not even a zoophile…
A few years back I led an anti spay/neuter campaign in favor of vasectomy/tubal ligation for dogs. These people targeted me and hit me with everything they had. I felt the best thing for this cause was to simply walk away, and let it be taken over by a friend who had a pre-existing good reputation in the animal rights crowd. I will never forgive or forget.
Zoophile.org if full of discusses such this one, alotsa with flaming/outing, yet with a pretty interresting content, especially towards 2004-2006 : http://www.zoophile.org/cgi-bin/bulletin-general.pl?goto=3&dis=10000&pass=&name=&newscan=20000
ManaWolf wrote something about it already : http://web.archive.org/web/20070715153546/http://www.firstlight.net/~chythar/manawolf/articles/zooessay.htm (lastest update)
Marga.FP
Sorry for the delay of your comment, Marga.FP, it got stuck in the spam filter due to many links I think. I do check the spam filter all the time just because of this, so you can naturally link as much as you want – just know the comment won’t be “instant” if you do.
Thanks, Marga.FP, for the comment! I wish things like these, the “other side” of the discussion so to speak, could get out to the people. But, the mainstream media wants to cater to… *drumroll* the mainstream. To rally them. It means money in their pocket, among other things. I wish that people were to think more critically about things, to question the image that the media want to project onto the back of our heads with their angled (and in some cases simply incorrect) “news”.
I will check out the links.
No problem
I wanted to add this link also, while not being sex oriented, it speaks and demonstrate very well the ‘double standard’ you mentioned above : http://telicthoughts.com/penn-teller-expose-peta/ (the show is pretty harsh over so-called animal-welfare organization in general). Please also take a look at the full length movie ‘Coming Soon’ while it is still freely viewable online : http://www.comingsoon.cz/...
Concerning the kids/animals comparison again, I once asked my opponent where can I find a butchery where I can find sliced offsprings ? I was looked like is something was not understood, an angel passing by. Then added that I found a leashed kid outside in the cold nearby. The reaction was shock, something like “It’s horrible, call the police, whatever”. But for animals it’s all morality/normality which rules their enslavement.
Humankind is weak and twisted
It’s a great fun having with the so-named ‘common sense’ that lack thereof to many people around ! Ain’t our “modern society” nice and sweet ?
The same examples were mentioned in the debate on the newspaper website as well. “You say animals are children are the same. Do you slaughter and eat your children?” And they just can’t make the connection, even though it’s right there in front of them, clear as anything. It’s really simple logic.
Yes, the modern society is really nice. I sigh everytime I hear the expression “common sense”, as it’s just another word for “popular opinion”. With common sense, homosexuality would probably be banned and silenced a way back. Today, common sense is different and more accepting, just because some people have had the strength to stand up against… common sense!
By the way, news from today : http://www.midnitecrowproductions.com/petlovers/posts/08-11-14/203400.shtml
Thanks a lot! I have now written a reply in that thread.
Fantastic blog entry, very informative and rich on content. I suppose I am slightly biased, as I am in fact a zoophile. I would rather die than harm an animal, and sex is very far from the “top priority” for us zoos. We love the animals, they are our partners. To be honest, I rarely even have sex with my partner, who is a stallion, and no penetrative sex of any kind takes place. I don’t blame people for having a weird view on us though, where would they get a nuanced image of us? The media? I guess it’s just a shame that people so often just “tag along” with blindly accepted morals and opinion. So rare these days that people question notions and their sources…
Hi all. Thx for leading me to this blog. Good reading indeed. This is a subject which need a lot of discussion and there are great benefits for those involved if we can get the relevant information out to the general public. I admit that it is hard work and our work is seldom appreciated by many, but still it needs to be done if we are to continue to have animals in our lives. It´s not all about approving sexual relations between humans and animals (not a defiition I would advocate as it implyes that we are separated from the animal kingdom, which we are not), but to change the way we look upon animals in general. As an ethologist I see many behaviors among animals that human also display, and vice verse. We are not that different when it comes to biology, ecology, sexuality and physiology. What differs is our society, our mind, morality and the way we put it all in a greater context. In other words…we live a more complicated life and therefor comparisons to other animals are not that easily made without making distinctions.
Ohh and thx for using my website as a reference
cyberlaw .. a blog with a lot information……
right of the page you can select news about diverse countries.
http://cyberlaw.org.uk/
about sweden:
http://cyberlaw.org.uk/category/sweden/
Apparently the quick-links at the top of the blog post stopped working after the upgrade I did. Sorry about that, I shall try and fix it as soon as possible.
Happy new year, a funny comment on a sad case :
http://www.midnitecrowproductions.com/petlovers/posts/09-01-28/210603.shtml
Marga.FP
So true, so true.
And I’m not saying it because it’s the cliché thing to say; just look at the breeding industry for one, and how it’s fully Ok for them to jack off (!) their male animals and then insert the semen into their female animals, which they often have to rub sexually (you can’t just “put semen in” and hope for the best) several times. Why is that Ok all of a sudden? Oh… money.
I just found a link.
http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/02/04/dolphin-raeps-girl/
Here you will see a guy and a girl (fully scuba dressed) swimming with dolphins, and suddently one of the male dolphins starts pursuing the girl’s crotch rather friercly. First one thinks it’s just curiosity or whatever, until you see that the dolphin gets a fair erection as well. Hardly trained, just… “hey, I WANT to fuck you”. How more obvious does it have to get before the “they can’t show consent” people gets it?
It’s not a porn video, but it’s probably safe to say that it’s NSFW (not-safe-for-work).
Then try this video : http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ecd_1233598075
Two Iranian donkeys shows real interrest in each of them. Don’t forget that in Iran homosexuality is prohibited so I bet these critters ain’t spying on people and mimicking them ! Are they that dumb to the point to try to same-sex reproducing themselves, or just… enjoying sex ?
Awesome. And if someone who has seen the whole video tries to shake it off by saying “they didn’t know what they were doing, they thought the other one was a girl…” then seriously.
When one of them were done, the one who had just given it quickly turned around rearing the other so that they could take turn screwing each other. Oh but there must be a much more complex answer to it, right? When it comes to animals and sexuality, it can never be simple. Oh, f-ck off.
Yeah of course, as a child I was told that animals :
We all knows it’s an unreproductive behavior, such like ‘sodomy’ (in which category was considered zoophilia) so that’s not good, humans have to have sex only to produce offspring. Hey, waida minute, just like animals ? Nahhhh, stop it, we do it for fun, and of course we’re the only narrow-minded self-centered selfish specie to do sex just for the sake of it 
Humans offspring are a border effect…
- have to soul (thus we can dispose of them and treat them as livestock without consideration)
- cannot suffer (thus we can hunt them, even for hours with an army of riders and barking dogs, or do medical experiments without consideration)
- are at our disposal (thus we can ride them, attach them outside in the cold without much consideration)
Yet they do reproduce themselves for the survival of their species. You know, they have the internet and follow carefully the stats of their worldwide population, and when they drew near extinction they broadcast a moon-relayed message to fuck ! And of course they all do have a degree into genetic to choose the best sexual partner in order to produce the best offsprings possible (understand, they are into eugenism, which in turn is considered bad for humans). And having sex with them is just outa question
Beware in your “…[ Added 6/3-08 ] ”
Double-standard: No, that’s animal abuse! Cut off its’ genitalia instead!
This is raw cruelty to animal and already illegal. It is not promoted by ‘normal’ people just for the sake of it, this is too much schematized :/
When I lived at home, all our male cats got their balls removed (ie. cut off). Probably during some form of pain killer by a veterinarian, I guess, not that you could tell from their depression and agony days that followed.
Ow, you though this way (neutring)…
Yeah precicely. I mean, it is “cutting off their genitalia”, but we have fancier words for it, such as “neutering” or “castration”.
I should add that at the time this happened, I was much younger and naturally taught that this procedure was “natural” and “just how it has always been done”. It was like a tumour that was removed more or less, and that the animal would be really annoying (and “silly”) to us if not neutered. I remember feeling sad for them because of their depression afterwards though. But, I’m glad I was never taught (by MY family anyway) that we did this for THE ANIMAL’S sake, but indeed for OUR sake. At least it was honest.
Today, when discussing this, I can’t help but get really pissed at those who believe that we do this for the animals’. We don’t. There are plenty of ways to relieve an animals sexual urges that doesn’t involve any form of bestiality. We neuter them because WE don’t want to handle (or even acknowledge) their sexuality.
In case of cats, I ‘can’ see this as a benefit : with all these cats around the block, they reproduce (even fuck) like rabbits. Would all these little kitten find another sweety home ? I bet not, some will get immediatly put to death, some other left in the wild, some other will finish their existence crushed by a car. By ‘neutering’ most of them you prevent this, at least its complication… I not said it’s the best way to handle, but fondling a tomcat ain’t as ‘easy’ to do with a dog or a horse
I’d prefer them to fuck like rabbits if they want to, and give them medication to prevent uncontrolled litters. I believe that animals could to be granted sexual release in ways that don’t involve reproduction (and without animal/human sexual contact, really, if that’s a must). One must just have an open mind and a bit of imagination.
But hey, horse breeders manually jack off the male horses and masturbate the mares to orgasm upon semen insertion, so why not. It’s just our constructed view of “shame” that stands in the way.
I understand that, I’m not for/into neutering, yet one must understand that medication is not always easy to give, still cat overpopulation could be a problem, otherwise it would lead to http://www.protection-des-animaux.org/tv/Fourriere/ or http://www.protection-des-animaux.org/tv/Fourriere_2/ ! I’m for ‘sex unleashed’, but mankind’s behavior (here heavy petting) leads to some disturbance (here pet overpopulation) that have to be regulated. I don’t quite see how to solve the issue without having to cut (!) in the raw meat (if I may say) :/ It’s a nasty problem here…
I understand what you mean. And I also understand that it’s not really common to medicate animals in the way I propose, but I can’t see why it can’t be done.
Our female cats were fed some sort of small pill all their lives that made them lose their sex drive. Though I dislike the effect of that pill (since it messes with their mentality) we had little problem giving it to them. They got used to it. When my mother were to come up to them with a small syringe (no needle, just the squirty device) filled with water and then put the tiny pill in their mouth, then gently letting a little bit of water run into their mouth so that they swallow… well, it’s over in like 3 seconds and they usually go back to whatever they were doing (which were usually just sleeping).
One of our male cats had diabetes and had to take an insulin shot (or some other medication) each day. This was one of the most cowardly cat ever, but he didn’t react one bit when given the syringe in his neck. But yes, cats do have special neckage, but are probably the most tricky pets to medicate. Larger animals tend to be much easier since medication can easily be snuck into their foods.
What I’m trying to say is, I really see no problem in that method, if there were medication for animals that simply acted like birth control (and not sexuality suppresion).
I understand that, but for this you must have responsible owners that take care of this aspect of life being : sexuality ! How many people are just into animals for fondling and petting, yet having little to no understanding of real nature of animals ? They tend to humanize the pets not for sanity reasons but for commodity ! Understand : they don’t give a fuck about what the animal needs, after all they are living under a human roof, what’s the best any animal (or even human) could have dreamt of, so what’s the f*** ? Yeap, you have read my thoughts : selfishness ! There are several people around the world that just shouldn’t have to deal with animals, and that’s not necessarily zoophiles. There are also people that shouldn’t make offspring due to their inability to raise them properly, some people shouldn’t drive, some shouldn’t sing, whatever… The point is, should you pass a licence to be able to raise animals like you pass a licence to drive ? I passed this licence, I know what I’m talking about, yet I cannot prevent silly people with not a single clue about animals to pretend telling me what and how to do things, it’s a no-go ! Now take the whole problem inside-out : all these moaning people about zoophilia (and pedophilia, and homosexuality, and SM, and on and on…) have more or less trouble with sexuality in general. They just cannot cope with it, it’s ugly, blah, deviant, whatever. They fell empowered by some sort of beliefs in a mighty powerful one, thus making one and one, sex that they dislike with sex with animals that they lowers equal bad stuff. This is the farest point, but don’t ask them to handle the sexuality of their lower being under their care, that’s just too much for them. But a purple suit is just so cute on them, they loves it, oooooh boys ! That’s soooo natural… And what about those people who abandon their animals because of the annoyance to take care of them during vacation ? Mankind is sick, our relation to animals is the most obvious (and vicious) display of it…
I can do nothing but agree, sigh, feel a bit of anger inside, and then just sigh again. Yes, the owners must be responsible for that to work. But for huge amounts of people out there, animals are treated like stuffed animals that move, more or less, with annoying side effects such as an own will and own urges. “Oh but that’s not their will, that’s just their instincts! And we will keep claiming they just have instincts until we discuss zoophilia, upon which they are human children!” And those who try to be responsible get the almighty ban-hammer from the “self-proclaimed morale-polices and sex-haters” (and those haters are usually also those who find “sex” in places where there is none). But I need not say that really, you and I seem to be quite on the same wavelength already.
Another info, seal ‘attacks’ penguin : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7379554.stm
Another interresting topic ‘No Rush To Condemn Beastiality, Apposingviews Article’ : http://zoophilesforum.com/zooforum/index.php?showtopic=987
I love your comments, Marga.FP! I have little to say at the moment – there are too much things I have to focus on in my life right now – but I read it all. It’s interesting that this Wesley Smith feels that human-animal sex degrades humans. I’d say that in the cases where both are feeling pleasure and/or lots of affection, it shows animals the respect they probably deserve by for a short moment making them equal to us. In my eyes, the human isn’t “degrading” him/herself – it’s embracing the animal and lifting it up to an equal state. It’s completely surreal to get all riled up about sexual pleasure being communicated between two different species, when we painfully slaughter literal millions (probably too many for people to be able to relate to, sadly) of animals every day in front of their kin in a giant machinery that never stops. In relation to all the pain we DO inflict animals each day – without much need, and with a flimsy justification that we “need” hamburgers/make-up/new medicine (because we have retarted medicine patent laws etc hampering much of the progress) – human-animal sex does simply not exist without use of a sub-atomic particle microscope. And yet, some are at it like it’s huge. It’s a scape-goat, or political-standing-catalyst. Sad.
I see you registered on my Forum and found the link to this webpage you included in your Profile there. I really like what you wrote….have you thought about reposting this as a new Topic on Zoophiles Forum? I love to see what the Members there will say in a thread like this.
To me a real zoo loves the animals ,
sex is the last thing on the list
First is the care and welfare of the animal a tidelag ( zoo) loves to look after there animal
Real zoo’s , tidelag are not fucking every animal they can find that is Bestiality.
A real tidelag , zoo loves the whole animal ,loves being around the animal . feeling , touching just being there , looking at the animal
A real tidelag zoo has one may two types of animals only , they are attraction too , me horses .
Not every animal under the sun there is some badly wrong with that and have sex with every animal under the sun that is so wrong that is Bestiality
Real zoo loves the animal what to be with the animal and if the animal is willing then sex as a way of showing a tidelag zoo’s love for the animal
not sex because of sex that is wrong
I love to wash ,muck out the stable ,groom , caring for the horse
A real tidelag , zoo dose Not share his animal with any one remember whit I said about real love for the animal
You are not going to ask every man in a the pub to come to your place and fuck your wife and the put all the details in the news paper are you?
Years ago I felt not right but as I grow older I do If you are with the love of your life how can you be lonely you are busy looking after and being with the love of your life
Real zoo, wrong zoo, sex haters, sex manics, do not be too much extremists in your view of what ‘tidelag’ should be or not. The world is composed with a full shade of grey, not just black and white :p
Thank you, Marga. I’m actually, although the idea is probably all good, getting slightly tired of (a few) zoophiles saying that zoophilia is just love and not sex; sometimes almost as if sex isn’t a part of that sexual preference at all. Hm. To be honest, I can still see a distiction between bestiality and zoophilia in that a bestialist only want to have sex for him/her own pleasure, and a zoophile is more considered about both him/her and the animal. However, it’s a scale. It has to be – because in every other human sexuality, we have sex for casual fun and then we have deep deep love with or without sex. To claim that zoophilia is something fundamentally and entirely different from any other human sexuality is perhaps poetic, and an understandable tactic to look good in public situations, but it’s a pretty fragile and illogical view I’m afraid. But YES – there are zoophiles who love animals and wouldn’t have sex with them, just as there are homosexuals/heterosexuals/bisexuals/dendrophiles/etc who love their mates and would never have sex with them – but not all of them. Just because Fred wants to have sex with Lisa and not want a steady relationship, is he a “heteroist” or something? No, he’s heterosexual, or a “heterophile”. Right?
Franckly I don’t know if it’s a part of a strategy to fadden the angers towards “good and real zoophiles”. For anti-zoo, we all looks the same weirdo perverts that better all been put in a large bag and sink in the deepest see. You know, after all, we “abuuuuse” animals, we love them and we have sexual relationships with them. Humans fucking together is not abuse, animals doing the same is neither abuse, humans ‘helping’ animals to reproduce (and if the female is unwilling, let’s tie it tight) is again not abuse. I remember a century ago, having such thoughts for and/or sexual relationship with a colored people might lead to the very same behaviors. 50 years ago it was about gays. But OK, we do eat animals, not colored people or gays…
On the other hand, it’s human nature to try to split communities into smaller groups (who said to control them easier ?) and of course put ourself in the brightier group :/ Zoophilia, or may I say zoosexuality (since we fucking DO involve sexuality in our private relationship with animals, otherwise we would be kind of any anonymous animal welfare activist group) does exsists since dawn of mankind. Several recognized civilizations (ancient greek, etc…) were pretty open about homosexuality and zoophilia. But I guess that some powermongers have put 1 and 1 together and figured out that if homosexuality and zoophilia weren’t forbidden by any means necessary, mankind might be led to extinction. Understand that once you ‘tasted’ an animal and felt the bond, you do understand that they have also something to provide, and yes, sex is great also :p
Of course there is several ignorant moaners that never experienced zoosexuality (or at least zoophilia) and yet pretend to be knowledgable experts in the matter. I understand that some might try to distract haters and redirect their focus on the ‘wrong’ side of zoophilia, but one have to understand that it is more likely to fail, whatever is made. Until a more (globally ?) widespread consciouness of animal welfare ain’t taken into account, animals being more often views as a MEAN, not a GOAL (religiously, economically) I bet nothing is going to change anytime soon. And that’s not the petty concern for mother nature that some commercials are surfing on (until it lasts, probably until oil cheapen) that wil most noticabely change anything to that matter either.
Zoophiles are seen as counter productives, and see how in a liberal world being counterproductive lead : financial crisis ! Should be the message “Produce more offsprings, raise them as good workers and good consumers, let’s make the economy work”. But I digress, let’s keep this for another subject :p
The “Broward/Palm Beach New Times” has an article that would appeal to your audience. The title is “Animal Instincts” and it documents the struggle of zoophiles in their attempts to be accepted in society.
Here is a link – http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/
First of all: kudoz for your article, KarmaSlave.
There’s only one little thing I want to add to the “not natural” argument: deriving normative claims from nature is in itself a fallacy already. Namely the natural fallacy. Valid normative claims can only be derived from other, more basic normative claims.
Those that ague against the act of bestiality, using the “un-natural” theory are pretty much the same people that believe the world is flat. They have no real scientific background to back their statements up, just years of unconscious indoctrinate bigotry to drive those feelings.
BTW, I pretty much agree with everything you say here KS. i know what it is like to be a victim of the persecution/prosecution system here in the USA.
Hi KarmaSlave!
I think, I actually am a Zoo myself. Like a few others I once tried to fight for being accepted. I had a site online, describing my life and my problems, but I closed it (see website link) due to the points I wrote there.
Have you ever heard of the “ZETA-Rules”? I always considered them as the absolute minimum, the most basic law in zoophilia. Something you don´t have to discuss.
One day some other “Zoo” in a chatroom told me something like this:
“Oh… these Rules… aw… they´re just for making those animal-rights-guys quiet, aren´t they?!?”
As a matter of fact I got shocked that day. I decided not to pull the cart for those who don´t take it serious any more. I will never protect Black Sheep.
Like you showed up, it wouldn´t help to make Zoophilia illegal. In the contrary: There would be no chance to distinguish between the Animalreaper an the real Zoophiles. Like you already said, there´s no black and white, but always grey. Grey a little darker or a bit lighter.
Back that day I thought about to restrict Zoophilia in a way, that would make animal abuse more difficult. Wouldn´t it be easier to avoid cruelty if Zoos have to proof their “ways” animal-friendly instead of the “others” have to proof the harm? Of course it would be hard to the Zoos, but I think it is what the Zoos should do anyway: Ruling out anything that might harm the animal. That´s what Zoophilia is like, or rather should be like, don´t you think?
I wouldn´t hesitate to negate my sexual identity in order to protect the animals. I started a vegan life some years ago only because of that….
Pale