[CC]

When I was a kid (5-9) we used to spend summers at my grandpas farm in Tennessee I had some older cousins who would talk about "stump breaking" cows. They would talk about it without saying exactly what it was. I was young enough that I really couldn't imagine what they really meant. Once I was older and could make the connection I was taken a back at the thought of 4 or 5 cousins who claimed they enjoyed stump breaking cows. After talking with others later, they said that the cow would go on eating grass or whatever it had been doing, it was as though being used for sex did not matter one iota to the cows.
While I think that is weird, it certainly (according to those who did it) does no apparent harm to the cow. Which then does not seem to violate any animal cruelty laws. I have heard the same stories out west concerning sheep. So is it abuse to use an animal for sex? I don't think so but I just can't imagine why anyone would have sex with an animal. I would think masturbation would suffice.
These days those same cousins of mine are grown up, married and with children. I wonder if they ever bring that up. I don't think so as I don't recall any adults talking openly about the practice. My first time was with a coyote ugly skinny girl 2 years older than me. I mean this gal was UGLY! But when I look back on it I am glad that ugly girl got my cherry (so to speak) and not some ugly cow. (literally)

[AliceLiddell]

In reality, humans rarely "give consent" in the positive. What they do is fail to object. In other words, it's not that the humans say the word "yes" every time, it's that they don't say "no".

So I don't know that the animal needs to communicate that it is saying yes, but rather it needs to not communicate that it is saying no. I think it's a lot easier to tell whether the animal is saying no than whether it is saying yes.

[Squatch347]

Yocki, earlier you said that zooaphilia was no different than heterosexuality or homosexuality. Prove or retract.

[Jamie678]

Originally Posted by yocki2009

And also since animals cannot consent,how do they have sex with each other?You people are treating animals as if they are humans,animals are irrational creatures when they have sex with each other they dont require consent so why should it be different with a human?


And animals dont consent to each other aswell so why would it be different with a human?

And also I find it interesting you are mentiong sex with them is cruelty why isnt slaughtering them or putting them in cages considered animal cruelty?

Okay, what I meant is we cannot interpret an animal's consent, while I'm sure the other animal can.
Also, I never said that slaughtering them and putting them in cages wasn't animal cruelty, but that wasn't the topic we were discussing so I felt I had no reason to... mention it.

[yocki2009]

Originally Posted by spotty

uhh..... what? You're kidding right?.

No actually I am not consent is subjective term,I want to know how humans can consent while other species cannot.

Originally Posted by spotty

If the animal comes back a second time, you might have a point .

Or the first time,what happens when a dog humps you?Guess you never seen animals make sexual approaches to humans :D

Originally Posted by spotty

It has? Source please.

zoosexuality: Information and Much More from Answers.com

A 2005 paper Zoophilia, between pathology and normality [10] by doctors at the Munich Polyclinic for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, states that "Zoophilia, a sexual preference for animals, has lost its character as a severe mental disorder.


Emotion in zoosexuality
It is generally accepted that in common with heterosexuality and homosexuality, the broad scope of zoosexuality includes (for example) zoosexuals for whom the forming or existence of a loving relational bond is important, and also some whose motivation is closer to abuse or zoosadism. The emotional relationship associated with the latter is documented in that article. This section therefore considers emotional connection in zoosexuals where abuse is not a conscious intent of the interaction.


Zoosexuality is a term covering sexual orientation towards animals.

It has been in use informally since at least the 1980s,[1] and has become more commonly referenced in scientific research literature since Hani Miletski's research into the field in the 1990s. It has become the accepted term for the sexual orientation, used within the sciences of anthrozoology, sexology and psychology, although it is not in widespread cultural use elsewhere.

Zoosexuality is a value-neutral term covering the spectrum of human-animal sexuality, and implies nothing more than a person with an orientation towards animals. This may be loving or violent, incidental intermittent or long term, actual or wished-for, fantasy or reality, and may in fact also be sexual or non-sexual in nature. Also, similarly to other orientations such as homosexuality and heterosexuality,


_________________________________ _{Post Merged} _________________________________

Originally Posted by Jamie678

Okay, what I meant is we cannot interpret an animal's consent, while I'm sure the other animal can.

LOL so a human(the smartest species in the planet)cannot interpret an animal's consent but other animals can?Please go tell a lion it can interpret a dog's consent, did you forget animals are irrational creatures?They dont require each other's consent and in matter of fact their sex is normally painful and violent ever seen wild gorillas bang each other?They scream and punch each other then have sex if it was with a human it be more humane and animals dont have the concept of consent so they cannot consent with each other guess we better lock them up for rape huh?Also why is consent an issue or brought up here?Since when do we require animals consent for anything we use them for?Animals dont consent to each other or require each other consent so why do us humans need to?

Originally Posted by Jamie678

Also, I never said that slaughtering them and putting them in cages wasn't animal cruelty, but that wasn't the topic we were discussing so I felt I had no reason to... mention it.

Interesting yet all those stuff doesnt require the animals consent,but for sex we need their consent?But for keeping them in cages and slaughtering them we dont need their consent?

Face it you people are just grossed out,nothing more.


_________________________________ _{Post Merged} _________________________________

Originally Posted by Squatch347

Yocki, earlier you said that zooaphilia was no different than heterosexuality or homosexuality. Prove or retract.

Its not different,prove how their different many pyschologics proven zoophilies/zoosexuality is similar and no different then homosexuality and heterosexuality.

Zoophilia is as much a part of the normal mind as other forms of sexuality, such as heterosexuality and homosexuality.


_________________________________ _{Post Merged} _________________________________

Originally Posted by AliceLiddell

So I don't know that the animal needs to communicate that it is saying yes, but rather it needs to not communicate that it is saying no. I think it's a lot easier to tell whether the animal is saying no than whether it is saying yes.

The thing about animals is they are irrational they really dont care or understand no,if an animal is in heat the female animal better be prepared to get banged.

Animals dont sit and think like us like "Jeez is she gonna let me bang her?"They will just follow their instinct and bang the partner animal and when animals have sex its usually violent and painful.

These are animals remeber that

[Just Me]

Originally Posted by yocki2009

Or the first time,what happens when a dog humps you?Guess you never seen animals make sexual approaches to humans :D

I'd suggest you go back and read the previous post that discussed animals humping legs as consent.. I don't just a suggestion so we do not have to go through that all over again

[yocki2009]

Originally Posted by Just Me

Yocki, questions for you...

Do you think people should have to consent to have sex with another person before then have sex with them?

For humans consent should ALWAYS be required as for animals,consent isnt required or issue animals themselves dont require each other;s consent nor do they have the concept of consent.

Originally Posted by Just Me

Or do you agree that people can just walk up to another person who can not consent and have sex with them?

Why would I suggest this?Humans are rational creatures we require consent where animals are irrational creatures so dealing with humans consent is required while for animals the same cannot be said.

Originally Posted by Just Me

What about people having sex with children who can not consent?

Children cannot consent and I made a thread against child molestation,it is harmful for an adult to have sex with the child both physically and mentally.

Originally Posted by Just Me

Do you agree with that?

Of course NOT,I have a 4 year old cousin and you want me to see her with some 40 year old creep?Come on now just because some has sex with animals doesnt mean they want to have sex with children or even support it.

Because sex with animals involves an ADULT animal that is sexually developed.

Zoosexuality/beasility is no different then heterosexuality and homosexuality and many experts would agree with me.

[Squatch347]

Originally Posted by yocki2009

Its not different,prove how their different many pyschologics proven zoophilies/zoosexuality is similar and no different then homosexuality and heterosexuality.

Zoophilia is as much a part of the normal mind as other forms of sexuality, such as heterosexuality and homosexuality.

You are making the claims, it is your responsibilty to prove them yocki

[yocki2009]

Originally Posted by Squatch347

You are making the claims, it is your responsibilty to prove them yocki

A 2005 paper Zoophilia, between pathology and normality [10] by doctors at the Munich Polyclinic for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, states that "Zoophilia, a sexual preference for animals, has lost its character as a severe mental disorder.


Emotion in zoosexuality
It is generally accepted that in common with heterosexuality and homosexuality, the broad scope of zoosexuality includes (for example) zoosexuals for whom the forming or existence of a loving relational bond is important, and also some whose motivation is closer to abuse or zoosadism. The emotional relationship associated with the latter is documented in that article. This section therefore considers emotional connection in zoosexuals where abuse is not a conscious intent of the interaction.


Zoosexuality is a term covering sexual orientation towards animals.

It has been in use informally since at least the 1980s,[1] and has become more commonly referenced in scientific research literature since Hani Miletski's research into the field in the 1990s. It has become the accepted term for the sexual orientation, used within the sciences of anthrozoology, sexology and psychology, although it is not in widespread cultural use elsewhere.

Zoosexuality is a value-neutral term covering the spectrum of human-animal sexuality, and implies nothing more than a person with an orientation towards animals. This may be loving or violent, incidental intermittent or long term, actual or wished-for, fantasy or reality, and may in fact also be sexual or non-sexual in nature. Also, similarly to other orientations such as homosexuality and heterosexuality,

[Squatch347]

Where did this come from? good quote, but if we don't have the source its hard to verify

[Jamie678]

Originally Posted by yocki2009

LOL so a human(the smartest species in the planet)cannot interpret an animal's consent but other animals can?Please go tell a lion it can interpret a dog's consent, did you forget animals are irrational creatures?They dont require each other's consent and in matter of fact their sex is normally painful and violent ever seen wild gorillas bang each other?They scream and punch each other then have sex if it was with a human it be more humane and animals dont have the concept of consent so they cannot consent with each other guess we better lock them up for rape huh?Also why is consent an issue or brought up here?Since when do we require animals consent for anything we use them for?Animals dont consent to each other or require each other consent so why do us humans need to?
Interesting yet all those stuff doesnt require the animals consent,but for sex we need their consent?But for keeping them in cages and slaughtering them we dont need their consent?

Face it you people are just grossed out,nothing more.

How often do you seen a lion having sex with a dog? What I'm getting at is that animals have different instincts than us and between species like between humans they can tell. It doesn't matter how smart you are, you pretty much cannot change your instinct. Maybe I'm wrong, but I still think that it's better safe than sorry.
Once again, I never said slaughtering animals and keeping them in cages is right. Killing animals for food is part of life, though; The food chain and keeping them in cages is sometimes for their own safety or for the safety of others (but other times it's just plain wrong and inhumane)
There is no reason other than for our own sexual desire to have sex with an animal; It is in no way productive!

[spotty]

No actually I am not consent is subjective term,I want to know how humans can consent while other species cannot.

Thats not what you stated. You asked for proof that humans can consent. That is what I tool exception to.

As for your 'zoophilia' paper, what it fails to address, conveniently, is that the parties involved in adult human heter or homosexuality, and zoophilia are completely different. In a sexual relationship between humans, the participation is equal. Beyond the purely physical aspect, there is an emotional connection between equals, an ability to communicate and empathize, and a full understanding of the context and repercussions of the union. In a human animal relationship, all these things are either non-existant or greatly diminished. What you are talking about, or potentially engage in, has much more in common with masturbation than intercourse. You can tell yourself that it is on equal par with a human to human relationship, but you're deluding yourself and projecting human characteristics onto an animal.

[yocki2009]

Originally Posted by Squatch347

Where did this come from? good quote, but if we don't have the source its hard to verify

zoosexuality: Information and Much More from Answers.com

I also you suggest and read more books on zoosexuality/beasility!


_________________________________ _{Post Merged} _________________________________

Originally Posted by Jamie678

How often do you seen a lion having sex with a dog?

Their has been well documented animals in inter-specie relationships and it has happen where a lion or animal will mate with other species and you expect them to understand consent since the smartest species cannot?

Originally Posted by Jamie678

What I'm getting at is that animals have different instincts than us and between species like between humans they can tell.

I agree,but their instinct doesnt give them the mental process like us humans how can they possibilty understand concent?And you forget animals are irrational.

Originally Posted by Jamie678

It doesn't matter how smart you are, you pretty much cannot change your instinct. Maybe I'm wrong, but I still think that it's better safe than sorry.

Humans have the capacity to change their instinct where animals cannot.

Originally Posted by Jamie678

Once again, I never said slaughtering animals and keeping them in cages is right.

Then why arent you complaing about that?Its WAY more harmful then simple sexual pleasure.

Originally Posted by Jamie678

Killing animals for food is part of life,

Not really,in this time of age,we dont need to eat animals we have other sources.Do you think mr.cow wants to be eaten or get a simple sexual pleasure?

Originally Posted by Jamie678

though; The food chain and keeping them in cages is sometimes for their own safety or for the safety of others (but other times it's just plain wrong and inhumane)

How is keeping them in cages and taking them out of their natural environment for their own safety?And also since you said we animals consent why dont we require their consent to keep them in cages?Would you like to be in a age 24/7 and then be in a zoo and work free labor?or get sexual pleasure?Also you I cant believe you justify keeping them in cages but wont justify sexual pleasure(which is better for the animal)keeping them in cages is cruel and wrong it is not for their own safety us humans do it because we can.And animals population is becoming less and less we need to stop killing them(but since killing them isnt nasty or gross its justified)soon animals gonna be exicint but hey its better then simple sexual pelasure right

Originally Posted by Jamie678

There is no reason other than for our own sexual desire to have sex with an animal;

Just like their is no reason for us to murder them besides our own eating pleasure,their is no reason to use them as labor(we dont pay them and they dont benefit)and their is no reason for us to put them in cages besides our sick desire.And who is to say the animal doesnt like sex with a human?Animals have sex with each other to pleasure their own sexual desire so why cant a human please the animal?A human female sucking a dog' penis or a male animal penis is pleasuring it and isnt causing harm so why be against it?

Originally Posted by Jamie678

It is in no way productive!

Yeah I know and homosexuality is no way productive either,so guess homosexuality is wrong huh?


_________________________________ _{Post Merged} _________________________________

Originally Posted by spotty

Thats not what you stated. You asked for proof that humans can consent. That is what I tool exception to..

Prove humans can consent

Originally Posted by spotty

As for your 'zoophilia' paper, what it fails to address, conveniently, is that the parties involved in adult human heter or homosexuality, and zoophilia are completely different..

Zoophilie involves with adults aswell,it involves with a sexually developed ADULT animal and also us humans are also animals by defintion

Originally Posted by spotty

In a sexual relationship between humans, the participation is equal. .

Same for zoophilie relationships.

Originally Posted by spotty

Beyond the purely physical aspect, there is an emotional connection between equals, an ability to communicate and empathize, and a full understanding of the context and repercussions of the union..

SAME for zoophilie relationships their is a emotional attachment people get emotional connection with their pets/animals and animals also get emotional connection to humans aswell and humans communicate with animals aswell and an animal understands a relationship it may understand it differently but doesnt mean its unaware.

Originally Posted by spotty

In a human animal relationship, all these things are either non-existant or greatly diminished..

Actually all those exists,their is sex,emotional connection,etc

Originally Posted by spotty

What you are talking about, or potentially engage in, has much more in common with masturbation than intercourse..

How so?

Originally Posted by spotty

You can tell yourself that it is on equal par with a human to human relationship,.

Of course it is not equal,just like not all human to human relationships are equal.

Originally Posted by spotty

but you're deluding yourself and projecting human characteristics onto an animal.

Where did I suggest animals have human characteristics?I am suggesting the similarty in relationships between us species and them.

And yes animals do have similar characterists like humans they get angry,depressed,sad,happy,emotional,horny,etc and this happens with their connection to a human.

In matter of fact a human-animal relationship maybe better then human-human relationship due to their is less chance of disease,and if an animal is connected to its human partner/pet owner and the human feels the same the bond is VERY strong!


_________________________________ _{Post Merged} _________________________________

Originally Posted by spotty

Thats not what you stated. You asked for proof that humans can consent. That is what I tool exception to..

Proof humans can consent

Originally Posted by spotty

As for your 'zoophilia' paper, what it fails to address, conveniently, is that the parties involved in adult human heter or homosexuality, and zoophilia are completely different..

Zoophilie involves with adults aswell,it involves with a sexually developed ADULT animal and also us humans are also animals by defintion

Originally Posted by spotty

In a sexual relationship between humans, the participation is equal. .

Same for zoophilie relationships.

Originally Posted by spotty

Beyond the purely physical aspect, there is an emotional connection between equals, an ability to communicate and empathize, and a full understanding of the context and repercussions of the union..

SAME for zoophilie relationships their is a emotional attachment people get emotional connection with their pets/animals and animals also get emotional connection to humans aswell and humans communicate with animals aswell and an animal understands a relationship it may understand it differently but doesnt mean its unaware.

Originally Posted by spotty

In a human animal relationship, all these things are either non-existant or greatly diminished..

Actually all those exists,their is sex,emotional connection,etc

Originally Posted by spotty

What you are talking about, or potentially engage in, has much more in common with masturbation than intercourse..

How so?

Originally Posted by spotty

You can tell yourself that it is on equal par with a human to human relationship,.

Of course it is not equal,just like not all human to human relationships are equal.

Originally Posted by spotty

but you're deluding yourself and projecting human characteristics onto an animal.

Where did I suggest animals have human characteristics?I am suggesting the similarty in relationships between us species and them.

And yes animals do have similar characterists like humans they get angry,depressed,sad,happy,emotional,horny,etc and this happens with their connection to a human.

In matter of fact a human-animal relationship maybe better then human-human relationship due to their is less chance of disease,and if an animal is connected to its human partner/pet owner and the human feels the same the bond is VERY strong!

[Jamie678]

Originally Posted by yocki2009

Then why arent you complaing about that?Its WAY more harmful then simple sexual pleasure.

Not really,in this time of age,we dont need to eat animals we have other sources.Do you think mr.cow wants to be eaten or get a simple sexual pleasure?

How is keeping them in cages and taking them out of their natural environment for their own safety?And also since you said we animals consent why dont we require their consent to keep them in cages?Would you like to be in a age 24/7 and then be in a zoo and work free labor?or get sexual pleasure?Also you I cant believe you justify keeping them in cages but wont justify sexual pleasure(which is better for the animal)keeping them in cages is cruel and wrong it is not for their own safety us humans do it because we can.And animals population is becoming less and less we need to stop killing them(but since killing them isnt nasty or gross its justified)soon animals gonna be exicint but hey its better then simple sexual pelasure right
Just like their is no reason for us to murder them besides our own eating pleasure,their is no reason to use them as labor(we dont pay them and they dont benefit)and their is no reason for us to put them in cages besides our sick desire.And who is to say the animal doesnt like sex with a human?Animals have sex with each other to pleasure their own sexual desire so why cant a human please the animal?A human female sucking a dog' penis or a male animal penis is pleasuring it and isnt causing harm so why be against it?
Yeah I know and homosexuality is no way productive either,so guess homosexuality is wrong huh?

Okay, I'm not complaining about the inhumanity of keeping animals in cages and slaughtering them because this post is about the inhumanity of having sex with them! We're not debating over whether keeping them in cages is right.

What I meant by the keeping them in cages for their own safety though is sometimes an animal is sick and it's going through medical treatment to get it better, but I also added if you noticed that it isn't always for the better of the animal and it is just plain wrong.

Homosexuality is an entirely different matter; It's between the same species and we can tell if the other person is consenting.
While I am not justifying it, sometimes keeping animals in cages is productive for scientific research. I personally don't like it, but it does add to scientific knowledge. (You keep using the argument that I justify keeping animals in cages which I don't; I would rather have all animal testing stopped unless it helps the animal in their health)
Having sex with an animal isn't productive at all and since we can't be sure if the animal enjoys it there is no reason other than the pleasure of our own to do it.
While homosexual sex may not be productive, no one is getting forced against their will; we can tell if someone consents.
I think that covered everything...

[spotty]

Obviously Yocki, you either didn't understand my post, or did and are just sticking your fingers in your ears and going nya nya nya.
Believe what ya wanna believe man, whatever, just stay away from my cat.

[Scarlett44]

Originally Posted by yocki2009

It's not different, prove how their different many psychologics proven zoophiles/zoosexuality is similiar and no different then homosexuality or heterosexuality

This is quoted directly from Wikipedia:
"The established view held by the overwhelming majority of professionals in the field of psychology is that zoophilia is a mental disorder."
It is listed in the DSM IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) as a paraphilia not otherwise specified, and it continues to be listed as a disorder.

Definition of paraphilia: "any sexual deviation, which is considered abnormal in some societies, or which may prevent or hinder one's ability to receive reciprocal love."

Homosexuality and Heterosexuality ARE NOT LISTED under PARAPHILIAS.
So, your claim that they are no different from zoophilia is incorrect.

Zoophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


_________________________________ _{Post Merged} _________________________________

Originally Posted by yocki2009

Help for what?My attraction?Should homosexuals get help aswell?And actually I am a zoophilie,and many zoophilies dont get help,their is nothing wrong with being a zoophilie its no different then being a heterosexual.

See above.

Originally Posted by yocki2009

Your personal expierence doesnt represent the majority of animal-human relationships.

Really?
Look at the some of the cases of bestiality animal abuse listed on this site:

Pet-Abuse.Com - Animal Abuse Database - Search Results[]=10

"DOG SEXUALLY ASSAULTED, BURNED"-Phoenix, AZ. (11-19-2007)

"HORSE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED"-Palmetto, FL. (7-9-2007)

"SHEEP SEXUALLY ASSAULTED"-Sherborn, MA. (6-27-2007)

"DOG SODOMIZED WITH CRUTCH, STRANGLED WITH WIRE."-Yuma, AZ. (6-1-2007)

Originally Posted by yocki2009

Prove humans can give consent,you cant prove that either.

WTF?? You're kidding, right??

[Squatch347]

Originally Posted by yoki

zoosexuality: Information and Much More from Answers.com

I also you suggest and read more books on zoosexuality/beasility!

Actually, I suggest you do more reading on the subject, see below;

"The established view held by the overwhelming majority of professionals in the field of psychology is that zoophilia is a mental disorder. Although DSM-III-R (APA, 1987) stated that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself (Cerrone, 1991)[citation needed], and therefore both this and the later DSM-IV (APA, 1994) subsumed it under the residual classification "paraphilias not otherwise specified", it continues to be defined as a disorder. The World Health Organization takes the same position, listing a sexual preference for animals in its ICD-10 as "other disorder of sexual preference"."
zoophilic: Definition and Much More from Answers.com

[yocki2009]

Originally Posted by Squatch347

Actually, I suggest you do more reading on the subject, see below;

"The established view held by the overwhelming majority of professionals in the field of psychology is that zoophilia is a mental disorder. Although DSM-III-R (APA, 1987) stated that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself (Cerrone, 1991)[citation needed], and therefore both this and the later DSM-IV (APA, 1994) subsumed it under the residual classification "paraphilias not otherwise specified", it continues to be defined as a disorder. The World Health Organization takes the same position, listing a sexual preference for animals in its ICD-10 as "other disorder of sexual preference"."
zoophilic: Definition and Much More from Answers.com

I hope you know they said the same thing about homosexuality.

Homosexuality is also listed as a disorder in some cases,guess heterosexuality is the only normal sexuality huh?


_________________________________ _{Post Merged} _________________________________

Originally Posted by Jamie678

Okay, I'm not complaining about the inhumanity of keeping animals in cages and slaughtering them because this post is about the inhumanity of having sex with them! We're not debating over whether keeping them in cages is right....

That is ignortant thinking so you gonna ignore other actions,and allow them why based on your feelings suddenly tell one action it is wrong?Why are is slaughtering them ignored??Also if a human having sex with a animal is inhumane then two animals having sex with each other is inhumane,did you forget a human(keyword=HUMAN)is rational and having sex can treat the animal humane?Do you think all those irrational wild animals treat other with humane?you think if a lion ****ed a dog it would treat it humane?Animals have no morals,and no ethics humans.

Originally Posted by Jamie678

What I meant by the keeping them in cages for their own safety though is sometimes an animal is sick and it's going through medical treatment to get it better,...

Since when do animals need humans assistance?Animals rely on their natural environment us humans taking them to cages without their consent(see that you said consent)is wrong and also what about zoos?I dont like animals being in zoos and be used as entertainment.

Originally Posted by Jamie678

but I also added if you noticed that it isn't always for the better of the animal and it is just plain wrong. ...

True

Originally Posted by Jamie678

Homosexuality is an entirely different matter; It's between the same species and we can tell if the other person is consenting. ...

Many homophibias would disagree with you,also us humans are animals by defintion so in the end we are all same species.And also consent is a subjective term it isnt always easy to tell if one man is consenting dont believe me?Ask all those men in prison they might disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Jamie678

While I am not justifying it, sometimes keeping animals in cages is productive for scientific research. ...

LOL you are justifying it,and since consent is a issue why do we keep them in cages and use them as research without their consent?Because it isnt nasty or gross to put them in cages,use expierments to hurt their bodies huh?

Originally Posted by Jamie678

I personally don't like it, but it does add to scientific knowledge. (You keep using the argument that I justify keeping animals in cages which I don't; I would rather have all animal testing stopped unless it helps the animal in their health)...

You are justifying it,you arent complaing you are saying"Because of scientifc knowledge we can FORCE/GRAB animals without their consent use them to justify us humans sick desire to be the greater specie",and you think a monkey likes being tested?I'm sure they prefer sexual pleasure but to you its worse and wrong then using them as expierments

Originally Posted by Jamie678

Having sex with an animal isn't productive at all and since we can't be sure if the animal enjoys it there is no reason other than the pleasure of our own to do it. ...

Using them for ANY purpose like free labor,or food isnt productive either does a cow enjoy getting eaten?And how do you knw the animal enjoys being in a cage or being used as scientific research?Their is NO reason for us to use animals for any purpose expect for our own.And sex is something animals actually enjoy,sexual pleasure is something all living things enjoy you think a horse wouldnt mind a blow job?What you think a horse/animal would want for us to justify using them in scientific research,keeping them in cages,eating them or get a simple sexual pleasure where no harm is caused and the animal can for once enjoy something kind from humans?or we should kill them and use them as research to justify our sick desire?

Originally Posted by Jamie678

While homosexual sex may not be productive, no one is getting forced against their will; we can tell if someone consents.
I think that covered everything...

Since when do we require consent from animals?If we dont need their consent to use them in free labor,eating,or research or using them as pets why would sex require it?

And can a man force a 900 pound gorilla to sex?




_________________________________ _{Post Merged} _________________________________

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

This is quoted directly from Wikipedia:
"The established view held by the overwhelming majority of professionals in the field of psychology is that zoophilia is a mental disorder."
It is listed in the DSM IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) as a paraphilia not otherwise specified, and it continues to be listed as a disorder.

Definition of paraphilia: "any sexual deviation, which is considered abnormal in some societies, or which may prevent or hinder one's ability to receive reciprocal love."

Homosexuality and Heterosexuality ARE NOT LISTED under PARAPHILIAS.
So, your claim that they are no different from zoophilia is incorrect.

Zoophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


_________________________________ _{Post Merged} _________________________________

>

did you miss this part?

The established view held by the overwhelming majority of professionals in the field of psychology is that zoophilia is a mental disorder. Although DSM-III-R (APA, 1987) stated that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself (Cerrone, 1991), and therefore both this and the later DSM-IV (APA, 1994) subsumed it under the residual classification "paraphilias not otherwise specified"

also did you miss this part?

The activity or desire itself is no longer classified
as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric
Association) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the
person, and research has broadly been supportive of at least some of zoophiles' central claims.

Just like homosexuality BOTH zoosexuality/beasility have been taken off the DSM-IV and are NO longer considered a disorder so their goes your case.
And also its listed as paraphilia that doesnt cause problem.

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

See above.

It isnt a disorder according to many pyschologics unless you want me to start killing animals and using them as labor that be better then performing sexual pleasure huh?

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

Really?
Look at the some of the cases of bestiality animal abuse listed on this site:

Pet-Abuse.Com - Animal Abuse Database - Search Results[]=10

"DOG SEXUALLY ASSAULTED, BURNED"-Phoenix, AZ. (11-19-2007)

"HORSE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED"-Palmetto, FL. (7-9-2007)

"SHEEP SEXUALLY ASSAULTED"-Sherborn, MA. (6-27-2007)

"DOG SODOMIZED WITH CRUTCH, STRANGLED WITH WIRE."-Yuma, AZ. (6-1-2007)
.

Yeah good source,and all those women sexually abused by men what does that say?Guess heterosexuality has to be banned huh?

And also those abuse are due to owning them as pets so why not ban owning them as pets?

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

WTF?? You're kidding, right??

Hey men in prison may disagree humans can consent,but hey just prove humans can consent,simple question unless you saying humans cant consent?


_________________________________ _{Post Merged} _________________________________

Originally Posted by spotty

whatever, just stay away from my cat.

Dont worry about me performing simple SAFE sexual pleasure to your cat,I would rather slaughter your cat or use it as free labor thats better then sexual pleasure

[Jamie678]

Originally Posted by yocki2009

That is ignortant thinking so you gonna ignore other actions,and allow them why based on your feelings suddenly tell one action it is wrong?
Also if a human having sex with a animal is inhumane then two animals having sex with each other is inhumane,did you forget a human(keyword=HUMAN)is rational and having sex can treat the animal humane?
Do you think all those irrational wild animals treat other with humane?you think if a lion ****ed a dog it would treat it humane?Animals have no morals,and no ethics humans.
Animals rely on their natural environment us humans taking them to cages without their consent(see that you said consent)is wrong and also what about zoos?I dont like animals being in zoos and be used as entertainment.
Many homophibias would disagree with you,also us humans are animals by defintion so in the end we are all same species.And also consent is a subjective term it isnt always easy to tell if one man is consenting dont believe me?Ask all those men in prison they might disagree with you.
LOL you are justifying it,and since consent is a issue why do we keep them in cages and use them as research without their consent?Because it isnt nasty or gross to put them in cages,use expierments to hurt their bodies huh?

Once again for the tenth time here... Keeping animals in cages and slaughtering them isn't humane and I'm NOT justifying it, but that's not what this debate is about. Have I ever said; Why yes, I think we should continue caging all animals and then inhumanely slaughter them- but sex with them is much worse. NO! I haven't said that. I've said sometimes there is reason to cage an animal in order to prolong the animal's life and then rehabilitate it, and set the animal free again. I see nothing wrong with that.
There is absolutely no reason to have sex with an animal except for the pleasure of the human.
You talked about all those men in prison who have unconsentual sex, comparing it to not being able to tell if animals consent; Yea, it's called rape and it's against the law.
Lastly, I am NOT justifying keeping them in cages and slaughtering them in case you forgot... again. You are not listening to my side of the argument at all; There is some productivity to killing animals for food and keeping them in cages, even though sometimes it is wrong. I repeat; I am not saying it is right, but that's the difference between that and having sex with animals; There is no sense in having sex with an animal except for the human's and only the human's pleasure. The animals, trust me, will live on if we leave them alone.
I am not justifying keeping them in cages and slaughtering them; I think it's wrong and immoral.

[Just Me]

Originally Posted by yocki2009

I hope you know they said the same thing about homosexuality.

Homosexuality is also listed as a disorder in some cases,guess heterosexuality is the only normal sexuality huh?

Care to support your claim here?
Here I will help you...
Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.

In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal.

APA Help Center - Health & Emotional Wellness - "Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality"