Hmm, well everyone has his or her own opinon about it. There is no real good or bad if you aks me! It depends on what you value more: Sex and only sex and nothing more, or sex and a relationship, or sex as a ressutl of a loving relationship etc. you can continue this as long as you want. Everyone will find something that suites him well and fits to him...

In my case its the love and the sex as result from a loving relationship. Its probably because of my past and because i never encountered real love except with dogs therefor sex itself doesnt means much to me!
Im a romantic person and the emotions count for me higher then the short pleasure of sex...

Each to his own...

I agree Wolfie, 1000%.. and with HR as well.. AND with wolfbat's defination's!!

So I am a diehard ''zoofeelia''... I love my Sal with all my heart.. am I ''in love'' with him??.. NO I'm not. I love him for his personality, his kind wonderful loving heart, his playfullness, his friendship, THEN as a lover!! If tomorrow suddenly he never wanted to have sex with me again... I would love him NO less!! Miss it like hell *giggle* but still love him dearly for all the other reasons I stated above! I love my other 4 animals NO less and I DON'T have sex with them. ANYONE that owns an animal and does not show that animal the love and respect that they so willingly give US has NO right to own that animal.. let alone DESERVE them!!! :angry:

Bestiality - sex with an animal.

No positive or negative connotations attached to it in the dictionary. Keep it that way.

Attaching a negative connotation to it only hurts zoophiles. If you are caught you are not charged with zoophilia but bestiality. So pushing Bestiality as "r a p e " can only hurt.

r a p e is R a p e

bestiality is sex with animals.

Zoophilia is love of animals with a sexual side.

This post has been edited by zoostallion2001 on May 28 2004, 07:22 AM

no I dont think it would be abuse, I think animal owners should be able to do whatever they wish to there animals other than [CENSOR] them/torture them. So if the animal likes to have sex, then let it have sex!

Very good point i would have to agree that it is not a good idea to apply negative conotations to beastiality.


This post has been edited by thowra on May 30 2004, 11:43 PM

I guess that would make me a zoo/bestialist then... :P

Add my vote to that and that abuse is abuse, period.

Well i dont see them as "abusers" but rather as "users". They only take without giving back! This is one of the many attitudes of humanity which makes me sad and sometimes so damn angry.
So many people only take what they want from their friends, family, lovers partners and only give back a tiny little bit, not even worth enough to repay what they have taken!
If they do it with a human i dont realy care much, because a human is able to recognize it and react on it - like breaking up a relationship or something like that. But a animal cant!!
I dont see them as abusers, because they dont force the animal to have sex - well most dont but i know of some that did - that is almost impossibel without getting into real danger. Atleast many care for the wellbeing of the animals they have sex with...
But again i guess your point about this topic depends on on which side you are and what you value most in your life and your relationships"

As for apply negative conotations to beastiality this has allready happend. And i wasnt done by us or anyone on this forum but by nonzoos who created that word in the past. Like you said, thowra, if you get cought its beastiality.
And its only one of two defenitions of the same thing, but i can be used as positve description or as negative.
Having sex doesnt has to be a bad thing, but i can be! (note: Im not of those who see sex as dirty or anything bad!)

That's right HR, there are good ways to have sex and there are bad ways to have sex. The bad ways are like tying up a helpless dog so it can't bite and defend itself, or a human as well, against their own will. To have good sex there should never ever be a need to tie up anything, to have sex with it. If it needs to be tied up then it doesn't need to be mated with. :angry: :angry: If so then you deserve whatever you get in the future or in the end. You are a Beastialist, in my book. Zoos have no need to ever tie up an animal for any reason, and if the have to then they are abusing the zoo name. I have tied up a couple of my dogs, but Aniaml control told me to, cause they ran off, bitch down the road in heat. :lol: :lol: The only time zoos ever have to tie up their animals. :P :lol: to keep them from running loose and from getting hurt.

HR, hope I'm not to far out of line on this, you and others know how I hate the BEAST word :angry: :unsure: unless it is used to describe and animal. :huh:

Wolfie: Believe me i see it the same way as you do ;) I not i would have left this thread after my first post...

As for sex in a good or bad way, yeah you put i quite well! Though some people do and even some animals "might" enjoy being tied up! Sofar i have never read or heared about such a animal but i before i found this place here i had only read about dogs who liked to take it up the back. Here i finaly found some people - like you - who could prove it. So i can imagine that some animals maybe dont enjoy it but dont care about it...
But you are right, so right, if you need to force him/her its not the right way mate! It should allways be fun for both!!

Thanks Sal and HR. :) Makes me feel special that I can help out. :P :D

HR, all of my males that I've had, at first didn't care much for it, but by playing with their rears, and stuff like that, they began to enjoy it more and more. My one Samoyed I had, I'd finger is butt hole, and tell him to go sh*t, and he would, then come back in the house and run back into the bed room, up on the bed, and spread out to get screwed, everytime. The dog was 100% gay if I didn't know it. What it looked like to me. He would love to sit on my face, for me to lick him out, and he would do it to me to.

Just a little insight of what some dogs enjoy, far above most of the others. :blink:

Well if I'm totaly honest with myself I have to admit that I started of as a beastialist, but from the moment I saw that little cute rott puppy it was realy impossible not to fall in love with it :D relationship got more and more intens, even now it amazes me that it keeps on getting stornger.

Understand beastialist since I started of as one but I'm totaly disgusted with people who don't take care of their dog or treat the like an object and just trade them or stuff. And even if you have sex and don't love them or have an intens friendship it's hard to believe you don't feel a kind of friendship or well glad that they help you out ;)

That is the biggest thing that anyone can do, and needs to learn to do. To admit their faults. Like myself and Rotty, we laerned from our mistakes. Other people don't and some don't care. If they would just see the differences between the two of them, and to realize what one means over the other. Things may be better. :unsure:

Rotty, thanks for admitting that, alot of guts. :P :)

I didn't want to either but things go on, mostly for the better, once you are honest with yourself and others. :D

I've admited to zigging back and forth and I know that many of us have started that way. That's why I say that as long as everybody is healthy and happy just keep on. Relationships develope over time and who knows. Anybody could wake up Zoo one morning.

Another vote here for keeping it simple.

If you are having sex with animals, then you are committing acts of bestiality.

If you are in love with an animal or animals then you are a zoophile.

If you use an animal for your own personal gratification without regard for its well-being or consent, then you are committing bestiality and r*pe.

However, if you use an animal for your own personal gratification with regard for its well-being and consent, then you are simply committing an act of bestiality.

HR, I do not fully understand your indignation with Bighorse. He fits the last statement very well, he commits acts of bestiality without r*pe, as I assume, you do. The main difference being your added love for your animal partner. To assert that morally one should only have sex as an expression of love is ridiculous. For one, you would be disregarding the natural force of lust, a force that drives and motivates most of the animal kingdom! In addition a person would have to feel love every time they commit a sexual act with another (an unrealistic requirement in my humble opinion.) I think the main thing here is that the animal's consent and well-being be a part of the sex equation.

In terms of "people like him give us zoophiles a bad name," I must point out that the people who give "us" a bad name are the people being caught having sex with animals while doing things that obviously disregard the animal's well being such as, tying or restraining the animal, or, even worse injuring/killing them. When I read stories like that in the news, I cheer, glad that they were caught and dealt with by the law.

Another thing to consider is that sex with animals is a social taboo. This is what drives some thrill seekers to do it. It's also what drives people who you'd consider to be rational and reasonable people to instead be irrational and prejudicial. They throw all consideration for zoophillia and love of animals out the window because in their view, an animal absolutely cannot consent, and absolutely will be harmed in the act of perverted human lust. To the vast majority of people, ANYONE who has sex with animals is commiting a crime zoophile or not!