What Is Wrong With Zoophilia?, Why the collective bias?
Home Made
Movie Archive
The Forum Rules
Contact Support
|
 Chat
 Help
 Search
 Members
 Calendar
|
| Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
| Pages: (5) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ( Go to first unread post ) |    |
What Is Wrong With Zoophilia?, Why the collective bias?| Tomokato |
Posted: Mar 27 2005, 04:49 AM
|
|
Enthusiast  Group: Members Posts: 188 Member No.: 27892 Joined: 9-June 04
 |
There are quite a few reasons why there exists in society a prejudice against zoophiles. Most have been covered here like:
Popular misconceptions such as: -Animals can't consent -Animals don't have sex for pleasure -Animals are like children -Animals are dirty and spread disease -Animals are beneath humans (in God's eyes) I think another issue surfaces when you look at how animals fit into society today. Horses are a great example of a species of animal that is exploited in the US and Canada. Premarin is made from pregnant mare urine and is extracted from mares who are kept pregnant and cathaderized. The foals are are sold off after a conveniant 11 month pregnancy. Dogs and cats en masse are exploited in the US for companionship. Look at the staggering numbers of these species put down every year as unwanted and abandoned. I suppose if I knew enough I could talk at length about the exploitation of cows chickens and other livestock to feed us fattened US citizens but I think I've made my point. I think society is particularly resistant to thinking or even considering the possibility that animals deserve to be put anywhere near humans in terms of rights or consideration. If they did, whole societal concepts would have to change as a result. TK |
 
|
| MaFPAzOl |
Posted: Apr 27 2005, 10:08 PM
|
|
Hardcore  Group: Banned Posts: 758 Member No.: 103788 Joined: 23-April 05
|
Sorry Cetacean, I not yet read everything. It's an interresting topic I'll read later, quietly. Just wanted to add my 2 euro cents :
- People are uncomfortable with sex in general - People don't wants to mess with lower being such animals - People believes we are more Godly than animals, which mostly belongs to the Devil Mix the three, you'll get their feeling about zoophilia ! MaFPAzOl © 2005 |
|
|
| horselovin |
Posted: Apr 28 2005, 03:22 AM
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 2 Member No.: 96922 Joined: 29-March 05
|
"The only odd sexual behavior is none at all"
|
|
|
| Natureboy |
Posted: Apr 28 2005, 03:50 AM
|
||
|
Addict Group: Members Posts: 373 Member No.: 49865 Joined: 21-September 04
|
:huh: Well said my friend. I consider myself lucky to have a wife (of 10yrs) whom knew nothing before 2 yrs ago about our zoo "lifestyle" <--( what she calls it :lol: ) tell me first hand what she thought of it. She joins me a few times here and there with my male K9 ,but for the most part it was'nt her thing and will never will be. I accept that and respect her for her forthcoming on the subject. However all is not lost :unsure: :mellow: :w00t: the otherday she asked me out of the blue if I would like her to make a Foxy Fox fur suit that she could wear while we had sex. :thinking: :thinking: :w00t: :angel: Life is good :angel: |
||
|
|
| DONN |
Posted: Apr 28 2005, 04:41 AM
|
||||
|
Beginner Group: Members Posts: 60 Member No.: 30632 Joined: 23-June 04
|
Ho hum! Perhaps I am weighing in here on a topic very far above my head; although, delving into the scientific history--as an amateur-- of a period of time well before the advent of "humanity", at a time when interspecies 'linkages" were occurring abundantly away down, deep, back within the "primeordial soup", somewhere in the depths of an aboriginal world-shaping cauldron, eons ago; could not that primal evolutionary process be labelled, today, as the aboriginal "roots" of all present-day forms of life? Is not pollination in nature, and/or cross- polination of things animal, vegetable, or mineral, not a kind of natural "cross-breeding"; a kind of breeding that did or DID NOT produce all sorts of hybrids of something or other? For example, if the atom "oxygen" came into being sometime, and the atom hydrogen came into being at some other time, and by happenstance they "pollinated", collided, (or casually joined forces as two atoms of oxygen and one atom of hydrogen) then "Voila", we now have the first ever molecule of water. Then, much later, when we, the creeping, crawling things that we became, eventually came out of the "soup" as amphibians, at or about the same time other kinds of amphibs. were doing the same thing, these creepers and crawlers must have somehow merged, eventually to become our true genetic ancesters, and so on, and so on, and so on, until we evolved as a kind of S/HE diversion? What then was the first "s/he"? Today we humanoids seem to have almost --but not quite--the identical DNA as the chimpanze or the gorilla. That "slight" genetic difference is that "we", all of us, being "thoughtful human animals"--and we are "animals" too--, may now name things in whatsoever way we might choose so to do; accordingly, the self-appointed "Smarties" amongst our own various herds of "human animals" took hold of the audacity to hoodwink the entire world into "...knowing for absolute certainty..." that the very first word would be "man" and the second word would be "wo", and that the cross-breeding of these earliest words would become Wo-Man ("Woman"). Viz. "Adam and Eva". So if one choses to believe the "Smarties", so be it; otherwise, try to be of good cheer and don't hurt, maim or kill anybody. We have "invented "declarations of wars" to do the latter. So, what is "zoophilia"? It is merely an invented word just like all other words in our daily communications Excelsior, One happy, healthy, human animal. |
||||
|
| Snuffles |
Posted: Apr 28 2005, 07:00 PM
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 15 Member No.: 67106 Joined: 28-November 04
|
"But why can't most people think rationally about this. "
Good question. the complete lack of critical thought that plauges most people when this subject comes up continues to baffle me. There are things out there I would never do, but I don't condemn thim right away simply because they are not for me. It just goes to show how small and sad some people's worlds are. It all comes down to "I would never do it, so it must be wrong!" for them. |
|
|
| MaFPAzOl |
Posted: Apr 28 2005, 07:47 PM
|
||
|
Hardcore Group: Banned Posts: 758 Member No.: 103788 Joined: 23-April 05
|
"Intelligence is like jam; less you have, more you spread it out" These people knows then cannot argue with zoophiles, the only things that remains to defend themself is historically proven wrong claims that don't stand face to rationality. But are they ? Just looks how many people still believes in urban legends... MaFPAzOl © 2005 |
||
|
|
| Warrior_Mage |
 Posted: Sep 9 2005, 04:50 AM
|
|
Addict Group: Members Posts: 330 Member No.: 157584 Joined: 6-September 05
|
Snuffles et al, When have you ever seen the "majority" of people in this world give critical thought to anything? They believe what they have been taught uncritically!
|
|
|
| Rona |
Posted: Sep 9 2005, 01:19 PM
|
||
|
Enthusiast Group: Banned Posts: 111 Member No.: 46313 Joined: 6-September 04
|
Going back to the orrigonal quote, I think you're focusing on the wrong aspect. I believe that this person's underlying belief is *not* that zoophila is bad, but rather that sex itself is bad. Sex can be dangerous of course. You can catch AIDS, you can get hurt by your own hormones and emotions, you can hurt others which can damage relationships or can cause some people to physically attack you. Girls can get pregnant, which can damage thier lifestyle if they're foolish to have the baby in an inapropiet enviroment. But none of this makes sex evil. This kind of thinking seems especially deep rooted in countries like America, where they are (for example) fanatically determined to protect children from the mere knowledge of sex; not because its potentially dangerous (which it is) but because its evil in and of itself. Which is somewhat dumb to my way of thinking. Walking across the road without looking is dangerous - but we don't protect children from knowing about roads or cars. I believe tackling that underlying atitude would be far more useful (to society in general and zoophiles in particular) than trying to oppose the religions and politicians that feed upon it. It can also be done in far greater safety than more direct political action as well. Rona |
||
|
|
| dr Kaninov |
Posted: Sep 9 2005, 08:00 PM
|
|
Hardcore Group: Members Posts: 517 Member No.: 106551 Joined: 4-May 05
|
In the wise words of agent K of men in black:
"one man is smart, but people is a bunch of dumb paniky animals" I think this has a lot to do with the so called "Social Pressure", people is too lazy to look at things in all the possible shades of gray, it is much easier to look at them in black and white, and easier even if you look at them in the black and white of a group of people, since you are with the majority and that is allways good in the sense that if a fight begins, you can beat out a smaller group, sadly, the majority is more pigheaded than single individuals, who are ready to conform up to the group and "belong". remember that if it wasn't for oddballs like us, people would still live in caves, worshipping the lights in the sky. to prove what I'm saying remember that Allan Turing was gay and the creator of Artificial intelligence, at the time being gay in england was punishable by "Chemical Castration" as he suffered. maybe in some time... |
|
|
| Cetacean |
Posted: Sep 10 2005, 01:59 PM
|
|
Veteran Group: Members Posts: 1043 Member No.: 42454 Joined: 19-August 04
|
I seriously doubt AIDS was the result of sexual contact with monkeys if that's what you're saying. A bite is much more likely. I don't see what the other diseases have to do with zoophilia - they're not STD's, the West Nile virus is mosquito carried, bird flu is spread through faeces and the air and the parvo virus is spread mainly via physical contact and faeces.
|
|
|
| Venbred |
Posted: Sep 10 2005, 07:39 PM
|
|
Addict Group: Members Posts: 267 Member No.: 128323 Joined: 5-July 05
|
Well I would contribute something to this thread, but from what I have read, it has been covered very well why the public view us in the way they do. Thanks to everyone who put alot of thought and work into thier posts, as it also opened my eyes to other reaons why we are labled the way we are. :)
|
|
|
| SunFlower23 |
Posted: Sep 10 2005, 10:02 PM
|
|
Supreme Being  Group: Elite Members Posts: 5247 Member No.: 87335 Joined: 22-February 05
|
For the most part, I like to live by one simple creed: If it doesn't hurt you or anyone else, go for it! ;)
Short, sweet, simple. Huggles :heart: |
|
| dr Kaninov |
Posted: Sep 12 2005, 10:53 PM
|
|
Hardcore Group: Members Posts: 517 Member No.: 106551 Joined: 4-May 05
|
Ok, just to add to my rantings.
I remembered recently a couple letters to magazines (national geographic and peter mooses magazine, hardly erotic if any), this magazines had had each an article related to sex, in Nat Geo, they spoke about a tribe of apes that used sex as a social lubricant instead of reliying to violence, the otherone spoke about the history of sex, in both cases, people answered angryly that they shouldn't lower themselves to the level of porn magazines, and should not speak the S word, regardless that both articles were basically information and exploited no morbid scenes... that makes me think that there are a lot of persons that think that everything happening below the waist is evil, even on same species contexts, so, having sex with another species in their sadly limited POV is harming that other species. It is a sad thing ignorance or hypocresy limit people's world so much :( |
|
|
| Horse_shrink |
Posted: Sep 13 2005, 03:18 AM
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 11 Member No.: 146330 Joined: 13-August 05
|
There are several reasons that I can suggest:
1.) Religious Because society is still suffering the after effects of an era of religious oppression where the laws were based around those of old Jewish scripture (Books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers in any Bible). As these morals have been heavily pressed into the mind of society, despite the separation of Church and State, so most of these laws still apply. 2.) Health (Somewhat related to Religion) Our understandings of viral pathology in relation to animal viruses (other than airborne or non-infectious) fluids is limited and studies are still progressing. 3.) Animal psychology (I may have mentioned this idea elsewhere, but I'll mention it again.) Our understanding of animal psychology is limited. There has been no research into how the sexual activites of an animal may affect it's psychie, if there is any affect. Plus, there is the fact that some animals have sex purely for the continuation of the species. Until such times as every nervous pathway and every chemical and it's effect on the brains of animals, including our own, have been mapped and understood, we will never truely understand. Because of they vasts amount of moral grey ground on the subject, I use a simple rule: Does the animal suffer and is it evident? Afterall, sex for pleasure should be fun for all parties involved. ;) |
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
 Pages: (5) 1 2 [3] 4 5 |
|
[ Script Execution time: 5.3484 ] [ 9 queries used ] [ GZIP Disabled ]
