loveofsophia wrote:

Love is a complicated word. On one side we have appreciation and on the other we have a want for sexual expression underlying the appreciation. In this respect zoophiles have been claimed to be capable of expressing both love outlooks toward an animal.

The concern is, what about the situations where a desire for sexual expression is present but not one of appreciation. What recourse does the dog have? What about the zoophiles that claim love but are really just taking advantage of their animal. How does the dog make known the fact they are just being taken advantage of?

loveofsophia wrote:
The concern is, what about the situations where one forces themselves on their dog. What recourse and protection can a dog realistically get? You have stated te animal will not allow the sex. But what happens when, without all that much trouble, a human forces themselves on a dog and does so without others becoming aware? The dog can't go and complain to the authorities, now can it.

loveofsophia wrote:
So, despite the fact you are only focusing on the potential for a loving relationship between a non-human animal and a human, this isn't really possible to be affirmed by society simply because abuse of the animal within sexual expression is too easily realized and kept hidden.

loveofsophia wrote:
You might say, well this is just not fair to the individuals it doesn't apply to, but just for the same reason a mature 13 year old and 18 year old are not allowed, despite any genuineness to their love and desire for sexual expression, to engage in such activity, likewise the case can be argued against bestiality.

loveofsophia wrote:
Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with a loving and affectionate relationship between an animal and a human that results in sex. I, in some ways, doubt the cognitive stability of those people but that is mostly based upon the suspicion that their brain must have some odd wiring going on to actually find an animal sexually attractive (it makes you wonder what else might be abnormally wired). Homosexuality is less suspicious because it seems just like the other side of the coin of human sexual desire; one direction is toward the female the other toward the male.

loveofsophia wrote:
Bestiality is confusing because it makes me suspicious that it is just using an animal entirely. Why, because my understanding of sexuality entails that it be directed toward a particular type of body. How can a human be sexually attracted to dogs, pigs and horses? If a zoophile is attracted to the body of a dog, are they also capable of being sexually attracted to a horse? If they are, it makes me suspicious that the psychological mindset is not really appreciation or even sexual attraction. I am suspicious that this is all only the excuse they put forward in order to justify to others, or maybe even themselves, their living fuck toys.

Chato wrote:
The OP insists on debating this from the point of view of the "ideal" zoosexual.

Well, if we are talking about exceptions, we can talk ourselves into anything.

What is the zoosexual norm? Well on those sites where they defend themelves, they routinely have sex with dogs at all times of the year - Which is to say, as I've proved in a previous post, cannot be described as anything but abuse.

With this kind of logic I can defend pedophilia, I can defend murder, I can defend just about anything else.

If you debate the question, logic forces us to debate the norm, not some mythical ideal which MIGHT me manifested once in a blue moon.

I've asked him about this before, and he simply ignores the question.

Dave

No, no; nearly, but no. Rape causes more displeasure than pleasure, so it is bad--the opposite of good. Hitler killing Jews caused much more pain and displeasure than pleasure, and therefore was bad.

If the taboo was removed, both zoophiles and non-zoophiles would be happy. The world would be a happier place, with more love. I'm trying to get rid of the taboo, so more people are happy.

No, I am saying that it is sometimes right--at least as right as sex. I do not think that animal rape is good, and as that is a form of bestiality, bestiality is not always right.

If pleasure is good, then displeasure is bad. Abuse is disbalanced in favor of displeasure, and therefore something that is bad, under the terms that I laid out.

TMB wrote:
Hi Chato,


Yes I understand this perspective, however this was not my point. The issue is one of control over anmials in the relationship. Even the protection we afford them, is defined by us, whatever rights they get it is by virtue of what we bestow. I accept that this gives them better lives on this basis, but they are still totally at our beck and call. Also do not forget that the benevolent view of animals is mostly western, and Hindu. In many other countries dogs, cats etc live by their wits and get very little from their human masters, they are beasts of burden, dogs are still eaten in China. The use of domestic animals as food, cows, sheep, the conditions under which they are tramsported, the housing and feeding of chickens, beef etc do not give me the impression that these 'rights' have much to do with protecting the rights of animals as with making humans feel virtuous.

TMB wrote:

Trust me on this, if we bestow rights, we can take them away. When bird flu hit SE Asia, chickens got killed in big numbers. We decided that we would not tuck even the sick chickens into beds with with a wooly toy, they killed any chicken they could lay their hands on to control the effect on humans. Even the killing of the chickens was measured in human value terms of food etc. Aniamsl in our homes get dumped in droves over holidays. The animal shelters are kept busy picking up the discards from humans. If the rights we give them had any any teeth, this could not happen. We offer some value to them in some environments, but much of it is lip service.

TMB wrote:

There is an argument promoted by Peter Singer suggesting that greae apes should have more rights than extremely disabled humans, however I am not ware that any legislation exists to bring them up to our level. Animals get a measure of protection through WWF, with their lists of endangered and protected species, however, I am not sure that drugging, tagging etc of wild animals offers them a better life than they would have gotten in a human free wilderness. Once again, humans have imposed themselves upon every other living thing on the planet. In the sea, the air, the land, we have made many species extinct, poisoned many others, even though the use of animals in experiments, more humane methods are used to kill food animals, I do not think we have much to be proud of in our treatment of animals.

TMB wrote:

I do seem to have strayed off the original topic. Are you suggesting that in the appropriate circumstances, sex with female animals (ie. when in season) is a different ethical practice to doing it when they are not in season? Since I assume the fertility does not seem to be the issue here, I assume it is the rececptivity you are alluding to. If so, are you arguing that as long as the animal in question (a bitch in this case) is receptive it is OK? How would it work for a male dog and a woman, where they are receptive all the year, as are boars, stallions, bulls etc, and if they are given the opportunity, appear to perform quite capably.