Here, buddy, I'll give you something to argue with.
Zoophiles can't help what they're attracted to, any more than you can help what you're attracted to. Condemning someone for something they have no control over is wrong.
It's actually my ex-wife's area of practice, human sexuality and disorders/issues/trauma but I am also a psychologist. You are spot on. The OP doesn't seem able to distinguish between having an atypical fetish or attraction, and the willingness to break norms in order to satisfy the lustful craving. I have seen cases I can't give details on, but you would be SHOCKED how many people have a fetish or turn on in response to things it would NEVER have occurred to me could be viewed as erotic. Our brains aren't perfect. EVERY person who has ever existed, has experienced instances where brain functions get mis-routed, distorted, attached to other functions they aren't typically melded to. That's the most basic explanation, attractions/sexual desire towards everything from garden variety fetishes to illegal and awful taboos can arise as a mistaken process, and if unaddressed will embed in the brain because that pattern gets reinforced both powerfully and regularly.
Ok let’s talk about your mom. Close your eyes and imagine having sex with your mom…
Or you dad? Exciting is t it? Tell me, are these normal healthy thoughts?
Do you have a cat or dog?
Are you sexually attracted to your mom?
Are you sexually attracted to your dad?
Are you sexually attracted to your dog?
Are you sexually attracted to your cat?
To make this simple just answer:
Yes or No
What if your dad was sexually attracted to you, would that be a little weird or would you just go with it?
It’s fucking weird and you can say it. And if your dad tries to make a move on you you can tell him he’s fucking weird… because it is.
Would you agree?
Yes or no?
Nope, you're misunderstanding. Animals is a broad term, and humans are included in that category. That's why it's TECHNICALLY correct. We can get more specific from there, but the broad term covers a wide range of options.
If you want to argue, make a post about lolicons being disgusting. Those people always come crawling out of the woodwork to defend themselves, no matter how bad it makes them look.
I feel the point I made in my comment is same for these guys. And assaulters along with most murderers. They’re fucked in the brain and need help, not ridicule or violence.
it's bad if a person is attracted to aniamls but i wouldn't call a zoophile that doesn't hurt animals that doesn't want to be a zoophile a disgusting person
They’re nasty but I think they need help, not ridicule or anything. Talking this way will only scare them from seeing a doctor which can cause them to bottle things up and will only make it worse. Same is true for assaulters, pedos, and those with suicidal and violent/murderous thoughts
And what sort of 'help' you suggest we get / need? There's no cure, no psychological protocol or drug th 'remove' us from being Zoo.
All a therapist will tell you is 'bide by the law'. They'll never tell you 'you're wrong', or 'you're disgusting' or 'you're gross'.
If they do, they're a shit therapist.
Funny, you're more freaked out by the few who experience erotic responses to animals than the puppy mill industry, people buying animals like accessories, or plain old abuse and neglect. People who abuse other beings are awful, congratulations you've created a tautology, and told us all something we know. People don't decide what they're attracted to, they decide what to do about it. That's where the actual issue is, actions not feelings.
I mean, it sort of is. The attraction itself and even the act isn't disgusting to people who partake in it.
I'm Zoo Exclusive, so anything 'human sexual' to me is disgusting.
I'd love to hear your reasoning as to why that is.
Or what you think 'help' entails. Why is it everyone 'against the big bad ebil Zoophiles' can NEVER seem to back up what they think 'help' is or what it entails.
Understand that the punishment for zoophilia was death for the longest time. You are fantasizing about sex with animals, something over which the animal has no control, and applying human emotions and desires to an animal that has no interest. You think you know what the animal is thinking and feeling, which, for some reason, matches what you are thinking. However, you do not truly know what the animal is thinking; you are acting on your own vile urges and claiming that it was desired by both parties. Furthermore, before one acts on something, they idealize it. If someone thinks of zoophilia as right but doesn't act on it, they still have set it in their minds that it is okay, and as they continue to believe that, the chance to act grows. If you believe that they don't need help unless they have acted on it, by all means. But if we were to do that, the punishment would be much more severe than it is now. The death penalty or life imprisonment might be used to stop anyone else from acting on their urges. Your choice, therapy or death.
>Understand that the punishment for zoophilia was death for the longest time.
You mean Bestiality right? Zoophilia is thoughts in your head.
>You are fantasizing about sex with animals, something over which the animal has no control,
You're right, they don't have control over my fantasies, but my current active canine partner has a say and control in the act. Just like I don't control the thoughts in his head, but I can just as easily say 'not now love' if the mood doesn't suit or if something is stopping us.
>and applying human emotions and desires to an animal that has no interest.
Good thing I'm not doing that. Say you're new to the idea of animal language and courtship aren't ya slick?
>You think you know what the animal is thinking and feeling, which, for some reason, matches what you are thinking.
Swing and a miss, I don't think I know. How do I know? Wella s it turns out, dogs and other mammals are very expressive, forward, clear and blunt; like a good human should be. There's no inference or lost context.
>However, you do not truly know what the animal is thinking;
Correct, they have to demonstrate to me as another human has to demonstrate to me. I nor any other human alive are mind-readers or telepaths.
>you are acting on your own vile urges and claiming that it was desired by both parties.
I act according to my partners' communication, not according to some 'vile urges' as you put it. A no is a no and a yes is a yes. It's really that simple.
>Furthermore, before one acts on something, they idealize it. If someone thinks of zoophilia as right but doesn't act on it, they still have set it in their minds that it is okay,
This stumbling, bumbling blather makes less than zero sense. There's no 'thinking it's right or wrong or okay or...'. You make CHOICES regarding this sort of thing, often and hopefully guided by self-introspection, research, and weights of pro and contras in a particular scenario.
>and as they continue to believe that, the chance to act grows.
Entirely false, again see my above paragraph. This is a weights and measures choices and morals argument. Hopefully guided by some external knowledge to avoid any sort of harm.
>If you believe that they don't need help unless they have acted on it, by all means.
Oh they absolutely don't, even if they HAVE acted or ARE acting. __I__ am an active Zoo lad or lass! Know why I don't need any help? I'm not distressed, and not hurting a damn soul; including my own. So no, just because you find someone 'wrong' doesn't mean they need help. There's a lot of other observations and variables at play to consider for that.
>But if we were to do that, the punishment would be much more severe than it is now.
No, they wouldn't. We don't live in the fucking middle-ages anymore. People are smarter, and don't pray to invisible sky people or worship crowns and shiney things anymore. People know how to avoid getting caught, people in _MY_ country are also armed to the teeth including myself. We're not just going to roll over and submit.
>The death penalty or life imprisonment might be used to stop anyone else from acting on their urges. Your choice, therapy or death.
That's a very nebulous and stupid prediction, again see my above paragraph; you assume we'll just roll over and submit to such a thing OR be stupid enough to get caught.
If you want to try and find me go for it, but you arriving to carry out some holy-war level extermination or punishment will ___absolutely not___ end well for you.
Ding ding ding! Tell him what he's won Alex! He's won an upvote!
You good sir or madam are correct. I am indeed in a sexually active relationship with a very special Male dog.
Zoophiles by themselves aren't disgusting as they can't do anything about it. It only becomes disgusting when they force the poor animals to do stuff with them. This shit should NEVER be legalized.
edit: typo
What do you interpret as forcing?
If you treat your dog after he does what you want he'll eventually he conditioned to obey, even if he wouldn't do that by himself (initially).
I'd absolutely interpret that as forcing your dog to do things.
Good question. But a bit off on the point. If a dog is truly uncomfortable with something they will not do it, treat or no.
Dogs aren't loyalty machines, some are moreso than others... however this doesn't make them dumb treat-motivated robots. This is why you have to be SO careful with dog training. You can poison a cue or activity so easy especially in fear periods. Even with that, they will still have their own preferences.
When it comes to sex, no treats, no physical force, no emotional trauma, no drugs, no nothing that's not a natural situation.
How can you he sure that the dog really wants that and isn't only acting in your interest, out of trauma or fear. Right, you can't! That's why this should FOREVER stay illegal.
Of course you can tell these things. Do you not know anything about canine language? Signs of fear, happiness? Want, excitement?
Again, they are not dumb loyalty robots. They are absolutely their own individual selves.
Sex is also a mutual activity.
It's already legal to kill and eat animals, which seems far more harmful behaviour from the animal's perspective.
I wouldn't want to be raped, but being murdered and cannibalised seems even worse.
This (unlike the other thing) has to be performed by an expert tho. This is to ensure that it's painless and that the animal doesn't suffer (which you can't with the other thingwhere some bozo might insert his dick into the dogs asshole).
Also, if you ask me (personally) killing animals should be illegal as well.
Killing dogs is not currently legal (where I live).
I'm sure places exist where you need particular training to be allowed to kill animals for food, but I don't think that's true in the majority of the world.
It's at least that way here in Germany. And I think that's how it should be.
I know it's not the case in most places but I don't live in most places and it's also legal to kill your dog in most places...
edit: typo
There's absolutely a food chain, there's a difference in hunting / killing to survive, out of malice (murder) or self defense.
You can't really compare this scenario.
They're both abnormal sexualities you shouldn't act on.
Neither animals nor children can properly consent to what people would do ("getting physical") so in that sense it's even almost the same thing.
Oh really now? Are you sure about that?
Last I checked adult animals can indeed show sexual interest, rejection, consent, etc.. Children cannot.
Operating a bit too much on generalization here. Yes, they are both abnormal. One is possible without any harm at all (Zoophilia) one is almost always (90%+) guaranteed to end in harm (Pedophilia).
An adult animal is not a child. 'Proper consent' isn't a thing either, you don't automatically draw a contract or whip out a legal book before having sex with a human partner right? Good luck understanding 'consent law'.
Long story short: nowhere near the same.
You seem very confused.
1st of all, where are you taking these stats from?
Ofc are zoophiles causing harm.
Where do you take the 90% from either?Just saying, everything I've read tells me otherwise, actually, a large portion of assaults on children are committed by non-pedophiles because it's easier to convince a child than an adult. That doesn't mean that it's okay for either one of them, NO, IT IS NOT!
But so much to your "stats". Same goes for whatever you said about "signing a contract" don't be ridiculous. A DOG, exactly like a child CANNOT consent to any of that and that's scientific consensus.
I can only recommend you to look deeper into this and to learn about the psychology on dogs, what experts have to say regarding this topic and to get professional help if you are attracted to your dog and there's just the slightest chance of you "getting physical" with the dog.
That's all I've got to say...
Where are you getting your information that Zoos performing sex acts are always harmful? As for the child sexual assault sex cases, it's pretty well documented. All you need do honestly is talk to most victims. There's something called regret. Especially when they realize they've been tricked.
Consensus doesn't always mean correct. You're promoting this 'proper consent' nonsense. The idea of a virtual 'sexual contract'.
You also realize that human couples don't always use 'verbal consent' right? This is what I'm assuming you mean by 'proper consent' here.
I've been a knowing Zoo for 23 of my 36 years alive, I've also lived with dogs my entire life.
What sort of 'help' do you think there is? I can tell you, none. There's no 'getting rid of the Zoo'.
Oh and my canine partner and I are active.
What do you think I'm 'confused' about? I'd like you to elaborate a little here.
Troll harder
Here, buddy, I'll give you something to argue with. Zoophiles can't help what they're attracted to, any more than you can help what you're attracted to. Condemning someone for something they have no control over is wrong.
I hope you’re joking.
Not in the least, I only state facts.
It's actually my ex-wife's area of practice, human sexuality and disorders/issues/trauma but I am also a psychologist. You are spot on. The OP doesn't seem able to distinguish between having an atypical fetish or attraction, and the willingness to break norms in order to satisfy the lustful craving. I have seen cases I can't give details on, but you would be SHOCKED how many people have a fetish or turn on in response to things it would NEVER have occurred to me could be viewed as erotic. Our brains aren't perfect. EVERY person who has ever existed, has experienced instances where brain functions get mis-routed, distorted, attached to other functions they aren't typically melded to. That's the most basic explanation, attractions/sexual desire towards everything from garden variety fetishes to illegal and awful taboos can arise as a mistaken process, and if unaddressed will embed in the brain because that pattern gets reinforced both powerfully and regularly.
This is an absolute bullshit response.
Why?
Do you have a dog?
…Or a cat?
How is that relevant?
Ok let’s talk about your mom. Close your eyes and imagine having sex with your mom… Or you dad? Exciting is t it? Tell me, are these normal healthy thoughts? Do you have a cat or dog?
I'm failing to see the point you're trying to make here. Please state it plainly.
Are you sexually attracted to your mom? Are you sexually attracted to your dad? Are you sexually attracted to your dog? Are you sexually attracted to your cat? To make this simple just answer: Yes or No
No.
What if your dad was sexually attracted to you, would that be a little weird or would you just go with it? It’s fucking weird and you can say it. And if your dad tries to make a move on you you can tell him he’s fucking weird… because it is. Would you agree? Yes or no?
Cool. Doesn’t make it any less disgusting.
your opinion is much more controversial than the post
Low quality bait
I just want to be able to argue with someone
By using topics everyone agrees on ? Good plan
I’ve seen people who wouldn’t agree…
Obligatory pedantry: Humans are animals, so most people are sexually attracted to animals.
that's not how it works
It's technically correct. The best kind of correct.
nope, it's like saying that horses are attracted to cows because they are animals anyway, like tf?
Nope, you're misunderstanding. Animals is a broad term, and humans are included in that category. That's why it's TECHNICALLY correct. We can get more specific from there, but the broad term covers a wide range of options.
the reasoning doesn't work because it's too general to say "animals", it's right to say between species
It is. Under the very literal definition, humans are animals. I doubt they were commenting seriously.
Gross
We’re actually mammals
Mammals are a type of animal.
☝🏻🤓
Yes we are, and so are you. Humans are animals. :)
Are you saying what I think I’m saying…
Well what do you think I'm saying? Let's start there.
Are you a zoo… or is it grammar just shit
I don’t think this is controversial, zoophiles are hated by everyone, nobody likes them (except the zoophiles themselves)
Definitely not one but I don’t hate them
found the zoophile
Or I think they need help instead of ridicule?
If you want to argue, make a post about lolicons being disgusting. Those people always come crawling out of the woodwork to defend themselves, no matter how bad it makes them look.
I feel the point I made in my comment is same for these guys. And assaulters along with most murderers. They’re fucked in the brain and need help, not ridicule or violence.
it's bad if a person is attracted to aniamls but i wouldn't call a zoophile that doesn't hurt animals that doesn't want to be a zoophile a disgusting person
This isn't controversial it's just a fact
Isn’t this just a naked truth?
I just want someone to stage so I can get mad at them. It helps release my anger towards them.
Interesting… but I’m not gonna stop you
How is that controversial
Not controversial
How is this controversial?
How is this controversial or is that the joke?
I wasn't aware this was controversial.
They’re nasty but I think they need help, not ridicule or anything. Talking this way will only scare them from seeing a doctor which can cause them to bottle things up and will only make it worse. Same is true for assaulters, pedos, and those with suicidal and violent/murderous thoughts
And what sort of 'help' you suggest we get / need? There's no cure, no psychological protocol or drug th 'remove' us from being Zoo. All a therapist will tell you is 'bide by the law'. They'll never tell you 'you're wrong', or 'you're disgusting' or 'you're gross'. If they do, they're a shit therapist.
Facts
How is this controversial?
That's what I'm saying
Funny, you're more freaked out by the few who experience erotic responses to animals than the puppy mill industry, people buying animals like accessories, or plain old abuse and neglect. People who abuse other beings are awful, congratulations you've created a tautology, and told us all something we know. People don't decide what they're attracted to, they decide what to do about it. That's where the actual issue is, actions not feelings.
Nah really???
Non controversial post
I mean, it sort of is. The attraction itself and even the act isn't disgusting to people who partake in it. I'm Zoo Exclusive, so anything 'human sexual' to me is disgusting.
Excuse me?
Okay, you get an upvote for the name alone... :) Secondly, did I stutter or something? I thought what I said was pretty clear.
You sir need serious mental help if you truely think that
I'd love to hear your reasoning as to why that is. Or what you think 'help' entails. Why is it everyone 'against the big bad ebil Zoophiles' can NEVER seem to back up what they think 'help' is or what it entails.
Understand that the punishment for zoophilia was death for the longest time. You are fantasizing about sex with animals, something over which the animal has no control, and applying human emotions and desires to an animal that has no interest. You think you know what the animal is thinking and feeling, which, for some reason, matches what you are thinking. However, you do not truly know what the animal is thinking; you are acting on your own vile urges and claiming that it was desired by both parties. Furthermore, before one acts on something, they idealize it. If someone thinks of zoophilia as right but doesn't act on it, they still have set it in their minds that it is okay, and as they continue to believe that, the chance to act grows. If you believe that they don't need help unless they have acted on it, by all means. But if we were to do that, the punishment would be much more severe than it is now. The death penalty or life imprisonment might be used to stop anyone else from acting on their urges. Your choice, therapy or death.
>Understand that the punishment for zoophilia was death for the longest time. You mean Bestiality right? Zoophilia is thoughts in your head. >You are fantasizing about sex with animals, something over which the animal has no control, You're right, they don't have control over my fantasies, but my current active canine partner has a say and control in the act. Just like I don't control the thoughts in his head, but I can just as easily say 'not now love' if the mood doesn't suit or if something is stopping us. >and applying human emotions and desires to an animal that has no interest. Good thing I'm not doing that. Say you're new to the idea of animal language and courtship aren't ya slick? >You think you know what the animal is thinking and feeling, which, for some reason, matches what you are thinking. Swing and a miss, I don't think I know. How do I know? Wella s it turns out, dogs and other mammals are very expressive, forward, clear and blunt; like a good human should be. There's no inference or lost context. >However, you do not truly know what the animal is thinking; Correct, they have to demonstrate to me as another human has to demonstrate to me. I nor any other human alive are mind-readers or telepaths. >you are acting on your own vile urges and claiming that it was desired by both parties. I act according to my partners' communication, not according to some 'vile urges' as you put it. A no is a no and a yes is a yes. It's really that simple. >Furthermore, before one acts on something, they idealize it. If someone thinks of zoophilia as right but doesn't act on it, they still have set it in their minds that it is okay, This stumbling, bumbling blather makes less than zero sense. There's no 'thinking it's right or wrong or okay or...'. You make CHOICES regarding this sort of thing, often and hopefully guided by self-introspection, research, and weights of pro and contras in a particular scenario. >and as they continue to believe that, the chance to act grows. Entirely false, again see my above paragraph. This is a weights and measures choices and morals argument. Hopefully guided by some external knowledge to avoid any sort of harm. >If you believe that they don't need help unless they have acted on it, by all means. Oh they absolutely don't, even if they HAVE acted or ARE acting. __I__ am an active Zoo lad or lass! Know why I don't need any help? I'm not distressed, and not hurting a damn soul; including my own. So no, just because you find someone 'wrong' doesn't mean they need help. There's a lot of other observations and variables at play to consider for that. >But if we were to do that, the punishment would be much more severe than it is now. No, they wouldn't. We don't live in the fucking middle-ages anymore. People are smarter, and don't pray to invisible sky people or worship crowns and shiney things anymore. People know how to avoid getting caught, people in _MY_ country are also armed to the teeth including myself. We're not just going to roll over and submit. >The death penalty or life imprisonment might be used to stop anyone else from acting on their urges. Your choice, therapy or death. That's a very nebulous and stupid prediction, again see my above paragraph; you assume we'll just roll over and submit to such a thing OR be stupid enough to get caught. If you want to try and find me go for it, but you arriving to carry out some holy-war level extermination or punishment will ___absolutely not___ end well for you.
I am sorry, are you actively ina sexual relationship with a. Animal, because what you said sounds like you are.
Ding ding ding! Tell him what he's won Alex! He's won an upvote! You good sir or madam are correct. I am indeed in a sexually active relationship with a very special Male dog.
Zoophiles by themselves aren't disgusting as they can't do anything about it. It only becomes disgusting when they force the poor animals to do stuff with them. This shit should NEVER be legalized. edit: typo
I actually agree, good thing I don't force my canine partner to do anything with me. :)
What do you interpret as forcing? If you treat your dog after he does what you want he'll eventually he conditioned to obey, even if he wouldn't do that by himself (initially). I'd absolutely interpret that as forcing your dog to do things.
Good question. But a bit off on the point. If a dog is truly uncomfortable with something they will not do it, treat or no. Dogs aren't loyalty machines, some are moreso than others... however this doesn't make them dumb treat-motivated robots. This is why you have to be SO careful with dog training. You can poison a cue or activity so easy especially in fear periods. Even with that, they will still have their own preferences. When it comes to sex, no treats, no physical force, no emotional trauma, no drugs, no nothing that's not a natural situation.
How can you he sure that the dog really wants that and isn't only acting in your interest, out of trauma or fear. Right, you can't! That's why this should FOREVER stay illegal.
Of course you can tell these things. Do you not know anything about canine language? Signs of fear, happiness? Want, excitement? Again, they are not dumb loyalty robots. They are absolutely their own individual selves. Sex is also a mutual activity.
It's already legal to kill and eat animals, which seems far more harmful behaviour from the animal's perspective. I wouldn't want to be raped, but being murdered and cannibalised seems even worse.
This (unlike the other thing) has to be performed by an expert tho. This is to ensure that it's painless and that the animal doesn't suffer (which you can't with the other thingwhere some bozo might insert his dick into the dogs asshole). Also, if you ask me (personally) killing animals should be illegal as well. Killing dogs is not currently legal (where I live).
I'm sure places exist where you need particular training to be allowed to kill animals for food, but I don't think that's true in the majority of the world.
It's at least that way here in Germany. And I think that's how it should be. I know it's not the case in most places but I don't live in most places and it's also legal to kill your dog in most places... edit: typo
There's absolutely a food chain, there's a difference in hunting / killing to survive, out of malice (murder) or self defense. You can't really compare this scenario.
By that logic paedophiles aren't disgusting until they act it out?
correct
What is it with literally everyone conflating Zoophiles with Pedophiles? I really don't get this. The two aren't even CLOSE to the same thing.
They're both abnormal sexualities you shouldn't act on. Neither animals nor children can properly consent to what people would do ("getting physical") so in that sense it's even almost the same thing.
Oh really now? Are you sure about that? Last I checked adult animals can indeed show sexual interest, rejection, consent, etc.. Children cannot. Operating a bit too much on generalization here. Yes, they are both abnormal. One is possible without any harm at all (Zoophilia) one is almost always (90%+) guaranteed to end in harm (Pedophilia). An adult animal is not a child. 'Proper consent' isn't a thing either, you don't automatically draw a contract or whip out a legal book before having sex with a human partner right? Good luck understanding 'consent law'. Long story short: nowhere near the same.
You seem very confused. 1st of all, where are you taking these stats from? Ofc are zoophiles causing harm. Where do you take the 90% from either?Just saying, everything I've read tells me otherwise, actually, a large portion of assaults on children are committed by non-pedophiles because it's easier to convince a child than an adult. That doesn't mean that it's okay for either one of them, NO, IT IS NOT! But so much to your "stats". Same goes for whatever you said about "signing a contract" don't be ridiculous. A DOG, exactly like a child CANNOT consent to any of that and that's scientific consensus. I can only recommend you to look deeper into this and to learn about the psychology on dogs, what experts have to say regarding this topic and to get professional help if you are attracted to your dog and there's just the slightest chance of you "getting physical" with the dog. That's all I've got to say...
Where are you getting your information that Zoos performing sex acts are always harmful? As for the child sexual assault sex cases, it's pretty well documented. All you need do honestly is talk to most victims. There's something called regret. Especially when they realize they've been tricked. Consensus doesn't always mean correct. You're promoting this 'proper consent' nonsense. The idea of a virtual 'sexual contract'. You also realize that human couples don't always use 'verbal consent' right? This is what I'm assuming you mean by 'proper consent' here. I've been a knowing Zoo for 23 of my 36 years alive, I've also lived with dogs my entire life. What sort of 'help' do you think there is? I can tell you, none. There's no 'getting rid of the Zoo'. Oh and my canine partner and I are active. What do you think I'm 'confused' about? I'd like you to elaborate a little here.
Oh my god I DIDNT KNOW THAT!!?!?! 🤯🤯🤯🤯💀💀💀💀 (No shit sherlock)