Thoughts on Zoophilia?

[Cunny Defender]

Personally, i find it gross, but from my encounter with zoophiles, they have all been supportive of MAPs. While i don't see this alliance as ideal at all, we don't really have the luxury to be able to pick and choose, i guess

[Not Forever]

I feel particularly close to paraphiliacs in general, and honestly… I mean, we kill animals and eat them, so I think zoophilia falls somewhere between animal experimentation (useful) and killing animals for food (unnecessary).

But my point of view is that of someone who is anything but an animal rights activist: I don’t love animals, I’m not interested in discussions about animal suffering, I don’t think they necessarily have a right to anything, and I might even enjoy criticizing people for having pets for environmental reasons.

Yet… maybe precisely because I don’t give them much value, I believe an owner can do whatever they want with them. If I think about it, I tend to consider zoophilia less serious (if I wanted to assign it any importance) than killing animals for food. So… I could very well start defending them. Even though they would probably hate me, because I would see the object of their love as, well, an object.

[RoosterDance]

Personally, i find it gross

Is this all that you have against them? Is this 'grossness' sufficient reason to stand in opposition to their cause?

[BLueRibbon]

I really don't care what they do unless they're hurting an animal. And I assume that's the last thing they'd want to do.

[Bookshelf]

I honestly think people's aversion towards zoophilia makes even less sense than any aversion towards AMSC. You're telling me we lock cows up in pens, fist them as part of a process to impregnate them, steal and often butcher their offspring, just so we can get milk then kill them when they can't produce any more... but you're not allowed to fuck it? That's the line?

You can turn it into a piece of furniture, or wear it as clothing, like we're the Ed Gein for cows, but if you got one to lick your genitals, that's too far.

[Cunny Defender]

I honestly think people's aversion towards zoophilia makes even less sense than any aversion towards AMSC. You're telling me we lock cows up in pens, fist them as part of a process to impregnate them, steal and often butcher their offspring, just so we can get milk then kill them when they can't produce any more... but you're not allowed to fuck it? That's the line?

You can turn it into a piece of furniture, or wear it as clothing, like we're the Ed Gein for cows, but if you got one to lick your genitals, that's too far.

It's not really that I'm concerned about the animals, but more that I'm concerned about the humans

[BLueRibbon]

I honestly think people's aversion towards zoophilia makes even less sense than any aversion towards AMSC. You're telling me we lock cows up in pens, fist them as part of a process to impregnate them, steal and often butcher their offspring, just so we can get milk then kill them when they can't produce any more... but you're not allowed to fuck it? That's the line?

You can turn it into a piece of furniture, or wear it as clothing, like we're the Ed Gein for cows, but if you got one to lick your genitals, that's too far.

It's about deviancy. A lot of people want to lock others up for their deviancy.

As MAP activists, we need to stop assuming that aversion to harm is the main driver of public policy.

[John_Doe]

It bothers me emotionally (especially if it involves cats or maybe even men rather than women. I can't say there was never a time when I was turned on by women having sex with dogs or performing oral sex on horses. It's not even that play between myself, women and cats couldn't cross or hasn't crossed my mind on any level but I would regret it if I pursued that), possibly for some of the same reasons that people are bothered by pedophilia, but I don't feel any moral anger toward zoophiles or anything. Nor do I necessarily 'feel bad' for non-human animals they might have some kind of sexual contact with. As long as the animal doesn't suffer there isn't an altruistic reason for me to oppose it. It could rub me the wrong way if I got the impression that the zoophile didn't love or care about the animal outside of sexual interest.

To go back to why it 'bothers' me on some level, it ruins my image of non-human animals and the kind of relationships that I want to have with them (I say especially cats because I grew up with one so her cousins have a special place in my heart and I tend to view them as especially 'babyish,' with a dog I might view him or her as even more like a friend and less a little vulnerable baby who needs to be taken care of), I just want a non-sexual affectionate relationship with someone who isn't developed enough to be considered a rational agent, I sometimes daydream about being in the woods or wherever and bonding with a wolf or coyote or deer. Or maybe it has to do with 'innocence=asexuality' conditioning but, again, I don't see zoophilia/human-non human sexual contact as deeply immoral or unjust the way that people perceive the sexualization of children or AMSC. I 'like' actual babies, I respect them, but I don't really have paternal feelings for them; maybe because I can't get past the fact that they loosely resemble or will one day develop into normal human beings so I'd have to switch mode eventually and see them as an 'equal' (cognitively).

If the principle that justifies child-adult sex applies to human-non human animal sex I don't see why the alliance wouldn't be ideal. Maybe it isn't, politically, but I would die a thousand deaths in defending the ultimate core philosophical and ethical principles I hold, even if some people who would be sympathetic to one argument are turned off by its consistent application in another area. I guess it depends on how exactly you justify child-adult sex because an argument can be made from the standpoint of different principles.

If it makes any difference at all, I don't believe that people are actually physically (sexually) attracted to non-human animals, I won't make a claim to knowledge about this, but I assume it's the idea of sex with non-human animals that is exciting to people (because it's forbidden or naughty, for the sake of novelty; add to this that some kind of sexual contact with non-human animals is convenient. They're probably not going to 'reject' you and you don't have to deal with all the social anxiety concerns that come with interacting with cognitively normal human beings over a certain age). It's a similar thing with necrophilia. I don't doubt that normal people are attracted to corpses at some stage of decomposition (visually, at least) but I think it's the idea of sex with a corpse that is exciting to people. If we're brutally honest, the fact that it's incredibly harsh probably has something to do with it, or at least it being very forbidden and taboo (largely because it seems harsh and unsympathetic. To be fair, it's not as though I'm necessarily bothered by the prospect of a woman using my corpse for sexual gratification if she genuinely valued my happiness and would prefer that I was alive, at least in ideal-enough circumstances. I don't want to go deep into my views on necrophilia though). I don't have a problem with the mere attraction to corpses but I do think fetishizing death or dead bodies as dead bodies is immoral, I think it inherently de-values the happiness of the dead.

[trannypuppy]

I am a zoophile! Personally a lot of my sexual interests are related to my own trauma, and I like the idea of being forced / overpowered by an animal or curious hands :3
I really like it. Never done anything but love the idea

[HumanBeing]

The only issue I'm kinda doubtful about Zoophilia is consent, How are humans supposed to know if a animal wants to have sex with you (I assume physical communication?) and also there should be restrictions on what to do based on the animal's physical capabilities as some animals can't be sexually penetrated without being severely harmed in the process but others could be without harm.

It's pretty similar to Nepios sexual contact issue, you CAN'T have penetrative sex with babies without harming them but non-penetrative sexual contact such as licks or soft touching are harmless and even beneficial for their development.

"Through the work of James W. Prescott, Ph.D. and various others until the mid 1970s it was established that these previously neglected senses are of overwhelming importance for the development of social abilities for adult life. Their deprivation in childhood is a major cause for adult violence"
Source: www.violence.de/

Neuropsychologist James W. Prescott contends that the greatest threat to world peace comes from those nations which have the most depriving environments for their children and which are most repressive of sexual affection and female sexuality
-The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists. November 1975, pp. 10–20