A word from our sponsors...

Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.

Posted by Zqwm7 on November 17th 2011, 17:50

While surfing the net, I came across some anti-zoosexual comments which I found hurtful and offensive. Here is an excerpt from those comments:QUOTE: "I consider myself to be EXTREMELY open-minded (I am more than accepting of gay rights, transgendered people, pansexuality, etc) but Beastiality is something I simply CANNOT wrap my mind around. Hell, I’d choose watching necrophilia any day of the week than beastiality.To me beastiality/zoosexuaity (in the sexual sense), it’s immoral b/c1: an animal can’t consent. It’s disgusting to take advantage of them like that for pleasure.2: We are humans, we are meant to be with other humans. Period. Last time I checked, we didn’t have dog or goat DNA in us.3: Animals don’t think like us, nor do they feel like us. These kinds of people who bang animals need to stop living in their sick-minded worlds and go back to being a human, for gosh sakes. Leave nature alone, and stop dehumanizing our race.Lastly, this guy put it perfectly: “such behavior is profoundly degrading and utterly subversive to the crucial understanding that human beings are unique, special, and of the highest moral worth in the known universe–a concept known as ‘human exceptionalism’ … one of the reasons bestiality is condemned through law is that such degrading conduct unacceptably subverts standards of basic human dignity and is an affront to humankind’s inestimable importance and intrinsic moral worth.”I mean, I can’t tell people what to do. All I can say is that I, personally, think beastiality is outrageously repulsive and disgraceful, and I think anyone who engages in it needs to be thrown in a mental hospital. seriously.Also, you can use this same zoosexual argument for pedophiles and necrophilia – they can be good people, but that doesn’t make that sexual behavior morally right. what is this world coming toSo gross. Beastiality has to be the most dehumanizing and repulsive thing I have EVER heard of in my entire existence. it’s right next to necrophilia if you ask me. These kinds of people need serious help, I think."END OF QUOTEWhat I want to know is this: do the above offensive comments count as zoosexual discrimination? And if they do, what can be done about it?There really needs to be a zoosexual "hate-free zone" (both on and off the Internet) to prevent them from being subjected to hatred and bigotry.By the way, I also want to point out that much of what the person said (in the above quote) is incorrect; for example, it has been scientifically proven that humans share much of their DNA with dogs. (Which explains why both humans and dogs have two eyes, why humans and dogs both have respiratory systems, etc.)

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Mortimer Snerd on November 17th 2011, 18:12

Lighten up. The world is full of stupid, hateful people. You can find anybody to rail against the most harmless things. Bestiality is an easy target. There may never be a world where we could expect any sort of rights or protections. Remember - people are entitled to their opinions, no matter how f**ked up they are. Change the things you can, accept the things you can't. You will never change this person's mind, so don't give it a second thought. The more time we spend defining ourselves, the better. Don't let other people do it for you.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Proponyfucker on November 17th 2011, 18:13

First three lines of his reasoning = epic and i mean EPIC fail, we share well over 80% of our DNA with ALL animals, he don did fail thereMeant to be with other humans? Erm thats religion talking buhdy!Consent did you ask the hamburger for consent? Sorry ya aint got a leg to stand on there, lets even ignore the food defense!Again religious based arguments "Dehumanizing""Animals can't think" need more be said or quoted?Same with the line below that more religious "we humans are so fucking special *Pats his own back and beats off to his ""superiority over all of nature"*"The writer is so full of rank shit that he isn't even worth a real humans time to debunk him, just slap him around with your dick a bit and tell the crowed to read a grad one biology book! that will refute him in its self!

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by energydog on November 17th 2011, 18:34

Well since there has already been to date ad nauseum responses to points of the argument by the author of the commentary I will skip going there. As to what the OP can do about such a post? Well I think the only thing you can reasonably do is contact the operator of the web site and make clear the offense made by such a posting. Failing that you could try to BS the web site host in being too scared to allow that site to continue to exist on those servers. Though to be honest I think that latter option would amount to censorship; the likes of which have hurt our community to no end already. Of course you can also take the tact that you have to fight fire with fire. But that is your choice OP. Beyond those options I really don't think, absent actual threats of violence being made in the commentary, you have any legal recourse. Especially when you consider that said commentary is making opinions in support the general illegality of our activities in any case. In short the laws being made against us are using those same arguments and no legal authority will fight against the laws they have made. Sorry but there it is.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by dirtbiker2000 on November 17th 2011, 18:50

QUOTE (Proponyfucker @ Nov 17 2011, 06:13 PM) The writer is so full of rank shit that he isn't even worth a real humans time to debunk him. Says it pretty well tbh. Someone that retarded is never going to pay any attention to facts showing irrefutably they are wrong, no matter how well they are presented and who they are presented by. Basically I think this says it all about these kind of peopleQUOTE “such behavior is profoundly degrading and utterly subversive to the crucial understanding that human beings are unique, special, and of the highest moral worth in the known universe–a concept known as ‘human exceptionalism’ … one of the reasons bestiality is condemned through law is that such degrading conduct unacceptably subverts standards of basic human dignity and is an affront to humankind’s inestimable importance and intrinsic moral worth.”These idiots think humans are so far above animals that too do anything that raises an animals level of worth to anything above worthless, or food, is an insult to humanity. This attitude is profoundly based in an area that is not allowed to be discussed on this forum but am sure people can work out what I mean. In all honesty Zqwm7 I wouldn't even give dicks like the person who wrote the comment you quoted the time of day to write a proper reply to them. You only have to look at how idiotic, inaccurate and subjective every part of their argument is to know that they are a lost cause to the world of sense and logic and that any recourse you may have will fall on deaf ears. If anything just point and laugh.Definitely don't let crap like that offend you, just try and treat it like what it is, which is a total and utter joke.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Katelyn on November 17th 2011, 21:18

Last time I checked, lots of animals mate for life, something the human race hasn't grasped yet.That and animals don't kill eachother over deals at Wal-Mart on Black Friday.That and humans share a lot of the same organ structure as pigs. How coincidental.I can go on and on...

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by scrandy jackson on November 17th 2011, 22:23

He'd rather watch someone have sex with a dead animal than a live one. I think he needs a mental evaluation himself.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by TheLycan on November 17th 2011, 23:23

QUOTE (Katelyn @ Nov 17 2011, 04:18 PM) Last time I checked, lots of animals mate for life, something the human race hasn't grasped yet.That and animals don't kill eachother over deals at Wal-Mart on Black Friday.That and humans share a lot of the same organ structure as pigs. How coincidental.I can go on and on... I've heard some of those arguments not only coming from zoophiles but from animal rights folks.If you take it on a point by point basis comparing human vs animal you won't ever really win trying to prove animals are 'better' than us.They are not, they simply have different intelligence, social structures, instincts etc.Examples against your points:Point 1: Out of the animal 'kingdoms' there is less than 3 percent that mate for life and as any debater would point out most animals lifespan is far shorter either naturally or by predation risky than human.Our longer lifespan makes it very difficult to stay bonded to one partner especially when by our animal nature we are not one of those 3 percent. It is our moral codes and intelligence that enforces our sexual loyalty not our 'instinct'Point 2: No but they kill each other over territory, hunger, mating privilege, etc... Pretty much like we do though we build 'reasons' for it and call it war etc. It is not even uncommon for animals to cannibalize their young or leave runts to die if you spread the net of 'animals' large enough.Point 3: Biological make up isn't really relevent, all carbon based lifeforms have a DNA that is only differing by the makeup of their four key nucleotides. That would include plants too.I can guarantee if you took a wolves current social structure and gave them knives and nuclear weapons they would routinely stab strangers who walked onto their lands and be waging wars with other 'packs' that were hunting on their grounds.With the addition of weapons they would in fact be more brutal and warlike than us.Personally I never do understand the folks who say animals are better, more honest, etc... etc.. Animals are different, they should be respected for -what- they are but as everything in Nature has a hierarchy (Lions don't care much about killing deer for example) until we blow ourselves up we are pretty much the top 'animal'Now none of this has to do with our choice to do things with animals which is pretty much between the individual and the animal in question.Try to do something with an animal against his/her wishes and if their a predatory species (Dog/Bear/Lion etc) they will make you feel sorry pretty fast.Those folks who do things to defenseless or small animals that can't fight back have a mental problem that is usually a little more serious and those people tend not to respect 'people's' choices either leading to rapists/serial killers.That pretty much is all there is to it as I see it.People who use the humans shouldn't debase themselves by doing 'this or that' like the OP was saying in his post quote.Often those folks go around behind their own closed doors shoving used rubber fists in their pink ring or something else they deem 'non debasing' which fits with their own views, but others would find debasing if they knew.To the OP you have to realize on the internet people will say and do whatever they want and turning a blind eye to something you find offensive or hitting a 'block/ignore/delete' is usually the best way to deal with it.If you join a forum etc where you notice a large amount of sentiments that bother you often the best course is to... move on to a better like minded forum, like this one.Otherwise a thick skin is normally required if you want to have a shield against trolls.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

A word from our sponsors...

Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.

Posted by alicebotts on November 18th 2011, 0:00

two words revealed the base for the original post."Human Exceptionalism"This concept is religion based - almost certainly of a fundamental strain.'nuff said.It comes from a bigoted mind.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Zqwm7 on November 18th 2011, 0:38

Here is a good response to the bigotry:QUOTEAs I said before, saying something is “gross” is not a philosophical argument. It is clear that you are not really using philosophical arguments, you are more using the moral prejudice and intolerance which I described in my post about zoosexual discrimination [blog post by Vivid Random Existence]. Just because the majority of people thing something is wrong does not make it wrong. Your calling zoosexuals “repulsive” is a form of zoosexual discrimination.Something I’ve heard over and over again is “I’m very open-minded and accepting, but I’m not accepting of zoosexuality”. This statement is a contradiction — if one is not accepting of zoosexuality, then they are not completely open-minded, not matter how they try to justify it. You may find it gross and unacceptable, but that fails to address the issue of whether it is wrong or not. Many people are disgusted by gay people, but accept them because they know it is the right thing to do.Animals can consent, just not using human language. It is arrogant and anthropocentric to assume that the only method of communication in our universe is the human language, and that all other methods of communication are “invalid”. And as I’ve said before, animals don’t consent to be slaughtered, they don’t consent to be hunted, and they don’t consent to be artificially inseminated, and yet these are things that people do all the time. In my opinion, it is extremely immoral to kill an animal and eat its meat, and it is also immoral to hunt or artificially inseminate an animal. If one were to compare slaughter/hunting to zoosexuality, one would see that the animal actually has a lot more leeway with sex than it does with slaughter/hunting. And in many cases, the animal is the one who initiates sexual contact, not the human. [Google "Vivid Random Existence" + "list of arguments against zoophilia and why they fail" for more information].You said the following:“We are humans, and we are meant to be with other humans. Period. Last time I checked, we didn’t have dog or goat DNA in us.”That statement you said is very speciesist and anthropocentric. Humans are animals because they have DNA just other creatures. Also, your statement is incorrect. There IS some dog/goat DNA in us. For example, we have eyes just like dogs/goats, we have noses just like dogs/goats, and we have digestive tracts just like dogs/goats; and most importantly, we have consciousness just like dogs/goats. The reasons for these similarities is in the DNA. Yes, it is true that there are differences between various species (like the fact that dogs have more chromosomes than humans), but the goal should be to focus on the similarities, not the differences. We are all on this planet together, and the “human exceptionalism” concept is the wrong way to think about things. Humans are not “above” nature, they are part of it. Humans think they are above nature because of their huge egos.Also, your statement that humans were “meant” to be with other humans is partly false. For example, humans have pets, humans ride horses, humans use seeing-eye dogs… the list goes on and on.Your statement that zoophiles are “sick-minded” people is in the same category as your “grossness” comment — these are comments which are based on emotions and prejudice and are not based on rationality. In other words, they are not philosophical arguments. Your statement that bestiality is “dehumanizing” is fallacious because humans were never “higher” than other animals to begin with; humans were always part of nature. So the notion that bestiality is “dehumanizing” is incorrect because it assumes that a shift is taking place, when in fact the “levels” were never separate to begin with.Once again, when you say “animals don’t think or feel like us” you are focusing on the differences which set us apart from non-human animals; but what I am trying to explain is that the similarities between human and animals are far more important than the differences. Just because a non-human animal cannot think exactly in the same way as a human does not mean they should be segregated. For example, inter-species sex often occurs in nature, and when it occurs, the two species involved think differently, yet they are mutually satisfied and have sex even though they are different species. To exclude non-human animals from sex is very anthropocentric and contains speciesism.You claim that zoophiles are “mentally ill”. This is not true, just as the notion that gay people are “mentally ill” is not true. When someone is mentally ill, either the illness causes harm to the individual (as in schizophrenia) or it involves harm to others (as in sadists). It is true that the category of “sadists” does overlap with zoosexuals; however, to arrogantly assume that all zoosexuals are sadistic is incorrect and is equivalent to social profiling. Most zoosexuals are not sadistic, and most are not cruel to animals. Thus, most zoosexuals are not “mentally ill”.And lastly, if you read my post about why zoophilia is NOT similar to pedophilia you will see what I mean when I say that zoophilia has nothing to do with pedophilia. Zoosexuals are attracted based on species, whereas pedophiles are attracted based on age; they are completely different.END QUOTE

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by beavis69 on November 18th 2011, 2:20

Four words: to the internet.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Mortimer Snerd on November 18th 2011, 6:05

QUOTE (TheLycan @ Nov 17 2011, 03:23 PM)QUOTE (Katelyn @ Nov 17 2011, 04:18 PM) Last time I checked, lots of animals mate for life, something the human race hasn't grasped yet.That and animals don't kill eachother over deals at Wal-Mart on Black Friday.That and humans share a lot of the same organ structure as pigs. How coincidental.I can go on and on... I've heard some of those arguments not only coming from zoophiles but from animal rights folks.If you take it on a point by point basis comparing human vs animal you won't ever really win trying to prove animals are 'better' than us.They are not, they simply have different intelligence, social structures, instincts etc.Examples against your points:Point 1: Out of the animal 'kingdoms' there is less than 3 percent that mate for life and as any debater would point out most animals lifespan is far shorter either naturally or by predation risky than human.Our longer lifespan makes it very difficult to stay bonded to one partner especially when by our animal nature we are not one of those 3 percent. It is our moral codes and intelligence that enforces our sexual loyalty not our 'instinct'Point 2: No but they kill each other over territory, hunger, mating privilege, etc... Pretty much like we do though we build 'reasons' for it and call it war etc. It is not even uncommon for animals to cannibalize their young or leave runts to die if you spread the net of 'animals' large enough. Point 3: Biological make up isn't really relevent, all carbon based lifeforms have a DNA that is only differing by the makeup of their four key nucleotides. That would include plants too.I can guarantee if you took a wolves current social structure and gave them knives and nuclear weapons they would routinely stab strangers who walked onto their lands and be waging wars with other 'packs' that were hunting on their grounds.With the addition of weapons they would in fact be more brutal and warlike than us.Personally I never do understand the folks who say animals are better, more honest, etc... etc.. Animals are different, they should be respected for -what- they are but as everything in Nature has a hierarchy (Lions don't care much about killing deer for example) until we blow ourselves up we are pretty much the top 'animal'Now none of this has to do with our choice to do things with animals which is pretty much between the individual and the animal in question.Try to do something with an animal against his/her wishes and if their a predatory species (Dog/Bear/Lion etc) they will make you feel sorry pretty fast.Those folks who do things to defenseless or small animals that can't fight back have a mental problem that is usually a little more serious and those people tend not to respect 'people's' choices either leading to rapists/serial killers.That pretty much is all there is to it as I see it.People who use the humans shouldn't debase themselves by doing 'this or that' like the OP was saying in his post quote.Often those folks go around behind their own closed doors shoving used rubber fists in their pink ring or something else they deem 'non debasing' which fits with their own views, but others would find debasing if they knew.To the OP you have to realize on the internet people will say and do whatever they want and turning a blind eye to something you find offensive or hitting a 'block/ignore/delete' is usually the best way to deal with it.If you join a forum etc where you notice a large amount of sentiments that bother you often the best course is to... move on to a better like minded forum, like this one.Otherwise a thick skin is normally required if you want to have a shield against trolls.I think point #1 goes to you. You should have quit when you were ahead. As far as point number 2 goes - what the hell? People sometimes kill their children for purely selfish and messed up reasons. Animals have survival and genetic (survival again) reasons for the same behavior. I guess some humans feel superior because people rarely eat their children after killing them. Trying to force human social values onto the lives of animals is pointless. About point number 3. Agreed. Biological makeup is not relevant, but not for the reasons you give. Not only do we share the same 4 amino acids in our DNA, but we also share specific genetic sequences with other animals. Chimpanzees have a genome that is 98% in common (sequence-wise) with humans. The fact that humans are genetically very similar and consequently structurally similar to other animals may make some people squirm with delightful discomfort, but it isn't relevant. And what about the wolves? How the hell could you possibly know that? Making sh*t up isn't compelling. To me, your comments say more about you than wolves. It isn't only predatory animals that can take care of themselves and make their annoyance known. Quite a few herbivores could easily kill you if they felt like it. An herbivore (or carnivore, for that matter) would probably not kill you to "see what it was like", but humans certainly will. When you talk about "doing things" to small and defenseless animals, I trust you mean hurting them for sadistic reasons. That is an important distinction. Small, defenseless animals are often forced to do things they don't want to. Giving an animal a bath or a shot, for instance, probably doesn't mean you're a serial killer or rapist.Your point about used rubber fists in the pink ring escapes me. Do you mean that we shouldn't do anything someone else may not approve of? I tell you what - why don't you live that way and let me know how it works out. When it comes right down to what's important, I think you miss the point entirely. Humans have the capability to understand right and wrong, but we so often don't give a damn. That is what makes humans worse than animals. The very things that make us "special" also make us responsible in ways other animals never could be. To me, any other argument is moot.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

A word from our sponsors...

Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.

Posted by Proponyfucker on November 18th 2011, 6:15

yerf! to much verbiage!Now lets go get the lube and some saint bernards and bash down his door and have an orgy in their living room and show em how a 100+ pound dog can easily consent!

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by jamagh on November 18th 2011, 8:55

I am just scratching my head over this. Well... like the saying goes... opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one... some are just bigger than others.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by silkythighs on November 19th 2011, 4:13

Finally a voice of reason, thank you TheLycan. I'm tired of all this animals are better than people stuff I see repeated here so many times.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Dog lover on November 19th 2011, 6:51

Who are you, that is from my youtube zoochannel. The guy is an ignorant, he lacks knowledge about biology, evolution, sexology and psychology and he choose to ignore any evidence I provided because is gross to think zoosex can be acceptable.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Zqwm7 on November 19th 2011, 20:54

QUOTE (Dog lover @ Nov 19 2011, 06:51 AM) Who are you, that is from my youtube zoochannel. The guy is an ignorant, he lacks knowledge about biology, evolution, sexology and psychology and he choose to ignore any evidence I provided because is gross to think zoosex can be acceptable. In general, I have found it very difficult to communicate with ignorant people (both in real life and on the Internet); ignorant people such as the anti-zoophile who made those comments have no idea what they're talking about. They primarly rely on their emotions and do not look at the issue rationally. They conform to the traditional teachings of society and refuse to think for themselves. They let others think for them.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Rebel of the Sacred Heart on November 20th 2011, 19:01

QUOTE (silkythighs @ Nov 18 2011, 10:13 PM) Finally a voice of reason, thank you TheLycan. I'm tired of all this animals are better than people stuff I see repeated here so many times. @ SilkyThighs: In ways they are, in ways they are not.That you cannot deny. But streight up being close-minded as you seem to often be by many of your posts in general is the reason for all the bigitory to begin with ST. Opinions are Opinions, there isn't any reason to blatently put them down. If you don't agree just ignore them. It's an opinion and one's own thought. Either discuss your disagreement intellegently or leave all alone and don't just post just plain Negative comments as you seem to often do in the Zoo section.@ jamagh: I couldn't agree more. Without any evidence, an opinion is simply An Opinion Everyone has one. Get over it. Im tired of listening to people put down others ideas and opinions without an intellegent point of their own to add to the discussion.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by st benard on November 22nd 2011, 10:10

It don't matter what we think or know, there is always some D##k head out there spouting their retoric and denouncing people they do not understand.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

A word from our sponsors...

Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.

Posted by LazerLanley on November 22nd 2011, 10:26

I have heard all these points argued and counter argued so many times now that its not even funny.And most of the time the argument is from people who know this because they read it, or its what they have been taught to know/feel/think/whatever.Even putting my zoosexuality aside, the counter arguments make about a hundred times more sense than some moron going "eeeww thats gross"

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by kniner69er on November 23rd 2011, 2:46

the only thing that person left out in all that you quoted from that person was that this is HIS opinion and how he feels.but that is all that it is..his "opinion"an opinion only holds favortism and truth if there is solid evidence and solid fact and if the general public all agree with it.but this is not the obvious case here.without this to back up that writer's opinion then it renders it nothing more than an opinion and a selfish one at that if you ask me.his facts have so many holes in it i thought it was a block of cheese!here this should make you feel better.first off there are some places in the world where having sex with an animal is thought to bring one closer to god by being intimate with his creations and for those that follow that particular way it goes for both human and animal alike. and it is in a religion in that area too not just a thought.or on the other handif you look into american indian beliefs. they felt everything was equal and we were all put here to help each other and to work together with each other with equal feelings.a dog or horse was as important to life as their brother or a human friend.they looked at animals as a creature equal to us / themselves with a soul and feelings.and they saw them just as important as any other human would be.they saw that everything had a special purpose and everything had a special reason for being.also just a note.. when they had to hunt for food they begged the animal for forgivness and would explain to the dieing animal they hunted before it passed they would explain why they had done what they had done and as the animal passed they would pray for the animal's soul to move on and rest in peace.but getting back to opinion.you know i would have simply said back to that person if i could i would have told them that to me in my opinion i find human sex gross and disgusting and he shouldn't have sex with humans anymore because it grosses me out.and when he said don't tell me what to do i would have said to him wow interesting.. now we share a same thought. see not so different after allall i can say to you is don't worry what other people say its not going to stop you or change you. is it?and you should certainly not let it bother you because if you do then its like your letting that jerk win. just go make love and be happy. thats all that truly matters. all that matters is that you and your lover are happy.you knowmy grandma used to always say to me why do other people always have a say when someone is in love.they have no right to say anything.unless they are part of the relationship all that happens is and should only be between the two lovers not with anyone else and anyone else unless they are part of the love and sex they should keep their mouth ---

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by seikialice88 on November 23rd 2011, 9:27

QUOTE (Proponyfucker @ Nov 17 2011, 06:13 PM) First three lines of his reasoning = epic and i mean EPIC fail, we share well over 80% of our DNA with ALL animals, he don did fail thereMeant to be with other humans? Erm thats religion talking buhdy!Consent did you ask the hamburger for consent? Sorry ya aint got a leg to stand on there, lets even ignore the food defense!Again religious based arguments "Dehumanizing""Animals can't think" need more be said or quoted?Same with the line below that more religious "we humans are so fucking special *Pats his own back and beats off to his ""superiority over all of nature"*"The writer is so full of rank shit that he isn't even worth a real humans time to debunk him, just slap him around with your dick a bit and tell the crowed to read a grad one biology book! that will refute him in its self! Thanks you for the post.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by longshaft on November 25th 2011, 11:10

People need to feel superior. Killing or eating something intelligent would be harder than something dumb. People use animals for whatever they like, work, food, etc. I heard a person say horses are dumb because they will listen to a 3 year old. It couldn't be that the animal has the sence to protect a baby. I've seen dogs and cats avoid small children rather than hurting them, even if thay're afraid that the small child might be a threat (too young to know better than to pull a tail or ear or poke an eye). I think animals have an instinct whether or not to trust a human. Most humans are either too bold or too afraid of an animal. They base their thoughts of fear or what they've been taught. Most animals are happy to coexist with us as long as we show them no aggression or fear.I feel any true love is a good thing whether it be hetero, homo, or zoo. Love is not a dusgusting thing.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by furisforfun on November 26th 2011, 13:16

QUOTE (TheLycan @ Nov 18 2011, 07:53 AM)I can guarantee if you took a wolves current social structure and gave them knives and nuclear weapons they would routinely stab strangers who walked onto their lands and be waging wars with other 'packs' that were hunting on their grounds.With the addition of weapons they would in fact be more brutal and warlike than us.Interesting hypothesis TheLycan, but I have to wonder if you're actually being fair to the wolves? Are you comparing their likely reaction with the average modern law abiding family group, or with the first primitive tribe of humans when they picked up their first club or sharpened stick?I have little doubt those prehistoric humans took advantage of the opportunity to secure their hunting grounds - considering we're still doing it after 10s of 1000s of years of social development (we call it war, border disputes etc), isn't it a bit rich to expect wolves to "get it" in their first generation of bearing weapons?BTW, by questioning your reasoning I'm not asserting they're in any way better than us, just pointing out that WE may not be intrinsically better than THEM.... we've just learned to think we are

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by jumbojet777 on November 27th 2011, 2:36

(first off, only presenting these as the general social ideals of the time, not me being racist )Back about 150 years ago, people though that sleeping with someone of african american descent was an abomination and immoral, and the gays and lesbians are still being oppressed today. Diversity takes a LONG time to get over, so this sort of thing is going to happen. Its only because our society always has to have a scapegoat to divert attention away from more detremental things.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by CptNorway on November 27th 2011, 2:47

QUOTE (Zqwm7 @ Nov 17 2011, 05:50 PM) What I want to know is this: do the above offensive comments count as zoosexual discrimination? And if they do, what can be done about it? My guess is : That guy is dying to shag a goat, and he simply dont dare to step out of the closet...

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Zqwm7 on June 4th 2012, 0:28

QUOTE (jumbojet777 @ Nov 27 2011, 02:36 AM) (first off, only presenting these as the general social ideals of the time, not me being racist )Back about 150 years ago, people though that sleeping with someone of african american descent was an abomination and immoral, and the gays and lesbians are still being oppressed today. Diversity takes a LONG time to get over, so this sort of thing is going to happen. Its only because our society always has to have a scapegoat to divert attention away from more detremental things. I wonder how many years it will take for the majority of the public to become tolerant of zoosexuality. Right now, they're most of them are anti-zoo "witch-hunters"

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by eleboy7 on June 4th 2012, 12:24

QUOTE (Rebel of the Sacred Heart @ Nov 20 2011, 07:01 PM) QUOTE (silkythighs @ Nov 18 2011, 10:13 PM) Finally a voice of reason, thank you TheLycan.  I'm tired of all this animals are better than people stuff I see repeated here so many times. @ SilkyThighs: In ways they are, in ways they are not.That you cannot deny. But streight up being close-minded as you seem to often be by many of your posts in general is the reason for all the bigitory to begin with ST. Opinions are Opinions, there isn't any reason to blatently put them down. If you don't agree just ignore them. It's an opinion and one's own thought. Either discuss your disagreement intellegently or leave all alone and don't just post just plain Negative comments as you seem to often do in the Zoo section.@ jamagh: I couldn't agree more. Without any evidence, an opinion is simply An Opinion Everyone has one. Get over it. Im tired of listening to people put down others ideas and opinions without an intellegent point of their own to add to the discussion. Rebel I have to agree whole heartily

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by jessicazoosex on June 4th 2012, 23:58

interesting

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by shinyferret on June 5th 2012, 1:44

QUOTE (Zqwm7 @ Nov 17 2011, 10:50 AM) What I want to know is this: do the above offensive comments count as zoosexual discrimination? And if they do, what can be done about it?There really needs to be a zoosexual "hate-free zone" (both on and off the Internet) to prevent them from being subjected to hatred and bigotry. No.The statement which you quoted is ignorant, arrogant, inflammatory, biased, and internally inconsistent: therefore ultimately illogical -- for which reason, it may fairly be characterized as mere invective; BUT: the mere fact of the statement's existence does nothing whatsoever, in and of itself, to deprive any legally constructed class of persons of their equal rights before the law -- for which reason, its existence may *not* fairly be construed, in and of itself, as being an actual example of what I dare presume you mean in asking whether it constitutes "discrimination".What can we do about this sort of thing? You're doing it, already. Rigorously examine every single thing you hear or read on the subject before decisively discriminating -- for yourself, and no one else -- between what ought to be adopted and what ought to be rejected.Welcome to that zone.Shiny.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Zqwm7 on June 5th 2012, 9:53

In case people are interested, I just found a website with a TON of hateful, discriminatory anti-zoosexual comments. I got the sense from the person who wrote the article (and from the anti-zoo comments) that they condemn ALL zoosexuality, both ethical and unethical. What they fail to realize is that bestiality is not automatically "abusive"; some factors can make bestiality abusive, but the concept of having sex with an animal is never intrinsically unethical. Here is the link to that site:http://forcechange.com/16742/stop-and-prevent-animal-rape/

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Sk9L on June 7th 2012, 23:25

I simply try to stay away from negativity, so... if I come across a site with hateful comments, mostly likely I will just close the browser window.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by crazyguy99977 on June 12th 2012, 1:05

QUOTE (scrandy jackson @ Nov 17 2011, 10:23 PM) He'd rather watch someone have sex with a dead animal than a live one. I think he needs a mental evaluation himself. I was thinking the same thing. Everyone has their own opinions that they live by, therefore if they hate something that we all love, the. There's nothing we can really do abou it sadly...

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by shinyferret on June 12th 2012, 3:46

QUOTE (Zqwm7 @ Nov 19 2011, 01:54 PM) In general, I have found it very difficult to communicate with ignorant people (both in real life and on the Internet); ignorant people such as the anti-zoophile who made those comments have no idea what they're talking about. They primarly rely on their emotions and do not look at the issue rationally. They conform to the traditional teachings of society and refuse to think for themselves. They let others think for them. What, really, is so exceptional about human exceptionalism?Among all of the animals on this planet, we are the only ones who1. walk upright, on two feet instead of four, pretty much all of the time,2. communicate verbally to a sufficiently sophisticated degree that we call it "language", and3. use tools to a sufficiently sophisticated degree that we call it "technology".Am I missing any big ones? Any students or professors of anthropology out there wanna clue me in on anything important that I might have missed?So, basically, the biggest thing that ultimately sets us apart from all the other animals on the planet is that we choose to conceptually set ourselves apart as the only animal capable of choosing to conceptually set ourselves apart from all the other animals. Hence the label we, and only we, ever apply (and only ever) to ourselves: Homo Sapiens Sapiens.Just a wee bit self-serving, don't ya think? The funny thing is -- to me, anyway -- that having sex with other animals who don't have that particular ability does nothing whatsoever to negate our own ability to actually *do* this rather nifty little trick -- although it *does* sometimes help us to place it in proper perspective by reminding us that no! We're actually *not* all that very different from all these other animals."Human exceptionalism" simply appears to reify that ability by making it out to be something *far* more important than what it truly *is*. Taken to its logical extremes, the disturbing attitude or assumption of "human exceptionalism" results in such logical absurdities as widespread ecological devastation, global climate change, and even nuclear war. I wonder if my grandma's German Shepherd -- my first sexual partner -- wracked himself with guilt for years after seducing me because he realized only far too late, after the fact, that I was probably incapable of making an informed decision whether or not to play around with him because my sense of smell was nowhere near as highly well developed as his own. You know? For some odd reason, I really kind of rather doubt it. As for talking to "ignorant" people -- well, they may be misinformed, and maybe sometimes you can persuade them to listen to reason, at least a little bit, but usually only if you're willing to listen to them, first, and take them seriously, at least to some degree. Even when they get their hackles up and start to argue passionately, it's usually just because they think that doing so will somehow or other serve to make them happy in the long run. They don't want anything different than you do, in the end. They're just approaching one specific issue from a whole different perspective.Your willingness to engage with folks who disagree with you in discussion and debate is quite admirable -- and frankly, it may be considered an *excellent* form of training! Sooner or later, though, it usually becomes *far* more constructive to pick your battles *very* carefully: especially if and when it becomes clear that neither you nor they are convincing the other of anything important. The *last* thing you should ever want to do discussing something of importance and of interest to you is to burn yourself out on it *before* putting abilities you've honed discussing it to the *best* possible concrete uses that you can.Changing *one* person's mind -- for instance, just one legislator's mind -- about even some very narrowly defined thing -- for instance, whether or not a proposed bill will only waste taxpayers' money -- may sometimes do far more good, and far more concretely, even measurably, than ever trying to prove in broadly overarching terms to someone who disagrees with you as passionately as you maybe disagree with them that such-and-such activity, whatever it may be, is ethical (or not).Whether bestiality is ethical or not is a question as old and unresolved as the whole field of ethics in and of itself. I personally think it is. I've got good friends whom I love and respect who disagree with me. Oh, well. If they want to discuss it with me, that's OK. But I'm not going to jeopardize the precious few remaining friendships I *have* got trying to convince them that I'm right and that they're wrong. If they're willing to be honest enough with me to tell me that they disapprove, but *still* want to be my friend, regardless, great! All I can do is thank them for their honesty and magnanimity and just keep moving on.Pick your battles, and pick them carefully: pick battles that you know *matter*, and pick battles you know that you can *win*. Martyrdom upon the altar of proving yourself right all of the time helps no one in the end. Winning small battles, on the other hand, provides solid foundations for winning increasingly important ones -- and maybe, *just* maybe, eventually, the whole war, when all is finally said and done.:^) :^)Cheers,Shiny

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

A word from our sponsors...

Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.

Posted by forestlover on June 12th 2012, 5:09

QUOTE (alicebotts @ Nov 17 2011, 06:00 PM) two words revealed the base for the original post."Human Exceptionalism"This concept is religion based - almost certainly of a fundamental strain.'nuff said.It comes from a bigoted mind. This. Sounds like these people need to get off their high horse and be a little more down-to-earth. Human existence is just a drop in the sea of earth's history and it doesn't take much to upset the delicate balance that has been in place for eons.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Zqwm7 on June 13th 2012, 7:11

QUOTE (forestlover @ Jun 12 2012, 04:09 AM) QUOTE (alicebotts @ Nov 17 2011, 06:00 PM) two words revealed the base for the original post."Human Exceptionalism"This concept is religion based - almost certainly of a fundamental strain.'nuff said.It comes from a bigoted mind. This. Sounds like these people need to get off their high horse and be a little more down-to-earth. Human existence is just a drop in the sea of earth's history and it doesn't take much to upset the delicate balance that has been in place for eons. I agree. I am a misanthrope because people are too speciesist, arrogant, and anthropocentric. Humans think they're the "greatest thing that ever was", but that's not true. They're just one species on one planet in a universe that probably has trillions of planets. Humans are not special. Maybe evolution selected individuals who were more likely to have over-inflated human-centric egos. Personally, I absolutely hate the "human exceptionalism" concept because it is a falsification of reality.I also agree that the anti-zoo quote comes from a bigoted, close-minded person.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by k9interests on June 23rd 2012, 22:23

theyre so close-minded. Being beast is not wrong or immoral because we care and love our partners, more then most humans do for each other.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Philius Caniculae on June 23rd 2012, 23:21

QUOTE (shinyferret @ Jun 12 2012, 02:46 AM) What, really, is so exceptional about human exceptionalism?Among all of the animals on this planet, we are the only ones who1. walk upright, on two feet instead of four, pretty much all of the time,2. communicate verbally to a sufficiently sophisticated degree that we call it "language", and3. use tools to a sufficiently sophisticated degree that we call it "technology".Am I missing any big ones?  Any students or professors of anthropology out there wanna clue me in on anything important that I might have missed? "What, really, is so exceptional about cheetah exceptionalism? Among all of the other animals on this planet, we are the only ones who can reach a land speed of 70MPH on foot.""What, really, is so exceptional about whale exceptionalism? Among all of the other animals on this planet, we are the only ones who can sing songs that fill the entire ocean.""What, really, is so exceptional about lichen exceptionalism? Among all of the other plants on this planet, we are the only ones who can grow on solid rock."Every species has something that makes us unique. That does not make us inherently superior or "more sacred" than any other animal on this planet, and I would thank you not to display such bigotry again in my presence.Human supremacists are no better than white supremacists. They have their reasons for believing that humans are superior to every other animal and those satisfy them, just like white supremacists have their reasons for believing that whites are superior to every other race and those satisfy them. But I will not afford the human supremacist any more credit than I give the white supremacist. Both are equally despicable in my mind.As for my response to that guy in the opening post: I didn't read the whole thing because I had to throw up halfway through, but calling himself "open minded" doesn't make it so. It's funny that he would use that to preface such open bigotry--not just against zoophiles, but against the other creatures we share the planet with. It's no different than when people argued that white people marrying black people was a crime against nature, because it brought down the inherent dignity and superiority of the white race.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Zqwm7 on June 24th 2012, 23:49

QUOTE (Philius Caniculae @ Jun 23 2012, 10:21 PM) QUOTE (shinyferret @ Jun 12 2012, 02:46 AM) What, really, is so exceptional about human exceptionalism?Among all of the animals on this planet, we are the only ones who1. walk upright, on two feet instead of four, pretty much all of the time,2. communicate verbally to a sufficiently sophisticated degree that we call it "language", and3. use tools to a sufficiently sophisticated degree that we call it "technology".Am I missing any big ones?  Any students or professors of anthropology out there wanna clue me in on anything important that I might have missed? "What, really, is so exceptional about cheetah exceptionalism? Among all of the other animals on this planet, we are the only ones who can reach a land speed of 70MPH on foot.""What, really, is so exceptional about whale exceptionalism? Among all of the other animals on this planet, we are the only ones who can sing songs that fill the entire ocean.""What, really, is so exceptional about lichen exceptionalism? Among all of the other plants on this planet, we are the only ones who can grow on solid rock."Every species has something that makes us unique. That does not make us inherently superior or "more sacred" than any other animal on this planet, and I would thank you not to display such bigotry again in my presence.Human supremacists are no better than white supremacists. They have their reasons for believing that humans are superior to every other animal and those satisfy them, just like white supremacists have their reasons for believing that whites are superior to every other race and those satisfy them. But I will not afford the human supremacist any more credit than I give the white supremacist. Both are equally despicable in my mind.As for my response to that guy in the opening post: I didn't read the whole thing because I had to throw up halfway through, but calling himself "open minded" doesn't make it so. It's funny that he would use that to preface such open bigotry--not just against zoophiles, but against the other creatures we share the planet with. It's no different than when people argued that white people marrying black people was a crime against nature, because it brought down the inherent dignity and superiority of the white race. I agree with everything you said; the "human supremacists" are also known as "speciesists" -- they follow the arrogant doctrine known as "speciesism". Its meaning is similar to "racism" or "sexism", except in this case it refers to a bias of one species (usually humans) over another. People who hate speciesism (like me) are known as "anti-speciesists".Also, here is a site which has a long list of discriminatory anti-zoo comments and a pro-zoo response to each of those comments:http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/...discrimination/

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by partyboyzoo on June 25th 2012, 2:11

i was zoo al my life ... i didn't just woke up one day and the idea came across my mind, i like and love animals as much ( or maybe more ) than people. it was never just sex for me ... but i still know that people dosnt like or understand what we do, and thats fine whit me, i wont go around shoving my belief on their faces ... works whit me and that's all i need... i also think that quote that states that we hurt animals imposing ourselves by force wasn't written by anyone that has in deed had sex whit an animal, in all the sex partners that i had i saw they really enjoy our time together, and even in the case of my male gsd i took some serious in order for him to fully enjoy our time together anyway i hope my grammar is not so partyboy

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by saddlebum66 on June 25th 2012, 9:35

dunno, Y'all...seems like this is an example of something I've been trying to say here for many years...the mundane world is out there...we're in here...does any one in HERE think we ever won't be outnumbered and out-gunned? If you do, you might better find yourself a bombproof shelter somewhere....you're gonna need it... ON ANY level you choose, except our own in here...we are socially-unacceptable persona non-grata...learn to live with this...you'll be happier...

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by 33k121 on June 26th 2012, 8:14

QUOTE (saddlebum66 @ Jun 25 2012, 08:35 AM) dunno, Y'all...seems like this is an example of something I've been trying to say here for many years...the mundane world is out there...we're in here...does any one in HERE think we ever won't be outnumbered and out-gunned? If you do, you might better find yourself a bombproof shelter somewhere....you're gonna need it... ON ANY level you choose, except our own in here...we are socially-unacceptable persona non-grata...learn to live with this...you'll be happier... this is the truth in every aspect. we are all socially unacceptable and there's nothing we can do about it. We are few and they are many

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Zqwm7 on June 26th 2012, 8:43

QUOTE (33k121 @ Jun 26 2012, 07:14 AM) this is the truth in every aspect. we are all socially unacceptable and there's nothing we can do about it. We are few and they are many Gays are also a minority, but society is slowly becoming more and more accepting of them. The same could occur with the general population (with regard to zoophilia) if they stopped their bigotry and learned the truth about zoosexuals (i.e. that most of them treat animals ethically). Misinformation is a serious problem; one of the reasons zoosexuality is stigmatized is because the media spreads bigoted lies and/or slander against zoos, and nobody fights against "holier-than-thou" politicians who are on a mission to ban bestiality.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by zoophurie on June 26th 2012, 8:49

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has them.Some stink and some don't.In this case, I don't care what people think.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by 33k121 on June 26th 2012, 9:09

QUOTE (Zqwm7 @ Jun 26 2012, 07:43 AM) QUOTE (33k121 @ Jun 26 2012, 07:14 AM) this is the truth in every aspect. we are all socially unacceptable and there's nothing we can do about it. We are few and they are many Gays are also a minority, but society is slowly becoming more and more accepting of them. The same could occur with the general population (with regard to zoophilia) if they stopped their bigotry and learned the truth about zoosexuals (i.e. that most of them treat animals ethically). Misinformation is a serious problem; one of the reasons zoosexuality is stigmatized is because the media spreads bigoted lies and/or slander against zoos, and nobody fights against "holier-than-thou" politicians who are on a mission to ban bestiality. you are correct my friend, true zoophiles like you and I treat our lovers with the utmost respect, the others just think it's a "thing".And i couldn't agree more with you on the fact that most of the reason we are discriminated against is because of the media and for people who want our lives banned from society because they think it's wrong.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

A word from our sponsors...

Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.

Posted by beavis69 on June 26th 2012, 10:08

I've said this in other threads. As a homosexual, who is STILL considered a "second class citizen", who has to be careful which family members to introduce my boyfriend to, who has to face up to the fact that there is a large group of people who would gladly kill/string me up for my quote/unquote "immoral" behavior....I do get a bit upset when zoophiles try to jump on the bandwagon the LGBT crowd occupies. Opponents often say "Well, if guys can fuck guys, why shouldn't we allow guys to fuck goats?"Admittedly, it's the same bigotry. But the reason why homosexuality is (slowly) assimilating to mainstream acceptance is because of the hard work and sacrifice people have put forth to educate a bigoted society that sexual relations between two consenting adults does not determine one's moral strength.As much as I support zoophilia, I've encountered people who border on the abusive side of animals. They buy puppies and train them from day 1 to accept sexual advances.Not to mention the people who think along the lines of "They can't say no, so just do it!"The people on BF do not generally fit this category.....But the way I see it, if you want to be accepted, start your own movement. Don't jump onto the movements of others. Whenever I hear a zoo say "well, homosexuality wasn't accepted 30 years ago, so we should be fine in about 5 years" it makes me sad. The LGBT crowd has undergone severe discrimination, hatred, bigotry and exclusion just to be accepted as relatively "normal" human beings. For zoos to claim to be side-by-side with the LGBT movement is detrimental to both parties. Opponents of homosexuality will continue to see us as the final step towards "sexual practices without rules".Sure, politicians and the mainstream population has some bigoted views on zoophilia, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore their concerns and expect things to change. These need to be addressed WITHOUT a precedent.I can say that out of the hundreds of homosexual/transgendered people I have met, only select few have been supportive of zoophilia.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

A word from our sponsors...

Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.

Posted by zoophurie on June 26th 2012, 10:42

Zoophiles are the same as an owner who falls in love with an animal like a human does when seeing a pet that looks cool, or adorable. Zoophiles, just like being Homosexual or Bi, is something you are born with or something you discover you are in time.Animals can consent. It's just the guys who take advantage of an animals trust (like the people on the newspapers) that is the problem, and abuse them and people, politicians and media get these two confused.True Zoophiles won't force any sexual advancements on an animal who are stressed, walking away etc etc.They won't have sex with any other animal apart from their own, and they usually will build a trust/confidence and meet the other animal. Obviously if any animal is showing disinterest, uncomfortable, then it's safe to say they can understand.Animals have sex with other animals.They have brains. If you were a pretty girl, for example, a Stallion might sniff you and demonstrate the Flehmen's Response, which is the curling of the upper-lip to trap in the scent for the Jacobson's organ. That's also done in the wild when a Mare is in heat, the Stallion checks if she's in Estrus. It's showing interest. I'd be interested too.Another example is on the show 'Bondi Rescue', there was an injured bull that was being checked by a Vet and he demonstrated the Flehmen's Response too. They can show interest, and they don't discriminate.That's my opinion. Common-sense, time and moderation

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by saddlebum66 on June 27th 2012, 1:11

Looking at relatively recent history, Abolition and the Women's Rights movements were linked closely ( for almost a hundred years) until the end of the Civil War. Within months of the close of that conflict, the abolition/civil rights groups were backing away from Women's Suffrage to the point of complete divorce....and a separate pair of movements and causes were born. Both of these failed to gain much headway for many years because what had started in Unity fell prey to what appeared to be disparate interests...and which probably were separate...it didn't take long for Black Men to realize that they were potentially above all women if they had the vote and women did not...yes, women could vote in Wyoming when Wyoming became a State, but the reason for that was simple...the men there knew they didn't have the numbers for that territory to become a state, without allowing women to count....The point is this... Divide and Conquer IS a viable and time-honored strategy. When your goals, and your partners' goals are different, that split is possible and perhaps inevitable. Black Votes were perceived as less of a threat than Women's Suffrage was. So, now that I've made a short story long...here's my real point...Beavis is correct...if we are ever to have any acceptance of this in the mundane world, we will need our OWN organization, with a mission statement and the ability to Lobby for it (not to piggy-back out of the closet on someone else's dime), and that's only in the US...in the rest of the World? Quien sabe....That said, don't anyone hold your breath...Time MAY change hardened hearts, but not one of us will live to see them change THAT much...wish it was different, y'all...but reality is what it is...

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by shinyferret on June 27th 2012, 6:35

QUOTE (beavis69 @ Jun 26 2012, 02:08 AM) I've said this in other threads. As a homosexual, who is STILL considered a "second class citizen", who has to be careful which family members to introduce my boyfriend to, who has to face up to the fact that there is a large group of people who would gladly kill/string me up for my quote/unquote "immoral" behavior....I do get a bit upset when zoophiles try to jump on the bandwagon the LGBT crowd occupies. Opponents often say "Well, if guys can fuck guys, why shouldn't we allow guys to fuck goats?"Admittedly, it's the same bigotry. But the reason why homosexuality is (slowly) assimilating to mainstream acceptance is because of the hard work and sacrifice people have put forth to educate a bigoted society that sexual relations between two consenting adults does not determine one's moral strength.As much as I support zoophilia, I've encountered people who border on the abusive side of animals. They buy puppies and train them from day 1 to accept sexual advances.Not to mention the people who think along the lines of "They can't say no, so just do it!"The people on BF do not generally fit this category.....But the way I see it, if you want to be accepted, start your own movement. Don't jump onto the movements of others. Whenever I hear a zoo say "well, homosexuality wasn't accepted 30 years ago, so we should be fine in about 5 years" it makes me sad. The LGBT crowd has undergone severe discrimination, hatred, bigotry and exclusion just to be accepted as relatively "normal" human beings. For zoos to claim to be side-by-side with the LGBT movement is detrimental to both parties. Opponents of homosexuality will continue to see us as the final step towards "sexual practices without rules".Sure, politicians and the mainstream population has some bigoted views on zoophilia, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore their concerns and expect things to change. These need to be addressed WITHOUT a precedent.I can say that out of the hundreds of homosexual/transgendered people I have met, only select few have been supportive of zoophilia. Amen.I'd only add that I personally believe there is a crucial difference -- which unfortunately does tend to get lost when charting the richly interwoven histories of very many different social movements with their widely disparate and oftentimes downright contradictory aims down through the years -- between drawing inspiration and/or learning lessons from prior movements on the one hand, and attempting to ride a given prior movement's coat-tails on the other. Truthfully, it seems to be a very fine and almost ever-shifting line, and simply keeping track of where it is (or isn't) in a given situation very often means the difference between humiliating defeat and seminal victory.For instance, then, and only by way of example (i.e., absolutely not intending to somehow "equate" any one given movement with any given other): the LGBTQ movement faced very much this sort of problem, coming to prominence, as it did, in the days immediately following the Civil Rights Era. On the one hand, different leaders in the nascent movements for what I would loosely call "gay rights" and "lesbian rights" (long before they coalesced, however awkwardly, into anything that might be broadly termed "a mature LGBTQ movement" or anything even remotely like that) drew considerable inspiration and learned a vast array of "object lessons" from earlier Black leaders as diverse in their particular views, objectives, and methods as A. Philip Randolph, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcom X. On the other hand, by simply doing so, they very often "stepped on toes" they absolutely shouldn't have, thereby costing their own movements invaluable allies and creating very gravely serious (if ultimately temporary) setbacks for themselves in the process.Moreover, abolitionist, suffragist, prohibitionist, antiprohibitionist, labour, and indigenous anti-colonial movements around the globe have all, in their own ways and times, had to deal with this same sort of thing.I do believe there's something to be learned from this. I don't believe that whatever we are doing here, discussing all of this, as zoophiles, bestialists, zoosexuals, or whatever (if anything) we ever choose to call ourselves makes what we're doing here "the same thing" as what any of them did. Not even remotely.The only thing that I might even remotely disagree with you about is "precedent", though probably only because I tend to use that one specific word quite narrowly: seldom, if ever, outside of its specifically legal context. If and when I ever speak, for instance, of "the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court in handing down Lawrence v. Texas", I'm speaking quite specifically about the binding nature of that high court's one particular decision upon all lower courts in establishing what is and isn't law. "Precedent" -- at as I personally use the term -- is never about broad-based (i.e., "grass roots") cultural change, although quite often newly-set legal "precedent" will reflect broader-based cultural change already under way within a given society.Cultural change -- or social change, if you prefer -- is a process *reflected* in the laws of a free people (i.e., those ruled by the "consent of the governed" -- a concept with its origins in the English Revolution of the 17th Century, where it was formulated to stand in stark opposition to Charles I's positing the existence of a "divine right of kings"), rather than the other way 'round. I therefore hope my use of the term "precedent" on this forum is very clearly understood.No social movement has ever come into being from within a vacuum. Social movements are born through an ongoing process of social discourse. No social movement (that I am aware of) has ever succeeded in even just partially realizing its aims and objectives without reference to history -- and usually, the histories of prior social movements. And at least to the best of my limited knowledge, no given social movement's reference to prior history has ever been wholly unproblematic.Having said all that, and believe it or not, I think I pretty much agree with everything I understand you to be saying. If I'm misunderstanding you, please let me know. Heck -- even if you think I'm seriously full of sh*t, please let me know. I think I can probably take it. For whatever it's worth, your views in all of this absolutely *do* matter.Be well,Shiny.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by saddlebum66 on June 27th 2012, 7:04

And I would add my 'Amen' to yours, Shiny...with the caveat that most of that applies only in the US and perhaps the UK countries...and we here would do well to remember this...

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

A word from our sponsors...

Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.

Posted by Zqwm7 on June 27th 2012, 21:58

There are many things people don't agree on regarding the comparison between homosexuals and zoosexuals, but one thing is certain -- both are sexual minorities.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by baneling on June 28th 2012, 20:40

"Leave nature alone..."Oh I wasn't aware humans were considered super natural lolDoes he not know that interspecies sex happen in nature all the time?His arguments are so full of bigotry and ignorance that its hard to give him any kind of credit or take him seriously. I'm not gonna lie. I didnt get past the first paragraph. I might read the rest if I get bored in the toilet.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Zqwm7 on June 28th 2012, 23:34

QUOTE (baneling @ Jun 28 2012, 07:40 PM) "Leave nature alone..."Oh I wasn't aware humans were considered super natural lolDoes he not know that interspecies sex happen in nature all the time?His arguments are so full of bigotry and ignorance that its hard to give him any kind of credit or take him seriously. I'm not gonna lie. I didnt get past the first paragraph. I might read the rest if I get bored in the toilet. Exactly; the person's opinion (which is full of "human exceptionalism", "human supremacy" and speciesism) is unfortunately the opinion of many people throughout the Earth. They are ignorant, close-minded, do not think for themselves, and have been brainwashed by the crappy "morals" of society (i.e. the delusional and arrogant view that humans are somehow "separate" and "above" other animals).

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

A word from our sponsors...

Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.

Posted by heggisist on June 29th 2012, 1:01

One of my best friends is gay (and very outa the closet) and he quickly learned not to complain to me about how gays are put down by society. At least where I live being gay is legal.There is legal protection protecting gays from discrimination in the work place.But being a zoo is illegal, I can't be simply open about it because of that. I'm not a fan of people complaining. Don't complain, do something to solve your problem and don't sulk some one has it worse than you and it could be worse. Be glad it's not worse than it is. Ok, and to the topic, I had fun arguing circles around people online about this before. I mostly took offense at being accused of raping my mate because I had sex with her. But at the same time it would be perfectly moral for me to tie her up so she can't move a muscle and let a stallion rape her, that's ok, but god forbid I might instead share in pleasure with her.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Zqwm7 on July 7th 2012, 5:17

Here is a discriminatory anti-zoo site I found yesterday:http://www.aldf.org/article.php?id=1098shame on them for assuming that all bestiality is automatically "wrong". The ignorant people who wrote that web-page are clearly anti-zoo and have an anti-zoo agenda. People need to stand up and fight against those kinds of sites. It pisses me off that they call bestiality a "crime"; having sex with an animal should not be counted as a crime unless significant harm occurred (the author of the above link failed to realize this).It also pisses me off when they claim that zoophiles are "likely" to harm to other humans because of an alleged "link" between zoophilia and violence -- that's such bu****** because it is a lie.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by heggisist on July 7th 2012, 11:40

On the up side we don't have to be worried for the most part of being burned at the stake along with our lover anymore. Personally they can burn me all they want, just don't harm Ginger.As to their assuming that there is a link between zoos and violence, the thing to understand is that for the most part they don't understand us. When they do hear about people that love animals to such an extent their first response is disgust. When this happens they start making assumptions that get passed along enough times that it become what they think to be fact.A very common myth to them is the link between zoos and pedophiles, with this idea that we are nothing more than sex crazed monsters that f##k every think walking and that we only go for animals when there is nothing else. To that end at least in my case, I am repulsed by the human body, so I would never even come close to thinking like that. The other line of thinking is simply that we rape the animals that we love. And that was the basis of the argument that i had with that one person, I was highly offended that it would be even suggested that I rape my mate. I never would never will and if i tried she can and will kick me, I exist to make happy. I wont even make her walk places she don't want to walk to. I wonder about their logic sometimes.In most cases logic does not exist. In most cases it is a case of, "I've made up my mind so don't confuse me with the facts". That was the case with my argument. It didn't matter what i said, all that matter were the person's preconceived beliefs and no matter what any one said to him, i was still raping my mate. And some how me giving pleasure to my mate is rape and evil.But if i were to tie her down to be forcibly bred to a stallion that she may or may not want to be bred to... well that's just normal. With the exception of having fun watching them upchuck the same propaganda that they here it is pointless to argue with them. They will always fall back on to one of two arguments1. it is morally wrongand 2. It's rape because an animal can't give consent. the most compelling argument to this is 3 videos I've seen with a woman with a pony stallion(I'm sure I'm not the only one that has them) where if any one was doing the raping it was the stallion, and even then it is obvious that the woman is consenting as well. By the way, by their standards, two people that speak different languages couldn't have sex because they couldn't give consent.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by blacksupra on July 10th 2012, 20:11

yes it looks discriminating but clearly this person does not see animals as equal to humans, the person has his own ideas and seems to not want to see past that, i wouldnt take this person seriously because it looks like hes only hating

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by heggisist on July 11th 2012, 0:15

Sadly most humans see humans as some sort of super species that is almost god like, and animals are just some lowly thing below them. For those humans the abomination is not some one loving another animal, it is a god going down from on high to mingle with the slime on the ground.These same ideas and thoughts are what gives us slaughter houses, it is the belief that animals are inferior and there for less deserving of life.i once was playfully arguing with a friend as to whether or not horses are superior to humans, and some other guy walked up to me and with disdain said, "they're animals" as though humans weren't.So most humans don't seem to view it as one animal loving another animal. They see it as a god being desecrated.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Zqwm7 on July 11th 2012, 0:25

QUOTE (heggisist @ Jul 10 2012, 11:15 PM) Sadly most humans see humans as some sort of super species that is almost god like, and animals are just some lowly thing below them. For those humans the abomination is not some one loving another animal, it is a god going down from on high to mingle with the slime on the ground.These same ideas and thoughts are what gives us slaughter houses, it is the belief that animals are inferior and there for less deserving of life.i once was playfully arguing with a friend as to whether or not horses are superior to humans, and some other guy walked up to me and with disdain said, "they're animals" as though humans weren't.So most humans don't seem to view it as one animal loving another animal. They see it as a god being desecrated. I really hate human exceptionalism. The truth is that humans are not superior to other animals, and that humans are animals. People who think that humans are superior to other animals are arrogant and delusional.In addition, people who think that humans are somehow "separate" from nature are completely and utterly delusional -- that notion is completely incorrect. In reality (and in terms of science), humans are part of nature, not separate from it.If people followed the utilitarian principle and the harm principle (Google them if you are unfamiliar with them), then people would realize that slaughtering animals is wrong and having sex with an animal is not wrong and not immoral (simply because slaughtering an animal inflicts far more pain and suffering on an animal than bestiality does).But of course, people are irrational and will not do things logically -- they will continue to say offensive, anti-zoo things because they are full of hate and bigotry.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by heggisist on July 11th 2012, 0:37

QUOTE (Zqwm7 @ Jul 10 2012, 11:25 PM) QUOTE (heggisist @ Jul 10 2012, 11:15 PM) Sadly most humans see humans as some sort of super species that is almost god like, and animals are just some lowly thing below them. For those humans the abomination is not some one loving another animal, it is a god going down from on high to mingle with the slime on the ground.These same ideas and thoughts are what gives us slaughter houses, it is the belief that animals are inferior and there for less deserving of life.i once was playfully arguing with a friend as to whether or not horses are superior to humans, and some other guy walked up to me and with disdain said, "they're animals" as though humans weren't.So most humans don't seem to view it as one animal loving another animal. They see it as a god being desecrated. I really hate human exceptionalism. The truth is that humans are not superior to other animals, and that humans are animals. People who think that humans are superior to other animals are arrogant and delusional.In addition, people who think that humans are somehow "separate" from nature are completely and utterly delusional -- that notion is completely incorrect. In reality (and in terms of science), humans are part of nature, not separate from it.If people followed the utilitarian principle and the harm principle (Google them if you are unfamiliar with them), then people would realize that slaughtering animals is wrong and having sex with an animal is not wrong and not immoral (simply because slaughtering an animal inflicts far more pain and suffering on an animal than bestiality does).But of course, people are irrational and will not do things logically -- they will continue to say offensive, anti-zoo things because they are full of hate and bigotry. on a similar note, according those same people, it is rape for me to have sex with a mare... but it is perfectly fine to tie her up so she can't move a mussel and tie her tail over and forcefully breed her to a stallion."do unto others as you's have others do unto you"... I have as of yet to find a human that wants to be slaughtered...Now then since I can see that I'm about to go wildly off topic I'm just going to go now and start a new thread before some one yells at me again for going off topic.I'm sorry it's just so hard for me to keep my mind in one line

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

A word from our sponsors...

Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.

Posted by jessicazoosex on July 11th 2012, 0:42

QUOTE (heggisist @ Jul 10 2012, 05:37 PM) QUOTE (Zqwm7 @ Jul 10 2012, 11:25 PM) QUOTE (heggisist @ Jul 10 2012, 11:15 PM) Sadly most humans see humans as some sort of super species that is almost god like, and animals are just some lowly thing below them. For those humans the abomination is not some one loving another animal, it is a god going down from on high to mingle with the slime on the ground.These same ideas and thoughts are what gives us slaughter houses, it is the belief that animals are inferior and there for less deserving of life.i once was playfully arguing with a friend as to whether or not horses are superior to humans, and some other guy walked up to me and with disdain said, "they're animals" as though humans weren't.So most humans don't seem to view it as one animal loving another animal. They see it as a god being desecrated. I really hate human exceptionalism. The truth is that humans are not superior to other animals, and that humans are animals. People who think that humans are superior to other animals are arrogant and delusional.In addition, people who think that humans are somehow "separate" from nature are completely and utterly delusional -- that notion is completely incorrect. In reality (and in terms of science), humans are part of nature, not separate from it.If people followed the utilitarian principle and the harm principle (Google them if you are unfamiliar with them), then people would realize that slaughtering animals is wrong and having sex with an animal is not wrong and not immoral (simply because slaughtering an animal inflicts far more pain and suffering on an animal than bestiality does).But of course, people are irrational and will not do things logically -- they will continue to say offensive, anti-zoo things because they are full of hate and bigotry. on a similar note, according those same people, it is rape for me to have sex with a mare... but it is perfectly fine to tie her up so she can't move a mussel and tie her tail over and forcefully breed her to a stallion."do unto others as you's have others do unto you"... I have as of yet to find a human that wants to be slaughtered...Now then since I can see that I'm about to go wildly off topic I'm just going to go now and start a new thread before some one yells at me again for going off topic.I'm sorry it's just so hard for me to keep my mind in one line Yeah its sad

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by gregordiesel on August 5th 2012, 18:36

QUOTE Hell, I’d choose watching necrophilia any day of the week than beastiality.This is highly questionable.QUOTE 1: an animal can’t consent. It’s disgusting to take advantage of them like that for pleasure.How often I've heard that one... It makes me want to An animal can. If you can't read some simple animal body language, you're a poor guy.Just for example, those who've worked with animals KNOW what can happen if they're not okay with something.i.e. Cows/horses accelerating your body faster than you think or biting, whatever. Those who bring up this argument have obviously never had any serious contact or interactions of any kind with animals.To go into the other direction, animals can and will CLEARLY show you if they like something. I will not go into detail, as I'm just f*cking tired of it.Beside that, we're f*cking ZOOPHILES! Okay? Not mere sex because it turns us on. We LOVE animals the way we're supposed to LOVE humans. So we do not "take advantage of it for pleasure". What the fuck??QUOTE 2: We are humans, we are meant to be with other humans. Period. Last time I checked, we didn’t have dog or goat DNA in usWe have. Anyway...We're mammals. Horses and donkeys mate, too, even tho they're not exactly the same species.QUOTE 3: Animals don’t think like us, nor do they feel like us.Wrong. Just wrong. Yes, some animals don't, but some higher mammals are capable of feeling love, trust and also deepest sexual lust.Typical lack of experience and knowledge here, same as invalid argument number 1.QUOTE These kinds of people who bang animals need to stop living in their sick-minded worlds and go back to being a human, for gosh sakes. Leave nature alone, and stop dehumanizing our race.Several problems with that one...1st, as named above, we don't "Bang" animals. Get the point of zoophilia, or STFU.2nd Us humans are propably the most disgusting living form on earth. So "dehumanizing" our race is the best you can do.Okay no seriously. We cannot "leave nature alone", because "we are also nature"!Our feelings and drives are completely driven naturally, so it's not "unnatural" in the first place.Humanity disgusts me. Women disgust me sexually. Human behavior disgusts me. Beeing a human is the last thing I want.We're not superior to any higher mammals on the planet, may it be horses, pigs or cows.QUOTE “such behavior is profoundly degrading and utterly subversive to the crucial understanding that human beings are unique, special, and of the highest moral worth in the known universe–a concept known as ‘human exceptionalism’ … one of the reasons bestiality is condemned through law is that such degrading conduct unacceptably subverts standards of basic human dignity and is an affront to humankind’s inestimable importance and intrinsic moral worth.”Again, we're not superior. Moral is a word that basically doesn't exist in my vocabulary and everytime someone uses it in real life, he'll get some stuff told by me.Moral is a value completely made up by the society, greatly changing from culture to culture and from era to era. So "moral" is no term to argue with in the first flace. Is it moral to throw stones at a woman until she dies, just because she had sex before marriage? No? Well, go to some hardcore, conservative muslim country and try to make your point, there.Is it moral to slaughter millions and millions of highly intelligent and loving creatures, just to get our feeble-minded asses stuffed? We talk about the world hunger problem, but guess what: what do you think can feed more people: 1kg of meat or 2,5-3 kg of high-protein and energy pig food (approximate amount to make 1 kg of meat. mixture contains mainly wheat, barley, rye and soy.For cows: Energy food consists mostly of Rape, Soy, maize and listed cereals.)I could go on like this for quite a while, believe me.Go figure.QUOTE Also, you can use this same zoosexual argument for pedophiles and necrophiliaNo, you can't. I consider to take this as one of the dumbest arguments, ever. Pedophilia makes VICTIMS! Beside that, I highly doubt that it involves emotional love.Same goes for Necrophilia. The "victim" part is argueable, here. Anyway, having sex with a corpse highly dehonors the dead individual, that's for sure.QUOTE These kinds of people need serious help, I think."Well, try to "heal" us like you've tried it with gays and lesbians. Good luck.QUOTE do the above offensive comments count as zoosexual discrimination? And if they do, what can be done about it?Guess what it is.The only way of changing that is EDUCATION. fight against and clearly speak out against those sick animal-abusers who give those people a point, yet, call themselves zoophiles. Bigotry comes from prehistorical opinions and biases, as well as the inability to think a few steps further, apparently because of lack of intelligence.As obvious above, those silly arguments are a piece of cake to invalidate. However, the dumber the person and the more sick abusers exist, the harder it gets.Thanks to the original poster for bringing up this sensitive topic.Another one by Mortimer Snerd:QUOTE Lighten up. The world is full of stupid, hateful people. You can find anybody to rail against the most harmless things.I for myself won't. Those people are getting more and more, with more powerful positions and a louder voice (look to the USA).I'll have to live my life in this world and as it is now, the thought is everything else than appealing.What a giant, spinning, smelly piece of shit (planet earth)PS.: I didn't mean to offend anybody here, so if anyone feels offended, I deeply apologize.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by 121013dogdog on August 5th 2012, 19:23

QUOTE (Proponyfucker @ Nov 17 2011, 06:13 PM) First three lines of his reasoning = epic and i mean EPIC fail, we share well over 80% of our DNA with ALL animals, he don did fail thereMeant to be with other humans? Erm thats religion talking buhdy!Consent did you ask the hamburger for consent? Sorry ya aint got a leg to stand on there, lets even ignore the food defense!Again religious based arguments "Dehumanizing""Animals can't think" need more be said or quoted?Same with the line below that more religious "we humans are so fucking special *Pats his own back and beats off to his ""superiority over all of nature"*"The writer is so full of rank shit that he isn't even worth a real humans time to debunk him, just slap him around with your dick a bit and tell the crowed to read a grad one biology book! that will refute him in its self! Dude. Right.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by 121013dogdog on August 5th 2012, 19:25

QUOTE (Proponyfucker @ Nov 18 2011, 06:15 AM) yerf! to much verbiage!Now lets go get the lube and some saint bernards and bash down his door and have an orgy in their living room and show em how a 100+ pound dog can easily consent! Lol hahaha. Count me in on the orgy.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by 121013dogdog on August 5th 2012, 19:56

Hey here's an idea, TRY IT. And sense when did the word "HUMAN" come into context anyway, because we are considered animals in nature. The word "HUMAN" just comes from our culture and society that we live in. And when's the last time you've seen a cat and a dog screw each others brains out. All it is, is animals mating animals no matter what species. By the way you said that animals don't have feelings. You must be an idiot. Turn on Animal Cops on Animal Planet and stare into the eyes of all the abused animals on that show and if you can't tell me that their feeling pain, well your no better than the people that ACTULLY abuse thier pets on that show. The people that ACTULLY abuse animals are the ones that should punished. We love our pets and understand them better. Oh and one other thing; why are you here? This is a place for Zoo's only, you are not welcome here and should go away from us.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

A word from our sponsors...

Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.

Posted by 121013dogdog on August 5th 2012, 20:02

QUOTE (gregordiesel @ Aug 5 2012, 05:36 PM) QUOTE Hell, I’d choose watching necrophilia any day of the week than beastiality.This is highly questionable.QUOTE 1: an animal can’t consent. It’s disgusting to take advantage of them like that for pleasure.How often I've heard that one... It makes me want to An animal can. If you can't read some simple animal body language, you're a poor guy.Just for example, those who've worked with animals KNOW what can happen if they're not okay with something.i.e. Cows/horses accelerating your body faster than you think or biting, whatever. Those who bring up this argument have obviously never had any serious contact or interactions of any kind with animals.To go into the other direction, animals can and will CLEARLY show you if they like something. I will not go into detail, as I'm just f*cking tired of it.Beside that, we're f*cking ZOOPHILES! Okay? Not mere sex because it turns us on. We LOVE animals the way we're supposed to LOVE humans. So we do not "take advantage of it for pleasure". What the fuck??QUOTE 2: We are humans, we are meant to be with other humans. Period. Last time I checked, we didn’t have dog or goat DNA in usWe have. Anyway...We're mammals. Horses and donkeys mate, too, even tho they're not exactly the same species.QUOTE 3: Animals don’t think like us, nor do they feel like us.Wrong. Just wrong. Yes, some animals don't, but some higher mammals are capable of feeling love, trust and also deepest sexual lust.Typical lack of experience and knowledge here, same as invalid argument number 1.QUOTE These kinds of people who bang animals need to stop living in their sick-minded worlds and go back to being a human, for gosh sakes. Leave nature alone, and stop dehumanizing our race.Several problems with that one...1st, as named above, we don't "Bang" animals. Get the point of zoophilia, or STFU.2nd Us humans are propably the most disgusting living form on earth. So "dehumanizing" our race is the best you can do.Okay no seriously. We cannot "leave nature alone", because "we are also nature"!Our feelings and drives are completely driven naturally, so it's not "unnatural" in the first place.Humanity disgusts me. Women disgust me sexually. Human behavior disgusts me. Beeing a human is the last thing I want.We're not superior to any higher mammals on the planet, may it be horses, pigs or cows.QUOTE “such behavior is profoundly degrading and utterly subversive to the crucial understanding that human beings are unique, special, and of the highest moral worth in the known universe–a concept known as ‘human exceptionalism’ … one of the reasons bestiality is condemned through law is that such degrading conduct unacceptably subverts standards of basic human dignity and is an affront to humankind’s inestimable importance and intrinsic moral worth.”Again, we're not superior. Moral is a word that basically doesn't exist in my vocabulary and everytime someone uses it in real life, he'll get some stuff told by me.Moral is a value completely made up by the society, greatly changing from culture to culture and from era to era. So "moral" is no term to argue with in the first flace. Is it moral to throw stones at a woman until she dies, just because she had sex before marriage? No? Well, go to some hardcore, conservative muslim country and try to make your point, there.Is it moral to slaughter millions and millions of highly intelligent and loving creatures, just to get our feeble-minded asses stuffed? We talk about the world hunger problem, but guess what: what do you think can feed more people: 1kg of meat or 2,5-3 kg of high-protein and energy pig food (approximate amount to make 1 kg of meat. mixture contains mainly wheat, barley, rye and soy.For cows: Energy food consists mostly of Rape, Soy, maize and listed cereals.)I could go on like this for quite a while, believe me.Go figure.QUOTE Also, you can use this same zoosexual argument for pedophiles and necrophiliaNo, you can't. I consider to take this as one of the dumbest arguments, ever. Pedophilia makes VICTIMS! Beside that, I highly doubt that it involves emotional love.Same goes for Necrophilia. The "victim" part is argueable, here. Anyway, having sex with a corpse highly dehonors the dead individual, that's for sure.QUOTE These kinds of people need serious help, I think."Well, try to "heal" us like you've tried it with gays and lesbians. Good luck.QUOTE do the above offensive comments count as zoosexual discrimination? And if they do, what can be done about it?Guess what it is.The only way of changing that is EDUCATION. fight against and clearly speak out against those sick animal-abusers who give those people a point, yet, call themselves zoophiles. Bigotry comes from prehistorical opinions and biases, as well as the inability to think a few steps further, apparently because of lack of intelligence.As obvious above, those silly arguments are a piece of cake to invalidate. However, the dumber the person and the more sick abusers exist, the harder it gets.Thanks to the original poster for bringing up this sensitive topic.Another one by Mortimer Snerd:QUOTE Lighten up. The world is full of stupid, hateful people. You can find anybody to rail against the most harmless things.I for myself won't. Those people are getting more and more, with more powerful positions and a louder voice (look to the USA).I'll have to live my life in this world and as it is now, the thought is everything else than appealing.What a giant, spinning, smelly piece of shit (planet earth)PS.: I didn't mean to offend anybody here, so if anyone feels offended, I deeply apologize. Well I think you pretty much nailed this argument to the wall. I agree with everything you said. yeah buddy.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by heggisist on August 6th 2012, 18:41

QUOTE (gregordiesel @ Aug 5 2012, 05:36 PM) QUOTE Hell, I’d choose watching necrophilia any day of the week than beastiality.This is highly questionable.QUOTE 1: an animal can’t consent. It’s disgusting to take advantage of them like that for pleasure.How often I've heard that one... It makes me want to An animal can. If you can't read some simple animal body language, you're a poor guy.Just for example, those who've worked with animals KNOW what can happen if they're not okay with something.i.e. Cows/horses accelerating your body faster than you think or biting, whatever. Those who bring up this argument have obviously never had any serious contact or interactions of any kind with animals.To go into the other direction, animals can and will CLEARLY show you if they like something. I will not go into detail, as I'm just f*cking tired of it.Beside that, we're f*cking ZOOPHILES! Okay? Not mere sex because it turns us on. We LOVE animals the way we're supposed to LOVE humans. So we do not "take advantage of it for pleasure". What the fuck??QUOTE 2: We are humans, we are meant to be with other humans. Period. Last time I checked, we didn’t have dog or goat DNA in usWe have. Anyway...We're mammals. Horses and donkeys mate, too, even tho they're not exactly the same species.QUOTE 3: Animals don’t think like us, nor do they feel like us.Wrong. Just wrong. Yes, some animals don't, but some higher mammals are capable of feeling love, trust and also deepest sexual lust.Typical lack of experience and knowledge here, same as invalid argument number 1.QUOTE These kinds of people who bang animals need to stop living in their sick-minded worlds and go back to being a human, for gosh sakes. Leave nature alone, and stop dehumanizing our race.Several problems with that one...1st, as named above, we don't "Bang" animals. Get the point of zoophilia, or STFU.2nd Us humans are propably the most disgusting living form on earth. So "dehumanizing" our race is the best you can do.Okay no seriously. We cannot "leave nature alone", because "we are also nature"!Our feelings and drives are completely driven naturally, so it's not "unnatural" in the first place.Humanity disgusts me. Women disgust me sexually. Human behavior disgusts me. Beeing a human is the last thing I want.We're not superior to any higher mammals on the planet, may it be horses, pigs or cows.QUOTE “such behavior is profoundly degrading and utterly subversive to the crucial understanding that human beings are unique, special, and of the highest moral worth in the known universe–a concept known as ‘human exceptionalism’ … one of the reasons bestiality is condemned through law is that such degrading conduct unacceptably subverts standards of basic human dignity and is an affront to humankind’s inestimable importance and intrinsic moral worth.”Again, we're not superior. Moral is a word that basically doesn't exist in my vocabulary and everytime someone uses it in real life, he'll get some stuff told by me.Moral is a value completely made up by the society, greatly changing from culture to culture and from era to era. So "moral" is no term to argue with in the first flace. Is it moral to throw stones at a woman until she dies, just because she had sex before marriage? No? Well, go to some hardcore, conservative muslim country and try to make your point, there.Is it moral to slaughter millions and millions of highly intelligent and loving creatures, just to get our feeble-minded asses stuffed? We talk about the world hunger problem, but guess what: what do you think can feed more people: 1kg of meat or 2,5-3 kg of high-protein and energy pig food (approximate amount to make 1 kg of meat. mixture contains mainly wheat, barley, rye and soy.For cows: Energy food consists mostly of Rape, Soy, maize and listed cereals.)I could go on like this for quite a while, believe me.Go figure.QUOTE Also, you can use this same zoosexual argument for pedophiles and necrophiliaNo, you can't. I consider to take this as one of the dumbest arguments, ever. Pedophilia makes VICTIMS! Beside that, I highly doubt that it involves emotional love.Same goes for Necrophilia. The "victim" part is argueable, here. Anyway, having sex with a corpse highly dehonors the dead individual, that's for sure.QUOTE These kinds of people need serious help, I think."Well, try to "heal" us like you've tried it with gays and lesbians. Good luck.QUOTE do the above offensive comments count as zoosexual discrimination? And if they do, what can be done about it?Guess what it is.The only way of changing that is EDUCATION. fight against and clearly speak out against those sick animal-abusers who give those people a point, yet, call themselves zoophiles. Bigotry comes from prehistorical opinions and biases, as well as the inability to think a few steps further, apparently because of lack of intelligence.As obvious above, those silly arguments are a piece of cake to invalidate. However, the dumber the person and the more sick abusers exist, the harder it gets.Thanks to the original poster for bringing up this sensitive topic.Another one by Mortimer Snerd:QUOTE Lighten up. The world is full of stupid, hateful people. You can find anybody to rail against the most harmless things.I for myself won't. Those people are getting more and more, with more powerful positions and a louder voice (look to the USA).I'll have to live my life in this world and as it is now, the thought is everything else than appealing.What a giant, spinning, smelly piece of shit (planet earth)PS.: I didn't mean to offend anybody here, so if anyone feels offended, I deeply apologize. You put that better than I ever could hope to.I argued with one of these people once and after several weeks of arguing all he could do was restate the same thing again and again. I tend to not get along with most people that worth with animals because they seem to mostly have a view of animals as being nothing more than slaves and disobedient ones must be punished. But I view them as fully sentience people. I have personally witnessed horses show concern for me when they thought I was injured, that is not something that a mindless hunk of meat some people believe them to be would do. I always love how me loving my mate is considered morally wrong, but to slit her throat and serve her up as someones dinner is perfectly fine.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by zoophurie on December 10th 2012, 7:25

QUOTE (Zqwm7 @ Jul 11 2012, 08:25 AM) QUOTE (heggisist @ Jul 10 2012, 11:15 PM) Sadly most humans see humans as some sort of super species that is almost god like, and animals are just some lowly thing below them. For those humans the abomination is not some one loving another animal, it is a god going down from on high to mingle with the slime on the ground.These same ideas and thoughts are what gives us slaughter houses, it is the belief that animals are inferior and there for less deserving of life.i once was playfully arguing with a friend as to whether or not horses are superior to humans, and some other guy walked up to me and with disdain said, "they're animals" as though humans weren't.So most humans don't seem to view it as one animal loving another animal. They see it as a god being desecrated. I really hate human exceptionalism. The truth is that humans are not superior to other animals, and that humans are animals. People who think that humans are superior to other animals are arrogant and delusional.In addition, people who think that humans are somehow "separate" from nature are completely and utterly delusional -- that notion is completely incorrect. In reality (and in terms of science), humans are part of nature, not separate from it.If people followed the utilitarian principle and the harm principle (Google them if you are unfamiliar with them), then people would realize that slaughtering animals is wrong and having sex with an animal is not wrong and not immoral (simply because slaughtering an animal inflicts far more pain and suffering on an animal than bestiality does).But of course, people are irrational and will not do things logically -- they will continue to say offensive, anti-zoo things because they are full of hate and bigotry. This! I really hate this type of 'We are humans, so we are supreme'We are the same being. We eat, fuck, sleep, drink, cry, be happy, love, be excited, be irritated, be lonely, feel sad, feel prideful, feel egoistic, feel bored, feel curious, feel angry, feel upset, feel trust, feel distrust, be greedy, nervous, anxious, dominance, patient, pleasure, and animals are caring and look out for each other, especially their master, even though their master can be an idiot who doesn't understand animals properly, or may be inexperienced.Very Secular mindset. The point is, we are all equal. Scientifically, we are both, in all nature, atoms. Religious Dogma should not over-ride this connection we have to everything! But I guess there's stupid people in this world, and there are people who do believe in religion who are zoo's too so that said, yeah it's just ignorance.'If you don't do what I believe is acceptable, you are a freak' is a perfect example of society. Though I'd imagine the amount of ridicule if there was a lobby and a movement for zoo's it would be okay.I think what would be good are people creating documentaries circulating on the internet, and start slow.At the same time, I wouldn't try to care about it too much. As long as you are happy, and you are secretive and trust the right people here, who cares?Personally, screw killing for meat. I am against it. I am also against castrating an animal and trying to domesticate horses when they do not want to be domesticated, and all the animals going through hell.And people buying animals without having a clue about how to look after him/her and provide a good care and ensuring him/her are healthy. Horses especially. Especially horses.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by zoophurie on December 10th 2012, 8:15

Very Stupid Mindset*

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by shinyferret on December 12th 2012, 15:57

QUOTE (zoophurie @ Dec 10 2012, 12:15 AM)Very Stupid Mindset*Nice find. Thanks for bringing it forward again. I'd almost totally forgotten about this thread. Fun to review. I guess I'd add at this point that there are some factors working in our favour here as well. Keeping in mind what I said earlier about social movements drawing inspiration from and/or borrowing techniques from earlier ones -- one thing that people who have sex with animals actually do have in common with gays and lesbians is selective invisibility. That's one thing gays and lesbians didn't have in common with "coloured" folks of the Civil Rights Era, and some of 'em wound up being very deeply resented for it (both by blacks and sometimes too by other queers) on account of those who took it for granted. Why? Because selective invisibility *can* be an *incredibly* powerful tool. Unlike black folks who can't hide their skin colour, gays and lesbians (along with people who have sex with animals) *can* and often *do* choose to hide the sexual behaviours, inclinations, and proclivities -- sometimes in plain sight of everyone, other times deep behind enemy lines; sometimes both, and just occasionally, neither. How, then, might each of us -- individually -- employ selective invisibility no differently than we might use a tool? Is wanting to have sex with animals really, truly, ever the only reason we ultimately choose to support or oppose something someone wants to do? And just to jump back to the question of changing people's minds: it probably can't hurt to explore precisely how the most consistently successful political strategists manage to do what they do which ultimately makes 'em what they are. It has less to do with why they think, or feel, or believe a certain way, but everything to do with the specific, concrete actions which they choose to undertake at every single step along the way. It is very much a mindset, very much a mental discipline. But as with any discipline, it can be learned by anyone, and the best way by far to learn it is to put into practice.On any given issue about which there's controversy or disagreement *between* people, those individual persons themselves will have separate opinions on the matter ranging all along the scale from "complete support" of your position on the one hand to "complete opposition" on the other. The folks at either extreme end of any issue can not and will not be moved to change their minds (regardless whether they agree with you). Either they'll agree with your position, or they'll disagree with your position; and either way, trying to convince them that you're right is ultimately bound to fail: it's nothing more than a tremendous waste of time, because either they already support you, or they don't, and that is all there is to that, in either case.It's the individual human beings in the "soft spot" or the "sweet spot" -- inbetween that imaginary graph's two extremes -- about whom you'll generally want to learn all you possibly can before meeting with them. You can *always* find *some* common ground with such folks. You probably will genuinely enjoy talking with them. Listening, too. Casually. Informally. You know, just chatting. Do it right, and they'll enjoy your company, too. Especially the folks who don't feel passionately one way or the other about your issue (whatever it may be), and who could therefore change their minds and ultimately cast their vote in either way. They are the ones to whom you *really* want to carefully tailor if not even downright finesse your message.It also helps to understand you don't ever need to "convince" anybody of anything, least of all that you are "right" and they are "wrong". Think about it: how do *you* like being told "you're wrong"? How do you respond? How does your body react? Does your limbic system start pumping adrenaline, put a knot in the pit of your stomach, make you start sweating, dilate your pupils, and cause your heart and breathing rates to drastically increase as you go into "fight or flight" mode? How does your mind react? Have you ever been convinced -- really, truly, deeply convinced, ever, by anyone who ever prefaced any argument with you with those two words: "you're wrong"? Conviction, then, is not only beside the point, it's actually capable of being counterproductive. At any rate, you don't ever really have to convince anyone of anything.All you ever really truly have to do is to persuade another individual to do whatever it is you'd like for them to. And the *tighter* the margin is of "persuadable" folks inbetween the "indissuadable" ones clustered together at either far extreme end of the scale of *whatever* issue you're working on, the more important it is to craft your message -- *not* your "argument", your message -- *specifically* to your intended target audience.They're called "swing voters", and exist in *any* assembly of people gathered to cast votes for any purpose in regard to any issue whatsoever. Don't ever assume -- not even for a fraction of a second -- that they're stupid, cowardly, or weak. *Always* give the "undecided" voter the same exact level of respect you give yourself, and you just *might* even wind up changing somebody's mind someday. The first thing, then, is to identify your target audience.The second thing is to identify what motivates them.In, let's say (just hypothetically speaking, of course, purely for discussion's sake) either house of your more-or-less average-sized bicameral State Legislature, for instance: your target audience is absolutely never the entire assembly of elected legislators. The total number of your target audience -- the people who can be persuaded to do what you would like for them to do -- might be closer to (oh say I dunno) about fifteen or so out of the maybe 140 making up the total assembly in actual practice.The more numerous the groups of people already committed, then, to either the "yay" or the "nay" camp from the outset, then, on any given issue, the tighter the margin. So the tighter the margin, the fewer the number of people you ever *actually* have to talk to. And the fewer people you have to talk to at any given time, the better.Fewer people to persuade means you can finesse your message carefully for those to whom you do intend to talk in order to persuade them to do whatever it is you'd like for them to do. But, also: the tighter the margin, the more important it is for you to persuade precisely those same persons who are likelier to disagree with you in the first place that they actually ought to do whatever it is which you would like for them to do. Heck! It can get downright intimate, at times. Your standard-issue lobbyist, then (whose quite substantially remunerated livelihood it is to persuade just those select, very few key people, from among the total legislative body, to undertake whatever actions serve his clients' best interests at any given time) will absolutely never waste his costly time trying to persuade everybody that they ought to do anything! Nope! Not at all. He'll just gaily flit from one office to another -- targeting *only* the fifteen or so whom he believes might be persuaded to do whatever his client would want them to do -- until he has enough firm commitments that they will act in his clients' best interests -- and only ever from those select few, specific persons from whom he actually does need a firm commitment at any appointed time.The two main questions an effective lobbyist will mull over repeatedly each day is "who's the next, most important decisionmaker?" alternating with "what motivates this particular person?".The first thing, then, is to identify your target audience.The second thing is to identify what motivates them.Yup! It's that simple.Now within that little group of *maybe* fifteen members or so of his total general target audience, some will in fact be more important to persuade at different times than others. So yes, things can sometimes get pretty hectic 'cause our friend the lobbyist can only ever be in one place at a given time. So it's also important for him to be able to decisively identify priorities and manage his invaluable, always limited time. But no, there's no real mystery to what they do. The three piece Armani suits they sometimes wear and BMWs they sometimes drive don't make 'em do it any better, either; so don't let any of that sorta stuff ever scare you away. They just sometimes get those things 'cause, well, they're good enough at doin' what they do that yeah they can and do get paid enough for doin' it they can afford to buy nice things. But they only really ever just get really good at doin' it over time by actually doin' it. Now where process is concerned, all that is really secondary; though it sure can get to be a lot of fun, 'cause that's where you've got lots and lots of variables which'll come into play and challenge you to stay on task 'cause believe you me there are a LOT of red herrings! Process is absolutely not only about how people vote. Not by a long shot. It's at least as much about how people work together to accomplish goals which sometimes do in fact conflict. Bills can be blocked in committee, or tabled, or fasttracked, or filibustered, or referred to other committees for markup, or nitpicked to death, or radically altered by rewriting to accomplish aims diametrically opposed to the original sponsor's intent, while people can always be persuaded to talk to other people, or to swap promises for favours, and so on. The possibilities are literally endless, and the process really is completely fascinating to watch all unfold, live and in person, and downright electric to ever take part in. And I dunno, man -- maybe someday you'll actually want to talk to an elected representative of yours for some reason or other. Do it! Ain't nothin' our friend the lobbyist does for a livin' you can't probably do better for yerself in half the time he'd take if you should ever happen to find yerself believin' in a thing. And *don't* by any means *ever* assume that someone has some magical "power" you don't possess which makes them big and frightening and unapproachable just 'cause they hold *elective* office. Heck! Who puts 'em there in the first place? By all means, step right on up and ask that person anything you want. That is precisely how it works. Cheers,Shiny

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Zqwm7 on December 22nd 2012, 6:24

I just found this link; most of the answers on it are making me pretty angry:http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_y...21125140AAdwSluI'm sick and tired of people saying "animals can't consent" and "it is animal abuse". These ignorant people easily disregard consent in terms of slaughter, but DON'T disregard it when talking about sex. It is so hypocritical, and they are too ignorant to realize their own hypocrisy.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by fourlegsgood on December 25th 2012, 20:35

QUOTE (beavis69 @ Jun 26 2012, 09:08 AM) As a homosexual, who is STILL considered a "second class citizen", who has to be careful which family members to introduce my boyfriend to, who has to face up to the fact that there is a large group of people who would gladly kill/string me up for my quote/unquote "immoral" behavior....I do get a bit upset when zoophiles try to jump on the bandwagon the LGBT crowd occupies.(...)As much as I support zoophilia, I've encountered people who border on the abusive side of animals. They buy puppies and train them from day 1 to accept sexual advances.Not to mention the people who think along the lines of "They can't say no, so just do it!"The people on BF do not generally fit this category..... Yes, BF is crawling with expressions of heartfelt sensitivity. What's next on tonight's topic list? Ah, "gang bang with dogs." As another homosexual, I feel there's a lot of good lessons learned coming out of gays' struggles on sexual orientation that zoophiles can use, just like there's a lot of good lessons learned coming out of the blacks' struggles on civil rights that LGBT people face. Are they identical problems? Of course not, but telling people to ignore similar prior rights efforts is nonsensical. If zoophiles are coming to gay marriage rallies and publicly thanking gays and lesbians for paving the road to legal bestiality then that's another story. If they're just drawing from it, I don't see the harm.I can't help but find it ironic that here we all are sneering at people who post unflattering comments about zoophiles, while ignoring the irony of what is being presented to the world right in our backyard! Outsiders will come here seeking knowledge, possibly just skimming topics, and they will not take time to distinguish a zoophile from a horny noob. So let's see, most of the personals seem to be wanting to share animals... and the zoophile board has topics like "What Animal Pussy Do You Prefer Eating Out?" and "Dog Pee Fantasies." Anyone still surprised average people see zoophiles as a bunch of perverts?You talk about wanting people off your bandwagon. How do I start a zoosexual movement? Seems a lot easier to fight for wanting to love your pet sincerely without having to also justify the people who pass theirs around like party favors or who are "into beast."

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Zqwm7 on June 21st 2013, 2:03

There is a quote from the following site I want to mention:http://www.care2.com/news/member/100041282/3597319This is what the quote says:"The hideous acts that humans commit will never cease to disgust me and outrage me. Bestiality has been around since the dawn of man, and we all know that man is a cancer to this world so I am very saddened at yet another example of the depravity of the human mind.""Signed and Noted...and I can't even believe there is a need for this to be a law. What the hell is wrong with people??"The above quotes are regarding zoosexual acts being banned in Sweden. Are these quotes examples of zoosexual discrimination and prejudice?

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

A word from our sponsors...

Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.

Posted by ArloLab on June 21st 2013, 2:59

QUOTE There is a quote from the following site I want to mention:http://www.care2.com/news/member/100041282/3597319This is what the quote says:"The hideous acts that humans commit will never cease to disgust me and outrage me. Bestiality has been around since the dawn of man, and we all know that man is a cancer to this world so I am very saddened at yet another example of the depravity of the human mind.""Signed and Noted...and I can't even believe there is a need for this to be a law. What the hell is wrong with people??"The above quotes are regarding zoosexual acts being banned in Sweden. Are these quotes examples of zoosexual discrimination and prejudice? The short answer is yes. I've put a dissenting comment on that page, to try to get some idea of the reasons behind their overwhelmingly approving reaction. Hopefully that argument will be allowed to take place.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by BeastLover888 on June 21st 2013, 6:33

QUOTE (Zqwm7 @ Nov 17 2011, 05:50 PM) While surfing the net, I came across some anti-zoosexual comments which I found hurtful and offensive. Here is an excerpt from those comments:QUOTE: "I consider myself to be EXTREMELY open-minded (I am more than accepting of gay rights, transgendered people, pansexuality, etc) but Beastiality is something I simply CANNOT wrap my mind around. Hell, I’d choose watching necrophilia any day of the week than beastiality.To me beastiality/zoosexuaity (in the sexual sense), it’s immoral b/c1: an animal can’t consent. It’s disgusting to take advantage of them like that for pleasure.2: We are humans, we are meant to be with other humans. Period. Last time I checked, we didn’t have dog or goat DNA in us.3: Animals don’t think like us, nor do they feel like us. These kinds of people who bang animals need to stop living in their sick-minded worlds and go back to being a human, for gosh sakes. Leave nature alone, and stop dehumanizing our race.Lastly, this guy put it perfectly: “such behavior is profoundly degrading and utterly subversive to the crucial understanding that human beings are unique, special, and of the highest moral worth in the known universe–a concept known as ‘human exceptionalism’ … one of the reasons bestiality is condemned through law is that such degrading conduct unacceptably subverts standards of basic human dignity and is an affront to humankind’s inestimable importance and intrinsic moral worth.”I mean, I can’t tell people what to do. All I can say is that I, personally, think beastiality is outrageously repulsive and disgraceful, and I think anyone who engages in it needs to be thrown in a mental hospital. seriously.Also, you can use this same zoosexual argument for pedophiles and necrophilia – they can be good people, but that doesn’t make that sexual behavior morally right. what is this world coming toSo gross. Beastiality has to be the most dehumanizing and repulsive thing I have EVER heard of in my entire existence. it’s right next to necrophilia if you ask me. These kinds of people need serious help, I think."END OF QUOTEWhat I want to know is this: do the above offensive comments count as zoosexual discrimination? And if they do, what can be done about it?There really needs to be a zoosexual "hate-free zone" (both on and off the Internet) to prevent them from being subjected to hatred and bigotry.By the way, I also want to point out that much of what the person said (in the above quote) is incorrect; for example, it has been scientifically proven that humans share much of their DNA with dogs. (Which explains why both humans and dogs have two eyes, why humans and dogs both have respiratory systems, etc.) 1. Animals do consent. If they didn't, you will be mauled, maimed, kicked, crushed, and possibly killed. Victims of rape fight back, and animals are no different. Lets see you attempt to rape an unfamiliar mare, its liable to make you a corpse. 2. Humans are animals. Animals have made sexual advances on me just as I was one of their own. 3. Animals can show emotions just like we do. They feel fear, pain, and love. Except unlike humans, the love is unconditional. The act of bestiality is taking that final step in expressing our love for them. Sexual expression makes both parties closer as mates and the bond to be stronger.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Zqwm7 on February 15th 2014, 9:01

QUOTE (BeastLover888 @ Jun 21 2013, 05:33 AM) 1. Animals do consent. If they didn't, you will be mauled, maimed, kicked, crushed, and possibly killed. Victims of rape fight back, and animals are no different. Lets see you attempt to rape an unfamiliar mare, its liable to make you a corpse. 2. Humans are animals. Animals have made sexual advances on me just as I was one of their own. 3. Animals can show emotions just like we do. They feel fear, pain, and love. Except unlike humans, the love is unconditional. The act of bestiality is taking that final step in expressing our love for them. Sexual expression makes both parties closer as mates and the bond to be stronger. I agree completely. It angers me when people say that non-human animals are "lower" than humans, because they're not (and the notion that humans are "above" other animals is erroneous, delusional and speciesist). Perhaps if people understood the fact that non-human animals can non-verbally consent to sex, they'd be more accepting of it [zoosexuality]. People ought to treat non-human animals the same way they treat humans (and give non-human animals compassion as well as moral concern; people should also acknowledge non-human animal's moral interests and give them moral consideration, and treat them as equal to humans).

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

A word from our sponsors...

Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.

Posted by NervousAsHell on February 15th 2014, 19:35

QUOTE (Zqwm7 @ Feb 15 2014, 01:01 AM) I agree completely. It angers me when people say that non-human animals are "lower" than humans, because they're not (and the notion that humans are "above" other animals is erroneous, delusional and speciesist). Perhaps if people understood the fact that non-human animals can non-verbally consent to sex, they'd be more accepting of it [zoosexuality]. People ought to treat non-human animals the same way they treat humans (and give non-human animals compassion as well as moral concern; people should also acknowledge non-human animal's moral interests and give them moral consideration, and treat them as equal to humans). For people to treat animals the same as other humans would mean not eating them, nor using their hides for clothing or furniture. Neither would we enjoy milkshakes or cheese. Eggs for breakfast would be a no-no.We would also not have the right to sell, buy nor own animals, so if they're going to live in human cities, they'll have to earn their own keep, or starve. And if they're going to earn money, it's only fair that they pay income taxes just as humans have to.And of course, there can be no taxation without representation. We would need to recognize animals' rights to vote, and to run for and to hold offices in government. Public education would also have to be modified to accommodate quadruped classmates in the classrooms. Etc., etc.In truth, humans have differences shared by no other species on the planet. Just take a look at the Internet message board post you're reading right now. And the other posts in this thread, and the other threads on this board, and the other boards on the Internet. Every single one was banged out on the keyboard by a human being.The computer screen you're reading this on was assembled by humans, from parts manufactured by other humans and designed by other humans still. The room you're sitting in was built by humans, and so were your neighbors' houses. Likewise, your car in your driveway was invented, designed, manufactured by and sold to you by other human beings, most of whom never even met each other.Humans are not just clever enough to invent technology far beyond what most other species can even learn to use, let alone invent, we are able to organize ourselves into social structures so large and complex, no member can no all of the others.Humans will always be able to do these things, and to the best of our ability to predict, animals never will. -unless human technology grows so much more that we become able to genetically alter animals to give them these abilities.No, humans will always be different, in so many significant ways.-mind you, this isn't to say animals shouldn't be respected and treated well, nor that we cannot develop emotional attachments to them, nor pursue sexual relationships with them. I'm just saying that it isn't sensible to be blind to the differences.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by newmalezoo on February 15th 2014, 21:50

QUOTE (Mortimer Snerd @ Nov 17 2011, 06:12 PM) Lighten up. The world is full of stupid, hateful people. You can find anybody to rail against the most harmless things. Bestiality is an easy target. There may never be a world where we could expect any sort of rights or protections. Remember - people are entitled to their opinions, no matter how f**ked up they are. Change the things you can, accept the things you can't. You will never change this person's mind, so don't give it a second thought. The more time we spend defining ourselves, the better. Don't let other people do it for you. well said I totally agree

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by k9kissed on February 16th 2014, 4:21

People fear what they do not know or understand. Even among ourselves we judge one another , lol... it is human nature to do so. Just as we have a right to our opinion , others have a right to theirs. We may not agree with everything and even know it to be a lie but we cannot change the way others chose to think or feel. We can only change ourselves. Ignorance ... oppression... and stereotypes exists... we all in some way or another carry prejudices... what we need to do ..is simply agree to disagree ... live and let live... why should we stress over something we have no control over.. we'd only be making ourselves miserable in the process.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Zqwm7 on February 16th 2014, 11:30

QUOTE (NervousAsHell @ Feb 15 2014, 07:35 PM) QUOTE (Zqwm7 @ Feb 15 2014, 01:01 AM) I agree completely. It angers me when people say that non-human animals are "lower" than humans, because they're not (and the notion that humans are "above" other animals is erroneous, delusional and speciesist). Perhaps if people understood the fact that non-human animals can non-verbally consent to sex, they'd be more accepting of it [zoosexuality]. People ought to treat non-human animals the same way they treat humans (and give non-human animals compassion as well as moral concern; people should also acknowledge non-human animal's moral interests and give them moral consideration, and treat them as equal to humans). For people to treat animals the same as other humans would mean not eating them, nor using their hides for clothing or furniture. Neither would we enjoy milkshakes or cheese. Eggs for breakfast would be a no-no.We would also not have the right to sell, buy nor own animals, so if they're going to live in human cities, they'll have to earn their own keep, or starve. And if they're going to earn money, it's only fair that they pay income taxes just as humans have to.And of course, there can be no taxation without representation. We would need to recognize animals' rights to vote, and to run for and to hold offices in government. Public education would also have to be modified to accommodate quadruped classmates in the classrooms. Etc., etc.In truth, humans have differences shared by no other species on the planet. Just take a look at the Internet message board post you're reading right now. And the other posts in this thread, and the other threads on this board, and the other boards on the Internet. Every single one was banged out on the keyboard by a human being.The computer screen you're reading this on was assembled by humans, from parts manufactured by other humans and designed by other humans still. The room you're sitting in was built by humans, and so were your neighbors' houses. Likewise, your car in your driveway was invented, designed, manufactured by and sold to you by other human beings, most of whom never even met each other.Humans are not just clever enough to invent technology far beyond what most other species can even learn to use, let alone invent, we are able to organize ourselves into social structures so large and complex, no member can no all of the others.Humans will always be able to do these things, and to the best of our ability to predict, animals never will. -unless human technology grows so much more that we become able to genetically alter animals to give them these abilities.No, humans will always be different, in so many significant ways.-mind you, this isn't to say animals shouldn't be respected and treated well, nor that we cannot develop emotional attachments to them, nor pursue sexual relationships with them. I'm just saying that it isn't sensible to be blind to the differences. You are correct. People should not exploit animals for their products (such as eggs and milk), and people should become vegan. By becoming vegan, a person is being truly compassionate to animals because they are not buying into a mechanized system of animal cruelty caused by the cruel meat and dairy industry.People should also not use animal products such as leather. People wouldn't use leather made out of other people, so why should they use leather made out of animals who happen to be non-human? The answer is that no animal products should be used, with the exception of some circumstances (for example, an animal dies a natural death and then that animal's fur is used for something and its meat is eaten -- that would not necessarily be unethical).Notions such as taxation, voting, public schools -- those are all very anthropocentric concepts. People should not think in such anthropocentric ways. Things such as voting and taxation are irrelevant to non-human animals, but that does not mean non-human animals are in a different category from humans. It just means that humans have some quirks that non-human animals don't have. But that does not mean humans are in a different category from other species, and it does not make humans "special".Ultimately, humans are really not that different from other animal species. In fact, humans share more than 98% of their DNA with close primate relatives. Humans are part of the Animal Kingdom.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by Chanyapaka9 on February 16th 2014, 12:05

QUOTE (k9kissed @ Feb 16 2014, 04:21 AM) People fear what they do not know or understand. Even among ourselves we judge one another , lol... it is human nature to do so. Just as we have a right to our opinion , others have a right to theirs. We may not agree with everything and even know it to be a lie but we cannot change the way others chose to think or feel. We can only change ourselves. Ignorance ... oppression... and stereotypes exists... we all in some way or another carry prejudices... what we need to do ..is simply agree to disagree ... live and let live... why should we stress over something we have no control over.. we'd only be making ourselves miserable in the process. Very well said k9kissed....Thanks...

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by MtMulz on February 16th 2014, 14:59

There is a new twist on a old saying that would fit this person's thoughts on homosexuality, we are all familiar with the saying you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I have heard it told from another point of view as well, you can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make him/her think. Those who say animals can't give consent have never been around animals. A feral dog or cat will make it very painfully evident that it wants no human contact if you try to pet it, either with a nasty bite or with a swipe of its claws. Also I would like to see them try and work with a 1200 lbs horse that has had no contact with a person before. They would learn very quickly that yes animals do have their way of communication and we as humans communicate with them just as loudly as they rave against other who are different than they are.I for one will unanimously rather live with animals than I would another human for the simple truth that animals no matter how big or small are far easier to understand than any human ever could be. But for all our complexities animals find us easier to understand than we understand ourselves.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by cowlover3167 on February 16th 2014, 19:40

QUOTE In truth, humans have differences shared by no other species on the planet. Just take a look at the Internet message board post you're reading right now. And the other posts in this thread, and the other threads on this board, and the other boards on the Internet. Every single one was banged out on the keyboard by a human being.The computer screen you're reading this on was assembled by humans, from parts manufactured by other humans and designed by other humans still. The room you're sitting in was built by humans, and so were your neighbors' houses. Likewise, your car in your driveway was invented, designed, manufactured by and sold to you by other human beings, most of whom never even met each other.Humans are not just clever enough to invent technology far beyond what most other species can even learn to use, let alone invent, we are able to organize ourselves into social structures so large and complex, no member can no all of the others.Humans will always be able to do these things, and to the best of our ability to predict, animals never will. -unless human technology grows so much more that we become able to genetically alter animals to give them these abilities.This sounds like hubris. Believing that technology somehow represents human superiority over animals is anthropocentric, simply because an elephant doesn't care about the internet, ie. you've assigned an arbitrary value to something that matters to you, and then declared that this value should be the measure of all things. Hell, that's probably one of the few qualities that truly distinguishes humans from other animals. Technology does not make a human human any more than building a nest makes a bird a bird.Point is, elephants are unique to themselves, so are dolphins, so are bears, so are humans etc.QUOTE No, humans will always be differentI agree, but horses will always be different from dogs, dogs will always be different from manatees etc. so again different does warrant being placed on a pedestal. Our capacity for abstract thought does not negate the fact that we are nothing but animals, in possession of a full suite of animal instincts, just like them. What ever "more" we may be comes after the fact, not before.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by NervousAsHell on February 16th 2014, 20:42

QUOTE (Zqwm7 @ Feb 16 2014, 03:30 AM) You are correct. People should not exploit animals for their products (such as eggs and milk), and people should become vegan. By becoming vegan, a person is being truly compassionate to animals because they are not buying into a mechanized system of animal cruelty caused by the cruel meat and dairy industry.People should also not use animal products such as leather. People wouldn't use leather made out of other people, so why should they use leather made out of animals who happen to be non-human? The answer is that no animal products should be used, with the exception of some circumstances (for example, an animal dies a natural death and then that animal's fur is used for something and its meat is eaten -- that would not necessarily be unethical).Notions such as taxation, voting, public schools -- those are all very anthropocentric concepts. People should not think in such anthropocentric ways. Things such as voting and taxation are irrelevant to non-human animals, but that does not mean non-human animals are in a different category from humans. It just means that humans have some quirks that non-human animals don't have. But that does not mean humans are in a different category from other species, and it does not make humans "special".Ultimately, humans are really not that different from other animal species. In fact, humans share more than 98% of their DNA with close primate relatives. Humans are part of the Animal Kingdom. And yet non-human carnivore animals do not all limit themselves to eating animals that have died of natural causes. Scavengers such as hyenas eat only carrion, but cats of all sizes hunt their living prey, as do dogs and wolves. Dolphins and sharks hunt living fish. Alligators often hunt live prey. Eagles, hawks and owls hunt small animals of the fields. Smaller birds eat insects. Bigger insects eat smaller ones.All throughout the Animal Kingdom, predator species hunt, kill and consume other animals. Yet we do not decry this as "unnatural," nor do we criticize them for "putting themselves above other species." Instead, we hold this to be the natural order of things. We hold that predator species hunt because it is their nature to do so.At the same time, we say that humans are just another animal species, and that any distinction between humans and non-human animals is purely a human construction, devoid of any objective reality. Well, then, is not the consumption of other species just as natural for omnivorous humans as it is for so many other carnivore and omnivore species? Why do we decry human consumption of other species as "unethical?" Are not ethics also purely a human construction?

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by k9inked on February 23rd 2014, 3:13

QUOTE Are not ethics also a purely human construction?I agree with much of what you've said in this thread regarding the impossibility of building a world completely free of speciesism. Humans are by nature a social species, and non-humans inherently lack the capacity to participate fully in any human society. This has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority: by the same token, non-wolves are incapable of participating fully in any wolf society, non-orcas are incapable of participating fully in orca society, non-ants are incapable of participating fully in ant society, and so forth. Humans can interact with humans in ways that we simply cannot interact with other animals. My dog certainly has the capacity to be playful, but she'll never sit down for a few hands of poker (despite what certain paintings might tell you); if I scrape myself, she might lick the wound, but she'll never be able to diagnose me with a medical condition and prescribe appropriate treatment. The list of possible examples goes on and on, but suffice it to say, humans are different from all other animals in ways that matter very much to us as humans. (I'm quite fond of both poker and medical care, as well as a great many other things that I can only get from my fellow humans.) I think it's possible to acknowledge this reality without endorsing animal abuse or dominionistic attitudes toward nature.All that being said, I disagree with your assertion that ethics are a purely human construction. Primates (particularly chimps and bonobos) appear to possess moral instincts broadly congruent with our own: altruistic impulses, a strong notion of fair play, a willingness to tolerate greater misbehavior in children than in adults. In laboratory experiments, even rats will demonstrate what appears to be purely altruistic behavior.

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by kay9lilly on February 24th 2014, 2:50

QUOTE (MtMulz @ Feb 16 2014, 07:59 AM) There is a new twist on a old saying that would fit this person's thoughts on homosexuality, we are all familiar with the saying you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I have heard it told from another point of view as well, you can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make him/her think. How true! This is the most rational post I have read yet! Thank you!

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]

Posted by saddlebum66 on February 24th 2014, 4:01

Asking people to think? They're often not equipped to use their heads for anything more than a hatrack....shame hats are so often out of style...

[ Home | Show post at BeastForum.com ]