12-03-2017, 11:51 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-03-2017, 12:04 PM by egoldstein.)
Quote:
16 hours ago, 30-30 said:
The "lump in the vagina" is highly hypothetical:
Quite the contrary, it's an example from my own life. I noticed a tiny bump in my first bitch and fretted about what to do, whether it was anything to really worry about, and how I could manage to get my vet to find it. It took a lot of time and repeated visits to get the vet to do a thorough examination to find it, but by then it was much worse.
I find it interesting that your best defense of these laws is to point out that they're so easy for you to avoid, that you couldn't possibly ever get caught, or that the penalties for you aren't very severe.
Quote:
Quote
And why should animals, you know, those creatures all zoophiles insist on loving and caring for so much, tolerate a legislation (or the complete lack thereof) that is opening up ALL paths for abuse and exploitation? Why does it seem that this "free zoophilia" puts the stress on "zoophiles" and their rights while an abused animal that is kept away from any instance that could speak on behalf of the voiceless animal has no chance to withdraw from its "lover"?
If you were to attempt to answer some of the questions posed, you would know that I addressed this specifically. I'll reitterate it again. I do not suppport your "free zoophilia" idea, never have and have pointed this out to you on several occasions. Had you read my earlier replies, you'd know that I even addressed the point about abuse. You have the annoying tendency to ignore everything said and instead just beatup a strawman you dragged in.
Quote:
Quote
I also can´t get behind your argumentation of "old sodomy laws" being resurrected.
Ok, since you appear to have difficulty with this, let me see if I can explain it in a manner which you can understand. If a law is created which focuses on a sexual action and is applied *no matter if there is harm or not*, then that law is about controlling sexual expression and not about animal welfare, since it doesn't matter if the animal is harmed or not. Maybe things work differently in Germany, but pretty much everywhere else this would be an extension of the old sodomy laws.
Quote:
Quote
So, let me unfold a theoretical scenario : there´s a "zoo" who keeps his dog solely as his personal sex toy. He is NOT physically harming the animal, but uses it as a convenient sex toy whenever he feels like it while totally abandoning it when he´s not "in the mood". The animal does not openly show signs of mistreatment and abuse. So, what should we do in this case? Look away because "zoo rights"? Wouldn´t that totally contradict our own creed?
In this case, why does sex even matter? You accept there's no harm from it, but yet you continue focusing on the sex instead of neglect and abuse. In this one example you destroy your own position. I think in such a case we should do exactly the same as in any other case, that it should be examined not from a sexual angle but from a neglect/abuse angle. What if in your example, the person doesn't ever have sex with the animal, is the neglect suddenly A-OK because at least they aren't fucking it? That's the whole point, your focus on sex narrows your view so that you don't even see any other abuse.
Quote:
Quote
Placing the human´s interest over the animal´s right? Look, I don´t keep bringing up my proposal/idea of regulated zoophilia for nothing but my own ego here, okay?
Saying it does not make it true, I have yet to see any evidence that this is based on anything *BUT* your own ego.
Quote:
Quote
.We´re in a dilemmma here...screaming for "free zoophilia" without any neutral observance will mostly benefit the wrong ones.
And in this entire thread, you're the only one who's even hinted at the idea of "free zoophilia", whatever that means. Here's a hint, when you resort to arguing against something nobody else in the conversation has even said, chances are you're fighting a strawman. If you go through this thread and see, you'll find that you've been asked several direct questions by myself and others. Why is it you've not attempted responding to those, but instead keep up with your strawman attacks? Is it because deep down you know your argument is flawed but your ego just can't accept it?
Quote:
Quote
So, what is more "zoo"...constant nagging about "zoo freedom" while this idea would deliver many animals to suffering from so called "zoo relations".
Again, the only one constantly nagging about "zoo freedom" has been you.
Quote:
Quote
Or learning to live with a law that most likely will never be applied to you personally if you manage to moderate yourself and keep yourself under the radar , a law that might delete the idea of "Oooh, maybe I could give zoophilia a try" in many adventurous and irresponsible folks?
So you're saying it's A-OK for an action which you accept as non harmful to be illegal because some people who engage in that action commit some other, unrelated crime of abuse? Furthermore, you accept that abuse happens even when sex isn't involved, but that abuse doesn't matter because those people aren't engaging in the action you accept as non-harmful? All of this just to try and stop some people from engaging in an action which you accept as non-harmful. Did you even think about this before you started typing?
Here's a clue, focus on harm and you get those comitting abuse while not harassing those not comitting abuse. Focusing on sex instead of abuse makes it clear that your issue isn't about abuse, you've already demonstrated you don't really care about abuse, but rather you're offended about the sex. Your last sentence here makes that 100% clear, you're railing against people who you think are "adventurous and irresponsible" who you think might "give zoophilia a try", no concern there about abuse whatsoever.
<a contenteditable="false" data-ipshover="" data-ipshover-target="<___base_url___>/profile/378-30-30/?do=hovercard" data-mentionid="378" href="<___base_url___>/profile/378-30-30/">@ 30-30</a>As best I can understand that you wish to make something that you hate beyond any rational thought worse so you can justify your hate?
You haven't answered a question yet but here's another chance: what is wrong with enforcing cruelty laws correctly instead of inventing victim less crimes that are easier to prosecute? If an animal is being harmed who cares why the harm was done? Punish the harm and let the rest go. We call that "the rule of law". Prosecution should be based on evidence of actual harm not a minority opinion. (prediction: 30-30 will go ballistic over "minority")
Again the thread has been derailed way off topic, if you guys want to debate law could someone please start a separate thread??
Thanks.
I agree. Lets stay on topic here please.
sw
I wonder about the other side of the coin. Rather than how these feelings can be a precursor to zoophilic behavior, how does zoophilia effect these feelings starting?
sw
12-06-2017, 05:12 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2017, 05:21 AM by egoldstein.)
Quote:
8 hours ago, Cynolove693 said:
Again the thread has been derailed way off topic, if you guys want to debate law could someone please start a separate thread??
Thanks.
Sorry Cynolove.
Quote:
5 hours ago, silverwolf1 said:
I wonder about the other side of the coin. Rather than how these feelings can be a precursor to zoophilic behavior, how does zoophilia effect these feelings starting?
sw
It's an interesting question. This is all anecdotal, but I've always felt an attraction/affinity for non-humans. Interestingly, after I came to terms with it, I talked about it with several members of my family, with whom I was close, and got varied results from them. My brother, always a pussy hound, had never even *considered* that such was possible, yet we were raised in the same environment (mostly, there's always some differences even with twins, which we are not). A discussion with one of my aunts yielded her talking about trying it a few times, mostly handjobs to the dog, but a few explorations further in too. She was OK with it, but greatly preferered other humans. I have an uncle who admitted some interest, but no admission of action; it's an open question still I suppose. Growing up I had no exposure to it that I am aware of, yet I can recall being around 7 and having sexual/love thoughts and feelings about animals. So it seems to me plausible that innate feelings could lead some of us toward a non-human as a partner, naturally.
I mentioned briefly earlier my thoughts about a genetic link.; I want to be clear here that this is pure speculation. Among the many hereditary features of domestication, part of it is being able to mate in the presence of another species and to an extent, to consider that other species as a member of the species unit (herd/pack/flock/pod/etc). We don't often think of ourselves as being a domesticated species, but we exhibit a large number of features of domestication ourselves and I've speculated that perhaps in some of us, the varied ability to empathize with non-humans, to see them as potential members of our troop, and to see them as potential mates,, could possibly be a stronger than typical expression of it. Something to think about.
Edit: On the flipside, I think I could argue that it could be, at least in part, a combination of memes and positive reinforcement from the pleasure of sex.
@caikgoch: Yeah, why should it make a difference whether I hit a kid or rape it? /s Good for you that you obviously adopted a "sex is just as normal as taking a leak" weltbild....but the rest of the world isn´t buying...does that answer your question? And since Silverwolf expressed his wishes we shouldn´t derail this thread anymore, that will be my last off topic reply.
On topic: Interesting question, Silverwolf. Egoldstein´s reply might sound somewhat coherent, but then I am the direct opposite to that as I never was what could be described as "drawn towards animals" in my childhood. We had a bobtail as a family dog when I was young, but I´ve never seen myself as especially attached emotionally to animals. I´ve had contact to a few horses in my childhood, but there never was this special feeling towards them...hell, I even considered horses to be "girlie stuff" for the vast majority of my childhood. Only when I reached puberty, these feelings of indifference and "meh! Horses." changed.Fundamentally.
IN one of his books from the discworld cycle, Terry Pratchett introduced the idea of a special element he called "narrativium" that is solely important for humans. He described it as "the storymaking element", every human´s urge to comprise a coherent story out of a rather chaotic life. I really think this entire debate is heavily influenced by this "narrativium", the urge to find "reasons", tie links to unrelated elements for the sole reason of making a story out of it.
Having said this, I want to mention that a large portion of these "animal welfare activists" and many show off vegans and vegetarians also insist on having a very close relationship to animals in their childhood. But as you know, these two groups aren´t exactly what you´d consider a collection of zoophiles or the epitome of support for zoos. I really don´t believe there´s a direct connection here. Of course I can only speak for myself here, but my zoophilia started when I reached puberty and found myself untterly uninterested in humans on a sexual and partnership level. Before that, I was just a "normal" boy without any intentions to become "one of those sick animal fuckers" at all. I martyred myself about the "Why" during my puberty quite a lot because I wanted to understand , I searched for "reasons" , read books, spoke to other zoos...but up to this day, I couldn´t find any final answer to the "Why?". Genetical, environmental, social,etc....no single "reason" and not even a combination of those "reasons" answered my "Why?" here. I´ve met more than enough people and heard their stories to falsify both sides of the "coin" here. You can have an extraordinary attachment to animals in your childhood and still come out of it without the yearning to have sex with an animal, you can (as I, among some other zoos, did) have little to no emotional attachment to animals and still find yourself being a zoophile. I grew up in a suburban environment, but my one half of my grandparents still lived and worked as farmers in a rural area, so I can say I was exposed to "both worlds", yet neither of these worlds has shaped my sexual orientation. My grandpa had several draft horses and I could have had easy access to them without much ado...on the other hand, when I was in school and just developing my sexual identity, my classmates used to tease me with my newly discovered affliction with equines on a regular basis. To abbreviate this: I heavily doubt we will come to a disclosure in this discussion, there is no final solution, there are no "warning signs", no isolated incident that makes you a zoo. Sure, many outer influences will play a certain role in becoming a zoo, but in the end, I feel it´s all dependent on your personality. Being socially awkward may seem like a logical predisposition...if you can´t find a common place with humans, you naturally will start searching for other outlets of your sexual energy....but on the other hand, there are masses of socially awkward people who would never ever even think about falling in love with an animal instead. There are tons of sexually "adventurous" folks who will never waste a thought on bestiality...and not only because it´s "forbidden" and banned by law.
I believe the whole debate is doomed to fail, there is no sole reason, no influence that inevitably will lead to "zoophilia"...at least not a general one applicable to us as an entire subgroup of people. Each and every one will find "reasons" why he/she is THAT way....if he/she is digging deep enough. But I heavily tend to think that it´s truly the "narrativium" that´s working here, the urge to tell a coherent story to others , to yourself...to make something that´s rather irrational and inconcievable less frightening and erratic. I am a zoo because I am a zoo. I don´t need more "reasons" that that. I don´t try to find what "triggered" me becoming a zoo anymore because I couldn´t find that one , life changing "trigger"...and god knows how hard I tried to.
I grew up as a rather "normal" boy, never was exposed to animals in an extraordinary manner, never had social problems with humans, wasn´t rejected by women or anything like that. I evn got bitten and bucked off by a horse in Kindergarten....and still , here I am, an exclusive zoophile in his fourties who found his soulate and lived with her for 22 years in perfect harmony. Here I am, completely uninterested in having a human partner (what I, btw, find equally repulsive as a normal person might find it to be in a partnership with an animal), sure about my orientation and the fact I can and will only find my peace of mind with a mare by my side, as my partner, my equal.
With a mare by my side, I feel "at home", I feel I am where I belong to , where I should be. I feel "understood", I feel calm and relaxed. And that´s the only "reason" for me to have come to terms with the strange "hand" that has been dealt to me. I don´t waste my energy on reasoning why I ended up with exactly these "cards" anymore, I just try to play these cards the best way possible, to get the most out of this situation, no matter how "good" or "bad" these cards might seem.
A horse obviously doesn´t wonder why it is a horse...so, why should I wonder and martyr myself with trying to find "reasons" for what I am? Reasons that are effectively not existent? I guess that´s where zoos really should take an example from their quadruped partners....stop worrying, stop digging for "reasons" and "triggers" that made you what you are, start living instead. Life is short...even shorter for our partners...so why the heck should I invest this precious time in chasing ghosts? I am what I am. And I can perfectly live without digging for reasons, reasons that may never be found. I somehow envy "dumb" people ´cause they always seem to be happier with their lives than everyone else. I´m not generalising this though...but ignorance indeed IS bliss...to a certain degree. Freedom isn´t granted by laws, freedom comes from within.
Reality is chaotic , erratic and irrational. Yet, humans tend to look at reality and draw grids onto the window glass they are watching reality through to make sense out of the chaos. Sadly, many humans tend to mistake their self drawn grids for reality. The world needs no reason to exist, so why should I as a zoo? I quit mining for "narrativium" a long time ago...and, what can I say, life is way easier ever since. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" />
Just my two cents...
Quote:
1 hour ago, 30-30 said:
Just my two cents...
More like a buck-fifty worth. :-)
When I give, I use to give plenty...just ask my mare...;)
Which brings us to my position:
I am zoo because I am. I am bestialist because I chose to be. I stay labeling myself both because I want to. I think there are many internal and environmental "reasons, causes, influences" that effect our being and our choices, and that they are likely as completely different as the individual is. I think depression or social anxiety can be one of those influences, one of many for that individual. I believe it can also be a result of the same for other individuals, as my depression is for me.
I agree that we search for reasons where reasons may not be, but if searching brings you peace then search away. I never wondered why I was zoo, only why I acted upon those feelings. I looked for reasons why I engaged in bestiality, and concluded only that it was my choice. I could have stayed with humans, or barring that, could have stayed without a sex partner, but chose to have sex based on my lust, and love in my case. Many others will conclude different results.
This has indeed been an interesting topic and discussion, and I hope it continues as such.
|
