Social Anxiety and Zoophilia

[egoldstein]

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




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




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




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




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




.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




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




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.