"Is acceptance possible?" thread

[Cynolove693]

59 minutes ago, Vermilion said:




In most cases they deserve a ban for bad online behaviour, but only the zoophile scene labels those guys with a special term to protect their sacred sexual identity.




So, why should society accept zoophiles, if zoophiles can't even accept "beasties"? That's the power of moral believes. They are as strong as religions.

Exactly; you hit the head of the nail there; alot of zoophile's are under the delusion that they are perfect and "true" zoos; when in all reality anyone that has had sex with an animal has Atleast done it for fun or lust at one point in there life; they can deny that simple fact but everyone possesses the ability to lust; in fact that is the beginning of love, you can't fall in love without lust at first..

[Vermilion]

4 hours ago, Cynolove693 said:




Exactly; you hit the head of the nail there; alot of zoophile's are under the delusion that they are perfect and "true" zoos; when in all reality anyone that has had sex with an animal has Atleast done it for fun or lust at one point in there life; they can deny that simple fact but everyone possesses the ability to lust; in fact that is the beginning of love, you can't fall in love without lust at first..

Yeah. Also it's a very anthrocentric point of view. I mean, technically every donkey jack, who's simple goal in life is to mount any jeanny who crosses his territory, would qualify for beeing a "beastie".




Well, let's hope donkeys never learn how to use Tinder.

[Cynolove693]

47 minutes ago, Vermilion said:




Yeah. Also it's a very anthrocentric point of view. I mean, technically every donkey jack, who's simple goal in live is to mount any jeanny who crosses his territory, would qualify for beeing a "beastie".




Well, let's hope donkeys never learn how to use Tinder.

Right very valid point; you don't see us judging animals for being lustful..

[30-30]

I don't think so. For most people, this is primary a matter of morality. Look at the comment sections of bestiality topics in main stream media sites. People asking for death penalty and castration, exactly like for pedophilia topics. Would they really care about animals at the same emotional base, the whole nation would turn vegetarian.




You underastimate the power of ethical tabus. People die because of different ethics and believes. it's all the same. Caring about animals is in most cases just a lip service. People care for their personal moral save space.




By the way. I don't say that's generally a bad thing. We all need a common ethical ground to live in a diverse society. The borders simply have to be somewhere.




I don't believe a society without a common ground will survive on the long run and  will turn into bloodshed sooner or later.




By the way (to get a bit of coal into the fire), there is no difference between bestiality and zoophilia, as there is no sexual difference between a heterosexual predator, having sex with 5 prostitutes a day and a loving heterosexual husband who would never betray his wife. You may judge the predator moraly, but he's still heterosexual and I found the exclusive strategy of the zoophile internet scene always to be quite bigot and pathetic. As if there would be the chance of moral acceptance, if they exclude people who are having sex just for fun. The majority simply doesn't care if there is a difference, neither will you ever be able to erase people in the contact sections asking for a dog to fuck. Those people are part of any space with the slightest sexual topic.




In most cases they deserve a ban for bad online behaviour, but only the zoophile scene labels those guys with a special term to protect their sacred sexual identity.




So, why should society accept zoophiles, if zoophiles can't even accept "beasties"? That's the power of moral believes. They are as strong as religions.






Do you really think that comments under articles about fencehoppers and youtube videos will be balanced, well thought through and rational? You don´t seem to know the internet, mate...;) The one point these replies yelling for castration, gas chambers etc. is actually illustrating is that emotions will always outweigh reason and zoophilia/bestiality indeed has a traumatising potential for a certain percentage of folks.  People aren´t robots , they´re irrational and emotional beings, egocentrical beings, greedy beings that don´t give a fuck for others as long as their needs are met...that´s why no one is going vegan, that´s why people buy cheap shit that has been manufactured under inhumane circumstances. That´s why people still buy a new smartphone each time a new one is released although they all know how many victims the coltane mining in Africa is producing. Of course it´s bigoted, but humans are that way...and nothing will change that. 




Regarding your bold statement that there´s no difference between a hetero predator visiting a brothel 5 times a day and a loving and caring husband, I guess the latter one will heftily disagree. We´re not only judged by what we do, we´re also judged by what we DON´T do. YOu actually can do "the same thing" yet you´re not the same...if I fill up my car with gas, no one will bat an eye...but if I would fill you up with gas so I can set you on fire, I have basically done the same thing, haven´t I?  You miss out on motivation/intent and a couple of other meta issues here...the guy fucking his way through the brothel is solely interested in himself while the caring and loving husband (if he is a genuine one and not one of those many who cheat secretly) has actually invested something in his relationship, he is committed to it and not egotistically "consuming" sexuality. There IS a difference between zoophilia and bestiality, you can "commit" bestiality without even the slightest concern for the animal you´re having sex with, but that is pretty hard to do if you are a genuine zoo and emotionally "invested"/"committed". Yes, this is a question of morality, but morality is one huge element of being human. Don´t you understand that tolerance is dependent on relatability? The more you are off the "normal" folks with your personal morals, the tiniier the chance of actual support will get. Talk to "normals" and ask them whether they are less terrified with a guy like me who will never ever touch another person´s animal "that way"...or someone who obviously gives a flying fuck, does every animal just for his sexual gratification and knows no limits, neither in numbers nor in practices. WHo will be less of a potential danger to your animal standing in your garden/at your pasture? That´s like showing some outsider the worst gay darkroom orgy and acting surprised when this outsider quickly turns into an utterly disgusted person. You have to understand that it´s not your lax morals it depends on, but the morals of the "normals"....and I´ve been told by many people that "if you would be one of those sexual pervos who fuck anything that walks, in any situation and without any care for the animal, I´d call the police immediately"...I´m not bullshitting you on this. Those outsiders I met were all okay with me because they have seen their own morals in me...and most of them don´t consider fucking without having actual feelings for your partner as legit or morally tolerable, despite of the crap the "sex lib" folks never stop to spout.




Your "you won´t be able to erase those people in the contact sections" almost made me laugh...hell, why IS there a "contact section"? Don´t erase the poster, erase the possibility to post, erase the animal sex supermarket blackboard. It´s like saying "we can´t erase murderers, so we don´t give a fuck about them and let them do their thing"... you´re wrong about that "sacred sexuality" thing too, man. In zoophilia, ANIMALS are involved and thus, there are certain ethical norms and rules. When these rules are violated, we have to protect these norms. It´s not about feeling superior to anyone, it´s about ethical standards and NOT treating animals like live sex toys. It´s like saying the loving and caring husband wants to protect his "sacred sexuality" when he tries to distance himself from an egotistical asshat roaming through the pubs and brothels for a quick and easy fuck. It´s about a certain form of respect for our partners...that most often is missing in those beasties entirely.




"Why should society accept zoophiles when zoophiles don´t accept beasties?" Well, because society accepts loving and caring husbands and rejects brothel customers. Because society accepts eating meals in healthy portions, but rejects obese folks who oder the entire McD menu card twice. Because society accepts the occasional weed smoker, but rejects the 24/7 permanent stoner. Because society accepts drinking one or two beers, but rejects binge drinking. Because society accepts moderacy, but rejects excessiveness. I lived for more than 22 years with my mare in a public boarding stable, with lots of other folks around. And one key point why I never had to face any consequences for my zoophilia although I practically was doing it right in front of those outsiders´ eyes was because I kept it moderate and people saw how my mare benefitted from the relationship with me. I still remember a Dutch girl´s mother approaching me while I was brushing down my mare outside, asking me frankly " Is she the love of your life?" I was so surprised that I accidentally told the truth and said yes...she just nodded and from that point, she was on my side. Can you imagine what would have happened with a reply like that of a BF user named Welshpony who said that , although he apparently has his own horse, he will "travel Europe for any good fuck"? Do you really think this does not make a certain difference in a normal person´s perception? If you apply for a job, will it be more likely that you´re hired when you show the best possible picture of you, with clean clothes, sober and focused? Or do you think another applicant with shit stains on his trousers, half of his breakfast clinging inside his unshaved beard, stinking like an entire armada of skunks and drunk as fuck has the same chances? And by the way, let me just play the devil´s advocate here and perpetuate your way of reasoning: Why should society accept zoophiles and bestialists if zoophiles and bestialists don´t accept animal sadists? Why should society accept zoophiles and bestialists when zoos and beasties don´t accept paedophiles and necrophiles? See? It´s kinda a reverse Pandora´s box argument you´re making here...just because I am a zoophiles, that does in no way mean that I have to accept every other twisted bullshit.




And by the way, much of that conflict between zoos and besties is owed to the fact that everyone portrays himself with the z-word regardless of what he is actually doing with and feeling for his animals. In all these years I am active in the online community now, I only came across maybe 3 - 5 people who frankly said they consider themselves bestialists...one of those would be a BF user, a girl named Silkythighs.....and you know what? She is shitting on everyone who claims to be in real love with an animal, she even told us zoos we should go and see a shrink because "you cannot love an animal". This is not about feeling superior to the beasties, this is about what is in our hearts, not the itching in our crotches....






 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 






 




 

[Vermilion]

2 hours ago, 30-30 said:




Regarding your bold statement that there´s no difference between a hetero predator visiting a brothel 5 times a day and a loving and caring husband, I guess the latter one will heftily disagree.

Like other already commented: You should compress your statements in less words. Nobody likes to read textwalls in a forum, really.




I don't talk about fencehopping reports, or reports about zoo brothels or something. I talk about reports where zoophilia is mentioned in the most basic way, like: "There are people who loving and having sex with animals."




Comment: Kill them, kill them all......!!!




Here's "Zoo", the documentary. Enjoy the comments:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE5xqhjDtIM




This one is really great: it's about this forum and it's subreddit ban thread:




https://kiwifarms.net/threads/r-zoophilia.33072/page-5




Yeah, the walls have ears.




To what will the caring husband hefty disagree? My statement is, that the predator is exactly as heterosexual as the caring husband. The husband would never disagree the other one beeing "more" heterosexual. It's simply not a matter of quantities.




The difference here is,  that my example is based on mainstream sexuality, where noone would care for something like the "true way of beeing heterosexual". You can be a frigid monk, a wild nymphomaniac, a monogamic husband or whatever and that's what the society judges, based on ethics and zeitgeist. It's more a matter of beeing a good or bad person (or something in the middle).




But that's not the case with zoophilia who knows only right or bad.




I don't believe in "love" either, not to animals, not to humans. Maybe I'm a sociopath who isn't capable of love, but I think the philosophical term "love" is just a cultural construct of recent western civilisation, in reality nothing more than intense sympathy. I don't need to be in love with someone to find her attractive. But that doesn't mean my sexuality is inferiour to someone who is in deep love. Those are two very different things and I think, the search for the illusion of perfect love and the stress it brings is one of our main problems and the reason why so many marriages fail. just hundred years ago the people had nearly always arranged marriages and the human species didn't died out...




The philia in zoophilia doesn't mean love, by the way (sexual love is eros). It means platonic friendship or attraction. So it's a bad term anyway, invented by sexualist John Money to find a more neutral name for sexual perversion.




It should be called zoosexual, but it isn't because the term sexual is only used for sexualities not deemed pathological by the psychatrists (based on the zeitgeist). So zoophiles using a degrading term anyway. Bestiality is exactly the same, based on the real meaning, how John Money defined it. If you're getting horny by sticking your cock inside an animal, you're zoophile.




See, nothing has meaning, all is a matter of perspective and totally relative. And of all subcultures who base their group identity on their sexuality, zoophiles are to only one who reject a part of their community, that isn't in absolute love to their partners. I understand the reason in context of the overlaying pressure of society and the basic consense problem of zoophilia. But at the end, it simply doesn't matter, because that didn't change the public perception either. I believe that this behaviour is mainly a type of self-deception of many zoophiles, like " Yeah, I having sex with animals, but at least I love them and I'm not beeing one of those damn beasties who give us a bad name.", driven by the social mainstream.




And very often it goes into quasi-religous debates.




Sometimes I don't know if those self proclaimed super zoophiles really understand their animals? They tend to highly anthropomorphise them.




In another forum I read a topic of, how to get a stallion to mount someone. One stated, she should use urine of a mare in heat. Another one got angry and stated that would be betraying the horse, the stallion should mount her all by himself or it wouln't be true consent.




Horse's sexual perception is based on olfaction. That would be like forbid a woman wearing lingerie or a perfume to not manipulate the natural attraction of the partner. Also monogamy isn't a part of neither horse, nor dog behaviour. So it makes only sense on a human perspective.




And this is how half of the topics usually go... and why I don't post in most zooforums. If I want to have a debate about the meaning of love all the time, I go into a philosophical forum.




 




By the way. I'm on your side, when it comes to the low profile matter. But it's often not the fencejumpers and beasties who are responsible for media attention, but the self-proclaimed civil right movement leaders, who want to lobby for zoophilia.




The politicians claim, that the ban is because of the allegedly growing animal prostitution in the internet, but I don't belive that. I think they really want to draw a line to prevent the zoophiles in getting a foot into the door through all that gender diversity movement stuff at the moment. I've never saw the supposed large portions of organised animal sharing in forums. And the dark net presence of bestiality is totaly overrated.

[30-30]

.




Isn´t it marvelous how all you super duper extra "tolerant" folks in reality want to shape reality (including my replies) into a user friendly cloud castle....if all of you are sooo super interested in discussing zoophilia and everything involved, how it comes you bail out just because someone isn´t using that twitteresque slogan spouting? Is reading a larger text such a nuisance? To people who already sit in front of their computer all day? Really? I WISH I had that vast archive of text you guys have today when I was realising my orientation in the 80´s....I won´t change my writing style...and if my texts are "too long and inconvenient" for you to read, you really should ask yourself whether you REALLY are interested in discussing a COMPLEX topic that cannot be summarised in a few sentences.




ON that "oh so mean comments" issue: As I said , you don´t seem to fully understand how the internet works. It is NATURAL that those who are the most uncivilised will always be the loudest. Whoever assumes that people don´t act differently in the internet than they would in the real world should consider a long time going offline and reconnecting with the real world out there, you know, that world that doesn´t have commentary sections...*sigh* Anonymity is a huge factor in those comment sections are a huge factor...and say, haven´t you heard about trolling?  




Regarding the husband-hetero predator issue, haven´t you read what I wrote? No, it´s not solely about quantity, it´s about intent and attitude. And if you don´t believe me, just go ask a faithful husband whether he identifies with the selfish bloke frantically trying to hook up with his "prey" every weekend in bars and discotheques...




Your entire point you´re trying to make here is flawed, this never was about heterosexuality, "zoosexuality" or any other word that only describes the preferred sex act. Rapists are also heterosexual (and every other -sexual), you know..."it´s more a matter of being a good or bad person"...Bingo! That´s where MORALS and ETHICS come in.YOu know these morals and ethics you´ve tried to dismiss earlier...and exactly that is why bestiality and zoophilia are different. 




"I don´t believe in love..." Oooh, you poor guy. You´re missing out on the greatest feeling you can ever have. Isn´t it a sad life when all sex is just sex? No other meaning than any other body function? Intercourse basically being the same as taking a dump....it´s so sad to hear you´re emotionally disabled, man. Well, following your perspective here, I assume that masturbation is the same as having intercourse, right? I mean, it´s both just friction and relief of sexual tension....but why is everybody chasing the more "uncomfortable" option then, the option that demands interpersonal communication? Why is everybody preferring real sex over spanking the monkey then?  




Honestly, you´re like an amputee who says "arms are just a construct of society" right now. Because you can´t feel anything more than attraction, then love is not existent, did I get this right? The consumeristic approach...it´s there , so let´s consume...funny how you are blind for the fact that your attitude also is no more than a social construct, a different one to the predominant, but still nothing more than a construct.




You don´t have to teach me on the etymologic origins of the z-word here, I learned ancient Greek in school and know that philia doesn´t translate to "has sex/wants sex". And when did "sexualist" (what´s that, btw???) John Money live? To my knowledge, the origins of the z-word can be traced back to Richard von Krafft-Ebing, a German-Austrian psychologist living at the end of the 19th century. HIs definition does not match exactly our definition of the z-word today, but to my knowledge, he was the first one to use the z-word in a scientific publication.




No, it isn´t just a matter of what you´re sticking your dick into. And calling oneself a friend of animals is derogatory now? In which world? Should I tell you what I think of your perspective? You are just infuriated that the "cool kids", the ones with the fancy z-word don´t let you enter their club. And when "zoophile" really is a derogatory term, then why is everyone, even the worst animal fucker, so enthusiastic about misusing that derogatory z-word to define himself then? Why is the only term the beasties have come up with also using the "zoo-" prefix then? Say, could it have something to do with having a massive inferiority complex? "Zoosexuality" is a relatively new word and its creation to me is nothing more than "You say I am not a zoo? I´ll make my own z-word then....with black jack and hookers!"  




Zoophiles are the only ones to reject a part of their own subgroup? Are you fucking kidding me? Talk to a few death metal fanatics and ask them what they think of a Metallica fan. Ask a few anarchistic communists what they think of state communism like the Soviet Union had. Ask ANY subgroup of people and I´m pretty sure you won´t have to dig long to find out what they reject in their own subgroup. Ask Hip Hoppers what they think of trap.  




Coming to your "...but in the end, it doesn´t matter because it hasn´t changed public perception" bit...man, are you really that delusional? I just wrote in my previous post that it actually DID matter, at least in my case...and in some other cases involving my friends, too. That´s basically like saying "stealing an apple is theft, robbing a bank is theft also, so it doesn´t matter"...it DOES matter how much you stretch society´s tolerance!




Funny that you accuse zoophiles of anthropomorpising their animals, ´cause I do that also. Many are just fooling themselves about being someone who "really understands his animal" despite all evidence saying otherwise...and some are even so blinded, they actually think that fucking an animal magically grants them speaking and understanding animal language. So, no objection here, except your bland generalisation.




On the "mare urine" issue: if you need devices, incentives or other means of coercion, then it is, as you wrote , MANIPULATION of the animal. So it is absolutely right to say this only has very little to do with consent. YOu are also very wrong on your statement that horses perceive their world through their nostrils, they are more "eye creatures" than "nose creatures"...also,  are you aware than in a natural herd, one stallion keeps his harem and fends off any "contender", even his own colts when they reach sexual maturity? Sure, not monogamy per se (greek: monos = single , hae gamé = wife), but a mare only has one sex parter (monoandry, freom the greek monos and Hó ándros = man, husband) . For a mare, monogamy (as this word is commonly used for a realtionship exclusively between two individuals regardless of the sexes involved) is in fact the natural relationship. A mare won´t be covered by multiple stallions, so your statement is pratially right, but more wrong than right anyway.




"If I want to debate love, then I´ll go to a philosophical forum"...you really think there are distinctive and fixed separations? Isn´t that a bit childish, especially when you take into account how massively we zoos depend on the emotional side of our sexuality as a means to define us? If you go to zoo forums, you basically are entering philosophical forums and complain about "all this philosophy " around you. You´re jumping into water and complain about getting wet. There surely is no philosophy behind sticking your dick in an animal, but for us zoophiles, our orientation IS more than just that, it IS a matter of philosophical discoure.




ON your last two paragraphs: No, the fencehoppers and animal porn enthusiasts make way more headlines than those few animal sex advocates. To my knowledge, that Pinyan guy never was a "zoo advocate" and Spink only turned into a public mouthpiece for "zoophilia" when his sorry ass got dragged in front of a court...at least 90% of all headlines involving bestiality cases are about fencehoppers and caught animal porn producers. 




The ban is predominantly meant as a deterrence , the scene of "amateur animal prostitution" indeed has grown, there´s a vast industry that exploits the animals to make money with their porn now, it is organised and it is rather infantile to assume that zoophilia, among all other legal and illegal sexualities, is the only one to not have people who sell their animals to any customer if he can pay the price. In fact, it´s mostly the oh so superior bestialists who seem not to be able to do their "thing" without others "helping them fuck their animals"...contrary to your views, the meetup sections are filled up to the brim with people offering and/or searching for "fuckable animals", what gives a rather reliant insight on the true nature of all those "zoophiles" out there.




Finally, if what you wrote here is actually what you really think, just let me tell you that I as a zoophile, we zoophiles can actually see what you bestialists are about,´cause we zoos are also attracted to animals in a sexual way...but what you are blind for, what you beasties can´t see is what we zoos see in our animal parters/companions. In this case, we zoos see more than you beasties. Just think about that for a while before you compare us zoos to beasties again. 

 

[Vermilion]

OK, first off all. I'm not a beastie. In fact, I'm not active at all. Secondly, I have no interesst in discussing further with you. Your attitude simply sucks. Go preaching your stuff, I and propably many others, really don't care anymore... I'm just going to ignore you for now on.

[Cynolove693]

@Vermillion I feel sorry that you've never been able to feel love; it really is a beautiful feeling, your missing out on




OK before I continue I will say that I am a zoophile/zoosexual, I love animals and also have sexual attractions to them..




As for the "morality" of "zoos" I have to say this; it's gonna stir up the pot; maybe even piss certain people off; but it needs to be said though; here we go..




The idea that people who have sex with animals without romantic attachment are somehow a lesser person; or morally wrong is a flawed way of thinking; let me ask these questions..




Do these "beasties" cause harm to an animal buy not falling in romantic love with them?? Why are people comparing human views of relationships to animals?? Does the animal care about monagomus relationships or have a human way of thinking about relationships?? Do animals relate sexual feelings to love???? Have you not ever had sex for the fun of it without any attachments???




How can we expect to gain acceptance if we can't even accept the other majority of us that has sex with animals? A majority which isn't really much different from us... Another question; does a "beastie" having consenual sex cause harm to an animal??? In order for something to be "morally wrong" shouldn't it entitle being harmful??




Implying human idealism on an animal is the whole issue here; they are not human; You really think that lack of romantic feelings would stop an animal from Mating and enjoy the experience??




Now don't get me wrong I believe animals do love; but they do not love in the same way we do.. and they do not relate sex with love; or have a monagomus way of loving.. 




Yes your animal may show romantic love towards you but do you think they would stay faithful if the neighbors horse/dog went into heat down the road??? No because animals act out of instinct and opportunistict behaviors; a trait which was lost in humans along the way; and if someone does posses these traits and has sex without a connection it's considered "morally wrong" no it's flawed morality; it's ego at its finest; it's somehow I'm better than you even though our sexuality is the same..

[Cynolove693]

Now I do wanna add that there is a rare exception where an animal may only want to mate with humans and turn down other animals; my pitbull i had in my teens done this; she turned down any male who tried to mount her while she was in heat, but was always receptive to me.. it does happen, I do believe animals posses the ability to love romantically, though a big majority will not stay monogamous for the sake of love the way a human would.. 




To my point.. judging the other majority; that is having sex for the sake of lust is quite hypocritical when "zoos" have sex out of lust as well; yes feelings of love are there or develop with time; but you can't really be into it; if your not into it; you can't have sex without feelings of lust.. period..  As long as no harm is being done; the animal is well cared for, what difference does it make? So what if someone has a "animal with benefits".. as long as the animal is happy who is to say it's wrong..




This mentality of dividing amongst ourselves is getting us nowhere, as for the original idea for this thread; I do not think acceptance will be possible anytime soon; when we can't even come to a civil grounds amongst ourselves; or accept our own differences..

On 12/17/2017 at 5:11 PM, Cynolove693 said:




@Vermillion I feel sorry that you've never been able to feel love; it really is a beautiful feeling, your missing out on




OK before I continue I will say that I am a zoophile/zoosexual, I love animals and also have sexual attractions to them..




As for the "morality" of "zoos" I have to say this; it's gonna stir up the pot; maybe even piss certain people off; but it needs to be said though; here we go..




The idea that people who have sex with animals without romantic attachment are somehow a lesser person; or morally wrong is a flawed way of thinking; let me ask these questions..




Do these "beasties" cause harm to an animal buy not falling in romantic love with them?? Why are people comparing human views of relationships to animals?? Does the animal care about monagomus relationships or have a human way of thinking about relationships?? Do animals relate sexual feelings to love???? Have you not ever had sex for the fun of it without any attachments???




How can we expect to gain acceptance if we can't even accept the other majority of us that has sex with animals? A majority which isn't really much different from us... Another question; does a "beastie" having consenual sex cause harm to an animal??? In order for something to be "morally wrong" shouldn't it entitle being harmful??




Implying human idealism on an animal is the whole issue here; they are not human; You really think that lack of romantic feelings would stop an animal from Mating and enjoy the experience??




Now don't get me wrong I believe animals do love; but they do not love in the same way we do.. and they do not relate sex with love; or have a monagomus way of loving.. 




Yes your animal may show romantic love towards you but do you think they would stay faithful if the neighbors horse/dog went into heat down the road??? No because animals act out of instinct and opportunistict behaviors; a trait which was lost in humans along the way; and if someone does posses these traits and has sex without a connection it's considered "morally wrong" no it's flawed morality; it's ego at its finest; it's somehow I'm better than you even though our sexuality is the same..

 

[silverwolf1]

I have to agree with Cynolove on one point. Tippy also turned down any male dog after we began having sex, until she was caught injured enough to not be able to in her last year. I had tried to get a litter from her when she was younger, but to no avail. Thus her only litter, consisting of one pup, was born just before she died. 




I don't like to anthropomorphize her behavior in this and her supposed jealousy when I lay with a woman early on in our relationship, but I do find comfort in the idea she MIGHT have had romantic feelings toward me. The truth is, we may never know whether this is  what spurred the action so it might as well be interpreted as a 'human' emotion. After all, even humans are simply animals...




sw