FA+
Shop
(Rant?) The argument against Zoosexuality
9 years ago
Alright, I suppose this isn't the best place to post this, but it's been a problem in the back of my mind for a very long time, and I just wanted to get it out.
Back in the 1940s and for a while afterwards, homosexuality, attraction to your own gender, was viewed as a mental illness. In extreme cases, homosexuals would be locked in insane asylums, viewed as incurable.
It's still officially a "disorder" from a purely evolutional standpoint, but as surely every one of the few who end up reading this journal know, there's no reason to tell someone how to live their life if it's not hurting anyone or anything.
That's where zoosexuality comes in. Homosexuality, bisexuality, etc, etc, has become a much more socially accepted thing now, perhaps even mainstream, due to activism in recent decades.
But, homosexuality and zoosexuality are of course two different things. Humans are capable of giving consent clearly and easily, and animals aren't. As such, we shouldn't be taking advantage of their innocence, right?
Wrong. Humans are animals, too. We wouldn't be having sex without instinct, as some claim it's just instinct that would lead animals to try to copulate. If anyone would like to prove me wrong, feel free to cut off your testicles and tell me if you're still in the mood. And, animals don't just copulate for reproduction. Almost every mammal (and several non-mammals) we have observed closely has demonstrated homosexual behavior, even in species with great sexual dimorphism.
Another main problem that opponents out up, and the most reasonable one to have as an issue in my opinion, is that animals can't give consent like we can: they don't know what they're agreeing to. As such, even if an animal wants to mate, it still constitutes rape in the same category as that of pedophilia. Right?
Wrong. This issue mostly arises out of a comparison of animals to children- to be protected, Carried around, kept safe from this evil world. Animals are animals. Children are children. This difference is important because children cannot give consent in a manner animals can: their brain continues to still be developing, and so their priorities will change as they grow older. Something they would have fully consented to at the age of 12 they might look back on with regret later, perhaps if only because everyone told them how wrong it was, but that's another argument for another day. My point is that animals will remain at the same "maturity" level their entire life (for lack of a better term) meaning that if they make a decision when sexually mature, they won't regret it later, because for animals, sex is not a taboo. It happens, it's part of nature, it's no big deal. Of course if an animal is forcefully overpowered to be mated with, that's not okay and does not include consent at any one point, but that's another story.
Since when did animals' consent matter anyways? Animals are inferior, according to most people, and as such it's okay to kill them and eat them and lock them in cages when found on the loose. Do animals need to give their consent at any step of this? Should they not be able to choose their owners, not the reverse? Perhaps our dislike of zoosexuality is from the unthinkable suggestion that humans have stooped to the same level of animals, able to consider them our equals, and openly commit taboo acts with them. Sure they are not as intelligent as us, but theres no law saying a genius can't have intercourse with a -solely the scientific meaning- idiot. I don't mean to say that less intelligent people are equivalent to animals intellectually, but I mean to say that animals are more intelligent than we like to give them credit for.
And of course, zoosexuality/zoophilia is not the same thing as bestiality. The latter refers to solely the act of a human mating with an animal, while the former is much more. It entails the love of animals, if it be your pet or animals in general. In fact, zoophilia isn't necessarily sexual. If you love your pet dog, pet cat, etc, you are a zoophile yourself.
Zoosexuals, however Will take it a step further. Not in *that* way necessarily, but they treat their pet as an equal, giving them affection and love and tending to their needs as they would tend to their own spouse's. The idea, as stated before, is a scary one to consider, that one may treat these beasts that need to be trained and shown dominance over as their own equal, but does it really hurt anyone? On the contrary, it has been shown that the 'mates' of zoosexuals will often form a much stronger relationship with their owner, as they are being cooperated with, listened to, and sometimes pampered more than their owner themselves. These are not rare, isolated cases. They are the norm.
And yet they are relentlessly persecuted for something they cannot change. I for one am an exclusive zoosexual. I have never been attracted to humans, even remotely, but I love foxes. I've always loved them, and even if I were to try to get counseling for it, I would never really feel like I belonged, as I am sure many other zoos could understand themselves. Sexuality counseling is possible, but not very effective. Most cases of 'curing' zoosexuality are minor interests, along with mostly humans. The few dedicated ones are usually court-mandated, and it can be devastating to know you are kept away from your attractions.
Imagine all of you non-zoos were never allowed near a human female again? Imagine you would be looked down upon by all of your potential employers, hated by the people you were friends with, your own family, simply because you chose to love a being that this still-improving society frowns upon the very concept of loving?
And that is the argument against zoosexuality.
Back in the 1940s and for a while afterwards, homosexuality, attraction to your own gender, was viewed as a mental illness. In extreme cases, homosexuals would be locked in insane asylums, viewed as incurable.
It's still officially a "disorder" from a purely evolutional standpoint, but as surely every one of the few who end up reading this journal know, there's no reason to tell someone how to live their life if it's not hurting anyone or anything.
That's where zoosexuality comes in. Homosexuality, bisexuality, etc, etc, has become a much more socially accepted thing now, perhaps even mainstream, due to activism in recent decades.
But, homosexuality and zoosexuality are of course two different things. Humans are capable of giving consent clearly and easily, and animals aren't. As such, we shouldn't be taking advantage of their innocence, right?
Wrong. Humans are animals, too. We wouldn't be having sex without instinct, as some claim it's just instinct that would lead animals to try to copulate. If anyone would like to prove me wrong, feel free to cut off your testicles and tell me if you're still in the mood. And, animals don't just copulate for reproduction. Almost every mammal (and several non-mammals) we have observed closely has demonstrated homosexual behavior, even in species with great sexual dimorphism.
Another main problem that opponents out up, and the most reasonable one to have as an issue in my opinion, is that animals can't give consent like we can: they don't know what they're agreeing to. As such, even if an animal wants to mate, it still constitutes rape in the same category as that of pedophilia. Right?
Wrong. This issue mostly arises out of a comparison of animals to children- to be protected, Carried around, kept safe from this evil world. Animals are animals. Children are children. This difference is important because children cannot give consent in a manner animals can: their brain continues to still be developing, and so their priorities will change as they grow older. Something they would have fully consented to at the age of 12 they might look back on with regret later, perhaps if only because everyone told them how wrong it was, but that's another argument for another day. My point is that animals will remain at the same "maturity" level their entire life (for lack of a better term) meaning that if they make a decision when sexually mature, they won't regret it later, because for animals, sex is not a taboo. It happens, it's part of nature, it's no big deal. Of course if an animal is forcefully overpowered to be mated with, that's not okay and does not include consent at any one point, but that's another story.
Since when did animals' consent matter anyways? Animals are inferior, according to most people, and as such it's okay to kill them and eat them and lock them in cages when found on the loose. Do animals need to give their consent at any step of this? Should they not be able to choose their owners, not the reverse? Perhaps our dislike of zoosexuality is from the unthinkable suggestion that humans have stooped to the same level of animals, able to consider them our equals, and openly commit taboo acts with them. Sure they are not as intelligent as us, but theres no law saying a genius can't have intercourse with a -solely the scientific meaning- idiot. I don't mean to say that less intelligent people are equivalent to animals intellectually, but I mean to say that animals are more intelligent than we like to give them credit for.
And of course, zoosexuality/zoophilia is not the same thing as bestiality. The latter refers to solely the act of a human mating with an animal, while the former is much more. It entails the love of animals, if it be your pet or animals in general. In fact, zoophilia isn't necessarily sexual. If you love your pet dog, pet cat, etc, you are a zoophile yourself.
Zoosexuals, however Will take it a step further. Not in *that* way necessarily, but they treat their pet as an equal, giving them affection and love and tending to their needs as they would tend to their own spouse's. The idea, as stated before, is a scary one to consider, that one may treat these beasts that need to be trained and shown dominance over as their own equal, but does it really hurt anyone? On the contrary, it has been shown that the 'mates' of zoosexuals will often form a much stronger relationship with their owner, as they are being cooperated with, listened to, and sometimes pampered more than their owner themselves. These are not rare, isolated cases. They are the norm.
And yet they are relentlessly persecuted for something they cannot change. I for one am an exclusive zoosexual. I have never been attracted to humans, even remotely, but I love foxes. I've always loved them, and even if I were to try to get counseling for it, I would never really feel like I belonged, as I am sure many other zoos could understand themselves. Sexuality counseling is possible, but not very effective. Most cases of 'curing' zoosexuality are minor interests, along with mostly humans. The few dedicated ones are usually court-mandated, and it can be devastating to know you are kept away from your attractions.
Imagine all of you non-zoos were never allowed near a human female again? Imagine you would be looked down upon by all of your potential employers, hated by the people you were friends with, your own family, simply because you chose to love a being that this still-improving society frowns upon the very concept of loving?
And that is the argument against zoosexuality.
I think the 'taboo' stems from the suffix -sexuality. Americans especially are conflicted about anything to do with sexuality: they revere the man who sleeps around as a 'virile stud' but condemn women who sleep around as 'sluts'.
Your point was that 'sex' isn't part of love of animals. As I said, some folks don't get the difference: they're so wrapped up with their own parts (so much so that the guy with the biggest 'sword' is supposed to be a good leader) they can't fathom that 'sex' and 'love' are different.
Maybe it's because of Abrahamic religion (Christian, Jewish, Muslim) and its claim humans have 'dominion' over animals. I'm pagan, and I say we're caretakers. We bear responsibility for their welfare. Animals show 'consent' by coming over and rubbing you when they want affection, or squirming away when they don't.
It's when people don't care about another (person or 'dumb animal')'s feelings and do things *to* them that it's wrong. Holding, hugging, stroking your pet or a stray that lets you isn't. It's the people who can't treat animals kindly that are sick.
</rant>
I think if they said you can not be with a female I will just try dating a guy you see I consider myself bi curious. I have crushes on Cartoon characters before and they do not even exist. Cassie from dragon tales *harmless crush* and I think Nightmare Moon. From my little pony.
When she was cured I think I got a small crush on Queen Chrysalis. A few bronies may take it a step feather.
The brony community would be devastated if the courtroom said they could not watch there favorite pony show.)
I will wright more next weekend
The argument society gives is: a sexual/romantic relationship between one man and one woman is the only natural and socially acceptable form of sexual relationship.
But, is this actually natural for humans?
An examination of human history and behavior, as well as the social behavior of all high order social mammals reveals that no, a relationship between one man and one woman is NOT natural. Every other species segregates socially by gender, with typically only mating occuring between the species. Chimpanzees, our closest relatives genetically, send their females off to get pregnant before being allowed to be in the social group. And only among wolves are females even considered part of the social group, though wolves socialize primarily within the gender, with mixed-gender socializing occuring only occasionally. 90% or more of their time is spent among their own gender.
So if the basis of society's argument is flawed, why pay it any mind? Why bother trying to argue against it? Just shut it down. Just remind anyone who suggests you are doing something wrong that their society and everything about it violates nature and therefore has no authority to make moral arguments.
The fact is, sex between humans and animals is more natural than sex between men and women except to procreate.
Humans are among very few animals who can enjoy sex without procreation. Dolphins are another species that enjoy sexuality quite a lot. And even wolves experience intimacy that we humans fear. I mean, wolves sleep together, lay on each other, wrestle with each other, sniff each others' genitals, lick each others' genitals - all as a normal part of social existence with each other. How do you think humans would react to men behaving in the same way? "Gay fest" is one phrase that would be surely tossed around.
So if humans can enjoy sexuality, and it is normal for our species to socialize by gender, and such socializing can be intimate; then folks, a furry convention is more like natural living than outside the convention (referring to the furpiles, orgies, room sex parties, and general intimacy, not all the bullshit outside the intimate settings).
Don't work too hard trying to counter society's arguments against zoophilia and zoosexuality. They have no basis in reality. Unfortunately however; you do have a basis in their reality, and in their reality, they are right, and you are wrong. This of course explains my having left society.