Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 9
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
response to Steele
- What difference does it make to the horse if the person is ejaculating them for business or personal gratification? Your point has change from all sex with animals is wrong because they have a lower intelligence too a matter of the persons intentions. So now, what if some guy (even if he thought it was sick) was force/paid to screw a dog? By your own (new) logic, that would be okay because “it’s just business” and he didn’t have sick intentions. Meanwhile, someone else who cares about and loves their non-human partner is wrong for having mutually enjoyable sex.--Steele 06:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC
- Oh god, you make me want to vomit. And people wonder why I ask the 'zoophilia defenders' if they have sex with their pets.
- It is animal abuse. Im not crazy about the insemination stuff, but if they're doing it to breed more animals that couldnt otherwise be bred then fine, its alright. I But what you're saying sounds so similiar to the pedophile's argument is scary. You are not your animal's equal, whatever you may think. Your intelligence is much higher than it's and you are taking advantage of it. Sex should only be had by equals. It is always animal abuse. Relationships of unequal power cannot be consensual. In human-animal relationships, the human being has control of many--if not all--of the aspects of an animals' well being. sexual relationships should occur between peers where consent should be possible. Bestiality is the model case of circumventing consent on the one hand, while confusing affection for consent on the other. --Ciz 17:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the fact that wolves feed vomit to their young should prove that animals are not as intelligent as us. --Ciz 19:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Zoophilia includes women too, and it is not always the opposite sex. In fact there is allot more male dog on man then there is man on female dog.
- You sure know a lot about having sex with animals. --Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The fact that wolves vomit for there young doesn’t prove they are stupid, it is a survival skill. Young pups are not capable of chewing meat at early ages so adults chew the food up first. Furthermore the reason why dogs always get into trouble for getting into the catbox is because in the wild that is how they keep the den clean for the pups. Which is more then you could say about any human. Don’t go around belittling other species just because they are different. Sorry, but that is offensive >=\--Steele 02:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Im not belittling other species; merely saying that they are not as intelligent as and therefore having sex with them is abusive. --Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It is belittling, you are talking down wolves, because you don’t like one of their survival skills, by falsely relating it to the intelligence of that species. Considering the direction humans are taking the very survival of this planet, I am not sure you have the right to be claiming a superiority of intelligence.--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Can an animal write a book? Drive a car? --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you for proving my point, cars > emissions> global climate change > mass extinction. Can animals perpetuate genocide, massive holocaust; destroy the planet at the touch of a button? --Steele
- No, because they lack the intelligence to do so. --Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- LOL, okay, if that’s what you think “intelligence” is!--Steele
- No, because they lack the intelligence to do so. --Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you for proving my point, cars > emissions> global climate change > mass extinction. Can animals perpetuate genocide, massive holocaust; destroy the planet at the touch of a button? --Steele
- Can an animal write a book? Drive a car? --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It is belittling, you are talking down wolves, because you don’t like one of their survival skills, by falsely relating it to the intelligence of that species. Considering the direction humans are taking the very survival of this planet, I am not sure you have the right to be claiming a superiority of intelligence.--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Im not belittling other species; merely saying that they are not as intelligent as and therefore having sex with them is abusive. --Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Zoophilia includes women too, and it is not always the opposite sex. In fact there is allot more male dog on man then there is man on female dog.
- Furthermore, the fact that wolves feed vomit to their young should prove that animals are not as intelligent as us. --Ciz 19:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Speaking of archive five....
- Someone on another forum made an interesting comparision concerning bestiality...
- Freud had a theory about sexuality in infants. That infants can feel sexual pleasure. Babies often masturbate, little boys get erections, etc...
- If you agree with Freud, then in this respect, you could compare this to animals. Like a baby, animals react to certain stimuli, and get pleasure from this. Like an animal, a baby does not know what is right or wrong, or what the actions/response means.
- Now if we take away any physical harm: ie no acts would be done that could physically injure the baby. Would the baby suffer any emotional damage if an adult purposefully solicited a sexual response from a baby, in order to gain sexual pleasure for themselves? Unlikey. A baby wouldn't know what was going on, and most likely would have no recollection of the event when they got older.
- Does this mean it is moral for adults to do things of a sexual nature to a baby? IMO, no. It is still disgusting, and immoral. And so, it is my opinion that it is wrong and immoral to get sexual pleasure from animals. Whether or not physical injury occurs, whether or not the baby/animal receives pleasure/becomes aroused, I think that it is wrong. -Ciz
- "Freud had a theory about sexuality in infants..." ...enough said.--Steele 01:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- And as such you dismiss it. Ignorance is bliss, eh? --Ciz 01:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It is not a matter of ignorance, it is a matter of fact vs theory. The theory doesn't even make sense. If you had a fact that brought up a point then I would address it.--Steele
- If what Freud said was true, would it therefore be ok to have sex with babies? Using your logic, it would? --Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I can hardly understand what the “theory” means. What kind of sex are we talking about? An adult male couldn’t possibly fit himself inside and infant of either sex. Since infants are not developed enough to know how to solicit for sex with either body language or vocal language. So, no because of physical damage and no because of lack of consent. How can you not know you are having sex when you solicit for it? If the subject has all the characteristics of an adult, then by definition they would be an adult not a baby. Then the question would be is it okay to have sex with a mini (yes like a midget) adult? --Steele
- You could masturbate to the baby, or put its mouth on your cock. --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Are we in the twilight zone yet? --Steele
- Isnt that what zoos do; masturbate to the animal? --Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- A conversation is not a one ways streets bud. I'll answer your question when you answer mine. --Steele
- Isnt that what zoos do; masturbate to the animal? --Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Are we in the twilight zone yet? --Steele
- You could masturbate to the baby, or put its mouth on your cock. --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- This is like saying fitting a square peg in a round hole is wrong. Fitting a round peg in a round hole is okay. If I smooth out the square peg so it fits exactly into the round hole would that be okay? No it would not because you are still trying to put the square peg into the round hole (never mind it is actually a round peg now and fits fine).
- If an animal could talk would that make it okay by your logic? What if I grew fur, fangs and could only bark but I still had a superior intelligence? What if my animal partner was really a genius trapped inside a dog’s body and we could only communicate through body language. What if I was a big panther and I wanted to copulate with a wolf? Should every being have to take an IQ test before they can copulate and have a mutually satisfying relationship?
- OMG, then what if I grew wings and flew away!? lol, sorry but it is just about as relavent as the Freud theory--Steele
- Until animals become as intelligent as humans, it will be abuse. You are taking advantage of them. Your rhetorical questions of "What if I was a wolf" (a typical furrie's fantasy) doesnt change that. --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Neither do your wild Freudian fantasies or your rhetorical fetish with pedophilia. --Steele
- I'd have a fetish if I were justifying it and saying it was ok ala you and bestiality. I believe pedophilia to be the equivalent of bestiality, except you're raping a child instead of an animal. --Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You must be a pedophile. You keep bringing it up all the time. Gosh that’s disgusting, god save the children from you.--Steele
- I'd have a fetish if I were justifying it and saying it was ok ala you and bestiality. I believe pedophilia to be the equivalent of bestiality, except you're raping a child instead of an animal. --Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Neither do your wild Freudian fantasies or your rhetorical fetish with pedophilia. --Steele
- Until animals become as intelligent as humans, it will be abuse. You are taking advantage of them. Your rhetorical questions of "What if I was a wolf" (a typical furrie's fantasy) doesnt change that. --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I can hardly understand what the “theory” means. What kind of sex are we talking about? An adult male couldn’t possibly fit himself inside and infant of either sex. Since infants are not developed enough to know how to solicit for sex with either body language or vocal language. So, no because of physical damage and no because of lack of consent. How can you not know you are having sex when you solicit for it? If the subject has all the characteristics of an adult, then by definition they would be an adult not a baby. Then the question would be is it okay to have sex with a mini (yes like a midget) adult? --Steele
- If what Freud said was true, would it therefore be ok to have sex with babies? Using your logic, it would? --Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It is not a matter of ignorance, it is a matter of fact vs theory. The theory doesn't even make sense. If you had a fact that brought up a point then I would address it.--Steele
- And as such you dismiss it. Ignorance is bliss, eh? --Ciz 01:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- "Freud had a theory about sexuality in infants..." ...enough said.--Steele 01:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And as for your comments on 'informed consent'... Do you even know what Informed Consent means? It has nothing to do with your definition of it ("What does one mean when talking about fully informed? Would your marital status matter to a dog?") has nothing to do with it. --Ciz 19:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I was emphasizing the fact that trying to apply human standards of being informed to animals in ANY context is an extremely questionable way to look at it, since for it to be fair each species would require their own redefinition of the term informed consent which they are naturally capable of. Disregarding the POV of animals while using a human POV on their behalf is the worst kind of anthropomorphism. -- Oruborus
- If animals are incapable of posessing informed consent, then that should prove that humans should not have sex with them. --Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Isn’t that a matter of where you draw the line, the animals know it feels good and maybe that is all the foreknowledge it needs. Oruborus said it a better then I could.--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Getting high on crack feels good. Doesnt mean its right. And if I have sex with a child and he enjoys it, is it ok? --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Crack kills you unlike sex. --Steele
- Not necessarily. --Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Crack kills you unlike sex. --Steele
- Getting high on crack feels good. Doesnt mean its right. And if I have sex with a child and he enjoys it, is it ok? --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Isn’t that a matter of where you draw the line, the animals know it feels good and maybe that is all the foreknowledge it needs. Oruborus said it a better then I could.--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- If animals are incapable of posessing informed consent, then that should prove that humans should not have sex with them. --Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- By these standards anything you do with animals does not meet Informed Consent. This includes breeding dogs, police dogs, sled dogs and racing dogs whether you are doing it for money or just the dogs’ interest. Even if the dog likes to pull sleds (like huskies do) you still would not have their “Informed Consent” which means they don’t know what could happen during the race. They aren’t smart enough to know if they will get hurt or fall through thin ice, so by your own logic all these mundane activities are wrong for the same reason.--Steele
- So you're saying the having sex with animals is comparable to a 'mundane' activity? -Ciz
- I wasn't comparing anything, I was using your own logic in other examples to show the fallacy of it.--Steele 02:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The other logics dont involve molesting the animals. --Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That doesn’t matter; by your own logic it is wrong to do those things for the same reasons that sex with animals is wrong. That’s why you told me bestiality was wrong in the first place. These other activities share the same “problem”.--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Molestation is a far more serious problem than something like sledding. Dont make me laugh. --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Dodge! It’s your own logic not mine. Normal sledding (not Iditarod) isn’t an issue to me but it is for your reasoning. --Steele
- No, because sledding doesnt hurt the animal. I dont see it as abuse like sticking your dick in its ass is. --Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Quote Steele “Dodge! It’s your own logic not mine. Normal sledding (not Iditarod) isn’t an issue to me but it is for your reasoning.” So now you are changing the argument to physical injury. Can’t you just stick with one argument?--Steele 08:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- No, because sledding doesnt hurt the animal. I dont see it as abuse like sticking your dick in its ass is. --Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Dodge! It’s your own logic not mine. Normal sledding (not Iditarod) isn’t an issue to me but it is for your reasoning. --Steele
- Molestation is a far more serious problem than something like sledding. Dont make me laugh. --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You are beginning to argue on a basis of circular logic. You say animal sex is wrong. Why is sex with them wrong? Because it lacks “Informed Consent”. Why doesn’t that apply to other activities with animals? Because you are having sex with them and that is wrong. Why is sex with them wrong? Because it lacks “Informed Consent”. Why doesn’t that apply to other activities with animals? Because you are having sex with them and that is wrong. Continue repeating over and over until opponents grow tired. This is starting to show in all your other arguments too.--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Informed consent is usually applied to consenting to sexual acts, thats why. Don't make comparisions between sledding and something as serious as sex--Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- “usually” nuff said. You are not considering the POV of the animal, IC was for humans. It’s still circular logic.:: --Steele
- If you want to argue that sledding is abuse, then be my guess. But you cant argue "Sledding is ok, so having sex with them is ok too!" --Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- “usually” nuff said. You are not considering the POV of the animal, IC was for humans. It’s still circular logic.:: --Steele
- Informed consent is usually applied to consenting to sexual acts, thats why. Don't make comparisions between sledding and something as serious as sex--Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That doesn’t matter; by your own logic it is wrong to do those things for the same reasons that sex with animals is wrong. That’s why you told me bestiality was wrong in the first place. These other activities share the same “problem”.--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The other logics dont involve molesting the animals. --Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I wasn't comparing anything, I was using your own logic in other examples to show the fallacy of it.--Steele 02:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- So you're saying the having sex with animals is comparable to a 'mundane' activity? -Ciz
- I'll repost this, since you ignored it. It is animal abuse. Im not crazy about the insemination stuff, but if they're doing it to breed more animals that couldnt otherwise be bred then fine, its alright. I But what you're saying sounds so similiar to the pedophile's argument is scary. You are not your animal's equal, whatever you may think. Your intelligence is much higher than it's and you are taking advantage of it. Sex should only be had by equals. It is always animal abuse. Relationships of unequal power cannot be consensual. In human-animal relationships, the human being has control of many--if not all--of the aspects of an animals' well being. sexual relationships should occur between peers where consent should be possible. Bestiality is the model case of circumventing consent on the one hand, while confusing affection for consent on the other. --Ciz 01:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I am not ignoring it unless, that is, you keep bringing up the same old points. It is only animal abuse in cretin situations.--Steele
- Then the same should apply to children. --Ciz 04:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Again, same old point. Animals are not children. This has already been hashed out above.--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- If having sex with them doesnt harm them, and they want it, why is it bad? --Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It wouldn’t be, but you are talking about pedophilia right? How can a prepubescent a child want something that they are not capable of wanting yet? That’s the problem; they are attracted to people who are not sexually active yet. Not to mention that a child is not capable of intercourse with a man without being painfully hurt in the process.--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The word is hormones. Teenagers can want it before its legal for an adult to have it with them. And I assume you're reffering to anal sex ("a child is not capable of intercourse with a man without being painfully hurt in the process"). Im sure it would hurt a dog too. And I dont see how a child giving an adult a blowjob would necessarily cause the child pain. --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Pedophilia = prepubescent child.
- Technically, maybe. But if I had sex with an underage teenager I would be regarded as a pedophile, regardless of whether or not the child was prepubscent.--Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Twilight zone again, sorry but I am going by real life logic, definition and realities. If you want to make up your own universe, well it doesn’t belong here. On this planet Pedophilia = prepubescent child.--Steele
- So you think its ok to have sex with underage teenagers? You call me the pedophile, yet here you are justifying sex with fifteen year-olds. --Ciz 17:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Twilight zone again, sorry but I am going by real life logic, definition and realities. If you want to make up your own universe, well it doesn’t belong here. On this planet Pedophilia = prepubescent child.--Steele
- Technically, maybe. But if I had sex with an underage teenager I would be regarded as a pedophile, regardless of whether or not the child was prepubscent.--Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Pedophilia = prepubescent child.
- The word is hormones. Teenagers can want it before its legal for an adult to have it with them. And I assume you're reffering to anal sex ("a child is not capable of intercourse with a man without being painfully hurt in the process"). Im sure it would hurt a dog too. And I dont see how a child giving an adult a blowjob would necessarily cause the child pain. --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It wouldn’t be, but you are talking about pedophilia right? How can a prepubescent a child want something that they are not capable of wanting yet? That’s the problem; they are attracted to people who are not sexually active yet. Not to mention that a child is not capable of intercourse with a man without being painfully hurt in the process.--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- If having sex with them doesnt harm them, and they want it, why is it bad? --Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Again, same old point. Animals are not children. This has already been hashed out above.--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Then the same should apply to children. --Ciz 04:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I am not ignoring it unless, that is, you keep bringing up the same old points. It is only animal abuse in cretin situations.--Steele
- I'll repost this, since you ignored it. It is animal abuse. Im not crazy about the insemination stuff, but if they're doing it to breed more animals that couldnt otherwise be bred then fine, its alright. I But what you're saying sounds so similiar to the pedophile's argument is scary. You are not your animal's equal, whatever you may think. Your intelligence is much higher than it's and you are taking advantage of it. Sex should only be had by equals. It is always animal abuse. Relationships of unequal power cannot be consensual. In human-animal relationships, the human being has control of many--if not all--of the aspects of an animals' well being. sexual relationships should occur between peers where consent should be possible. Bestiality is the model case of circumventing consent on the one hand, while confusing affection for consent on the other. --Ciz 01:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, in some societies it is legal for them to marry and have a family long before our standard. They also have shorter life expectancies. What if a 17 year old had sex with a 19 year old? --Steele
- Don't give me that 17yr/19yr crap. What if a forty year-old man had sex with a 15 year-old? And the shorter life expectancies arent related to the pedophilia.--Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, if you don’t want to answer any of my questions I guess there is nothing to discuss. Conversations are not one ways streets.--Steele
- I adressed your points. What are you trying to say? That in some contries you can marry 15 yearolds, so having sex with your dog is ok? --Ciz 17:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, if you don’t want to answer any of my questions I guess there is nothing to discuss. Conversations are not one ways streets.--Steele
- Don't give me that 17yr/19yr crap. What if a forty year-old man had sex with a 15 year-old? And the shorter life expectancies arent related to the pedophilia.--Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, in some societies it is legal for them to marry and have a family long before our standard. They also have shorter life expectancies. What if a 17 year old had sex with a 19 year old? --Steele
- Now you are saying that it is okay to do it for business but not for pleasure. I have already addressed this, it is a double standard.--Steele
- I said it is ok if you're doing it to help breed animals that couldnt be bred otherwise.--Ciz 04:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That is still a double standard.--Steele 20:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- If you're doing it to help out the species, its different than doing it to give you sexual pleasure. --Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You are saying this in a time of overpopulation? No, it is not different to the individual. What if someone made a porno with animals and sent all the proceeds from the sells to an animal organization which saves animal lives, then you would allow that right? It was for the greater good. Again, what difference would it make to the stud horse if he was ejaculated for pleasure or for business (I am sure he is happy either way)?--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The horse could care less either way. And what if I made some child porn and donated the proceeds to an adoption agency or something? Would it be ok then??? And if an animal does not need to be bred, then it shouldnt be inseminated. --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- With that example you gave me it would be okay by your own logic. So if they horse could care less, then why would you care one way or another? --Steele
- Because it is abusive. If I had sex with a mentally retarded child, and he could care less, it'd still be abuse. You are taking advantage of a creature with lower intelligence than yourself to fufill your sexual desires. And you dodged my child porn/animal porn argument. --Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Hey, you said it yourself. The horse could care less (remember the animals consenting thing?)
- No I didn’t dodge it, I ignored it.
- Because it is abusive. If I had sex with a mentally retarded child, and he could care less, it'd still be abuse. You are taking advantage of a creature with lower intelligence than yourself to fufill your sexual desires. And you dodged my child porn/animal porn argument. --Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- With that example you gave me it would be okay by your own logic. So if they horse could care less, then why would you care one way or another? --Steele
- The horse could care less either way. And what if I made some child porn and donated the proceeds to an adoption agency or something? Would it be ok then??? And if an animal does not need to be bred, then it shouldnt be inseminated. --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You are saying this in a time of overpopulation? No, it is not different to the individual. What if someone made a porno with animals and sent all the proceeds from the sells to an animal organization which saves animal lives, then you would allow that right? It was for the greater good. Again, what difference would it make to the stud horse if he was ejaculated for pleasure or for business (I am sure he is happy either way)?--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- If you're doing it to help out the species, its different than doing it to give you sexual pleasure. --Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That is still a double standard.--Steele 20:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I said it is ok if you're doing it to help breed animals that couldnt be bred otherwise.--Ciz 04:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I am not going to keep addressing this over and over again in multiple sessions at once. Gezz, keep your pedophilia obsession to yourself! Just because you can’t come up with any good defenses for it doesn’t mean you have to pester other sexualities for help!--Steele
- Once again you dodge the argument with meaningless accusations. You said animal porn is ok if you donate the proceeds to some animal rights organization. Would child porn be ok if it went to some adoption agency? Using your logic, it would. --Ciz 17:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- No, its just that I am not going to re-answer your question because you can’t remember for yourself. That’s not what I said, re-read my statement, don’t put fallacies in my mouth that came out of yours.--Steele
- You said, "What if someone made a porno with animals and sent all the proceeds from the sells to an animal organization which saves animal lives, then you would allow that right? It was for the greater good." --Ciz 15:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- No, its just that I am not going to re-answer your question because you can’t remember for yourself. That’s not what I said, re-read my statement, don’t put fallacies in my mouth that came out of yours.--Steele
- Once again you dodge the argument with meaningless accusations. You said animal porn is ok if you donate the proceeds to some animal rights organization. Would child porn be ok if it went to some adoption agency? Using your logic, it would. --Ciz 17:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I am not going to keep addressing this over and over again in multiple sessions at once. Gezz, keep your pedophilia obsession to yourself! Just because you can’t come up with any good defenses for it doesn’t mean you have to pester other sexualities for help!--Steele
- Again, I am not arguing for pedophilia. Don’t connect dots that are not there.--Steele
- One is animal abuse, the other is child abuse. --Ciz 04:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Correction, the first one CAN be abuse.--Steele 20:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- And having sex with children CAN be abuse. --Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Again, children are not sexually mature that’s the major difference. Wait, weren’t we suppose to be talking about Zoophilia?--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- When the hormones kick in teenagers will want to have sex. Some do. --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- We where suppose to be talking about Zoophilia. Then we where talking about pedophilia. Now teenagers? (prepubescent < 13 <teen) --Steele
- Having sex with an underage teenager is still abusive, regardless of whether or not he is prepubescent. --Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Now we are talking about teen sex? You are obsessed arn't you!--Steele
- Im guessing you're realizing you're losing the argument, huh. You're saying that pedophilia doesnt include teenagers, even though it is under the law and having sex with teenagers is abusive. You can say I support it when I start saying how it's a 'mutually satisfying relationship' like you do. --Ciz 17:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I am not the one that resorts to character assassinations, logical fallacies, unusable sources, requires the help of admin’s just to talk to others, had every one of my pointes refuted, and used almost every fallacy in the book. Yes, a 17 year old can have a satisfying relationship with a 19 year old. I am sorry you are so confused that you consider that pedophilia.--Steele
- You advocate bestiality. And I dont consider the 17/19 year old relationship to be pedophilia. Most people who are against pedophilia dont. I consider a 40 yearold man having sex with a 15 year old to be pedophilia. --Ciz 15:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- By your logic it is. I advocate bestiality? I don't remember saying people should or encouraging anyone. In fact I have a history of discouraging people who seek it as a novelty or don’t have the best interest of the animal at heart. I don’t advocate bestiality I just don’t want people demonizing it, thereby turning the good people I do know into "sexual predators" or monsters.--Steele
- If they have sex with animals, then they are. What makes them so special? --Ciz 12:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- By your logic it is. I advocate bestiality? I don't remember saying people should or encouraging anyone. In fact I have a history of discouraging people who seek it as a novelty or don’t have the best interest of the animal at heart. I don’t advocate bestiality I just don’t want people demonizing it, thereby turning the good people I do know into "sexual predators" or monsters.--Steele
- You advocate bestiality. And I dont consider the 17/19 year old relationship to be pedophilia. Most people who are against pedophilia dont. I consider a 40 yearold man having sex with a 15 year old to be pedophilia. --Ciz 15:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I am not the one that resorts to character assassinations, logical fallacies, unusable sources, requires the help of admin’s just to talk to others, had every one of my pointes refuted, and used almost every fallacy in the book. Yes, a 17 year old can have a satisfying relationship with a 19 year old. I am sorry you are so confused that you consider that pedophilia.--Steele
- Im guessing you're realizing you're losing the argument, huh. You're saying that pedophilia doesnt include teenagers, even though it is under the law and having sex with teenagers is abusive. You can say I support it when I start saying how it's a 'mutually satisfying relationship' like you do. --Ciz 17:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Now we are talking about teen sex? You are obsessed arn't you!--Steele
- Having sex with an underage teenager is still abusive, regardless of whether or not he is prepubescent. --Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- We where suppose to be talking about Zoophilia. Then we where talking about pedophilia. Now teenagers? (prepubescent < 13 <teen) --Steele
- When the hormones kick in teenagers will want to have sex. Some do. --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Again, children are not sexually mature that’s the major difference. Wait, weren’t we suppose to be talking about Zoophilia?--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- And having sex with children CAN be abuse. --Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Correction, the first one CAN be abuse.--Steele 20:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- One is animal abuse, the other is child abuse. --Ciz 04:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please concentrate more on mediation than on this
Please.. this discussion is now 5(!) archives long. I do not think that this discussion is leading anywhere at the moment, we all now know really really well what every person here thinks how the zoophilia article should look like. Both parties have agreed to mediate on this issue, so can we please STOP the discussions for now and rather concentrate on the mediation process? I'm talking especially to you, Ciz, as I have the feeling that you rather continue to discuss the issue itself than to find a solution on this. Please, participate more on the mediation page and try to work with us, as we try to work with you. --Conti|✉ 19:59, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- I second that notion. I think most people by now stopped following the discussion, because it's a huge timesink now. Ciz, please list 5-10 changes that you think should be made to the Lifestyle section, assuming that it stays, trying to explain each change in 1-2 lines of text at most. It would be much more constructive and helpful than pages and pages of unfocused ramblings. Paranoid 20:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Irrelevant comment: I'm just curious as to how Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcom X ended up in this discussion. Honestly, a discussion on zoophilia and we end up bringing historical revolutionaries into it. Bizarre. PMC 01:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I said how PETA is an extremist group, and Steele said you sometimes need to be one if you want to get stuff done (citing Malcom X). I pointed out how Martin Luther King was moderate and got more accomplished than Malcom X. --Ciz 01:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Irrelevant comment: I'm just curious as to how Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcom X ended up in this discussion. Honestly, a discussion on zoophilia and we end up bringing historical revolutionaries into it. Bizarre. PMC 01:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Now that I think about it, that is pretty funny. I was starting to think just as I was typing my response that, this is getting waaay off topic. I believe it went something like this...
- Ciz: most AR groups condemn zoophilia
- Steele: PETA, the largest, does not.
- Ciz: PETA is an extremist organization
- Steele: PETA has to if they want to be effective, the condition animals live in are extreme similar to what Malcom X pointed out
- Ciz: MLK accomplished more, IMO
- Steele: I think the opposite (IMO reason why)
- And that in a nutshell is where we left off. I'll try to be more careful in the future, I am use to messageboards (is still new Wiki)--Steele 01:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- And how is throwing red paint at fur shows and giving children gruesome comics going to be effective? And many African Americans would be offended if you compared Malcom X to PETA or their struggle for civil rights to animal rights.--Ciz 01:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You need to participate in the mediation process instead of debating me on off topic issues we shouldn't even be talking about in the first place under this section.
- Actually, I have a friend that was a borderline Malcom X militant at one time and at first he was offended but changed his opinion when we debated the animal rights issue with him. For you question about PETA see this LINK. For the sake of others I am not going to continue this discussion under this section.--Steele 02:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Good gravy! It was clearly marked as an irrelevant comment, not the start of a debate. I was only pointing out something I found amusingly bizarre. Go mediate! PMC 03:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
continuation
I have already addressed your intelligence argument. Not all humans are equal so that has no barring on sexual activity between the two.--Steele
- If they're of a certain age they should be intelligent enough. If one is extremely more intelligent than the other, they shouldnt be in the relationship.--Ciz 04:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- So you are saying a hick and a super geniuses shouldn't be allowed to have sex, because they are not equals? What does it matter if they both enjoy it, what right do you have to tell them what to do with there bodies.--Steele 20:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- A more appropiate example would be someone who is mentally retarded having sex with a supergenius, not a hick. --Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- A mentally retarded person is comparable to less then an animal in intelligence. The average person is less comparable to a genius. Animal is to average person as hick is to genius was my example. Under your logic neither is acceptable because of thedifference in intelligence.--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- In English? And Im sure someone with downsyndrome would do a better job of taking care of himself than a domesticated cat could. There are some mentally retarded people who are able to live by themselves by going through a certain routine everyday. --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Then you haven’t heard of feral cats. Read up on it. You aren’t talking about typical mentally retarded anymore; you are now switching it to a mildly retarded person. --Steele
- Actually, I have heard. And there are organizations that help them out (like feeding them). Just because they live outside doesnt mean they can live on their own. And if you let your pet cat loose, it wouldnt last that long. --Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Obviously you haven’t read enough.--Steele
- No, I have. Pet cats cant survive outside for too long. --Ciz 17:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Really? And what is all this you have read about feral cats? Because that is not what the leading organizations say.--Steele
- The leading organizations feed the cats sometimes and neuter them to reduce the feral cat population. --Ciz 15:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Because they don’t want them to rely on hunting for themselves. --Steele
- Whats the big deal, if the cats are ok? --Ciz 14:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Because they don’t want them to rely on hunting for themselves. --Steele
- The leading organizations feed the cats sometimes and neuter them to reduce the feral cat population. --Ciz 15:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Really? And what is all this you have read about feral cats? Because that is not what the leading organizations say.--Steele
- No, I have. Pet cats cant survive outside for too long. --Ciz 17:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Obviously you haven’t read enough.--Steele
- Actually, I have heard. And there are organizations that help them out (like feeding them). Just because they live outside doesnt mean they can live on their own. And if you let your pet cat loose, it wouldnt last that long. --Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Then you haven’t heard of feral cats. Read up on it. You aren’t talking about typical mentally retarded anymore; you are now switching it to a mildly retarded person. --Steele
- In English? And Im sure someone with downsyndrome would do a better job of taking care of himself than a domesticated cat could. There are some mentally retarded people who are able to live by themselves by going through a certain routine everyday. --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- A mentally retarded person is comparable to less then an animal in intelligence. The average person is less comparable to a genius. Animal is to average person as hick is to genius was my example. Under your logic neither is acceptable because of thedifference in intelligence.--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- A more appropiate example would be someone who is mentally retarded having sex with a supergenius, not a hick. --Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- So you are saying a hick and a super geniuses shouldn't be allowed to have sex, because they are not equals? What does it matter if they both enjoy it, what right do you have to tell them what to do with there bodies.--Steele 20:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It’s not animal abuse, unless you want to change your definition of animal abuse to something that is further encompassing then it should be.--Steele
- That depends on whether or not you view molestation to qualify as abuse. --Ciz 04:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Not all bestiality is molestation. Again, that isn't intrinsic.--Steele 20:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Having sex with an animal will always be molestation. --Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe that is your personal belief, but if you want to bring it here you actually have to prove it.--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The law says it is. Thats what matters. --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Laws recognized slavery and segregation too. The topic isn’t about the law, so no, it does not matter. --Steele
- You're comparing slavery to having laws against bestiality? Geez, you really are messed up. --Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, my god! Did you just compare Hitler to Jesus! Same on you, Ciz, you are sick!--Steele
- I didnt compare Hitler to Jesus. You did compare anti-bestiality laws to slavery. Stop dodging the topic you pervert. --Ciz 17:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, my god! Now you just compared raping children to feeding the poor! Shame on you, Ciz. (lol, you don’t get it do you)--Steele
- No, because I never once said anything about the stuff you mention. You did compare anti-bestiality laws to slavery. --Ciz 15:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- When you stop making baseless allegations about me I will return the favor. All I did was point out that the law hasn't always been on the right side. Just because it is there doesn't mean you it is justified, as was the case with slavery, and many other laws past and present. No where did I say anything close to what you are claiming, comparing zoophilia to slavery, that doesn't make since. Untell then, OMG YES YOU DID!!11
- Yes and you compared preventing animals from being molested to enslaving Africans. --Ciz 14:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- When you stop making baseless allegations about me I will return the favor. All I did was point out that the law hasn't always been on the right side. Just because it is there doesn't mean you it is justified, as was the case with slavery, and many other laws past and present. No where did I say anything close to what you are claiming, comparing zoophilia to slavery, that doesn't make since. Untell then, OMG YES YOU DID!!11
- No, because I never once said anything about the stuff you mention. You did compare anti-bestiality laws to slavery. --Ciz 15:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, my god! Now you just compared raping children to feeding the poor! Shame on you, Ciz. (lol, you don’t get it do you)--Steele
- I didnt compare Hitler to Jesus. You did compare anti-bestiality laws to slavery. Stop dodging the topic you pervert. --Ciz 17:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, my god! Did you just compare Hitler to Jesus! Same on you, Ciz, you are sick!--Steele
- You're comparing slavery to having laws against bestiality? Geez, you really are messed up. --Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Laws recognized slavery and segregation too. The topic isn’t about the law, so no, it does not matter. --Steele
- The law says it is. Thats what matters. --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe that is your personal belief, but if you want to bring it here you actually have to prove it.--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Having sex with an animal will always be molestation. --Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Not all bestiality is molestation. Again, that isn't intrinsic.--Steele 20:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Control over an animal can be used as sex abuse, but so can many other normal activities with animals. Consent is not only possible but probably clearer then some human forms of consent.--Steele
- No. Furthermore, if an adult had the intelligence of animal he would probably be classified as mentally retarded. --Ciz 04:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I am sorry but "no" isn't an arguement. What does a retarded person have to do with what I said above?--Steele 20:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- 'No' wasnt the whole argument. And if a human had the intelligence of an animal, he would be retarded. Most people would argue that since the retarded person isnt intelligent enough, having sex with one would be abusive regardless of whether or notthe retarded person was ok with it.--Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That’s not true. Most animals can actually look after themselves and survive on their own. A retarded person can’t (unless we are talking mildly retarded). However, we have taken them out of their natural environment thus some require help. Most people would argue that you can’t get consent from most retarded people. If it is abusive, it has to do some kind of damage to that person.--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Domesticated animals can usually not survie on their own. Wild animals can, though one would aruge they live shorter lives than a domesticated animal does living inside. Most people would argue the same for animals. So I can give a mentally retarded person a blowjob, and if it doesnt harm him its ok? --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Feral cats. Body language. Consent. If he is mildly (like the person I know is) then yes, have fun! --Steele 08:35, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Domesticated animals can usually not survie on their own. Wild animals can, though one would aruge they live shorter lives than a domesticated animal does living inside. Most people would argue the same for animals. So I can give a mentally retarded person a blowjob, and if it doesnt harm him its ok? --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That’s not true. Most animals can actually look after themselves and survive on their own. A retarded person can’t (unless we are talking mildly retarded). However, we have taken them out of their natural environment thus some require help. Most people would argue that you can’t get consent from most retarded people. If it is abusive, it has to do some kind of damage to that person.--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- 'No' wasnt the whole argument. And if a human had the intelligence of an animal, he would be retarded. Most people would argue that since the retarded person isnt intelligent enough, having sex with one would be abusive regardless of whether or notthe retarded person was ok with it.--Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I am sorry but "no" isn't an arguement. What does a retarded person have to do with what I said above?--Steele 20:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If he had the intelligence of a cat, he'd be far more than mildly retarded. --Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Ho-hum. --Ciz 17:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Our intelligence test wouldn’t cross over very well. Except a cat is aware of it’s self and environment much more then the degree of retarded person you are talking about.--Steele
- If a person had the intelligence of a cat he would be retarded. --Ciz 15:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You are forcing you human POV of intelligence onto a cat which isn’t a fair/accurate measurement. Cats have there own unique type of intelligence.--Steele
- Which is incompatible with a human’s. --Ciz 14:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You are forcing you human POV of intelligence onto a cat which isn’t a fair/accurate measurement. Cats have there own unique type of intelligence.--Steele
- If a person had the intelligence of a cat he would be retarded. --Ciz 15:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Affection has nothing to do with it unless the animal is extending their affection for sexual contact.--Steele 02:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Unless you misinterpet its affection for "Gee, he/she must be really horny." --Ciz 04:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It is hard to confuse the emotions of a happy dog waggin its tail with a dog that mounts you, tries to pull off your clothes or solisits you with its genitalia.--Steele 20:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I doubt a normal dog would do all the stuff you mention. Furthermore, a dog has been known to hump someone's legs even after it has been neutered, even though a neutered animal will not want to have sex. I have addressed this in detail in one of my earlier posts. Once again you are misinterepreting their actions.
- Furthermore, for the sake of their argument lets say they do want to have sex with you. If a fifteen-year old wants to have sex with you, having sex with him or her would still be considered statuorary rape.--Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That is one of your own misconceptions then. Just because an animal is neutered doesn’t mean they don’t want to have sex anymore. They still have the drive and some hormones (at least up to a year) to do those actions even though they can’t experience the full pleasure of sex. Normal dogs have done those things. If you want to believe that animals aren’t sexual beings then that’s your prerogative, but don’t expect others to believe it. Anyone who works around in-tact animals would most likely know what I mean. You have changed the debate to the same old child argument like five times now. I have already addressed that in other sections so I am not going to acknowledge it here.--Steele 01
- 20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- When an animal is neutered he will not go into heat anymore and will not seek out a mate to mate with. And once again, animals do not attach the same emotional attatchments to sex that humans do. --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Males can’t go into heat in the first place! LOL Quit pulling facts out of your a**,
- I mixed the two sexes up. Nonetheless, the female animal will not go into heat once it is neutered. Furthermore, once an animal mates and becomes pregnant, she will not go into heat anymore. So its not like they crave sex all the time.--Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I deal with this first hand.
- God, that scares me. It's like a pedophile working at a daycare center.--Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You work at a daycare center! Good god, poor kids!--Steele
- Nope, I dont. And my point still stands; a person who is erotically attracted to animals working at some shelter is like a pedophile working at a daycare center. --Ciz 17:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, it’s clear you obviously do, the way you are always talking about it. Or like a homosexual working at a homeless shelter! (those poor guys!)--Steele
- Nope, once again. And homeless men arent as vulnerable or naive as animals are. My point still stands. You advocate bestiality and you work with animals at a shelter. --Ciz 15:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, you eat animals, and you’re around them too. I think people should be more worried about you eating the animals, after all, those animals are venerable too.
- While I don’t eat meat, it is natural (unlike bestiality). We were created as omnivores.
- Actually, I don’t work at a shelter, another assumption you probablygot from reading to much asairs propaganda.--Steele
- You said you work with this firsthand. --Ciz 14:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, you eat animals, and you’re around them too. I think people should be more worried about you eating the animals, after all, those animals are venerable too.
- Nope, once again. And homeless men arent as vulnerable or naive as animals are. My point still stands. You advocate bestiality and you work with animals at a shelter. --Ciz 15:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, it’s clear you obviously do, the way you are always talking about it. Or like a homosexual working at a homeless shelter! (those poor guys!)--Steele
- Nope, I dont. And my point still stands; a person who is erotically attracted to animals working at some shelter is like a pedophile working at a daycare center. --Ciz 17:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You work at a daycare center! Good god, poor kids!--Steele
- God, that scares me. It's like a pedophile working at a daycare center.--Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I deal with this first hand.
- I mixed the two sexes up. Nonetheless, the female animal will not go into heat once it is neutered. Furthermore, once an animal mates and becomes pregnant, she will not go into heat anymore. So its not like they crave sex all the time.--Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Males can’t go into heat in the first place! LOL Quit pulling facts out of your a**,
- When an animal is neutered he will not go into heat anymore and will not seek out a mate to mate with. And once again, animals do not attach the same emotional attatchments to sex that humans do. --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It is hard to confuse the emotions of a happy dog waggin its tail with a dog that mounts you, tries to pull off your clothes or solisits you with its genitalia.--Steele 20:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Canis Lupus bond between mates is as strong as if not stronger then human. Most likely stronger. Nope, for sure it’s stronger. --Steele
- Some animals mate for life. Some dont. Regardless, they're of the same species. .--Ciz 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- And why do they mate for life Ciz? Could it be the emotional bond!!!?--Steele
- Animals dont mate with humans, so whats your point? Its in their nature to do that; they're just reacting to sexual stimili. --Ciz 17:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- They obviously do, or there wouldn’t be a section on Zoophilia here. Just like it’s in human nature to mate with others? Humans are just reacting to sexual stimili. Did you forget already, Ciz, that we are animals too? If they are just robots like you claim, then what is the point of animal welfare laws? After all (according to your logic) what does it really matter if some guy beats his dog to death with a bat? After all, they don’t have the same emotional attachment to pain! When they cry in pain they are “just reacting to” physical “stimili”.--Steele
- Thats just a section for perverts who get their kicks off molesting animals. Its just as nonpartisan as the boylove page is. --Ciz 15:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Just like it’s in human nature to mate with others? Humans are just reacting to sexual stimili. Did you forget already, Ciz, that we are animals too?
- Its natural for humans to mate with eachother. And animals mate far differently than humans do.--Ciz 15:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- And what would you know about animal mating. I thought you shied away from that kind of thing. They aren’t different enough.--Steele
- A lot actually. You can be informed about how animals mate with out being into f*cking them yourselves. And it is different enough. --Ciz 14:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- And what would you know about animal mating. I thought you shied away from that kind of thing. They aren’t different enough.--Steele
- Its natural for humans to mate with eachother. And animals mate far differently than humans do.--Ciz 15:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Just like it’s in human nature to mate with others? Humans are just reacting to sexual stimili. Did you forget already, Ciz, that we are animals too?
- Thats just a section for perverts who get their kicks off molesting animals. Its just as nonpartisan as the boylove page is. --Ciz 15:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- They obviously do, or there wouldn’t be a section on Zoophilia here. Just like it’s in human nature to mate with others? Humans are just reacting to sexual stimili. Did you forget already, Ciz, that we are animals too? If they are just robots like you claim, then what is the point of animal welfare laws? After all (according to your logic) what does it really matter if some guy beats his dog to death with a bat? After all, they don’t have the same emotional attachment to pain! When they cry in pain they are “just reacting to” physical “stimili”.--Steele
- Animals dont mate with humans, so whats your point? Its in their nature to do that; they're just reacting to sexual stimili. --Ciz 17:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- And why do they mate for life Ciz? Could it be the emotional bond!!!?--Steele
If they are just robots like you claim, then what is the point of animal welfare laws?
- I said no such thing. If they were just robots I wouldnt care that they were being sexually violated. --Ciz 15:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- After all (according to your logic) what does it really matter if some guy beats his dog to death with a bat? After all, they don’t have the same emotional attachment to pain! When they cry in pain they are “just reacting to” physical “stimili”.--Steele
- Nope. A dog will feel pain no matter what. An animal will no longer respond to sexual stimili if it is neutered. The two cases arent relevant at all. You are misreading my words. And I think beating a dog is just as bad as sticking your dick up its ass, which you advocate. --Ciz 15:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You missed the point, I was debunking your, its just a stimuli, rationalization against sex.--Steele
- By making an invalid comparision, yes. . --Ciz 14:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You missed the point, I was debunking your, its just a stimuli, rationalization against sex.--Steele
- Nope. A dog will feel pain no matter what. An animal will no longer respond to sexual stimili if it is neutered. The two cases arent relevant at all. You are misreading my words. And I think beating a dog is just as bad as sticking your dick up its ass, which you advocate. --Ciz 15:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
from previous archives
I must have missed these since they were replied to after it was archived.
- I didn’t say that I meant that in absolute terms. I mean equal as in animals have the right to equal consideration of their interests. In addition to that, I don’t think you will find any zoophiles that try to have sex with something the size of a common house cat. I already pointed out that I feed and take care of them but that doesn’t mean they are the same thing as a child. It may be similar but not the same.
- They are far more closer to children than to spouses (btw, do you let them walk on the table?) --Ciz 17:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I feed them, keep them healthy, pet them, play with them, give them tummy rubs, take them on walks, groom them, take them to the dog park, cuddle with them and give them lost of kisses. Is that okay with you or is the latter going too far? ;)--Steele 06:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Do you have a zoophilic relationship them? Do you regard them as your lovers? Are you erotically attracted to them? --Ciz 17:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Zoophilia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| This is an important note to the content. The title of the article is Zoophilia but wrongly connects it to Zoosexuality. Zoophilia is sexual arousal from dressing and being treated like an animal, not sexual relations or arousal FOR animals (beastiality). |
Last edited at 15:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 21:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)