Zoophilia - Should it be banned?

[MontagK505]

I watched my older brother jerk off a tomcat. Where he learned that, and why he had the impulse, I have no idea. I've also heard that K-9 officers occasionally lend a hand to alleviate sexual tension in police dogs. *I do not know if this is true*

Eskimos 100+ years sometimes had sex with dogs and it was OK as long as they did it in public. (From The Book of the Eskimos).

In the novel Shogun much is made about Japanese attitudes towards sex 400 years ago. They consider tactfully leaving a shipwrecked sea pilot alone with a duck. I can't look it up, there is a dog dozing on my lap who would obviate the need for toilet paper if I gave her the chance. I probably should not leave her alone with my brother.

A couple of jokes: Why are camels called "ships of the desert?" Because they're full of Iraqi seamen. What's the problem having sex with a sheep? You have to run up front to kiss it.

Funny how these anecdotes came immediately to mind! Bestiality seems to be engrained in human culture. Yes, there should be a ban. I don't know how someone could **** a duck without doing serious damage. The animals can't speak up if someone is hurting them. On the other hand if you do your dog, whose going to say anything?

There is a joke about sex with ducks, (I forgot most of it) the punch line is:
"I'm a drake, you've made a mistake."

 

[MontagK505]

On the other hand, a couple of years ago I read this book about a man and a dolphin and...I had these conflicting feelings about it...

I recall reading a book many years about a female (human) researcher who lived in close contact with a male dolphin. Her living quarters overlapped the dolphins tank, so the dolphin could come and go as he pleased. There was mention of some sexual contact, Although no details were given.

Carl Sagan, mentions in one of his books about a visit to a dolphin research facility where while swimming in a tank, a male dolphin kept brushing his penis against him. Sagan said it was totally uninvited on his part and somewhat of an embarrassment. "Don't you know any girl dolphins?"

 

[Caper]

There is a joke about sex with ducks, (I forgot most of it) the punch line is:
"I'm a drake, you've made a mistake."

A variation of this?

An eagle, who had lost its mate, search the forest for another, but there just weren't any single eagle to be found. Desperate, he swooped down and grabbed a dove. Back in the nest the dove constantly would say, "I'm a dove, I'm a dove, and I love to love." This drove the eagle crazy, so he kicked her out. Again, he searched and this time he grabbed a loon. Back in the nest the loon constantly would say, "I'm a loon, I'm a loon, and I love to swoon," This, also, drove the eagle crazy, so he kicked her out, too. Again, he searched and this time he grabbed a duck. Back in the nest the duck said, "I'm a drake, I'm a drake, you've made a mistake."

 

[MontagK505]

A variation of this?

Not quite, as I recall (this was long time ago) it was about this unknown creature would hide in a bush and sexually assault various animals as they went past. One other line was: "I'm an ape and I've been raped." The duck was last to be assaulted.

That's as much as I can remember.

 

[MontagK505]

I remember a bar trivia machine one time asking what percentage of farm boys had sex with an animal, and the answer was 25%. I laughed and commented that was the answer you got when you asked the boys; if you asked the animals it was higher.

There is a joke about a ignorant sheep herder who had four ewes but no ram. When he asked other herders how to get the ewes pregnant, they told him to use artificial insemination. He didn't want to admit ignorance about what that meant, so he decided he had to do that himself. Every day for a week he would load the sheep into the back of his truck, take them out into the woods and spend the day doing the squelchy with all four.
After a week he is exhausted, and can barely walk, so he asked his wife to look out the window and tell him what the sheep are doing. She replied, "They are all in the back of your truck and one of them is honking the horn."

 

[cullennz]

A mans dog is his best friend and all that.

What you do in the southern US while eating grits and leaving kids to play with loaded guns is your business.

They would probably have 3 arms any way from youre sisters genes

 

[MontagK505]

A mans dog is his best friend and all that.

What you do in the southern US while eating grits and leaving kids to play with loaded guns is your business.

They would probably have 3 arms any way from youre sisters genes

Doesn't this belong in the incest thread?

 

[angrysoba]

Doesn't this belong in the incest thread?

Maybe a suggestion that the inbreeding family involves humans and animals. Either way, cullennz, it does sound like a rather nasty slur on Americans from southern states; a tad prejudicial, no?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Maybe a suggestion that the inbreeding family involves humans and animals. Either way, cullennz, it does sound like a rather nasty slur on Americans from southern states; a tad prejudicial, no?

From a Kiwi no less... hardly in a position to be pointing fingers.

http://www.artflakes.com/en/product...ing-new-zealanders-from-having-sex-with-sheep

 

[shemp]

A few minutes ago Mrs. Shemp got off the phone with one of her sisters and said (or so I thought; I was wearing earplugs and listening to Judas Priest) "Rusty came out of the closet today on Facebook." I had to think about this for a moment, because the only Rusty we know is a friend's dog. I took the earplugs out and said "Well, that explains some things." She said "Like what?" and I replied "Like his humping my leg." Mrs. Shemp yelled "DUSTY HUMPED YOUR LEG???" and I realized she was talking about Dusty, our ex-brother-in-law.

 

[MontagK505]

Maybe a suggestion that the inbreeding family involves humans and animals. Either way, cullennz, it does sound like a rather nasty slur on Americans from southern states; a tad prejudicial, no?

Prejudice is the sister of disgust and outrage, all reliable standards for creating and passing laws.

 

[angrysoba]

Prejudice is the sister of disgust and outrage, all reliable standards for creating and passing laws.

Certainly not reliable standards as far as I am concerned.

 

[MontagK505]

Certainly not reliable standards as far as I am concerned.

There are some who feel disgust is all you need.

 

[angrysoba]

There are some who feel disgust is all you need.

Maybe, but why not name them, otherwise it looks like a kind of accusatory finger being vaguely waved around.

 

[MontagK505]

Maybe, but why not name them, otherwise it looks like a kind of accusatory finger being vaguely waved around.

'Some' is meant to describe a general attitude that includes people who don't post on this forum, it's meant to be vague so I don't give the idea that I am singling out a specific person.

 

[FlaredLogic]

Info straight from the ponies mouth

It has always interested me how bestiality came to be so widely treated with hate, disgust and fear, often invoking some completely irrational reactions in people when they are faced with the subject. Bestiality truly is an ancient concept with even cave paintings showing human-animal couplings. It seems that the act didn’t begin to pick up its serious negative connotations in Europe until the rise of Catholicism and the hate of all forms of sex outside of procreation between married couples. Sodomy, buggery, bestiality and plenty of other things went from being activities that where happening quietly all over the place to crimes that got you executed extremely unpleasantly. After that initial law was made (which was around 1260 in the UK I think) it eventually became so well ingrained in peoples minds that it was a bad thing it has become a way of thinking that still persists now.

I know some definitions have already been given but thought I would clarify a few. Zoophilia itself is not a physical act and simply means a love of animals. Bestiality is the term for any sex with an animal. A zoophile who has sex with an animal is committing bestiality, but just because a person has sex with an animal that doesn’t make them a zoophile. Some zoophiles who are sexually active with animals refer to themselves as zoosexuals.
It’s good to see that so far the replies in this thread are mostly rational as it is nice seeing people be able to discuss the subject maturely.
Now to the question in hand, should it be illegal? Most definitely not. And there is a lot of reasons why. Before I go through some of the reasons I would like to address one post in particular.

I've summed up some thoughts on the subject here:

Quote:
Have you ever actually seen a beastiality community? Do a search for one on Google, you'll get a feel people's motives and how they fetishize it.

People will often keep public diaries filled with their fantasies of mostly an absurd sort like dolphin ***********; sometimes they're personal accounts of a very terrifying sort like chicken ***********, where the animals are too small for safe penetration, so the animals thrash and flail violently, and often die from internal damage.

I got the impression that they aren't really into zoosadism per se, but really view animals as a kinky sex toy. In their universe, some people **** pies, other people **** chickens, what's the difference?

So, yes, I think there is a very strong objection to beastiality not only because its non-consentual, but animals are tangibly and severely harmed or killed in the process.

As a member of several of these online communities I can happily vouch that people talking about causing harm to animals either sexually or non-sexually, including talking about having sex with poultry which is an especially harmful act and is highly abusive, are quickly banned from the sites.
It is easy to assume that all sexual acts with an animal must be harmful to the animal, possibly because that is the commonly propagated way of thinking, but it simply isn’t true. Certainly some acts can be harmful, such as sex with poultry or any animal too small physically, and these are definitely abuse and should be punished. But many acts are not only harmless to the animals involved they are actually very enjoyable for the animal. There is an often misapplied bit of knowledge about sex in the animal kingdom which is that only Dolphins, Bonobos and Humans have sex for pleasure. The fact is a reference to recreational sexual activity, something that is indeed rarely seen in the wild in other species than the three mentioned, though it is extremely common in domestic mammals. A problem is it is quite common for people to take that fact as meaning animals other than those three types do not get pleasure from sex, which couldn’t be further from the truth. All mammals receive pleasure from sex in a similar way. A good real life example is to watch a stallion perform his duties at a semen collection, if you do you will notice a very similar display of pleasure at the point of orgasm as you would see when any human male reached orgasm.

This brings me neatly on to another good thing to ponder if you think all sex between humans and animals is abusive regardless of the act and the animal. It is accepted practise in reproductive veterinary medicine, livestock farming and other commercial animal breeding operations to pleasure male animals till orgasm for the purpose of collecting semen for breeding. If allowing a male animal to have sex with you is abusive to the animal then to me logically that would imply any incidence of sexually pleasuring a male animal would surely be abuse. Now AI in animals is not usually necessary and is mainly done for reasons of economy and simplicity so if sexually pleasuring animals was really abuse then that would make all those practices simply abuse, which if it was the case would lead to them being widely banned. And don’t worry I’m not forgetting the females of the species. Female mammals are all blessed with the same standard functioning parts too. There is the odd difference in shape and precise position but they are all fundamentally the same when it comes down to function. They have the same innervations connected to the same parts of the brain as a lady human does and assuming there is no incompatibility of size they can enjoy sex in the same way.

To add something more to that it is common that male and female mammals that get any form of pleasurable sexual attention more than a few times to start recognising the signs that it is going happen and getting excited at the prospect. Definitely not the reaction you would expect from an animal that had the expectation they were going to suffer genuine abuse.

Most telling when it comes to the question of is it always abuse can be found in the laws themselves. There have been quite a few cases where US states and some countries have introduced a new bestiality law even though they already have strong existing animal abuse laws. The reason simply being that the animal abuse laws were only relevant when there was proven abuse. As bestiality is usually harmless there are no signs of abuse to target, meaning that there is no way to attack those performing acts of bestiality using only animal abuse laws. This means that separate draconian anti-bestiality laws are rushed into being. This is definitely not very good support for any notion of a blanket definition of abuse that can be applied to all cases of bestiality.

This brings me on to the issue of consent. Someone already mentioned the term “implied consent” but this is a term I think is often used to defend or imply inappropriate sexual behaviour. Animals can consent at a level beyond implied consent, though not to the level of informed consent. Important to realise though is that implied consent is actually a concept not applicable to animals. The reason for this is that humans have to understand possible consequences of sex beyond if it just feels good, and these consequences include mental and social consequences that animals do not have to worry about. For animals sex is simply an act that they either want to participate in or they don’t. They don’t worry what their parents or friends think and they don’t know or care what human society generally thinks of bestiality.

It is possible to raise the point (which I think someone here indeed already has) that animal consent is a red herring in many ways as only in sex do we expect a level of consent that is actually beyond the ability, and need, of the animal to give, and when it comes to slaughtering for food, surgical sterilisation, AI and physical restraint of female animals to allow for selective breeding consent suddenly fades into the background and becomes irrelevant. I do agree that in some ways consent is a red herring criticism of bestiality but I think this sidesteps the main and most important thing which is simply that an animal can consent to sex with a human. Being able to speak is not a prerequisite of ability to consent. I am fairly confident that if you get a man and a woman and prevent them talking or lip reading or writing down what they want on pieces of paper, then ask either of them to attempt to initiate sexual activity with the other the inability to speak would not prevent either party displaying their feelings as to whether or not they were interested in sex. I actually have some personal of experience of a similar situation to this Once while abroad I hooked up for sex via an internet site only to find when we actually got together that we didn’t speak a common language at all. But we still had a great time despite not being able to articulate vocally what we wanted, though I will admit it was slightly odd to begin with. When it comes to animals you have some situations where the animal is the obvious initiator of the sexual activity. It might be a mare with her tail held high winking repeatedly while backing you into the corner of her stall or it might be a male animal in an obvious state of physical arousal trying to get you to let him mount you but either way these cases show clear affirmative consent on the part of the animal. Actually the standard of affirmative consent simply means that it is either parties’ responsibility to stop if they notice their partner isn’t enjoying something. Oddly in the case of bestiality where the male animal is taking the active role it is the human that’s more likely to be unable to change their mind after the act has begun.

Obviously as animals can consent that means they can also be raped and this is maybe where there could be a problem as an animal can’t come forward and tell people it is being raped. Animals are not helpless though, and an animal is definitely capable of showing very definitely that it is not interested in sex at a particular time.
When you are talking about situations where the male animal is in the active role consent is very obvious. You cannot force a male animal to become aroused if they don’t want to and you most definitely cannot force them to actively mount and participate in sex.
When you are looking at cases where the human is taking the active role it is harder but still far from impossible to tell if consent is given. Personally I would at least expect the animal to be fully unrestrained so in the very least they are able to clearly demonstrate if they are happy with what is going on and can also simply move away if they are not happy. When a female animal is in heat she may well be willing to be very undiscerning when it comes to choosing a partner but it would be a mistake to say that they will allow any advance they get just because they are in heat, and a mistake to say there is no desire for sex outside these periods. Actually I think in some ways cases where you have females who actively seek out sex or at least some kind of sexual enjoyment when they are not on heat does hint that the desire for sex is not just linked to physiological periods of sexual receptivity.

Finally I would like to add a few things about zoosexuals in general that stand in direct contradiction to the widely accepted image. As more studies have been done on Zoophilia it is becoming more apparent that it is a true sexual orientation, not simply a paraphilia, fetish or kink. Zoosexuality is very rarely a conscious choice someone makes, as far from what many may think it is not an easy option. Zoosexuals feel the same level of connection with their non-human partners as any other person feels for their own same species husband or wife but due to the shorter lifespan of animals most zoosexuals, especially cynophiles, will often have to face the grief of loosing several partners over the course of their lives. How many here could really genuinely commit to a full-on emotional relationship when you knew your partner would probably be dead in under 10years?
If you were to visit one of the larger online bestiality forums you would most certainly find threads dedicated to the topic of when people realised they were zoophiles, and if you read through them you will see most have felt those feelings their whole life, some have even never had any sexual interest in humans at all. You would also notice there is seemingly no correlation between where people were raised and their zoosexual feelings. Someone can be raised in a city apartment yet come to realise they are attracted primarily to horses. Some zoosexuals are more attracted to non-domestic than domestic animals and have to accept that they will never be able to act on their feelings. Zoosexuals are all ages, nationalities, economic backgrounds, occupations and religions, and although there is most likely a higher percentage of men who are zoosexual (getting a true figure is next to impossible) there are plenty of female zoosexuals too.

It is also very rare to find a zoophile that would ever deliberately harm an animal or that is so ignorant of animals that they would cause harm through their lack of knowledge or common sense. And it is not a case of simply thinking that they are not causing harm, or misreading signs. Animals may not speak a verbal language we can talk in but I think any pet owner will tell you that they can tell when their pet is hungry, when they want to be let outside, let back into the house, wants to play ball when they are happy or sad and many other things. And they would be right to say it too. If you do accept that it is possible for an animal to communicate those aforementioned wants and feelings then surely if you know what the signs are it is easily possible for an animal to communicate sexual interest or lack of. The vast majority of zoophiles feel the same way about raping an animal as the vast majority of non-zoophiles would feel about raping a human being. It is not something they would be able to do.

The last point for now that I will only raise briefly is the matter of public health risks. Actually when it comes to disease risk you are far more likely to catch an unpleasant sexually transmitted infection from a human than an animal. This is because the majority of infectious diseases are species specific and the few that are zoonotic are either not transferred through sexual activity at all or they can be but at a much reduced chance than infection through other more usual routes of zoonosis transmission.

I’ll finish by saying that if anyone has any questions about zoophilia they would like to ask me so they personally can understand it better I am happy to try and answer. I’m also interested to read any direct negative responses to my post that might be made as hopefully I can refute them and explain well enough why that people can go away with a better understanding of a very misunderstood sexual orientation.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Hmm.

Interesting post.

I think, in terms of public acceptance, zoosexuals overlook a darkened landscape in which dawn will never break. If you indulge your preferences quietly, you can depend on the discretion of your partners to protect you from scandal. Perhaps that will have to be enough...

 

[FlaredLogic]

There is definitely some truth to those words Charlie.
I think most zoosexuals would be completely happy simply with the freedom to be intimate with their partners in private with no fear of legal repercussions should the curtains slip one day, with the freedom to at least talk online and meet people in real life without having to worry about accidentally talking to the wrong person. Beyond that there is nothing really to gain for zoosexuals. All the other rights that couples usually want don't apply to a relationship with a non-human.

Though people are starting to try and make changes. 1st February marks Zoophile Rights Day. At the moment I think the only physical demonstration is in Germany but things might well spread as time goes on!

 

[angrysoba]

Welcome to the forum, Flared Logic. Thanks, I have also noticed that the replies to this thread have been mostly measured and interesting compared with the replies in the incest and necrophilia threads.

 

[sadhatter]

It has always interested me how bestiality came to be so widely treated with hate, disgust and fear, often invoking some completely irrational reactions in people when they are faced with the subject. Bestiality truly is an ancient concept with even cave paintings showing human-animal couplings. It seems that the act didn’t begin to pick up its serious negative connotations in Europe until the rise of Catholicism and the hate of all forms of sex outside of procreation between married couples. Sodomy, buggery, bestiality and plenty of other things went from being activities that where happening quietly all over the place to crimes that got you executed extremely unpleasantly. After that initial law was made (which was around 1260 in the UK I think) it eventually became so well ingrained in peoples minds that it was a bad thing it has become a way of thinking that still persists now.

I know some definitions have already been given but thought I would clarify a few. Zoophilia itself is not a physical act and simply means a love of animals. Bestiality is the term for any sex with an animal. A zoophile who has sex with an animal is committing bestiality, but just because a person has sex with an animal that doesn’t make them a zoophile. Some zoophiles who are sexually active with animals refer to themselves as zoosexuals.
It’s good to see that so far the replies in this thread are mostly rational as it is nice seeing people be able to discuss the subject maturely.
Now to the question in hand, should it be illegal? Most definitely not. And there is a lot of reasons why. Before I go through some of the reasons I would like to address one post in particular.

As a member of several of these online communities I can happily vouch that people talking about causing harm to animals either sexually or non-sexually, including talking about having sex with poultry which is an especially harmful act and is highly abusive, are quickly banned from the sites.
It is easy to assume that all sexual acts with an animal must be harmful to the animal, possibly because that is the commonly propagated way of thinking, but it simply isn’t true. Certainly some acts can be harmful, such as sex with poultry or any animal too small physically, and these are definitely abuse and should be punished. But many acts are not only harmless to the animals involved they are actually very enjoyable for the animal. There is an often misapplied bit of knowledge about sex in the animal kingdom which is that only Dolphins, Bonobos and Humans have sex for pleasure. The fact is a reference to recreational sexual activity, something that is indeed rarely seen in the wild in other species than the three mentioned, though it is extremely common in domestic mammals. A problem is it is quite common for people to take that fact as meaning animals other than those three types do not get pleasure from sex, which couldn’t be further from the truth. All mammals receive pleasure from sex in a similar way. A good real life example is to watch a stallion perform his duties at a semen collection, if you do you will notice a very similar display of pleasure at the point of orgasm as you would see when any human male reached orgasm.

This brings me neatly on to another good thing to ponder if you think all sex between humans and animals is abusive regardless of the act and the animal. It is accepted practise in reproductive veterinary medicine, livestock farming and other commercial animal breeding operations to pleasure male animals till orgasm for the purpose of collecting semen for breeding. If allowing a male animal to have sex with you is abusive to the animal then to me logically that would imply any incidence of sexually pleasuring a male animal would surely be abuse. Now AI in animals is not usually necessary and is mainly done for reasons of economy and simplicity so if sexually pleasuring animals was really abuse then that would make all those practices simply abuse, which if it was the case would lead to them being widely banned. And don’t worry I’m not forgetting the females of the species. Female mammals are all blessed with the same standard functioning parts too. There is the odd difference in shape and precise position but they are all fundamentally the same when it comes down to function. They have the same innervations connected to the same parts of the brain as a lady human does and assuming there is no incompatibility of size they can enjoy sex in the same way.

To add something more to that it is common that male and female mammals that get any form of pleasurable sexual attention more than a few times to start recognising the signs that it is going happen and getting excited at the prospect. Definitely not the reaction you would expect from an animal that had the expectation they were going to suffer genuine abuse.

Most telling when it comes to the question of is it always abuse can be found in the laws themselves. There have been quite a few cases where US states and some countries have introduced a new bestiality law even though they already have strong existing animal abuse laws. The reason simply being that the animal abuse laws were only relevant when there was proven abuse. As bestiality is usually harmless there are no signs of abuse to target, meaning that there is no way to attack those performing acts of bestiality using only animal abuse laws. This means that separate draconian anti-bestiality laws are rushed into being. This is definitely not very good support for any notion of a blanket definition of abuse that can be applied to all cases of bestiality.

This brings me on to the issue of consent. Someone already mentioned the term “implied consent” but this is a term I think is often used to defend or imply inappropriate sexual behaviour. Animals can consent at a level beyond implied consent, though not to the level of informed consent. Important to realise though is that implied consent is actually a concept not applicable to animals. The reason for this is that humans have to understand possible consequences of sex beyond if it just feels good, and these consequences include mental and social consequences that animals do not have to worry about. For animals sex is simply an act that they either want to participate in or they don’t. They don’t worry what their parents or friends think and they don’t know or care what human society generally thinks of bestiality.

It is possible to raise the point (which I think someone here indeed already has) that animal consent is a red herring in many ways as only in sex do we expect a level of consent that is actually beyond the ability, and need, of the animal to give, and when it comes to slaughtering for food, surgical sterilisation, AI and physical restraint of female animals to allow for selective breeding consent suddenly fades into the background and becomes irrelevant. I do agree that in some ways consent is a red herring criticism of bestiality but I think this sidesteps the main and most important thing which is simply that an animal can consent to sex with a human. Being able to speak is not a prerequisite of ability to consent. I am fairly confident that if you get a man and a woman and prevent them talking or lip reading or writing down what they want on pieces of paper, then ask either of them to attempt to initiate sexual activity with the other the inability to speak would not prevent either party displaying their feelings as to whether or not they were interested in sex. I actually have some personal of experience of a similar situation to this Once while abroad I hooked up for sex via an internet site only to find when we actually got together that we didn’t speak a common language at all. But we still had a great time despite not being able to articulate vocally what we wanted, though I will admit it was slightly odd to begin with. When it comes to animals you have some situations where the animal is the obvious initiator of the sexual activity. It might be a mare with her tail held high winking repeatedly while backing you into the corner of her stall or it might be a male animal in an obvious state of physical arousal trying to get you to let him mount you but either way these cases show clear affirmative consent on the part of the animal. Actually the standard of affirmative consent simply means that it is either parties’ responsibility to stop if they notice their partner isn’t enjoying something. Oddly in the case of bestiality where the male animal is taking the active role it is the human that’s more likely to be unable to change their mind after the act has begun.

Obviously as animals can consent that means they can also be raped and this is maybe where there could be a problem as an animal can’t come forward and tell people it is being raped. Animals are not helpless though, and an animal is definitely capable of showing very definitely that it is not interested in sex at a particular time.
When you are talking about situations where the male animal is in the active role consent is very obvious. You cannot force a male animal to become aroused if they don’t want to and you most definitely cannot force them to actively mount and participate in sex.
When you are looking at cases where the human is taking the active role it is harder but still far from impossible to tell if consent is given. Personally I would at least expect the animal to be fully unrestrained so in the very least they are able to clearly demonstrate if they are happy with what is going on and can also simply move away if they are not happy. When a female animal is in heat she may well be willing to be very undiscerning when it comes to choosing a partner but it would be a mistake to say that they will allow any advance they get just because they are in heat, and a mistake to say there is no desire for sex outside these periods. Actually I think in some ways cases where you have females who actively seek out sex or at least some kind of sexual enjoyment when they are not on heat does hint that the desire for sex is not just linked to physiological periods of sexual receptivity.

Finally I would like to add a few things about zoosexuals in general that stand in direct contradiction to the widely accepted image. As more studies have been done on Zoophilia it is becoming more apparent that it is a true sexual orientation, not simply a paraphilia, fetish or kink. Zoosexuality is very rarely a conscious choice someone makes, as far from what many may think it is not an easy option. Zoosexuals feel the same level of connection with their non-human partners as any other person feels for their own same species husband or wife but due to the shorter lifespan of animals most zoosexuals, especially cynophiles, will often have to face the grief of loosing several partners over the course of their lives. How many here could really genuinely commit to a full-on emotional relationship when you knew your partner would probably be dead in under 10years?
If you were to visit one of the larger online bestiality forums you would most certainly find threads dedicated to the topic of when people realised they were zoophiles, and if you read through them you will see most have felt those feelings their whole life, some have even never had any sexual interest in humans at all. You would also notice there is seemingly no correlation between where people were raised and their zoosexual feelings. Someone can be raised in a city apartment yet come to realise they are attracted primarily to horses. Some zoosexuals are more attracted to non-domestic than domestic animals and have to accept that they will never be able to act on their feelings. Zoosexuals are all ages, nationalities, economic backgrounds, occupations and religions, and although there is most likely a higher percentage of men who are zoosexual (getting a true figure is next to impossible) there are plenty of female zoosexuals too.

It is also very rare to find a zoophile that would ever deliberately harm an animal or that is so ignorant of animals that they would cause harm through their lack of knowledge or common sense. And it is not a case of simply thinking that they are not causing harm, or misreading signs. Animals may not speak a verbal language we can talk in but I think any pet owner will tell you that they can tell when their pet is hungry, when they want to be let outside, let back into the house, wants to play ball when they are happy or sad and many other things. And they would be right to say it too. If you do accept that it is possible for an animal to communicate those aforementioned wants and feelings then surely if you know what the signs are it is easily possible for an animal to communicate sexual interest or lack of. The vast majority of zoophiles feel the same way about raping an animal as the vast majority of non-zoophiles would feel about raping a human being. It is not something they would be able to do.

The last point for now that I will only raise briefly is the matter of public health risks. Actually when it comes to disease risk you are far more likely to catch an unpleasant sexually transmitted infection from a human than an animal. This is because the majority of infectious diseases are species specific and the few that are zoonotic are either not transferred through sexual activity at all or they can be but at a much reduced chance than infection through other more usual routes of zoonosis transmission.

I’ll finish by saying that if anyone has any questions about zoophilia they would like to ask me so they personally can understand it better I am happy to try and answer. I’m also interested to read any direct negative responses to my post that might be made as hopefully I can refute them and explain well enough why that people can go away with a better understanding of a very misunderstood sexual orientation.

You point that animal genitalia is pretty much the same is just so wrong it hurts, literally.

Horse ripping or splitting is a prime example, and often leads to deathfor the animal. ( due to size differences and differences in the way the penis functions, there is a high likelihood of the animals penis simply splitting as it tries to bang a human. For all the gents out there think what would happen if you tried to bang a soda bottle). Not to mention the host of infections and similar injuries that get caused to dogs used for the same purpose.

The "but it likes it" defense also sticks in my craw, my cats would like if i gave them pounds of butter to eat, but that will cause them health problems as well. Animals ant very good at controlling their desires, often to their own detriment.