Jupiter551 said:
Just Me said:
It's my belief, and I think a fairly common belief in society, that we are responsible for the animals that live with us, and that they have feelings and free will.
Responsible for their welfare and happiness. To me it is inappropriate to train an animal to be used for sexual gratification. It is above all, an abuse of power in the same way teachers and people in positions of relative authority (priests, parents, uncles etc) occasionally abuse that relationship in order to commit crimes against minors. Now, some might say I just now attributed human characteristics to an animal - likening them to a child - but I didn't; rather I compared OUR relationship to them, and OUR actions toward them as an abuse of power. What the pet percieves THEIR relationship to us to be is, in this case irrelevant. We're the one in control here, often because we've raised the animal, we may be all it's ever known - we can speculate they might see us as a parent, a pack leader, whatever but we don't KNOW, but since we're talking about the actions of humans toward animals it's what we as humans percieve OUR role to be that matters.
I've heard Zoophiles say before "oh well I never force <animal>, he loves it!" (btw how many times have rapists and other sex offenders say "she wanted it!"). Uh huh, well zoophilia involves humans who PREFERENTIALLY have sex with animals; show me an animal that has, without training or grooming, a preference for human sexual partners rather than their own species when
their own species is available and in season, and I MIGHT concede some animals are indeed "humanphiles". Til then it's sexual grooming and abuse of a creature that can't say "no", imo. :twocents-02cents:
hmmm whats a hornets nest i stirred up by accident! i think one important thing we've all missed here isnt that animals are different from us, or that we have a responsibility toward those in our care (and we do), its that we are animals too. the only significant differences from other species we have is mostly a matter of degree. language? bunches of other animals use some. tools? most primates and some birds use primitive tools. society? every herd and pack animal out there has one of some kind. other than mathematics, science and art pretty much the scope of human nature can be seen elsewhere in the wild kingdom. i repeat the difference is in scale, degree, aka extent.. or any other synonym one might prefer. (note: i include writing as part of language, though it is exclusively ours so far)
now again on a purely ethical level im not behind most bestiality (the act) tho zoophilia isnt inherently unethical ( as the mental or psychological desire for animals, with or without action). i agree that when we domesticate a creature and take it in we have the same responsibility we would to a child. we must feed them, educate/train them, provide shelter and emotional care. no you are not going to hear me say that sex with kids is acceptable in any way shape or form. it isnt. period. if a human being cannot consent, either in actuality or by being unable to comprehend the reprecusions of the choice, it is rape.
i do have more leeway with an animal however. my line is based on physical harm. i have observed animals who were sexually active with humans and their behavior did not differ in any way from the standard of the species under otherwise similar settings. i can only speak specifically of dogs in that respect. among my other skills i am a certified dog trainer, with a partial training in animal behavior( threw out my back b4 i could finish) i am capable of verifying the overall mental health of a dog based on observable species standards. in the small handful of dogs who i observed and trained (obedience only, no i did not train any animal for sex lol) that were also sexual partners with their humans there was no, repeat no difference in their overall behavior, anxiety or other emotional indicators. the only change that could be noted is that the male dogs in question tended to be over dominant. since mounting behavior is related to dominance in canines one would think that obvious.
out of the 6 dogs i trained that the owners either admitted to having sex with, or where the evidence was overwhelming that it was so, only one was female. the bitch in question was spayed and in good physical health.she was intelligent, responsive to command training and exhibited no fear or anxiety behaviors ( which are the most common signals of an abusive owner btw) the same can be said of the male animals. within the bounds of such a small sample group i saw no indications that the animals were in any way harmed by their sexual interactions.
now i suspected probably 12 other dogs of being used sexually, but had no indicators where i could be certain. out of that sample group only one indicated fear/anxiety behaviors. since the dog was a rescue and those behaviors had been noted before it came to live with those specific people, its a poor example. out of the other 11 or so dominance issues were the only consequence if there was indeed sexual activity. of course in an un-neutered male dominance issues occur frequently anyway. (spay and neuter your animal friends guys!!)
now, out of allll those cases there was one intact male who refused to mate with bitches. he would sniff and lick, but would not mount one. nor would he mount other males in dominance display. this was the actual reason i was hired to help. it took 3 weeks before i broke down and said that it was possible the animal had been trained " before you got him" to interact sexually with humans. the lady of the house blushed and ran out of the room. the husband admitted it was true. with me being very open minded i got him to admit it was they who had trained the dog to do so. and that they had done it by rewarding his mounting behaviors across the board ( very bad idea) from a young age. so yes, one animal did have a preference for humans, but only by training.
i convinced them that the world has enough unloved puppies already and to not breed any more animals at all.
now all that rambling was to illustrate the principle of abuse. abuse implies harm being done. for myself i would shoot any bastard who was cruel to an animal, but i hate people in general anyway. but i know very well what the signs of abuse are beyond the physical obvious ones. it could be said that since the animals i interacted with were owned by people who cared enough to pay someone to come help them train their dogs that the sample is a bad one. i disagree. if someone didnt care about their animal enough to train it, feed it, shelter it etc, i dont believe that they would care enough about it to take it into their body.
the neglected, abused or abandoned animals i tried to rehabilitate and train over the years werent taken into the bedrooms of their previous "owners". they honestly werent capable, human, enough to see the dogs as anything but posessions to use, abuse and discard of on a whim.
again, i reiterate, i dont think bestiality is the number one thing in the world, but i do not view it as abuse of the animal, nor is it so bad a thing as to scorn or revile the persons who do it
Just wondering where all the TL
