Zoophilia
Aspen
that it is shunned, and considered horrible, and then people say the direct
opposite. I cannot seem to find a majority opinion from furs on whether or
not zoophilia is OK.
And yes I know, just about anything is OK because we furs in the fandom
don't judge people, but in your opinion, is it good or bad?
-Aspen
Ben
I doubt you'll find anything definitive here. Or anywhere for that matter.
Personally, I find it to be very distubing, but I let myself turn a blind eye
to it. Now, if you don't mind, I'll be getting to the door now before this
whole thread goes up in flames.
-Dexter, you know, the fox
Ironhoof
certainly there are furs who are also "zoos" and there are "zoos" who
are also "furs" ... but not all furs are "zoo," and not all "zoos" are
fur. There's certainly a 'union' of the two groups, but there are also
portions of each that are (or at least consider themselves) exclusive of
the other.
On 23 Jan 2003 21:02:08 -0800, Starling <nos...@hooey.invalid> wrote:
>*shrugs* I suppose if two people want to, and one of 'em happens to
>be an animal it's not bad. I wouldn't call it good though, always a
>risk of things like syphilis. Actually, there are probably lots more
>STDs between humans, since zoophilia is so rare. There are
>certain... compatibility issues, anatomy and such, but generally the
>interested parties can work something out.
>
>One thing zoophilia isn't, is representative of the furry fandom. But
>it's a subset I suppose. I'm of the opinion that "An it harm none, do
>as you will."
>
>
>Starling
Wuf
Do What Thou Wilt
--
Wuf
Elizabeth A. Johnson
Starling wrote:
> Ironhoof <iron...@NOSPAM.wolfhowl.org> writes:
>
> > I dunno, I think its not so much a subset as a "close lifestyle" ...
>
> I guess then 'we dunno?' :) It's all greek to me.
no, that's a whole other sexual act altogether. :P
Avenging_Lioness
--
"I'm wet... I'm naked... your sister is wearing my clothes... and this is all
part of some evil plot TO RULE THE WORLD AS A SOGGY CHIMP IN HIS BIRTHDAY
SUIT?!?!?!?"
Dave
great Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come against
him.
It depends, I don't have any problem with it since It doesn not seem
to harm animnals in many cases.
However, The Ideal Is that there is a Human partner out there for
everyone And evidence tends to suggest that zoophilia is the behaviour
of the Zeta male etc, I.e the one who cannot find anything else.
This doesn't nesecerely mean that people who do it are slobbering
desperates, indeed it tends to probably be more subtle than that.
But the Ideal and best for everyone is a human partner, due to the
inherent superiority of humans in many areas, For example
conversation, relational feedback etc. Laudate hominorum.
---
Forget the power of technology, science and common humanity.
Forget the promise of progress and understanding,
for there is no peace amongst the stars,
only an eternity of carnage and slaughter and the laughter of thirsting gods.
Ironhoof
>It depends, I don't have any problem with it since It doesn not seem
>to harm animnals in many cases.
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you ... most individuals calling
themselves 'zoophiles' are nothing more than warm hole / warm dildo
fetishseekers who are only 'into it' because of the novelty of it and do
not give sufficient regard for the well-being of their 'mates.'
>
>However, The Ideal Is that there is a Human partner out there for
>everyone And evidence tends to suggest that zoophilia is the behaviour
>of the Zeta male etc, I.e the one who cannot find anything else.
Ummm, well, I can say that's not true in my case as I've had a number of
humans initiate relationships with me that, frankly, I should have
refused. I had plenty of sexual outlet ... more than I cared for, in
fact ... with my human "partners"
>
>This doesn't nesecerely mean that people who do it are slobbering
>desperates, indeed it tends to probably be more subtle than that.
>But the Ideal and best for everyone is a human partner,
Who are you to judge, and how are you to judge what is "best" and
"ideal" for everyone? Some people say the "ideal and best" relationship
for everyone is a monogamous heterosexual relationship and absolutely no
sex outside of marriage, and divorce is a sin.
For me, a human relationship is the /least/ ideal. In two relationships
with supposed other 'zoos,' my human partners became jealous of my
emotional bond with a dog; one of those two maintained an 'open'
relationship with me I had no problem with - they slept with as many
people as they needed, as I was not able to satisfy their lustful
appetite, so long as they remained safe and sane and took precautions.
I was 'free' to do so as well, but I had no interest outside my canine
mate. /They/ became jealous of me and the canine!
There is no human out there that comes close to being an 'ideal' partner
for me ... this I have found through a lot of heartache on my part and
those human partners I tried to explore relationships with.
> due to the
>inherent superiority of humans in many areas, For example
>conversation, relational feedback etc. Laudate hominorum.
When it comes to 'conversation,' I'd prefer not having any at all to the
'conversations' I've had in my human relationships.
I have yet to find a single human to match my canine partners for
relational feedback (communication failure has utterly destroyed every
relationship I've been in, whereas I've had terrific success in
communicating both ways with my non-human partners).
So long as I am loving and a good provider, I know my canine mate will
always love me. The same cannot be said a human mate.
Dave
until great Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come
against him.
>Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you ... most individuals calling
>themselves 'zoophiles' are nothing more than warm hole / warm dildo
Dildogging should be a capital offence. (Possibly)
>fetishseekers who are only 'into it' because of the novelty of it and do
>not give sufficient regard for the well-being of their 'mates.'
Who are you to judge?
I do agree though that there tends to be or at least appear to be a
lot of people out there who want to watch their Wife/GF be screwed by
a dog or simliar.
>Ummm, well, I can say that's not true in my case as I've had a number of
>humans initiate relationships with me that, frankly, I should have
>refused. I had plenty of sexual outlet ... more than I cared for, in
>fact ... with my human "partners"
However As you stated the relationships failed, thus you returned to
dogs who it is very easy to have a relationship with.
>Who are you to judge, and how are you to judge what is "best" and
>"ideal" for everyone? Some people say the "ideal and best" relationship
>for everyone is a monogamous heterosexual relationship and absolutely no
>sex outside of marriage, and divorce is a sin.
I am sexually attracted to animals (dogs) myself as well as humans,
not to mention I am a citizen of a (in theory) democratic country etc,
All of which entitles me to judge you.
>There is no human out there that comes close to being an 'ideal' partner
>for me ... this I have found through a lot of heartache on my part and
>those human partners I tried to explore relationships with.
And why is that?
Why do you love dogs?
Do you love dogs because they behave like dogs?
They will happily eat their own shit?
They will screw their parents?
They will bite people?
They will bark and piss on things, they have no morals or higher
inteligence?
animals are mirrors in which we love ourselves,
We don't love dogs because they are dogs, We love dogs because they
are loyal like no human can be, Because they require little effort to
maintain a relationship with compared to a person.
Indeed while I am not saying that they are little meat robots, but as
far as they go, You put Walks, food, maybe some playing, in. And you
get poo, pee, sex and slavish devotion out.
And that;s soimply how dogs work, They see you, their owner as alpha.
That;s all there is. simple sycophancy.
It's not a relationship of equals.
>When it comes to 'conversation,' I'd prefer not having any at all to the
>'conversations' I've had in my human relationships.
>
>I have yet to find a single human to match my canine partners for
>relational feedback (communication failure has utterly destroyed every
>relationship I've been in, whereas I've had terrific success in
>communicating both ways with my non-human partners).
Whose fualt was it that communication failure destroyed the
relationship?
or was it on both parts?
>So long as I am loving and a good provider, I know my canine mate will
>always love me. The same cannot be said a human mate.
Exactly!
It's not a relationship of equals, You dog obeys you because you are
big alpha dog, not nesecerily out of love or devotion like a human
could,
But simply because it's programmed into it.
O am attracted to Dogs in a sexual way, But I don't know If I want a
relationship that is not one of equals, A relationship with a person
can promise more, delivir less, or more.
A relationship with a dog is "safe" indeed.
Warren Forest
news:gq923v8gptmsd6hjp...@4ax.com...
> I have yet to find a single human to match my canine partners for
> relational feedback (communication failure has utterly destroyed every
> relationship I've been in, whereas I've had terrific success in
> communicating both ways with my non-human partners).
I guess I can sympathize with your plight, though I view what your talking
about differently.
To me, the whole reason I don't want to be a zoophile is because what kind
of conversations, feedback, personal growth through challenge, expansion of
horizons, shared experiences, etc... can I expect to get from a dog? ("So
honey, what do you think about (whatever)?" "Arf!") Um... not much. So
why would I want to be a zoo? There's not much appeal for me.
> So long as I am loving and a good provider, I know my canine mate will
> always love me. The same cannot be said a human mate.
"Love" is of course a word that means many things. To me, the love of a
human being is much harder to nuture and sustain, which is why it is so much
more precious. "Blind devotion" just doesn't seem very loving to me.
--
Warren Forest, Canis Lupus Arctos - The Canadian Arctic Wolf
FCW3a A- C D++ H+ M- P+ R+ T++++ W Z- Sm#
RLET a30 c++ d-- e+ f h+ i+ j p- sm#
Change "Cold" to "Hot" to e-mail me.
Aspen
but dogs a different personalities. _VERY_ different, more than most people
realize. I worked at multiple Humane Societies, so i found this out through
constant interaction with other dogs. Also, dogs will show more affection
to you the more you intereact with it, care for it, etc. beyond just being a
normal pet owner.
And what really pisses me off, is I can never put into words what I want to
say lately. :)
_Aspen
"Warren Forest" <warren...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:b0sggq$1oj$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
Scarlet Otter
wrote:
>And what really pisses me off, is I can never put into words what I want to
>say lately. :)
>
I call that a mental 404. Happens to me frequently. I'll have quite
a few comments to make, then when I sit down and actually start
working on the post, a large portion of my thoughts get lost between
the brain and the fingers. :)
-- Otter
Ironhoof
>And what really pisses me off, is I can never put into words what I want to
>say lately. :)
Put them into howls and pants, then. ;)
-- Ironhoof
Ironhoof
>"Warren Forest" <warren...@coldmail.com> writes:
>
>> "Love" is of course a word that means many things. To me, the love of a
>> human being is much harder to nuture and sustain, which is why it is so much
>> more precious. "Blind devotion" just doesn't seem very loving to
>> me.
>
>For some people, that's what they want from the humans they have
>relationships with. It's not just a zoophilia problem...
I don't expect blind devoution. My canine mate is extremely selective
on whom she'll trust, as she's been abused by others in her past. Dogs
don't have stupid 'human nature' in the way of a loving relationship,
however. I consider dogs and many other species superior to humans.
Not to many species I know of take pride in the ability to destroy
millions of lives with the mere pushing of a few buttons ...
Warren Forest
news:b0telb$2ovk$1...@velox.critter.net...
> Yet, not all dogs follow in blind devotion. Yes, they all do to an
extent,
> but dogs a different personalities. _VERY_ different, more than most
people
> realize.
Agreed completely, but they still do not approach the social and emotional
complexity of human beings. Let me put it this way:
How many Positive Integers are there? Infinite.
How many Numbers (of all kinds) are there? Infinite.
Both the same, on the surface, but obviously one kind is far more complex.
Yes, there are infinite complex variations possible in animal-human
relationships, but it's still not nearly as complex as a human-human
relationships.
--
Warren Forest, Canis Lupus Arctos - The Canadian Arctic Wolf
FCW3a A- C D++ H+ M- P+ R+ T++++ W Z- Sm#
RLET a31 c++ d-- e+ f h+ i+ j p- sm#
Warren Forest
> I don't expect blind devoution. My canine mate is extremely selective
> on whom she'll trust, as she's been abused by others in her past. Dogs
> don't have stupid 'human nature' in the way of a loving relationship,
> however.
They also don't have a lot of things like understanding and comprehension,
either. To an extent, yes, but as equals? Of course not.
It's a sociological fact that men tend to marry women who are slightly
younger, slightly poorer, slightly less-educated, etc... for the very same
reason. They want a loving relationship, but they want to make sure it is
something they can handle.
Bizarre, isn't it? That men are conditioned to believe that a "loving"
relationship is one where they are superior and in-control. They actually
believe that if things are too tough for them, then it must *not* be love.
> I consider dogs and many other species superior to humans.
> Not to many species I know of take pride in the ability to destroy
> millions of lives with the mere pushing of a few buttons ...
Human beings are also the only species that recognizes the evil of such an
action. That's the thing about people, we're capable of great good and
great evil.
--
Warren Forest, Canis Lupus Arctos - The Canadian Arctic Wolf
FCW3a A- C D++ H+ M- P+ R+ T++++ W Z- Sm#
RLET a31 c++ d-- e+ f h+ i+ j p- sm#
qwertyuiop
> lot of people out there who want to watch their Wife/GF be screwed by
> a dog or simliar.
That is a more of a dominance thing than a zoo thing probably. Viewing the
wife/gf in a submissive role and "humiliated" by intercourse with an animal.
It's a power trip, a dom/sub thing, not zoo.
> I am sexually attracted to animals (dogs) myself as well as humans,
That is because you are psychologically disturbed. Zoophilia is, much like
pedophilia, not a "fetish" as much as a severe psychological
disturbance...not to mention illegal in most civilized countries. The
difference between sexually active zoos and sexually active pedos is that
zoos can "not get caught" if they have half a brain because animals can't
report them to the police.
Please note that this is not an attack on you as a person. You may very well
be a really nice and educated guy. The sexual attraction to another species
though, is an abnormal (in the sense: disturbed) behaviour. I'm not bashing
you. In RL I'm sure we could have a few beers together and shoot some pool
etc., but I'm still stating the facts about your sexual orientation as I see
them. Sorry if it offends you, but that's my take on it...and I'm entitled
to it.
> O am attracted to Dogs in a sexual way, But I don't know If I want a
> relationship that is not one of equals, A relationship with a person
> can promise more, delivir less, or more.
All dog-owners have a 'relationship' with their dog. They are very social
animals. As the owner you are the alpha male, the pack leader and the dog
follows you. A the fact that active zoos claim a "loving reciprocal
relationship" with their victims is exactly the same delusions that pedos
have, ie "the child wanted it as much as I did" (= a distorted grasp of
reality = mental disturbance).
Dave
Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come against him.
>That is because you are psychologically disturbed. Zoophilia is, much like
>pedophilia, not a "fetish" as much as a severe psychological
>disturbance...not to mention illegal in most civilized countries. The
>difference between sexually active zoos and sexually active pedos is that
>zoos can "not get caught" if they have half a brain because animals can't
>report them to the police.
The comparison with paedophilia fails due to the fact that animals can
be sexually mature and can consent to sex, with each other, and they
can initiate contact as seen as for example when a dog humps your leg.
>but I'm still stating the facts about your sexual orientation as I see
>them. Sorry if it offends you, but that's my take on it...and I'm entitled
>to it.
The facts as you see them are incorrect.
"Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R,
APA, 1987) zoophilia is no longer categorized as a disorder by
itself. The diagnostic committee that worked
on the paraphilia section of the DSM-III-R concluded that "zoophilia
is virtually never a clinically significant
problem by itself" They omitted it as a formal diagnosis and listed “
zoophilia” in the
diagnostic label of “ Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified” (302.90)."
Ironhoof
wrote:
>> I do agree though that there tends to be or at least appear to be a
>> lot of people out there who want to watch their Wife/GF be screwed by
>> a dog or simliar.
>
>That is a more of a dominance thing than a zoo thing probably. Viewing the
>wife/gf in a submissive role and "humiliated" by intercourse with an animal.
>It's a power trip, a dom/sub thing, not zoo.
>
>> I am sexually attracted to animals (dogs) myself as well as humans,
>
>That is because you are psychologically disturbed.
The American Psychological Association disagrees with you; zoophilia is
not classified as a disease.
> Zoophilia is, much like pedophilia,
Zoosexuality is farther removed from paedorasty than any form of
anthrosexuality.
> not a "fetish" as much as a severe psychological
>disturbance...
Again, the American Psychological Association disagrees with you.
>not to mention illegal in most civilized countries. The
>difference between sexually active zoos and sexually active pedos is that
>zoos can "not get caught" if they have half a brain because animals can't
>report them to the police.
And, you clearly ignore, the fact that a 'zoophile' (as opposed to a
mere 'zoosexual' which is all most zoophiles, admittedly, are and not
true 'zoophiles' in the sense of the word from its constructs 'zoo'
(animal) phile (lover). True lovers don't 'train' their partners but
explore mutually pleasure.
What /is/ disturbing, when objectively viewed, are non-consentual
mutilations and forced sexual situations for purposes of greed and
profit that are commonly accepted in 'civilized countries' in the form
of spays and castrations that are, by definition, non-consentual. You
attempt to liken zoophilia to paedorasty ... were there a genuine link
(which there isn't any established case for; there is a stronger, better
documented and more well-known case for, in fact, a link between the
Catholic priesthood and paedorasty...), this would make such behavior
even more abhorrent - who would accept parents having their children
spayed or castrated or, better yet, laws in place enforcing it?
>
>Please note that this is not an attack on you as a person. You may very well
>be a really nice and educated guy. The sexual attraction to another species
>though, is an abnormal (in the sense: disturbed)
What basis is there for the equating abnormal/unusual for disturbed?
Are people with green eyes disturbed?
Gay people?
Muslim Americans?
Americans who aren't materialistic?
Communist Americans?
Parapalegic Americans?
Atheist Americans?
All are 'abnormal' ... through your equating abnormal with
psychologically disturbed, they are all such.
>behaviour. I'm not bashing
>you. In RL I'm sure we could have a few beers together and shoot some pool
>etc., but I'm still stating the facts about your sexual orientation as I see
>them. Sorry if it offends you, but that's my take on it...and I'm entitled
>to it.
>
Certainly, everyone's entitled to an opinion. I hold the opinion that
George W. Bush is not a legitimate president, for instance, that his
decree that Americans "don't care" about an accurate tally to ensure the
will of the people was met is very disturbing and represents a dark
chapter in the very recent history of the United States.
The question is whether you feel your opinion is sufficiently justified
for it to be enforced by law. Do you feel it right for someone to be
jailed because their life and beliefs are different than yours, if it is
established scientifically the practice of that life and beliefs are not
abusive? (There are several case studies concluding zoosexuality in and
of itself is not abusive, though certainly some acts are abusive - any
act involving the forcible restraint and against the expressed will of
the creature is a rape and the victim can and does suffer long-term
psychological damage from such an attack ... something I have,
unfortunately, witnessed).
>> O am attracted to Dogs in a sexual way, But I don't know If I want a
>> relationship that is not one of equals, A relationship with a person
>> can promise more, delivir less, or more.
>
>All dog-owners have a 'relationship' with their dog. They are very social
>animals. As the owner you are the alpha male, the pack leader and the dog
>follows you.
I have a non-dominant relationship with my canine mate and have had no
problems. I do not assert dominance or force except where her life is
immediately threatened if I do not do so (running out on a highway or
whatever). I do excercise containment and do all I can to ensure her
security, but for the most part she chooses to be at my side, with me at
all times and I have never 'trained' her to do so. She fears being away
from me ... she and I each suffer 'seperation anxiety' when apart.
>A the fact that active zoos claim a "loving reciprocal
>relationship" with their victims is exactly the same delusions
Your opinion only.
>that pedos
>have, ie "the child wanted it as much as I did" (= a distorted grasp of
>reality = mental disturbance).
Its the exact same claim made by anyone and their lover, so to liken it
to paedorasty in that sense is pointless. Men say that about their
wives if their relationship is 'going well;' wives of men; gays and
lesbians of their lovers; etc.
And, P.S.: I'll not take personal offense to your opinion if you don't
to mine -- I enjoy a good debate where both sides respect one another
and I sense you at least have such a drive. If you do not wish to
participate in such a debate with me, however, I understand.
-- Ironhoof
Dennis Carr
> I have yet to find a single human to match my canine partners for
> relational feedback (communication failure has utterly destroyed every
> relationship I've been in, whereas I've had terrific success in
> communicating both ways with my non-human partners).
Time to contribute.
You realize that the ideal human is out there. You just have to not look
for them. Believe it or not, it's how I met my wife - I didn't look for
her.
> So long as I am loving and a good provider, I know my canine mate will
> always love me. The same cannot be said a human mate.
Because dogs by nature are a bit more trusting. It's been said too that
animals will see us more like God.
Other than children,
humans are rarely capable of blind faith such as that.
--
Dennis Carr - ke6...@spamcop.net | I may be out of my mind,
http://www.northarc.com/~ke6isf | But I have more fun that way.
------------------------------------+-------------------------------
Furcode v1.3:
FFT1>2a>c/G4c A- C->+ D>+ H+ M P R+ T+++ W Z-> Sm# RLL/AT a28
cl++>+++/o++ d+ e+ f h+++ iw++>+++ j+ p++ sm*
Dennis Carr
> I have yet to find a single human to match my canine partners for
> relational feedback (communication failure has utterly destroyed every
> relationship I've been in, whereas I've had terrific success in
> communicating both ways with my non-human partners).
Time to contribute.
You realize that the ideal human is out there. You just have to not look
for them. Believe it or not, it's how I met my wife - I didn't look for
her.
> So long as I am loving and a good provider, I know my canine mate will
> always love me. The same cannot be said a human mate.
Because dogs by nature are a bit more trusting. It's been said too that
qwertyuiop
> be sexually mature and can consent to sex, with each other, and they
> can initiate contact as seen as for example when a dog humps your leg.
That is an incorrect assumtion. This is not how the canine psyche works. For
instance; a dog with an "assertive" owner never show this behaviour towards
the owner. This is something that happens when there is doubt in the dogs
mind about who really is the alpha individual. A dog humping your leg is NOT
an attempt at sexual contact. It is a way for the dog to assert itself and
try to vie for leadership. Male dogs attempt to mount other male dogs all
the time. It is not "doggy-homosexuality", right? It's a way to determine
hierarcy in the pack. It's the same when a dog tries to hump your leg. It's
checking "who's the boss" in your pack. That is how it works.
> "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R,
> ...label of " Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified" (302.90)."
Ok, I stand corrected on that point.
However, I still feel that sexual attraction towards another species
constitutes a "crossed wire" in the wetware, since it serves no purpose for
the propagation of the species. And now you will probably answer "Well, do
you think that homosexuals are mentally ill too?" and I cannot/will not
answer this because of anti-hate legislation. Without bashing anyone - I
still maintain that a sexual preference that cannot propagate the species is
"nature gone wrong". Genetic/cerebral structure variations are plentiful in
nature. That is just evolution. And sometimes things misfire. Zoophilia,
pedophilia, homosexuality are all sexual variations that serve no purpose
from a biological point of view and therefore they are "non-viable paths of
the species homo sapiens". Sure, a zoo or a homosexual can be (and most
probably are) perfectly ordinary nice people. It's not their fault that
their wetware got slightly misconfigured during boot-up. You can't choose
your preferences, but that doesn't mean that any preference you happen to be
born with is "good" (that was badly worded, but you understand what I
mean?).
BTW, sorry 'bout the mail snafu. Should have replied to group... This is the
"getting back to you answer".
qwertyuiop
> not classified as a disease.
As stated in my response to Dave. I stand corrected here.
> > Zoophilia is, much like pedophilia,
> Zoosexuality is farther removed from paedorasty than any form of
> anthrosexuality.
I'm afraid that you have misunderstood my text here. I did not say that "zoo
is much like pedophilia", I said that "zoo is a disturbance and not just a
fetish, just like pedophilia is a disturbence and not just a fetish". I did
not say (or mean) that zoo is like pedophilia. I tried to make the point
that zoophilia is more than just a fetish by giving an example of another
sexual preference that also is a disturbance.
For instance: bdsm = fetish, breasts/feet/ass-fetish = fetish, pedophilia =
disturbance, zoophilia = disturbance.
But as you and Dave informed me. It is not classified as a disturbance, so
ok. In my response to Dave I clarify why I think that it is/ought to be
though.
> (animal) phile (lover). True lovers don't 'train' their partners but
> explore mutually pleasure.
Ahh, but here is where I think that you have taken a wrong turn. Just like
the "dog humping leg" example in my response to Dave - to "explore mutual
pleasure" means that you project your human ideas/longings into an animal
that just isn't wired like you. You and, for instance, your dog cannot
"explore mutual pleasure" because dogs just don't work that way, humans do.
The same goes for all animals (with the possible exeption for bonobo apes,
who also are our closest relatives).
> You
> attempt to liken zoophilia to paedorasty ...
Again, this is a misunderstanding on your part, so we should probably not
pursue it any further. I never attempted such a thing.
> What basis is there for the equating abnormal/unusual for disturbed?
> All are 'abnormal' ... through your equating abnormal with
> psychologically disturbed, they are all such.
There is none, becuase I don't do that. Ok, since english in not my native
language the communication suffers like this sometimes. I don't euqate
abnormal with being disturbed. Abnormal = that which does not conform to the
norm. Zoophilia is abnormal. But is is "disturbed"? There is where you and I
differ in opinion. I perhaps used the words a bit carelessly, but let's not
nit-pick. These things happen when you make arguments in a foreign language.
> Certainly, everyone's entitled to an opinion. I hold the opinion that
> George W. Bush is not a legitimate president, for instance, that his
> decree that Americans "don't care" about an accurate tally to ensure the
> will of the people was met is very disturbing and represents a dark
> chapter in the very recent history of the United States.
This is very much true. For gods sake, Al Gore WON the election. But he
wasn't made president. That was/is appaling. And I personally think that he
would have made a much better american president than George "Duuh?" Bush".
> The question is whether you feel your opinion is sufficiently justified
> for it to be enforced by law. Do you feel it right for someone to be
> jailed because their life and beliefs are different than yours, if it is
> established scientifically the practice of that life and beliefs are not
> abusive?
I don't think that zoos belong in jail. They can't help that their wetware
was misconfigured sometime during boot-up (as I replied to Dave). A
"passive" zoo, needs no intervetion from society. Everyone can think/feel
whatever they want/need to. An "active" zoo, needs for society to help him
by giving him therapy/treatment so that he can perhaps overcome his mental
problem to some extent (become a passive zoo). A repeat offender needs to be
isolated from animals (forced hospitalization/jail) during the
therapy/treatment.
And again, I base this upon the statement that this is not a "different
belief", but a mental health issue.
> the creature is a rape and the victim can and does suffer long-term
> psychological damage from such an attack ... something I have,
> unfortunately, witnessed).
Yes, that's just cruelty to animals. That is reprehensible, to say the
least. But my point is that the "sexual relationship" cannot exist in the
manner that zoos think they can exists because animals don't function that
way.
> security, but for the most part she chooses to be at my side, with me at
> all times and I have never 'trained' her to do so. She fears being away
> from me ... she and I each suffer 'seperation anxiety' when apart.
Of course. They are totally social animals. You are the alpha individual.
Your dog will follow you and suffer when her pack-leader goes missing. It's
perfectly normal behaviour for a dog.
> >A the fact that active zoos claim a "loving reciprocal
> >relationship" with their victims is exactly the same delusions
>
> Your opinion only.
Well, hehe, not exactly "my opinion only". It's shared by well...almost
everybody, to my knowledge... (exept for zoos, of course, but that's a
given) :)
> And, P.S.: I'll not take personal offense to your opinion if you don't
> to mine -- I enjoy a good debate where both sides respect one another
> and I sense you at least have such a drive. If you do not wish to
> participate in such a debate with me, however, I understand.
Oh, I do enjoy a good debate. And I'll not take offence at your opinions. A
good debate is food for the brain...
Dave
Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come against him.
>However, I still feel that sexual attraction towards another species
You Feel. It is a subjective
>constitutes a "crossed wire" in the wetware, since it serves no purpose for
>the propagation of the species. And now you will probably answer "Well, do
>you think that homosexuals are mentally ill too?" and I cannot/will not
>answer this because of anti-hate legislation. Without bashing anyone - I
>still maintain that a sexual preference that cannot propagate the species is
>"nature gone wrong". Genetic/cerebral structure variations are plentiful in
>nature. That is just evolution. And sometimes things misfire. Zoophilia,
>pedophilia, homosexuality are all sexual variations that serve no purpose
>from a biological point of view and therefore they are "non-viable paths of
>the species homo sapiens". Sure, a zoo or a homosexual can be (and most
>probably are) perfectly ordinary nice people. It's not their fault that
>their wetware got slightly misconfigured during boot-up. You can't choose
>your preferences, but that doesn't mean that any preference you happen to be
>born with is "good" (that was badly worded, but you understand what I
>mean?).
Define Good,
The whole way you have phrased and framed this makes it look like you
think Gay People are somehow Badder/worse than "normal" people, It is
so that homosexuality will not help propagate the species, but then
how does differnt colored eyes or different nose shapes help?
I'd say judged on this, You are a very intolerent and prejudiced
person.
---
No more heroes
Warren Forest
news:3e3276e2...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> The comparison with paedophilia fails due to the fact that animals can
> be sexually mature and can consent to sex, with each other, and they
> can initiate contact as seen as for example when a dog humps your leg.
In physical terms, I agree, but in psychological terms, the two are similar
in many regards. By that, I'm refering to the human in the relationship.
While the animal may be fine psychologically, is the human? Pedophiles are
attracted to children for similar reasons that zoophiles are attracted to
animals.
Do pedophiles really have a valid point that their love for children is
sincere? Obviously, we attack them because of the damage they cause to the
child, but is that the only reason?
qwertyuiop
> > So long as I am loving and a good provider, I know my canine mate will
> > always love me. The same cannot be said a human mate.
>
> Because dogs by nature are a bit more trusting. It's been said too that
> animals will see us more like God.
>
> Other than children,
> humans are rarely capable of blind faith such as that.
No, it's not that dogs are "more trusting". It is just not how the canice
psyche works. Any behavioralist worth his paycheck will inform you of such
things. Or any 1st year veteriany student, for that matter. Where the zoos
err is where they 'transfer' human behavioural patterns and human 'ideas' to
animal pshychies. They (seem to) desperately want to think that when, for
instance, a dog humps your leg it seeks sexual attention.
The dog is a highly social animal that can interact with a human leader on a
very high level. But they still are dogs, and THAT is where the zoos
misinterpret the animals intentions/feelings. Well, I'm drinking right now,
so I won't go into detail. I'm having a hard enought time as it is hitting
the right keys on the keyboard. It's saturday night here in western
europe... :) Time to go out and get totally pissed! :)
Ironhoof
wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 03:55:18 +0000, Ironhoof wrote:
>
>> I have yet to find a single human to match my canine partners for
>> relational feedback (communication failure has utterly destroyed every
>> relationship I've been in, whereas I've had terrific success in
>> communicating both ways with my non-human partners).
>
>Time to contribute.
>
>You realize that the ideal human is out there. You just have to not look
>for them. Believe it or not, it's how I met my wife - I didn't look for
>her.
I thought I found the ideal human three times over. I had some 'magical
times' when the whole world vanished and I and the other human were the
only two things to exist in the whole universe ... have had more than a
day pass being intimate with someone and I didn't notice a single second
on the clock go by, nor the rising and setting of the sun ... but it
didn't last.
>
>> So long as I am loving and a good provider, I know my canine mate will
>> always love me. The same cannot be said a human mate.
>
>Because dogs by nature are a bit more trusting. It's been said too that
>animals will see us more like God.
I don't agree. I learned to read her every reaction, every nuance in
her behavior and I learned to read exactly what she was feeling, what
she desired. I could tell the difference between hunger and thirst,
boredom and depression, anger and fear, and love.
Was it some translation I came up with precise intonations of woofs? Am
I some kinda genius who could make a billion dollars writing a doggie
translator based on what I learned?
No ... it was a simple combination of reading her specific 'signs' and a
far less definable but no less important factor of being 'in tune' with
her. I've been 'in tune' for humans, but it doesn't last ... all human
relationships fade and chill over time; my canine relationships only
increase over time.
Ironhoof
§ñühwØLf
illegibly<5mi43vkd5s2hrle49...@4ax.com>:
Take a typing course?
~Prince Snuhwolf~
§ñühwØLf
illegibly<b0tlpp$2sls$1...@velox.critter.net>:
>Aspen <dunkelz...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:b0telb$2ovk$1...@velox.critter.net...
>> Yet, not all dogs follow in blind devotion. Yes, they all do to an
>extent,
>> but dogs a different personalities. _VERY_ different, more than
most
>people
>> realize.
>
>Agreed completely, but they still do not approach the social and
emotional
>complexity of human beings. Let me put it this way:
>
>How many Positive Integers are there? Infinite.
>How many Numbers (of all kinds) are there? Infinite.
>
>Both the same, on the surface, but obviously one kind is far more
complex.
>
>Yes, there are infinite complex variations possible in animal-human
>relationships, but it's still not nearly as complex as a human-human
>relationships.
>
Still pissing into the wind I see.You see, however, WArrY...people will
rationalise their behaivior to suit their wants."I wanna...an its OK
because..."
Besides when you point out that the socially retarded will grope
animals because its emotionally safer than having to deal with
rejection...well, you know :O)
~Prince Snuhwolf~
Dennis Carr
> I thought I found the ideal human three times over. I had some 'magical
> times' when the whole world vanished and I and the other human were the
> only two things to exist in the whole universe ... have had more than a
> day pass being intimate with someone and I didn't notice a single second
> on the clock go by, nor the rising and setting of the sun ... but it
> didn't last.
A little secret: those so-called magic moments are rare in the long run.
Put aside all the preconceived notions of that "spark", all the
perpetually lovey-dovey stuff they say always happens in fairy tales and
romance novels. "Happily ever after" is a lie.
Believe me, I'm not gonna stop you between you and your dog. Far be it
from me to do that. I probably won't change your mind, either, about
human relationships or relationships with other furs. But, I'm gonna dump
at you about my observations, and do so for all to see, because maybe
there's somebody here on alt.lifestyle.furry that needs to read it. I'm
not gonna pretend to be some expert (I'm clearly not), I'm just gonna
dump. You might find it useless, you might find it offensive, or you
might find it to be insightful. You might plonk me. Either way, this is
some fur named Dennis Carr, whose ham radio call sign is plastered all
over his .sig and his address, pouring his brain out about love over NNTP.
Having been married for just shy of two years, there are things I've
observed between my mate and I - we aren't always happy with each other.
Some mornings I just want to hold her forever, some nights it's all I can
do to bring myself to forgive her for that petty outburst, and sometimes I
actually have to remind myself that, deep down, I really love this woman.
I suppose it's because it goes far beyond the more...um, tangible things
that most people I've seen equate with love. You know, riches, the
ubiquitous "spark", the moments of universal oblivity, sex, fetishes, that
sort of thing. In my own relationship, it's gotten to a point where it
doesn't quite feel right if she's not beside me in bed, or if I'm doing
something without her for an extended period of time besides work, or
things like that.
S/he's supposed to grow on you, and you on them. You're supposed to argue
- as dysfunctional as it sounds, it is a sign you're paying attention.
You're gonna want sex when they don't, and vice versa. You're both going
to want that alone time. He wants the garbage pizza, she just wants
pepperoni. You'll be disgusted with each other at times, you'll forgive
each other.
But it's not going to be anything you expected. Quite frankly, my ideal
woman would have been something like Belldandy from the Ah! Megamisama
anime series, with a little less of the self-worth problems that she
exhibits (and definitely much furrier). Instead, I married another closet
fur from the east coast with her own set of problems who nobody
understood. What those problems are is not in the scope of this post.
And that spark? It's gone. When you have ignited the lamp, you
extinguish the punk.
In the end though, it has to be unconditional. It has to be, it's what
keeps those 50-year marriages going despite the fact that he can't get it
up and she has boobs that sag to sea level, or that she can't cook and he
can't clean. Ask your respective deity what that is, but I'll try to sum
that up for you - it's what keeps things going despite the fact that you
wake up and are utterly offended by his/her morning breath. You actually
have to choose to "love" somebody. Friendship is "because of", yet love is
"in spite of". If it becomes conditional, you might as well just dump
them and get over the pain of the loss right there, because it just ain't
happening with out that "unconditional" part. It becomes merely business,
and that isn't what it's all about.
Recommended reading: the Song of Solomon from the old testament,
throughout. It's a bit esoteric, but try and defocus. If you don't have
a bible, go to http://www.gutenberg.net and get the text version. (ain't
public domain great? =^_^= )
Oh yeah, save Dr. Ruth for later on if you feel the need to get her
advice.
Nightwind
> And yes I know, just about anything is OK because we furs in the fandom
> don't judge people, but in your opinion, is it good or bad?
I can summerise in my opions, that rape is rape, that no means no, and
that most animals are very good at being able to say no in a way that
anything with a brain can recognise.
--
Nightwind
"The wind has no destination"
Aim Nightwnd90
Icq 23044454
Scarlet Otter
wrote:
It is not a problem with knowing how to type. I think the problem
lies in an inability to stay focused due to having so much to say but
...Oh, dammit! I forgot what it was I was going to say here. :p
-- Otter
Pat MacGregor
> The more I read, the more controversial zoophilia is. I read in one area
> that it is shunned, and considered horrible, and then people say the direct
> opposite. I cannot seem to find a majority opinion from furs on whether or
> not zoophilia is OK.
>
> And yes I know, just about anything is OK because we furs in the fandom
> don't judge people, but in your opinion, is it good or bad?
>
>
>
Here we go. It's time for the quarerly bash the zoos and beastyphiles flamewar
again.
The lil fox gets out a big bag of marshmallows and a long pointy stick and settles
back to watch the pretty flames and make s'mores.
Dave
great Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come against
him.
>Here we go. It's time for the quarerly bash the zoos and beastyphiles flamewar
>again.
>
>The lil fox gets out a big bag of marshmallows and a long pointy stick and settles
>back to watch the pretty flames and make s'mores.
Not at all, we are conducting an intelligent and Moral debate on
ethics and acutalities of Zoophilia.
---
No Heroes
Dave
Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come against him.
>The dog is a highly social animal that can interact with a human leader on a
>very high level. But they still are dogs, and THAT is where the zoos
>misinterpret the animals intentions/feelings.
They Anthromorphise their behavior.
---
No Heroes
Ironhoof
>
>In physical terms, I agree, but in psychological terms, the two are similar
>in many regards.
Is there any evidence to back this up? Aside from "Dr. Laura" and other
quacks who have never conducted a single case study of zoosexuals, there
has never been a scientifically conducted case study that draws
similarities between pedophiles and zoophiles.
Priests are more like pedophiles than zoophiles ... priests like to push
their ways on others they consider in their 'flock,' their 'children.'
Ironhoof
Ironhoof
wrote:
>> The comparison with paedophilia fails due to the fact that animals can
>> be sexually mature and can consent to sex, with each other, and they
>> can initiate contact as seen as for example when a dog humps your leg.
>
>That is an incorrect assumtion. This is not how the canine psyche works. For
>instance; a dog with an "assertive" owner never show this behaviour towards
>the owner. This is something that happens when there is doubt in the dogs
>mind about who really is the alpha individual. A dog humping your leg is NOT
>an attempt at sexual contact. It is a way for the dog to assert itself and
>try to vie for leadership. Male dogs attempt to mount other male dogs all
>the time. It is not "doggy-homosexuality", right? It's a way to determine
>hierarcy in the pack. It's the same when a dog tries to hump your leg. It's
>checking "who's the boss" in your pack. That is how it works.
Your assumption is incorrect. I've seen very aggressively dominant dogs
willingly allow yearlings mount them.
>
>> "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R,
>> ...label of " Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified" (302.90)."
>
>Ok, I stand corrected on that point.
>
>However, I still feel that sexual attraction towards another species
>constitutes a "crossed wire" in the wetware, since it serves no purpose for
>the propagation of the species.
Neither does 'being furry', being gay or being abstinent one's entire
life.
Appendices do nothing for the propagation of the species ... is any
human born with an appendix have a 'crossed wire'?
>And now you will probably answer "Well, do
>you think that homosexuals are mentally ill too?" and I cannot/will not
>answer this because of anti-hate legislation.
There is very little protection in the U.S. for making discriminatory
remarks against gays. Its perfectly legal to fire someone because they
'act gay.' Though the U.S. military supposedly has a "don't ask, don't
tell," homosexuality is still an offense that can get one an
dishonorable discharge.
Several states still have anti-'sodomy' (anti-gay, but also,
technically, any-form-of-sex-not-heterosexual-and-missionary-style)
>Without bashing anyone - I
>still maintain that a sexual preference that cannot propagate the species is
>"nature gone wrong".
How is anything natural -- ocurring in nature -- wrong? Because its not
"God's word?"
>Genetic/cerebral structure variations are plentiful in
>nature. That is just evolution. And sometimes things misfire. Zoophilia,
>pedophilia, homosexuality are all sexual variations that serve no purpose
>from a biological point of view and therefore they are "non-viable paths of
>the species homo sapiens". Sure, a zoo or a homosexual can be (and most
>probably are) perfectly ordinary nice people. It's not their fault that
>their wetware got slightly misconfigured during boot-up. You can't choose
>your preferences, but that doesn't mean that any preference you happen to be
>born with is "good" (that was badly worded, but you understand what I
>mean?).
Paedophilia can result in propagation of a species, however. Some girls
are fertile as early as 10 years old, and the obsession some paedos have
is with getting such early bloomers pregnant.
Therefore, by your belief (as I understand it) that the difference
between 'nature gone right' and 'nature gone wrong' are whether they
biologically produce offspring, paedorasty when it comes to a fertile
male molesting a young fertile female is in the 'nature gone right'
category. So paedophilia, following your rules, is rightly natural?
Let me also pose this hypothetical case ...
Let's say a male (no discrimination intended, just trying to keep this
simple and down to one pronoun ;D) is born 'wired wrong' as you put it
as an exclusive zoophile (has no sexual desire for humans at all). As
such in today's world where bestiality is considered by most to be a
sick abhorration, he grows up hating himself and suffering depression
(this basically describes my life). It forces him to come to terms with
himself and, as it has me, gives him a unique spin on society,
civilization, rights, etc. Thinking so much, this zoophile is also
highly intelligent and he does well in studies, finds an interest in
anthropology, etc.
Now, let's say the world's strongest nations head on a collision course
for nuclear war ... something like the U.S. versus everybody (Russia,
Britain, China, etc.) Let's say this zoophile has enough of having to
accept the status quo and speaks up about the looming nuclear war that
could very well wipe mankind and most other species off the face of the
planet, or at the very least have an extremely heavy toll, billions of
lives at stake. Because of the unique perspective his freakishness has
given him, his take on his own society as well as others through a
combination of his highly unusual perspectives and his interests in
anthropology, he comes up with a plan to set tensions at ease between
the nation and his finding a mutually agreeable compromise of their
conflicting interests that were driving them toward war. War is averted
and the human race goes on ...
Would not, then, zoosexuality be responsible for the survival of most
humans?
Now, you say, that's an impossible hypothetical scenario that could
never happen ... I would agree that its highly improbable that it ever
would though I daresay /nothing/ is impossible. I have personally,
however, been told by a number of 'normal' (homogeneal and heterosexual)
people that my unique perspectives on things (generally without their
being aware that they derive from the outcast position zoosexuality
gives me) have at least changed their minds on some things they feel are
for the better. It may not be something as earthshattering as saving
all life on earth from a nuclear war, but its not difficult to imagine,
if there is a 'zoosexual gene' that 1 in 10,000 people have and each of
those have had 'hermit' lives of some sort (doesn't even have to be
zoosexual for that) and they've managed to contribute thoughts and ideas
that evolve /society/ that most depend upon ... things like advancements
in civil rights, democracy, etc., isn't it true, then, that the
contributions of freaks can and very well may, in fact, bring about an
increase in the survivability of the species?
Ironhoof
Ironhoof
>
>Ahh, but here is where I think that you have taken a wrong turn. Just like
>the "dog humping leg" example in my response to Dave - to "explore mutual
>pleasure" means that you project your human ideas/longings into an animal
>that just isn't wired like you.
Its your wrong turn to presume humans are the only species capable of
pleasure.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, its a duck.
If it walks like its enjoyment, sounds like enjoyment, its enjoyment.
There are a number of species that engage in 'social,' non-reproductive
sex ... dolphins, for instance, are documented exhibiting homosexual
tendances, as do white-tailed deer and other species. Bald eagles, as
another example, often breed year-round -- even when not in-season; a
number of field researchers classify the sexual activity as 'social.'
>You and, for instance, your dog cannot
>"explore mutual pleasure" because dogs just don't work that way, humans do.
Is there any evidence supporting your presumption that canines and other
species are incapable of achieving pleasure from sex?
>The same goes for all animals (with the possible exeption for bonobo apes,
>who also are our closest relatives).
Field researchers' case studies simply fail to support your claim.
[snip]
>
>> What basis is there for the equating abnormal/unusual for disturbed?
>> All are 'abnormal' ... through your equating abnormal with
>> psychologically disturbed, they are all such.
>
>There is none, becuase I don't do that. Ok, since english in not my native
>language the communication suffers like this sometimes. I don't euqate
>abnormal with being disturbed. Abnormal = that which does not conform to the
>norm. Zoophilia is abnormal. But is is "disturbed"? There is where you and I
>differ in opinion. I perhaps used the words a bit carelessly, but let's not
>nit-pick. These things happen when you make arguments in a foreign language.
My apologies for the presumption you were a native English-speaker ...
that is my bad. Whatever your native language is, I'm sure it contains
words that have /similar/ meanings that actually have very different
connotations.
As English is my only fluent human language, I offer the following
examples:
I feel your behavior is incorrect.
I feel your behavior is wrong.
I feel your behavior is abnormal.
I feel your behavior is unusual.
I feel your behavior is strange.
I feel your behavior is disturbed.
I feel your behavior is disturbing.
I feel your behavior is unethical.
All of these have similar 'definitions' ... but the connotations are
very different.
>I don't think that zoos belong in jail. They can't help that their wetware
>was misconfigured sometime during boot-up (as I replied to Dave). A
>"passive" zoo, needs no intervetion from society. Everyone can think/feel
>whatever they want/need to. An "active" zoo, needs for society to help him
>by giving him therapy/treatment so that he can perhaps overcome his mental
>problem to some extent (become a passive zoo).
What mental problem is that? You already agreed your assessment of
zoosexuality as a 'disturbing' like paedorasty was disproven.
Zoosexuality is not considered by professional psycholists within the
United States (and, I assume, likewise in other countries) as a
'condition' requiring 'treatment.'
>A repeat offender needs to be
>isolated from animals (forced hospitalization/jail) during the
>therapy/treatment.
But you stated 'I don't think that zoos belong in jail.' Which is it?
>
>And again, I base this upon the statement that this is not a "different
>belief", but a mental health issue.
Mental health professionals disagree with you. Do you feel the law
should override what the professionals tell us?
>
>> the creature is a rape and the victim can and does suffer long-term
>> psychological damage from such an attack ... something I have,
>> unfortunately, witnessed).
>
>Yes, that's just cruelty to animals. That is reprehensible, to say the
>least. But my point is that the "sexual relationship" cannot exist in the
>manner that zoos think they can exists because animals don't function that
>way.
They don't? In that case, all sex -- even sex between humans -- is
wrong, because humans are a species of the animal kingdom. I fail to
see how this could be a language difference, as the internationally
standard biological taxonomic system is in latin and clearly places homo
sapien sapien within the animalae kingdom.
Did you never study basic biology? Or do you reject this standard?
>> security, but for the most part she chooses to be at my side, with me at
>> all times and I have never 'trained' her to do so. She fears being away
>> from me ... she and I each suffer 'seperation anxiety' when apart.
>
>Of course. They are totally social animals. You are the alpha individual.
I am the alpha male individaul; she is the alpha female.
>Your dog will follow you and suffer when her pack-leader goes missing. It's
>perfectly normal behaviour for a dog.
>
>> >A the fact that active zoos claim a "loving reciprocal
>> >relationship" with their victims is exactly the same delusions
>>
>> Your opinion only.
>
>Well, hehe, not exactly "my opinion only". It's shared by well...almost
>everybody, to my knowledge... (exept for zoos, of course, but that's a
>given) :)
And the American Psychological Association. Do you label everyone in
the American Psychological Association as 'zoo?'
Ironhoof
>Besides when you point out that the socially retarded will grope
>animals because its emotionally safer than having to deal with
>rejection...well, you know :O)
>
>~Prince Snuhwolf~
"These people are sick because they're different!"
Gays, minorities, the other gender, communists...
Its emotionally safer than having to deal with tolerance ... well, you
kno. :-D
Ironhoof
wrote:
>
>> > So long as I am loving and a good provider, I know my canine mate will
>> > always love me. The same cannot be said a human mate.
>>
>> Because dogs by nature are a bit more trusting. It's been said too that
>> animals will see us more like God.
>>
>> Other than children,
>> humans are rarely capable of blind faith such as that.
>
>No, it's not that dogs are "more trusting". It is just not how the canice
>psyche works. Any behavioralist worth his paycheck
In /your/ opinion. I can name several who strongly disagree and they
have a greater than average success rate in their profession.
For that matter, I have greater than average success in dealing with
'misbehaving dogs' and I'm not even a 'professional.'
>will inform you of such
>things. Or any 1st year veteriany student, for that matter. Where the zoos
>err is where they 'transfer' human behavioural patterns and human 'ideas' to
>animal pshychies. They (seem to) desperately want to think that when, for
>instance, a dog humps your leg it seeks sexual attention.
More like rationally realize. A number of studies have discovered
'social sexual' behavior in a large variety of species.
Only ethnogenealcentriss would presume hum
>
>The dog is a highly social animal that can interact with a human leader on a
>very high level. But they still are dogs, and THAT is where the zoos
>misinterpret the animals intentions/feelings. Well, I'm drinking right now,
>so I won't go into detail. I'm having a hard enought time as it is hitting
>the right keys on the keyboard. It's saturday night here in western
>europe... :) Time to go out and get totally pissed! :)
Another reason dogs are superior to humans...
Ironhoof
Dave
until great Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come
against him.
>>Besides when you point out that the socially retarded will grope
No, He's just pointing out that It's EASIER to deal with a dog which
will NOT reject you as oppose to a Human who MIGHT.
Thus, People who are afraid of rejection (colloquially presented as
"socially retarded" in this case) will go for something (dogs in this
case), which minimises Risk, but at the cost of being an inferior
substitute for a human relationship in terms of such things as
understanding, Intelligence, intellectual content etc.
---
No Heroes
Dave
until great Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come
against him.
>>The dog is a highly social animal that can interact with a human leader on a
>>very high level. But they still are dogs, and THAT is where the zoos
>>misinterpret the animals intentions/feelings. Well, I'm drinking right now,
>>so I won't go into detail. I'm having a hard enought time as it is hitting
>>the right keys on the keyboard. It's saturday night here in western
>>europe... :) Time to go out and get totally pissed! :)
>
>Another reason dogs are superior to humans...
Superior at what?
It's humans who have built the computer you are using; Humans have
built up this global civilisation.
Defend by our own artificial standards, (the only ones that matter in
this case and ones that you are useing) humans are better than
anything or anyone else at being what we are, And Also we are the only
creatures to make moral distinctions which gives us the great capacity
for both evil and Good, Something which other animals cannot do,.
Dogs cannot Provide Free at point of use healthcare or healthcare at
all.
Dogs cannot create great works of literature nor can they make art.
Laudate Hominorum.
Dogs do not even have the Theorectical potentional to create a fair
and equitable world, We do, even if the ruleing classes prevent this.
---
No Heroes
Henri Vuorenmaa (Samurai Dog)
*The Samurai sighs and shakes his head*
"And I thought the FAQ said zoos were welcome here"
*Walks to the fox by the fire*
"Can I have one of those? Looks like they will be having a long
discussion."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One who is samurai must, before all things, keep constantly in mind, by day and by night....that he has to die
Daidoji Yuzan (16th Century)
Elizabeth A. Johnson
"Henri Vuorenmaa (Samurai Dog)" wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 11:57:24 GMT, Pat MacGregor
> <john...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:55:09 -0600, "Aspen" <dunkelz...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >> The more I read, the more controversial zoophilia is. I read in one area
> >> that it is shunned, and considered horrible, and then people say the direct
> >> opposite. I cannot seem to find a majority opinion from furs on whether or
> >> not zoophilia is OK.
> >>
> >> And yes I know, just about anything is OK because we furs in the fandom
> >> don't judge people, but in your opinion, is it good or bad?
> >>
> >> -Aspen
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Here we go. It's time for the quarerly bash the zoos and beastyphiles flamewar
> >again.
> >
> >The lil fox gets out a big bag of marshmallows and a long pointy stick and settles
> >back to watch the pretty flames and make s'mores.
> >
> >
>
> *The Samurai sighs and shakes his head*
>
> "And I thought the FAQ said zoos were welcome here"
>
> *Walks to the fox by the fire*
>
> "Can I have one of those? Looks like they will be having a long
> discussion."
so far I have seen no flames. But perhaps I'm blind. I wouldn't mind a marshmallow though...
Avenging_Lioness
--
"I'm wet... I'm naked... your sister is wearing my clothes... and this is all part of some evil plot TO RULE THE
WORLD AS A SOGGY CHIMP IN HIS BIRTHDAY SUIT?!?!?!?"
Russ
"Dave " <dsa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e3276e2...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> "qwertyuiop" <qw...@qwefqw.com> shall never vanquished be until great
> Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come against him.
>
> >That is because you are psychologically disturbed. Zoophilia is, much
like
> >pedophilia, not a "fetish" as much as a severe psychological
> >disturbance...not to mention illegal in most civilized countries. The
> >difference between sexually active zoos and sexually active pedos is that
> >zoos can "not get caught" if they have half a brain because animals can't
> >report them to the police.
>
> The comparison with paedophilia fails due to the fact that animals can
> be sexually mature and can consent to sex, with each other, and they
> can initiate contact as seen as for example when a dog humps your leg.
I always put it more to myself that pedophilia is a problem because the
individual with which you're initiating a sexual relationship will change
into a state over time at which they will be able to look back at the
experience in a very different light, and can cause life-long damage as a
result. For the same reason, I would not have a relationship with an animal
who was prepubescent (psychologically speaking that is, humans IMO become
undergo psychological puberty some years after physical puberty because of
civilization, diet, etc).
> >but I'm still stating the facts about your sexual orientation as I see
> >them. Sorry if it offends you, but that's my take on it...and I'm
entitled
> >to it.
>
> The facts as you see them are incorrect.
>
> "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R,
> APA, 1987) zoophilia is no longer categorized as a disorder by
> itself. The diagnostic committee that worked
> on the paraphilia section of the DSM-III-R concluded that "zoophilia
> is virtually never a clinically significant
> problem by itself" They omitted it as a formal diagnosis and listed "
> zoophilia" in the
> diagnostic label of " Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified" (302.90)."
I actually went through a spell of family therapy where my zoophilia was
examined in some detail by a number of 'child' psychologists (I was 17 at
the time, and for some reason they were the fellas). The conclusion? I'm a
psychologically normal person, who has a very strange, but given the
circumstances (my devout 17-year vegetarianism, and animal-rights stance)
non-dangerous paraphilia.
But hey, it ain't that simple, and I've discussed this one enough to know
that prejudice and judgement make the whole thing a bit pointless to
discuss. Firstly, why should others care how positive or negative an
experience it is for me personally, and secondly, there are no assurances
you can give some people that the relationship isn't going to damage the
non-human partner.
Russ ;)
----------
FEH[Pony]p5adms/ArDw5dm A- C* D- H M+ P++ R-- T+++ W- Z- Sp+ RLA/BM/CT/ET/LW
a22 cdln++$ d+ e++ f-- h- iw+++ j+ p* sm+
qwertyuiop
> >> be sexually mature and can consent to sex, with each other, and they
> >> can initiate contact as seen as for example when a dog humps your leg.
> >
> >That is an incorrect assumtion. This is not how the canine psyche works.
For
> >instance; a dog with an "assertive" owner never show this behaviour
towards
> >the owner. This is something that happens when there is doubt in the dogs
> >mind about who really is the alpha individual. A dog humping your leg is
NOT
> >an attempt at sexual contact. It is a way for the dog to assert itself
and
> >try to vie for leadership. Male dogs attempt to mount other male dogs all
> >the time. It is not "doggy-homosexuality", right? It's a way to determine
> >hierarcy in the pack. It's the same when a dog tries to hump your leg.
It's
> >checking "who's the boss" in your pack. That is how it works.
>
> Your assumption is incorrect. I've seen very aggressively dominant dogs
> willingly allow yearlings mount them.
I don't know what you have seen or not have seen, but my statment holds
true. Just read any textbook on canine behaviour or just pick up the phone
and call your local university and ask someone. This is well known canine
behaviour...and it's also pretty much common knowledge for dog owners and
people that work with dogs. So I'm a bit surprised that you didn't know
this.
> >However, I still feel that sexual attraction towards another species
> >constitutes a "crossed wire" in the wetware, since it serves no purpose
for
> >the propagation of the species.
>
> Neither does 'being furry', being gay or being abstinent one's entire
> life.
True. A homosexual person or a person with no sex-drive for human females
built into him is a "non-viable path" for our species to continue on. Being
abstinent by choice, for religious purposes perhaps, is another matter. That
was no counter-argument, Ironhoof.
> Appendices do nothing for the propagation of the species ... is any
> human born with an appendix have a 'crossed wire'?
Now you are just being stupid....
> >Without bashing anyone - I
> >still maintain that a sexual preference that cannot propagate the species
is
> >"nature gone wrong".
>
> How is anything natural -- ocurring in nature -- wrong? Because its not
> "God's word?"
Don't bring religion into this. Dear God, don't bring religion into this.
No, I'm not some religious moron. And stop picking at individual words too.
Substitute "wrong" with "down a path that is not viable for the species from
a biological point of view".
> Paedophilia can result in propagation of a species, however. Some girls
> are fertile as early as 10 years old, and the obsession some paedos have
> category. So paedophilia, following your rules, is rightly natural?
Pre-teen pedophilia = sexual drive that cannot propagate the species =
biologically "wrong. Post-teen pedophilia = sexual drive that can propagate
the species = biologically "right", but morally and ethically wrong. And
before you ask : "...according to the morals and ethics of every civilized
people on the planet".
> Let me also pose this hypothetical case ...
> Now, let's say the world's strongest nations head on a collision course
> and the human race goes on ...
> Would not, then, zoosexuality be responsible for the survival of most
> humans?
Are you on drugs right now? :)
> I have personally,
> however, been told by a number of 'normal' (homogeneal and heterosexual)
> people that my unique perspectives on things (generally without their
> being aware that they derive from the outcast position zoosexuality
> gives me) have at least changed their minds on some things they feel are
> for the better.
And this means that....? So, you have a different perspective on things. I
may have misunderstood your point here, but I cannot see what this has got
to do with anything? Nor do I really see a point here.
> in civil rights, democracy, etc., isn't it true, then, that the
> contributions of freaks can and very well may, in fact, bring about an
> increase in the survivability of the species?
When did I ever say something to indicate that they cannot contribute
anything to society? Your sexual configuration is messed up - but that
doesn't bring on retardation or anything like that, y'know? Sure, you can be
a rocket scientist, if you've got the intellect for it...but that still
doesn't mean that your sexual configurations isn't "messed up" from a
biological standpoint.
Henri Vuorenmaa (Samurai Dog)
wrote:
>The more I read, the more controversial zoophilia is. I read in one area
>that it is shunned, and considered horrible, and then people say the direct
>opposite. I cannot seem to find a majority opinion from furs on whether or
>not zoophilia is OK.
>
>And yes I know, just about anything is OK because we furs in the fandom
>don't judge people, but in your opinion, is it good or bad?
>
>-Aspen
>
Hey! Why don't you all just read my message "Thoughts about gayness"?
My view is that gayness/zoophilia and the like could have been
*designed* to limit the population on Earth. You see, if there were no
gays, zoophiles or lesbians, the human population could already have
grown too big to live on Earth. This way the nature would pick some
humans and somehow *turn* them into gays etc. so that population
doesn't increase that fast.
Luta Ariadt
> Dogs cannot create great works of literature nor can they make art.
There's a book in my school's bookstore that describes dogs creating
art. Mostly, they're representational structures the dogs have built,
reminiscent of things they're familiar with. For example, a sled dog
laying down sticks in the pattern of a team's harness and sitting in it.
I'll have to track down a reference tomorrow.
--
Luta Ariadt
FDD5a C- D H M P+ R+++ T+++ S? RLCT a cl++++$ e++ f++++ h- i+ p- sm#
§ñühwØLf
illegibly<6c673v87e8ndb9omf...@4ax.com>:
>On 26 Jan 2003 01:22:13 GMT, §ñühwØLf <snuhwo...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Scarlet Otter <Secret...@SoftHome.net> scribbled
>>illegibly<5mi43vkd5s2hrle49...@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>Take a typing course?
>
>It is not a problem with knowing how to type. I think the problem
>lies in an inability to stay focused due to having so much to say but
>...Oh, dammit! I forgot what it was I was going to say here. :p
>
>-- Otter
>
Are you reading on-line or off-line? I think the "pressure" you feel
might be the fact that some ISP's drop ya if you're not passing packets
at a steady rate.Try reading & writing responses offline to see if that
helps :O)
~Prince Snuhwolf~
§ñühwØLf
illegibly<3e33f09a...@news.critter.net>:
>Ironhoof <iron...@NOSPAM.wolfhowl.org> shall never vanquished be
>until great Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come
>against him.
>
>>>Besides when you point out that the socially retarded will grope
>>>animals because its emotionally safer than having to deal with
>>>rejection...well, you know :O)
>>>
>>>~Prince Snuhwolf~
>>
>>"These people are sick because they're different!"
>>
>>Gays, minorities, the other gender, communists...
>>
>>Its emotionally safer than having to deal with tolerance ... well,
you
>>kno. :-D
>
>No, He's just pointing out that It's EASIER to deal with a dog which
>will NOT reject you as oppose to a Human who MIGHT.
>
*poke* Now you know why I'm teh Prince ;O)
>Thus, People who are afraid of rejection (colloquially presented as
>"socially retarded" in this case) will go for something (dogs in this
>case), which minimises Risk, but at the cost of being an inferior
>substitute for a human relationship in terms of such things as
>understanding, Intelligence, intellectual content etc.
>
Thank you head-interpreter for Prince Snuhwolf.It is always hard to
admit that human relations are the hardest thing in the world.You'd
think its _easy_ to make friends...but who can claim "too many"?
Heh...spoken from experience.
*slaps self for showing weakness*
Errr...expunge that, scribe!
~Prince Snuhwolf~
§ñühwØLf
illegibly<b11f4k$5jv$1...@plaza.suomi.net>:
>
>> Appendices do nothing for the propagation of the species ... is any
>> human born with an appendix have a 'crossed wire'?
>
>Now you are just being stupid....
>
No..it was all part of your "against nature" stance.Heres one I was
thinking about earlier today: if homo, zoo, & pedo is against nature
because it "serves no reproductive purpose"...then why isn't
masturbation included in that argument?
Answer: because the culture defines the moral acceptability of any
behaviours that occur in the group in which it occurs.
Are those behaviours frowned upon in Judaeo-christian society like this
one?
Well yeah :O)
However masturbation is not as unnaceptable as it once was.
HTH
~Prince SnuhwoLf~
§ñühwØLf
illegibly<h6g83vscok38s2v3n...@4ax.com>:
>
>Hey! Why don't you all just read my message "Thoughts about gayness"?
*rolls eyes* Oh...lets do everything _you_ want to do...
>My view is that gayness/zoophilia and the like could have been
>*designed* to limit the population on Earth. You see, if there were no
>gays, zoophiles or lesbians, the human population could already have
>grown too big to live on Earth. This way the nature would pick some
>humans and somehow *turn* them into gays etc. so that population
>doesn't increase that fast.
>
Well it hasen't worked honey...theres FIVE BILLION of us on this rock.
ANd AIDS is natures way of culling the herd further by focusing on
gayes...
yeah...
~Prince Snuhwolf`
Skytech
> However, I still feel that sexual attraction towards another species
> constitutes a "crossed wire" in the wetware, since it serves no
> the propagation of the species.
Many male animals are wired to be sexually ready 24/7/365 and there
are many
recorded cases of males looking to 'get off' every which way they can.
Seems
very prevelant in mammals. Dolphins, that oh so intelligent species,
is famous
for this.
Animals which time on their paws seem to have this need. It's not more
noticable in the wild because a lot of possible objects for sexuality
tend to be more hungry than horney.
> And now you will probably answer "Well, do
> you think that homosexuals are mentally ill too?" and I cannot/will
not
> answer this because of anti-hate legislation. Without bashing
anyone - I
> still maintain that a sexual preference that cannot propagate the
species is
> "nature gone wrong". Genetic/cerebral structure variations are
plentiful in
> nature. That is just evolution. And sometimes things misfire.
Zoophilia,
> pedophilia, homosexuality are all sexual variations that serve no
purpose
> from a biological point of view and therefore they are "non-viable
paths of
> the species homo sapiens".
In nature, that which doesn't kill is viable. The things you list are
more prevelant in species that can spend less time just surviving. Saw
a show recently describing the fact humans are the sexiest animal
because of their control of their environment and subsequent easier
lifestyle. Their increasing lifespan is also linked to that lifestyle.
> Sure, a zoo or a homosexual can be (and most
> probably are) perfectly ordinary nice people. It's not their fault
that
> their wetware got slightly misconfigured during boot-up. You can't
choose
> your preferences, but that doesn't mean that any preference you
happen to be
> born with is "good" (that was badly worded, but you understand what
I
> mean?).
>
If enough animals kill their partners or a very nasty disease
specifically targets sexual practices of homosexuality then both
groups will be naturally weeded out but even then modern science helps
the victim. There's also enough breeders out there to produce enough
population to guarantee more people with these tendencies.
Also explains the growing number of criminally psychotic.
Percentages....
--
The Vigilant Fox
Skytech
^^
<@@>
./
Dennis Carr
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 11:57:24 GMT, Pat MacGregor <john...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>>Here we go. It's time for the quarerly bash the zoos and beastyphiles
>>flamewar again.
>>
>>The lil fox gets out a big bag of marshmallows and a long pointy stick
>>and settles back to watch the pretty flames and make s'mores.
> *The Samurai sighs and shakes his head*
>
> "And I thought the FAQ said zoos were welcome here"
>
> *Walks to the fox by the fire*
>
> "Can I have one of those? Looks like they will be having a long
> discussion."
Care if I join you guys? I can supply chocolate and graham crackers for
smores.
Warren Forest
news:l3p73vohljeblgg13...@4ax.com...
> >In physical terms, I agree, but in psychological terms, the two are
similar
> >in many regards.
>
> Is there any evidence to back this up? Aside from "Dr. Laura" and other
> quacks who have never conducted a single case study of zoosexuals, there
> has never been a scientifically conducted case study that draws
> similarities between pedophiles and zoophiles.
There has never been any studies, period, at least as far as I've been able
to research. Zoophiles are usually viewed as having a glorified fetish and
are researched accordingly. There is no merit given to the possibility of
any "relationship", so basically all the studies are about what zoophiles
would call bestialists.
It's not a well researched topic at all, so studies are virtually
non-existant. It would therefore be a mistake to use the argument that
"since there are no studies...".
Now, having said all that, the similarities that I'm specifically refering
to are the fact that the attraction is aimed towards an intellectually,
emotionally, and psychologically far less mature partner, perhaps implying
that the suitor is aiming for a 'simpler' target that they themselves can
understand rather than a more complex relationship that they cannot. Also,
there is no conflict about dominance because the target of the affections is
non-threatening. Thirdly, the target views their suitor in a trusting and
reverant fashion, irregardless of any of the suitor's qualities that other
mature human beings would look upon negatively.
In these regards, I look at myself and realize that much of the reason I was
attracted to furries and animals in the first place had at least something
to do with the above reasons. To me, that's not healthy at all, which is
why I'm not interested in being an active zoo.
> Priests are more like pedophiles than zoophiles ... priests like to push
> their ways on others they consider in their 'flock,' their 'children.'
No, that's not at all true. I worked in the ministry *because I cared*. I
honestly wanted to help, and honestly believed I was helping people. I
believed that what I was telling people was true, which is why I told it to
them.
I would estimate (based on a quick rummage through my memory of people I
worked with) that about 85% of the people in ministry are there for
completely noble (though perhaps naive and misguided) beliefs that they can
help people by *offering* (not forcing) the "truth" to them. Only about 15%
are of the type that want to push their views onto others who they view as
an ignorant flock needing to be controlled. Still, 15% is a lot, and it's
those 15% that people remember.
--
Warren Forest, Canis Lupus Arctos - The Canadian Arctic Wolf
FCW3a A- C D++ H+ M- P+ R+ T++++ W Z- Sm#
RLET a31 c++ d-- e+ f h+ i+ j p- sm#
Change "Cold" to "Hot" to e-mail me.
Warren Forest
news:1103_10...@news.critter.net...
> Here we go. It's time for the quarerly bash the zoos and beastyphiles
flamewar
> again.
Nah... you're just being pessimistic. Some of us zoos actually enjoy an
opportunity to discuss the subject intelligently. I've noticed the
discussion usually gets sidetracked more by the crowd that doesn't want to
discuss it at all, rather than those who are against it.
qwertyuiop
> If it walks like its enjoyment, sounds like enjoyment, its enjoyment.
> There are a number of species that engage in 'social,' non-reproductive
> sex ... dolphins, for instance, are documented exhibiting homosexual
> tendances, as do white-tailed deer and other species. Bald eagles, as
> another example, often breed year-round -- even when not in-season; a
> number of field researchers classify the sexual activity as 'social.'
Oh, yes, the dolphins. I forgot about them when I wrote my message. As for
Bald eagles, I've never heard that one before, but ok...if you say so. I'm
sure that there are other animals too.
> >You and, for instance, your dog cannot
> >"explore mutual pleasure" because dogs just don't work that way, humans
do.
>
> Is there any evidence supporting your presumption that canines and other
> species are incapable of achieving pleasure from sex?
I never said that. That would be a pretty wild statement. To "explore mutual
pleasure" and to have a sexual "relationship" does, however,
anthropomorphise the animal and it's behaviour. I'm pretty sure that the act
of sexual intercourse is pleasure for higher animals. It is in natures
interest that breeding (sexual activity) equals pleasure. Just like fatty
foods taste good, because they contain a lot of precious calories.
> >I don't think that zoos belong in jail. They can't help that their
wetware
> >was misconfigured sometime during boot-up (as I replied to Dave). A
> >"passive" zoo, needs no intervetion from society. Everyone can think/feel
> >whatever they want/need to. An "active" zoo, needs for society to help
him
> >by giving him therapy/treatment so that he can perhaps overcome his
mental
> >problem to some extent (become a passive zoo).
>
> What mental problem is that? You already agreed your assessment of
> zoosexuality as a 'disturbing' like paedorasty was disproven.
> Zoosexuality is not considered by professional psycholists within the
> United States (and, I assume, likewise in other countries) as a
> 'condition' requiring 'treatment.'
We already covered this one. I am explaining MY views and opinions and as
I've stated several times before I do this from the standpoint that this is
something that is a mental problem. I am aware of the fact that the APA has
labled it as something that is not an mental illness. However, I have also
clearly explained, at lenght, WHY I think that this is a case of "nature
gone wrong". It may not be classified as a mental illness by the APA, but it
isn't exactly "functioning in a manner that is, for lack of a better word,
'good' for the species homo sapiens sapiens".
> >A repeat offender needs to be
> >isolated from animals (forced hospitalization/jail) during the
> >therapy/treatment.
>
> But you stated 'I don't think that zoos belong in jail.' Which is it?
Do you read the text before you reply to it? This is something I clearly
answered and explained in the very same paragraphs you replied to, so it
makes me wonder if you're actually asking me this question or if you are
just clutching at straws and/or trying to be a wisenheimer?
> > because animals don't function that way
> They don't? In that case, all sex -- even sex between humans -- is
> wrong, because humans are a species of the animal kingdom. I fail to
> Did you never study basic biology? Or do you reject this standard?
Now you are just being a smartss again. You understand perfectly well what I
meant.
Why do you feel the need to do this? You must have understood perfectly well
what I meant in that paragraph (you're obviously not that stupid) and yet
you keep on picking at individual words and make a wisenheimer out of
yourself.
> >> >A the fact that active zoos claim a "loving reciprocal
> >> >relationship" with their victims is exactly the same delusions
> >>
> >> Your opinion only.
> >
> >Well, hehe, not exactly "my opinion only". It's shared by well...almost
> >everybody, to my knowledge... (exept for zoos, of course, but that's a
> >given) :)
>
> And the American Psychological Association. Do you label everyone in
> the American Psychological Association as 'zoo?'
Excuse me? The APA has labled zoophilia as one of the paraphilias and not
classified it as a "mental illness" that need treatment. What I wrote in the
above paragraphs is that zoos that claim that they have a "loving reciprocal
relationship", ie a loving sexual relationship of equal partners with their
dog, have got a twisted sense of reality or that they are lying to
themselves when they claim that "my dog is my equal partner in a loving
sexual relationship". This is nothing that the APA are involved in or have
said anything about. That was a long shot, Ironhoof.
Nightwind
> Are you reading on-line or off-line? I think the "pressure" you feel
> might be the fact that some ISP's drop ya if you're not passing packets
> at a steady rate.Try reading & writing responses offline to see if that
> helps :O)
or install something like aim, or another messanger, mos thave a 'keep
connection alive' setting that passes a default numbe of packets at
interval
--
Nightwind
"The wind has no destination"
Aim Nightwnd90
Icq 23044454
Russ
news:b128fs$brg$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> If enough animals kill their partners or a very nasty disease
> specifically targets sexual practices of homosexuality then both
> groups will be naturally weeded out but even then modern science helps
> the victim. There's also enough breeders out there to produce enough
> population to guarantee more people with these tendencies.
>
> Also explains the growing number of criminally psychotic.
> Percentages....
Forgive me if perhaps I'm reading between the lines some, but isn't this
going a bit far? You sound more than slightly keen on both these
scenarious - and I'd be interested to see what resources you have that show
a link between homosexuality/zoophilia and criminally psychotic behavious,
which is *certainly* what you're suggesting, just reading the lines that are
there. There are proven links between animal abuse (specifically animal
cruelty) at a young age and human abuse at an older age, but to my mind this
isn't what's being discussed.
The truth of the matter is, making comments like this you probably
understand the topic of debate about as little as it's possible to. I may
be a newbie to the group, and largely I've left this thread, but some
comments do rile me some....
Russ
Russ
"Warren Forest" <warren...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:b12h87$u2l$1...@velox.critter.net...
> > quacks who have never conducted a single case study of zoosexuals, there
> > has never been a scientifically conducted case study that draws
> > similarities between pedophiles and zoophiles.
>
> There has never been any studies, period, at least as far as I've been
able
> to research. Zoophiles are usually viewed as having a glorified fetish
and
> are researched accordingly. There is no merit given to the possibility of
> any "relationship", so basically all the studies are about what zoophiles
> would call bestialists.
>
> It's not a well researched topic at all, so studies are virtually
> non-existant. It would therefore be a mistake to use the argument that
> "since there are no studies...".
Not sure if any other zoophile following this thread will thank me for it,
but there's a research site I've been involved with that's not too bad -
apparently the analysis on the Causes of Zoophilia survey has had good
reviews from fellow researchers more qualified than myself, and a few
researchers and TV producers have approached us for advice. It's all rather
dated now though - the responses from the past year haven't been processed,
so there's a big chunk of data missing.
Anyways, it's as far as possible meant to be unbiased, it's at
www.geocities.com/muse_zoo.
Russ ;)
Henri Vuorenmaa (Samurai Dog)
wrote:
*laughs*
OK...maybe I was a bit too bored when I came up with this theory...
Dave - evaD
great Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come against
him.
>Dave wrote:
>
>> Dogs cannot create great works of literature nor can they make art.
>
>There's a book in my school's bookstore that describes dogs creating
>art. Mostly, they're representational structures the dogs have built,
>reminiscent of things they're familiar with. For example, a sled dog
>laying down sticks in the pattern of a team's harness and sitting in it.
>I'll have to track down a reference tomorrow.
Ah But the point is, going around saying "humans are better/worse Than
this/any non-human animal" is an entirely artificial thing in which we
judge by our own artifical standards.
Like saying, "What's better- The Sun or the moon?"
It's just meaningless.
---
No Heroes
Dave - evaD
great Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come against
him.
>But hey, it ain't that simple, and I've discussed this one enough to know
>that prejudice and judgement make the whole thing a bit pointless to
>discuss. Firstly, why should others care how positive or negative an
>experience it is for me personally, and secondly, there are no assurances
>you can give some people that the relationship isn't going to damage the
>non-human partner.
However there is the issue that it is an unequal relationship, in that
it is a non-reciprocal and power imbalanced relationship.
For example it does not count as a relationship in the same way that
something between two humans can.
You can own a dog, and you can have sex with it. But it doesn't make
the relationship much different to one where you did everything the
same except had sex with it.
The same probably applies to horses,
The point is, Is that non-humans, due to the fact that they are
property and viewed as inferior beings in the eyes of law and morality
generally, and of course due to their domestication, are
non-threatening and submissive,
There is no chance of rejection, so it's easy to have a relationship
with a non-human animal. So People who can't deal with a relationship
with a person, can instead use an animal.
And so If I acutally were to act upon my desires and get a dog and own
it, and commit carnal activities with it, That would just be lieing to
myself and trying to coat reality with a thin veneer of falseness.
---
No Heroes
Ironhoof
<warren...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>Ironhoof <iron...@NOSPAM.wolfhowl.org> wrote in message
>news:l3p73vohljeblgg13...@4ax.com...
>> >In physical terms, I agree, but in psychological terms, the two are
>similar
>> >in many regards.
>>
>> Is there any evidence to back this up? Aside from "Dr. Laura" and other
>> quacks who have never conducted a single case study of zoosexuals, there
>> has never been a scientifically conducted case study that draws
>> similarities between pedophiles and zoophiles.
>
>There has never been any studies, period, at least as far as I've been able
>to research.
Then you haven't done your research. Here's a little pointer on one of
at least three recent researchers: Dr. Max Weinberg
>Zoophiles are usually viewed as having a glorified fetish and
>are researched accordingly.
Generally viewed and professionally viewed are distinct categorizations.
AOL and Microsoft are generally viewed as a superior Internet service
thanks to their marketting department.
>There is no merit given to the possibility of
>any "relationship",
That counters all the valid studies I am aware of.
>so basically all the studies are about what zoophiles
>would call bestialists.
Bestiality is the sexual aspect; zoophilia (by my and a few others'
definitions, anyway) is the relationship aspect; the difference is akin
to heterosexuality being rather non-descript ... a heterosexual male
could be anything from a chauvinist pig to a classical romantic to a
variety of other things; the sexuality alone cannot be used to describe
an individual's motivations and relationships.
>
>It's not a well researched topic at all, so studies are virtually
>non-existant. It would therefore be a mistake to use the argument that
>"since there are no studies...".
You are the one making the argument, and it isn't true; there are and
have been a number of studies; you simply presumed there were none.
>
>Now, having said all that, the similarities that I'm specifically refering
>to are the fact that the attraction is aimed towards an intellectually,
>emotionally, and psychologically far less mature partner,
My canine mate has successfully demonstrated greater emotional and
psychological maturity than my human partners or even myself.
>perhaps implying
>that the suitor is aiming for a 'simpler'
A matter of your opinion, not objective fact.
>target that they themselves can
>understand rather than a more complex relationship that they cannot. Also,
>there is no conflict about dominance because the target of the affections is
>non-threatening. Thirdly, the target views their suitor in a trusting and
>reverant fashion, irregardless of any of the suitor's qualities that other
>mature human beings would look upon negatively.
Since when should a lover not trust their partner? There is no love
without trust in any relationship that I consider to amount to anything.
The trust must always be earned; it is no less true for interspecies
relationships than for human-to-human relationships.
>
>In these regards, I look at myself and realize that much of the reason I was
>attracted to furries and animals in the first place had at least something
>to do with the above reasons. To me, that's not healthy at all, which is
>why I'm not interested in being an active zoo.
'Sick' and 'healthy' are subjective terms to you.
>
>
>> Priests are more like pedophiles than zoophiles ... priests like to push
>> their ways on others they consider in their 'flock,' their 'children.'
>
>No, that's not at all true. I worked in the ministry *because I cared*.
Cared about what? My minister 'cared' ... he 'cared' that 'evil
homosexuals' were taking over the government and 'good Christians' need
to fight such devil's work.
Thousands and thousands of victims of priests' "caring" for them when
they were young boys would also disagree with you.
>I
>honestly wanted to help, and honestly believed I was helping people.
I'm sure that's what your belief was; I'm sure all priests fell that way
and they see no wrong in anything they do. It's all "God's work"
because in their mind, it is.
Much as it was for the al Qaeda operatives that violently took over four
commercial jetliners on September 11, 2001. I rather think they were
pretty convinced they were doing the 'right thing' as well.
>I
>believed that what I was telling people was true, which is why I told it to
>them.
>
>I would estimate (based on a quick rummage through my memory of people I
>worked with) that about 85% of the people in ministry are there for
>completely noble (though perhaps naive and misguided) beliefs that they can
>help people by *offering* (not forcing) the "truth" to them.
Can you show me a decent-sized random sampling of priests where 85%
would avoid each and every one of the following activities:
- Support a legally-enforced ban on homosexual marriages
- Practice or support door-to-door 'bible thumping'
- Practice or support 'convert the savage pagans' ethnicide campaigns
(otherwise known as missionaries)
- Practice general intolerance (need not be outright committance of
hate crimes) of other religions and 'alternative lifestyles'
All of the following are some of the common activities done to push
religion on others.
>Only about 15%
>are of the type that want to push their views onto others who they view as
>an ignorant flock needing to be controlled. Still, 15% is a lot, and it's
>those 15% that people remember.
I think the ratio is the reverse of what you think in terms of the
priests. Were you to speak of Christians in general I might agree; the
priesthood and 'church leadership,' however, is still the same good ol'
boys network it always has been and if the slap-on-the-wrist treatment
the church recently gave to priests, offering little or no comfort to
their victims, who get caught molesting children isn't an indicator this
is still the case, I don't know what is.
Ironhoof
Ironhoof
>> Is there any evidence supporting your presumption that canines and other
>> species are incapable of achieving pleasure from sex?
>
>I never said that. That would be a pretty wild statement. To "explore mutual
>pleasure" and to have a sexual "relationship" does, however,
>anthropomorphise
You rather contradict yourself here. Do you agree that members of
non-anthronic animalian species are capable of achieving pleasure from
non-reproductive sexual activity?
If you do agree, then its case closed - mutual pleasuring is very
possible and there is no basis for calling it anthropomorphizing.
If not, then you do indeed say humans are the only species of animal
capable of such.
Its one or the other, simple as that. I'd rather say I have very
firsthand experience in observing pleasured reactions in other species
from my exploring sexual relations with them.
>the animal and it's behaviour. I'm pretty sure that the act
>of sexual intercourse is pleasure for higher animals.
'Higher animal' is another subjective term.
>It is in natures
>interest that breeding (sexual activity) equals pleasure.
Is it?
Try researching the sexual behavior of, say, the black widow spider ...
the female kills the mate after mating ... while some may find that
pleasurable, I doubt all do.
>Just like fatty
>foods taste good, because they contain a lot of precious calories.
>
>
>> >I don't think that zoos belong in jail. They can't help that their
>wetware
>> >was misconfigured sometime during boot-up (as I replied to Dave). A
>> >"passive" zoo, needs no intervetion from society. Everyone can think/feel
>> >whatever they want/need to. An "active" zoo, needs for society to help
>him
>> >by giving him therapy/treatment so that he can perhaps overcome his
>mental
>> >problem to some extent (become a passive zoo).
>>
>> What mental problem is that? You already agreed your assessment of
>> zoosexuality as a 'disturbing' like paedorasty was disproven.
>> Zoosexuality is not considered by professional psycholists within the
>> United States (and, I assume, likewise in other countries) as a
>> 'condition' requiring 'treatment.'
>
>We already covered this one. I am explaining MY views and opinions and as
>I've stated several times before I do this from the standpoint that this is
>something that is a mental problem. I am aware of the fact that the APA has
>labled it as something that is not an mental illness. However, I have also
>clearly explained, at lenght, WHY I think that this is a case of "nature
>gone wrong". It may not be classified as a mental illness by the APA, but it
>isn't exactly "functioning in a manner that is, for lack of a better word,
>'good' for the species homo sapiens sapiens".
So long as you and anyone following you are aware, your views conflict
with professional case studies, research and judgement.
>
>> >A repeat offender needs to be
>> >isolated from animals (forced hospitalization/jail) during the
>> >therapy/treatment.
>>
>> But you stated 'I don't think that zoos belong in jail.' Which is it?
>
>Do you read the text before you reply to it? This is something I clearly
>answered
Contradicting yourself disqualifies 'clearly answered.'
>and explained in the very same paragraphs you replied to, so it
>makes me wonder if you're actually asking me this question or if you are
>just clutching at straws and/or trying to be a wisenheimer?
I'm afraid I am not familiar with that term. I am afraid my
extrasensory perceptive abilities are not up to snuff; in simpler
language, I can't read minds ... I can only read what you write which
contradicts itself in a number of places.
I admit to being frustrated; attempting to conduct a rational argument
with someone whose position I cannot clearly grasp is like trying to
walk a tightrope between two structures in dissimilar motion.
>
>
>> > because animals don't function that way
>
>> They don't? In that case, all sex -- even sex between humans -- is
>> wrong, because humans are a species of the animal kingdom. I fail to
>> Did you never study basic biology? Or do you reject this standard?
>
>Now you are just being a smartss again. You understand perfectly well what I
>meant.
I must again confess I have no extrasensory perception; I can only read
what you write.
>Why do you feel the need to do this? You must have understood perfectly well
>what I meant in that paragraph (you're obviously not that stupid) and yet
>you keep on picking at individual words and make a wisenheimer out of
>yourself.
How am I supposed to achieve understanding of your position based on
something other than what you write? I cannot read your mind.
>
>
>> >> >A the fact that active zoos claim a "loving reciprocal
>> >> >relationship" with their victims is exactly the same delusions
>> >>
>> >> Your opinion only.
>> >
>> >Well, hehe, not exactly "my opinion only". It's shared by well...almost
>> >everybody, to my knowledge... (exept for zoos, of course, but that's a
>> >given) :)
>>
>> And the American Psychological Association. Do you label everyone in
>> the American Psychological Association as 'zoo?'
>
>Excuse me? The APA has labled zoophilia as one of the paraphilias and not
>classified it as a "mental illness" that need treatment. What I wrote in the
>above paragraphs is that zoos that claim that they have a "loving reciprocal
>relationship", ie a loving sexual relationship of equal partners with their
>dog, have got a twisted sense of reality
That contradicts accredited and established case research studies with
the APA.
>or that they are lying to
>themselves when they claim that "my dog is my equal partner in a loving
>sexual relationship". This is nothing that the APA are involved in or have
>said anything about. That was a long shot, Ironhoof.
No, a long shot is attempting to contradict and discredit professionally
accredited and hard-earned research with zero research on your side to
back it up.
-- Ironhoof
Ironhoof
>>
>>Its emotionally safer than having to deal with tolerance ... well, you
>>kno. :-D
>
>No, He's just pointing out that It's EASIER to deal with a dog which
>will NOT reject you as oppose to a Human who MIGHT.
The fact that the point has no merit (there are plenty of dogs which
would reject me or you) aside, I'm just pointing out that its easier to
stick to one's limited world-view than dare try and look outside of it.
>
>Thus, People who are afraid of rejection (colloquially presented as
>"socially retarded" in this case)
I'm afraid that doesn't apply to me; I /reject/ the advances of others
upon me. When I was 21, I finally accepted someone else's forward offer
to initiate a relationship and the relationship failed.
Your statement has no merit because your basis is faulty -- I've had a
lot of offers for 'relationships' from other people, even in my teen
years. -I- rejected -them-.
>will go for something (dogs in this
>case), which minimises Risk, but at the cost of being an inferior
>substitute
Inferior by your standards. My canine relationships last much longer
than the average 'normal' human relationship.
>for a human relationship in terms of such things as
>understanding, Intelligence, intellectual content etc.
Outright wrong to the first; debatable on the other two.
-- Ironhoof
Dave - evaD
until great Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come
against him.
>>>Gays, minorities, the other gender, communists...
>>>
>>>Its emotionally safer than having to deal with tolerance ... well, you
>>>kno. :-D
>>
>>No, He's just pointing out that It's EASIER to deal with a dog which
>>will NOT reject you as oppose to a Human who MIGHT.
>
>The fact that the point has no merit (there are plenty of dogs which
>would reject me or you) aside, I'm just pointing out that its easier to
>stick to one's limited world-view than dare try and look outside of it.
No there aren't. If you buy a puppy/young dog and raise it and own it,
It will not reject you since you are alpha, Thus it is highly likely
that It will accept sexual relations with you, and female dogs due to
the heat will solicit sex from many different animals, even non dog
ones.
>I'm afraid that doesn't apply to me; I /reject/ the advances of others
>upon me. When I was 21, I finally accepted someone else's forward offer
>to initiate a relationship and the relationship failed.
Yes, You reject others advances since you fear something in the
relationship, maybe you fear that they will eventually reject you,
perhaps you feel threatened by their independence, maybe you need a
dependant (and what is more dependant that a dog?)
>Your statement has no merit because your basis is faulty -- I've had a
>lot of offers for 'relationships' from other people, even in my teen
>years. -I- rejected -them-.
Yep, You're afraid of a relationship with other humans.
>>will go for something (dogs in this
>>case), which minimises Risk, but at the cost of being an inferior
>>substitute
>
>Inferior by your standards. My canine relationships last much longer
>than the average 'normal' human relationship.
That's because a dog will never reject you under the circumstances
with which you form a relationship, you are the alpha. It will cheat
on you if it had the opportunity etc, and the dog does not conceive
off or think of the relationship in the same sense as you do.
>>for a human relationship in terms of such things as
>>understanding, Intelligence, intellectual content etc.
>
>Outright wrong to the first; debatable on the other two.
How can A dog understand what you have been through if you are clamped
for parking in a no parking zone?
That's something which can upset people, and a human of similar
background can understand perfectly the private property related pain,
a dog cannot.
Dogs are not as intelligent as people; There is no debate there.
How many dogs can perform organ transplants?
And Dogs cannot for example discuss Proust or Wittgenstein, Therefore
there will be little (none I should imagine) intellectually content to
the relationship.
---
No Heroes
Elizabeth A. Johnson
Russ wrote:
> "Skytech" <sky...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:b128fs$brg$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > If enough animals kill their partners or a very nasty disease
> > specifically targets sexual practices of homosexuality then both
> > groups will be naturally weeded out but even then modern science helps
> > the victim. There's also enough breeders out there to produce enough
> > population to guarantee more people with these tendencies.
> >
> > Also explains the growing number of criminally psychotic.
> > Percentages....
>
> Forgive me if perhaps I'm reading between the lines some, but isn't this
> going a bit far? You sound more than slightly keen on both these
> scenarious - and I'd be interested to see what resources you have that show
> a link between homosexuality/zoophilia and criminally psychotic behavious,
> which is *certainly* what you're suggesting, just reading the lines that are
> there. There are proven links between animal abuse (specifically animal
> cruelty) at a young age and human abuse at an older age, but to my mind this
> isn't what's being discussed.
I think you're reading between the lines _A LOT_ and I am certain Skytech is
*certainly* NOT suggesting a correlation between homosexuality/zoophilia and
criminally psychotic behaviors.
increased number of people = increased number of homosexuals
increased number of people = increased number of zoophiles
increased number of people = increased number of heterosexuals
increased number of people = increased number of criminally insane
increased number of people = increased number of children
simple really...
> The truth of the matter is, making comments like this you probably
> understand the topic of debate about as little as it's possible to. I may
> be a newbie to the group, and largely I've left this thread, but some
> comments do rile me some....
take a chill pill. don't get riled... especially over something that isn't
even there.
Dave - evaD
vanquished be until great Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry.
hill shall come against him.
>On 27 Jan 2003 01:45:27 GMT, §ñühwØLf <snuhwo...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Henri Vuorenmaa (Samurai Dog) <henri.v...@nic.fi> scribbled
>>illegibly<h6g83vscok38s2v3n...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>
>>>Hey! Why don't you all just read my message "Thoughts about gayness"?
>>
>>*rolls eyes* Oh...lets do everything _you_ want to do...
>>
>>>My view is that gayness/zoophilia and the like could have been
>>>*designed* to limit the population on Earth. You see, if there were no
>>>gays, zoophiles or lesbians, the human population could already have
>>>grown too big to live on Earth. This way the nature would pick some
>>>humans and somehow *turn* them into gays etc. so that population
>>>doesn't increase that fast.
>>>
>>Well it hasen't worked honey...theres FIVE BILLION of us on this rock.
>>ANd AIDS is natures way of culling the herd further by focusing on
>>gayes...
>>yeah...
>>
>>~Prince Snuhwolf`
>
>*laughs*
OMFG!
STUFF THIS ONE AND PUT HIM IN A GLASS CASE!
>OK...maybe I was a bit too bored when I came up with this theory...
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>One who is samurai must, before all things, keep constantly in mind, by day and by night....that he has to die
>
>Daidoji Yuzan (16th Century)
---
No Heroes
Skytech
> > Also explains the growing number of criminally psychotic.
> > Percentages....
>
> Forgive me if perhaps I'm reading between the lines some, but isn't
this
> going a bit far? You sound more than slightly keen on both these
> scenarious - and I'd be interested to see what resources you have
that show
> a link between homosexuality/zoophilia and criminally psychotic
behavious,
> which is *certainly* what you're suggesting,
Not at all. I suggest that the larger the population the more chance
there is to produce people with 'abnormmal' behavior. That's why I put
criminally psychotic in a separate sentence preceded by "also". *That*
category is usually consitered a detriment to a genepool yet it's
always there.
>
> The truth of the matter is, making comments like this you probably
> understand the topic of debate about as little as it's possible to.
I may
> be a newbie to the group, and largely I've left this thread, but
some
> comments do rile me some....
>
Sorry you misunderstood my comment. I was trying to say that it would
take a lot of significant 'weeding' to remove what is being deemed
wrong behavior otherwise it will continue and possibly increase. The
world's *huge* human
population guarantees increase. The bell curve just gets bigger.
§ñühwØLf
illegibly<pan.2003.01.27....@spamcop.net>:
>On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:47:09 +0200, Henri Vuorenmaa (Samurai Dog)
wrote:
>
>> *The Samurai sighs and shakes his head*
>>
>> "And I thought the FAQ said zoos were welcome here"
>>
>> *Walks to the fox by the fire*
>>
>> "Can I have one of those? Looks like they will be having a long
>> discussion."
>
>Care if I join you guys? I can supply chocolate and graham crackers
for
>smores.
>
>
*yawn* The roll-playing newsgroup is thataway -------->
HTH
~Prince Snuhwolf~
§ñühwØLf
illegibly<3E350ECF...@fast.net>:
>"§ñühwØLf" wrote:
>
>> Are you reading on-line or off-line? I think the "pressure" you feel
>> might be the fact that some ISP's drop ya if you're not passing
packets
>> at a steady rate.Try reading & writing responses offline to see if
that
>> helps :O)
>
>or install something like aim, or another messanger, mos thave a 'keep
>connection alive' setting that passes a default numbe of packets at
>interval
>
Most decent newsreaders have a manual setting for the ping rate :O)
X-News does I'm pretty sure as does Bright & Colorful MicroPlanet
Gravity...
~Prince Snuhwolf~
§ñühwØLf
illegibly<3e35a3ad...@news.cis.dfn.de>:
[......]
>>>> This way the nature would pick some
>>>>humans and somehow *turn* them into gays etc. so that population
>>>>doesn't increase that fast.
>>>>
>>>Well it hasen't worked honey...theres FIVE BILLION of us on this
rock.
>>>ANd AIDS is natures way of culling the herd further by focusing on
>>>gayes...
>>>yeah...
>>>
>
>OMFG!
>STUFF THIS ONE AND PUT HIM IN A GLASS CASE!
>
Really Davey? You havent heard? Heh...some blacks think that AIDS is an
invention of WHITE SCIENTISTS to wipe them out!
Try alt.conspiracy.theory :O)
~Prince Snuhwolf~
§ñühwØLf
illegibly<b13d55$7sq$1...@raccoon.fur.com>:
Well duh.I told you Sky was a troLL! Wait'll you hear his theory on why
furries like fursuits; its a convienient way to hide ones identy while
doing all sorts of unconscionable things.Hint: hide your kids!
FYI
HTH
~Prince Snuhwolf~
Russ
--->8--- Snip ---8<---
> Not at all. I suggest that the larger the population the more chance
> there is to produce people with 'abnormmal' behavior. That's why I put
> criminally psychotic in a separate sentence preceded by "also". *That*
> category is usually consitered a detriment to a genepool yet it's
> always there.
*blushes, hanging head a little akwardly, absent-mindedly tracing patterns
with a fore-hoof* I know... Avenging Lioness pointed that one out...
--->8--- Snip ---8<---
> Sorry you misunderstood my comment. I was trying to say that it would
> take a lot of significant 'weeding' to remove what is being deemed
> wrong behavior otherwise it will continue and possibly increase. The
> world's *huge* human
> population guarantees increase. The bell curve just gets bigger.
Appology accepted fella, I knew there was a good reason I'd left this thread
alone, not good at discussions like these, a matter too close to my heart,
and too far from the rest of the world. Sorry on my part for jumping the
gun there slightly!
*Sighs gently, then sits heavily to pensively nibble a hind-hoof. Snuffles
at the scent of cookies wafting from another thread...*
Russ ;)
Ironhoof
>No there aren't. If you buy a puppy/young dog and raise it and own it,
>It will not reject you since you are alpha, Thus it is highly likely
>that It will accept sexual relations with you, and female dogs due to
>the heat will solicit sex from many different animals, even non dog
>ones.
Clearly you have far less experience with dogs than I do; not all dogs
love or trust everyone on sight, and one such dog is my mate.
And I can attest the second part of your statement is false as well.
The reality is some bitches are very particular about who they will mate
with; my canine mate, for instance, rejects other males.
>
>Yes, You reject others advances since you fear something in the
>relationship,
Because the relationship /isn't for me./ Is it so impossible that some
people are born /different/ than you, and just because its different
doesn't make it a 'sickness' or a 'sin?'
>maybe you fear that they will eventually reject you,
>perhaps you feel threatened by their independence, maybe you need a
>dependant (and what is more dependant that a dog?)
Humans are far more dependent than dogs. I've had others in a human
relationship try to 'dominate' me; I've had others try to submit to me
but what I seek is an equal partner ... and my canine mate fits the role
far bette than any human.
>
>>Your statement has no merit because your basis is faulty -- I've had a
>>lot of offers for 'relationships' from other people, even in my teen
>>years. -I- rejected -them-.
>
>Yep, You're afraid of a relationship with other humans.
Yes, and you are God's personal expert on me. :) NOT!
>
>>>will go for something (dogs in this
>>>case), which minimises Risk, but at the cost of being an inferior
>>>substitute
>>
>>Inferior by your standards. My canine relationships last much longer
>>than the average 'normal' human relationship.
>
>That's because a dog will never reject you
BZZZZT, WRONG. Check any shelter and ask about their 'hard-to-adopt'
types. I've had plenty of canines demonstrate a clear lack of interest
in me.
>under the circumstances
>with which you form a relationship, you are the alpha.
There are two alphas in a pack. I do not dominate my mate as an alpha
to a subordinate, so you'll have to think of another explanation.
>It will cheat
>on you if it had the opportunity
"It?" Is that all dogs are to you -- mindless beasts, no identity, no
soul, no gender, just 'it?' Actually I pretty well guessed the answer
to that from your well-expressed ignorance.
You speak as an expert on my relationship and, worse, as an expert on my
mate whom you keep pulling suppositions about that flat aren't true. I
strongly suggest rendering any preconceptions about her. She isn't your
normal loves-everyone kinda dog, not by a long shot. Were you to try to
approach her, even with food in hand, if she didn't know you she'd run
from you and cower under the nearest bush/table.
>etc, and the dog does not conceive
>of or think of the relationship in the same sense as you do.
I think its safe to say I have a more intimate and familiar grasp of my
relationship to a canine than your 'observations' from the end of a
5000-mile-long pole (or however far it is from your home to mine).
With that in mind, it shouldn't surprise me you know so little of how my
relationship is for both my mate and myself. Frankly, it doesn't
surprise me that you continue to proclaim statements you really have no
basis to make about a specific relationship, on no side of which are you
on familiar terms with.
>>>for a human relationship in terms of such things as
>>>understanding, Intelligence, intellectual content etc.
>>
>>Outright wrong to the first; debatable on the other two.
>
>How can A dog understand what you have been through if you are clamped
>for parking in a no parking zone?
Would a computer-ignorant human mate understand if I had a rotten day at
work due to a corrupted disk write buffer?
My canine mate doesn't need to know the technicals of human-generated
conniptions to sense my frustration at getting caught in them.
Perception of others is a suit canines excel at and humans are miserable
failures.
>That's something which can upset people, and a human of similar
>background can understand perfectly the private property related pain,
>a dog cannot.
Private property, in terms of land, is merely something many (but /not/
ALL) humans forever seek to bully away from nature and any other living
beings, including each other at (and beyond) gun point.
>Dogs are not as intelligent as people; There is no debate there.
Not for you, because you are stuck in your world-view.
>How many dogs can perform organ transplants?
So, any being that cannot perform an organ transplant is dumb? There
are plenty of parasitic and symbiotic life forms that can do that ...
does that make them more intelligent than you if you cannot perform such
an operation?
Your definition of 'the real world' involves cities, cars, factories ...
civilization ... and nothing more. The /real/ real world is far more
vast ... just because humans have managed to destroy most of it doesn't
lend a shred of credence to the notion that the 'modern' human
world-view is the 'real' one. The 'real world' I speak of existed
billions of years before the species homo sapien even saw the light of
day.
>And Dogs cannot for example discuss Proust or Wittgenstein,
Neither could I, as I've never heard of either.
>Therefore
>there will be little (none I should imagine) intellectually content to
>the relationship.
I learned to communicate intimately with my canine mate. Her
understanding me actually required almost no adjustment; she being an
extremely perceptive being doesn't need to understand English to know
how I feel or even sense that I might want something from the slightest
shift in my scent, the tone of my voice and/or whatever other indicators
humans give off that a variety of species can comprehend so well.
My mate tried to alert me to the fact someone I let into a house I was
renting, for example, was untrustworthy. He was a slick con artist, but
he didn't have her fooled for a second the way he fooled me for a long
time, and had fooled a /lot/ of other humans as well.
Would that you could accept that it happened (and I can assure you it
did), this would make my canine mate -- a mere 'it' in your eyes -- have
an understanding of human nature the world's foremost anthropologists
would envy.
How's your human nature? Had I any money to bet, I'd bet Covy could
sniff out someone's real nature far more quickly and accurately than you
could.
Ironhoof
qwertyuiop
other
> >> species are incapable of achieving pleasure from sex?
> >
> >I never said that. That would be a pretty wild statement. To "explore
mutual
> >pleasure" and to have a sexual "relationship" does, however,
> >anthropomorphise
>
> You rather contradict yourself here.
No, I do not. Even though the animal in question is capable of feeling
sexual pleasure and feels sexual pleasure you still cannot have a
relationship of equals with your dog. Just as Dave wrote earlier - it's
still a human and a dog, with a human/dog kind of relationship. This is the
core of the discussion right here - the dog is a dog and a human is a human.
There are similarities between the two species, sure. Dogs are intelligent
and social animals that fit in well in human society. But when zoos claim
that they have "loving reciprocal sexual relationships of equal partners"
with their dogs then the zoos are anthromorphising the dogs, projecting
human emotions and behaviour partterns into the dogs.
> >the animal and it's behaviour. I'm pretty sure that the act
> >of sexual intercourse is pleasure for higher animals.
>
> 'Higher animal' is another subjective term.
>
> >It is in natures
> >interest that breeding (sexual activity) equals pleasure.
>
> Is it?
> Try researching the sexual behavior of, say, the black widow spider ...
There you go again. You rip a paragraph i wrote apart into two different
sentences and dissect them separately. We were talking about higher animals
(and by this I mean social, intelligent animals like dogs for instance, wich
we were discussuing here!) and then you rip the paragraph in two pieces and
start talking about spiders!
> >> >A repeat offender needs to be
> >> >isolated from animals (forced hospitalization/jail) during the
> >> >therapy/treatment.
> >>
> >> But you stated 'I don't think that zoos belong in jail.' Which is it?
> >
> >Do you read the text before you reply to it? This is something I clearly
> >answered
>
> Contradicting yourself disqualifies 'clearly answered.'
Again, I did not contradict myself. I did carefully explain my views, but
you did not (did not want to) understand them. I wrote that zoos don't
beling in jail JUST FOR BEING ZOOS, but that their sexual behaviour was
problematic. And that passive zoos didn't need intervention, but active zoos
needed therapy and that IF NEED BE then active zoos need to be forcibly
isolated from animals.
Have you aqquired the ability to read english text now? Or do I have to
explain this to you a fourth time? Ffs, it's not as if the messages aren't
there for you to read and re-read. If you don't understand something,
perhaps you should try to read it again before you claim that I contradict
myself. You seem to be doing that a lot.
> >and explained in the very same paragraphs you replied to, so it
> >makes me wonder if you're actually asking me this question or if you are
> >just clutching at straws and/or trying to be a wisenheimer?
>
> I'm afraid I am not familiar with that term. I am afraid my
> extrasensory perceptive abilities are not up to snuff; in simpler
> language, I can't read minds ... I can only read what you write which
> contradicts itself in a number of places.
I'm very sorry if I overestimated your abilities. Most people I have had
arguments with are quite capable of reading a paragraph and understanding
the meaning of it, even if some individual word may occationally be slightly
badly chosen. In the future I will try to explain things as if I were
talking to a five year old.
> >> > because animals don't function that way
> >
> >> They don't? In that case, all sex -- even sex between humans -- is
> >> wrong, because humans are a species of the animal kingdom. I fail to
> >> Did you never study basic biology? Or do you reject this standard?
> >
> >Now you are just being a smartss again. You understand perfectly well
what I
> >meant.
>
> I must again confess I have no extrasensory perception; I can only read
> what you write.
Oh, come on. We were talking about zoos relationships with animals. I wrote
that you cannot have a sexual equal relationship with your animal because
animals just don't function that way, ie they are not human. Are you telling
me that you didn't understand what I meant? Then we have got a serious
problem here... But of course, we do. In your minds eye you just don't see
the difference do you? This shows your grip on reality or lack thereof I
should perhaps say. Statements like these and quotes like "My canine mate
has successfully demonstrated greater emotional and psychological maturity
than my human partners or even myself" show your take on reality and, well,
it's not really what us humans living the real world would nessecarily
describe as "perfectly sane".
> >Excuse me? The APA has labled zoophilia as one of the paraphilias and not
> >classified it as a "mental illness" that need treatment. What I wrote in
the
> >above paragraphs is that zoos that claim that they have a "loving
reciprocal
> >relationship", ie a loving sexual relationship of equal partners with
their
> >dog, have got a twisted sense of reality
>
> That contradicts accredited and established case research studies with
> the APA.
Oh? So, the APA has concluded that a dog is capable of having a "loving
sexual relationship of equal partners" with his human owner. That was
certainly news to me. Well, well, well, let's allow you to marry your dog
then, since the APA have concluded that you are perfectly correct in your
assessment about the nature of your relationship with your dog and not
delusional at all. [Note to the five year old readers: The last sentence in
this paragraph is irony, I really didn't mean that we should allow you to
marry your dog]
Dave - evaD
great Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come against
him.
>Dennis Carr <ke6...@spamcop.net> scribbled
ROLL OVER BEETHOVEN!
---
And I wonder why
But the world will die
Nothing will remain
I'm a bleeding heart
In the falling dark
I will never be the same
Dave - evaD
until great Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come
against him.
>>No there aren't. If you buy a puppy/young dog and raise it and own it,
>>It will not reject you since you are alpha, Thus it is highly likely
>>that It will accept sexual relations with you, and female dogs due to
>>the heat will solicit sex from many different animals, even non dog
>>ones.
>
>Clearly you have far less experience with dogs than I do; not all dogs
>love or trust everyone on sight, and one such dog is my mate.
Bling, You're ignoreing what I said, I said that If you BUY AND RAISE
a Dog, There is almost no chance that It will reject you if you treat
it in any reasonable fashion.
>And I can attest the second part of your statement is false as well.
>The reality is some bitches are very particular about who they will mate
>with; my canine mate, for instance, rejects other males.
But It will accept Sexual proclivites from YOU right?
Like I said, less chance of rejction. HTH.
>>
>>Yes, You reject others advances since you fear something in the
>>relationship,
>
>Because the relationship /isn't for me./ Is it so impossible that some
>people are born /different/ than you, and just because its different
>doesn't make it a 'sickness' or a 'sin?'
Why is the relationship not for you?
You haven't asnwered my qiestion, IS it because there is somethign you
fear in the relationship?
>>maybe you fear that they will eventually reject you,
>>perhaps you feel threatened by their independence, maybe you need a
>>dependant (and what is more dependant that a dog?)
>
>Humans are far more dependent than dogs. I've had others in a human
>relationship try to 'dominate' me; I've had others try to submit to me
>but what I seek is an equal partner ... and my canine mate fits the role
>far bette than any human.
Please explain how a wholly dependent relationship on it's part (the
dog depends on you for everything from walks to food to medical
treatment) can be considered equal.
Also, Equality would indicate some form of understanding, does the dog
understand what Anything means?
Does it even know know what it means to be a dog? Could it articulate
thoughts, engage in highe thought process, I.e purely theorectical
stuff i.e what does our relationship mean to the wider world etc.
>>>Your statement has no merit because your basis is faulty -- I've had a
>>>lot of offers for 'relationships' from other people, even in my teen
>>>years. -I- rejected -them-.
>>
>>Yep, You're afraid of a relationship with other humans.
>
>Yes, and you are God's personal expert on me. :) NOT!
Well, You've dont nothing to indicate that you're not afraid or
worried about relationships with humans, You've simply stated over and
over how you don't want one. Now there's something at work there,
Since You wouldn't say that unless you had some form of fear/aversion
etc at work.
>>
>>>>will go for something (dogs in this
>>>>case), which minimises Risk, but at the cost of being an inferior
>>>>substitute
>>>
>>>Inferior by your standards. My canine relationships last much longer
>>>than the average 'normal' human relationship.
>>
>>That's because a dog will never reject you
>
>BZZZZT, WRONG. Check any shelter and ask about their 'hard-to-adopt'
>types. I've had plenty of canines demonstrate a clear lack of interest
>in me.
Again, How much harder is it to get a person to accept you compared to
a dog?
IT's like a rote, A dog will automatically accept you if you follow a
preset course.
>>under the circumstances
>>with which you form a relationship, you are the alpha.
>
>There are two alphas in a pack. I do not dominate my mate as an alpha
>to a subordinate, so you'll have to think of another explanation.
But it's still a wholly dependant relationship.
>>It will cheat
>>on you if it had the opportunity
>
>"It?" Is that all dogs are to you -- mindless beasts, no identity, no
No, Dogs are independant and different biological units but they
cannot have an identity in the same sense we have one.
For example, Relegion, even IF you do not belive, It is part of the
human capacity to conceive of higher beings/things/stuff dude.
>soul, no gender, just 'it?' Actually I pretty well guessed the answer
>to that from your well-expressed ignorance.
Ahh, You're ducking the issue, Trying to replace it with something
else.
That's a straw man. HTH.
The issue is that it's not really what
>You speak as an expert on my relationship and, worse, as an expert on my
>mate whom you keep pulling suppositions about that flat aren't true. I
>strongly suggest rendering any preconceptions about her. She isn't your
>normal loves-everyone kinda dog, not by a long shot. Were you to try to
>approach her, even with food in hand, if she didn't know you she'd run
>from you and cower under the nearest bush/table.
Ah, So It's a very dependant relationship isn't it then?
The dog is dependant on you by the fact of it's mistrust of others,
Thus you perhaps
>>etc, and the dog does not conceive
>>of or think of the relationship in the same sense as you do.
>
>I think its safe to say I have a more intimate and familiar grasp of my
>relationship to a canine than your 'observations' from the end of a
>5000-mile-long pole (or however far it is from your home to mine).
>
>With that in mind, it shouldn't surprise me you know so little of how my
>relationship is for both my mate and myself. Frankly, it doesn't
>surprise me that you continue to proclaim statements you really have no
>basis to make about a specific relationship, on no side of which are you
>on familiar terms with.
Hmm, Again, All you are doing is trying to deflect the main thrust of
criticism.
Can/does the dog conceive of the relationship in the same way you do?
Is it an equal relationship?
Can it be without that understanding on both parts?
What about the dependence issues?
>>>>for a human relationship in terms of such things as
>>>>understanding, Intelligence, intellectual content etc.
>>>
>>>Outright wrong to the first; debatable on the other two.
>>
>>How can A dog understand what you have been through if you are clamped
>>for parking in a no parking zone?
>
>Would a computer-ignorant human mate understand if I had a rotten day at
>work due to a corrupted disk write buffer?
Yes, You can say that the Bit which stores the information was not
being able to store more(?), A computer ignorant human understands
that computers exist, indeed they are likely to understand how
problematic they are.
They may have experienced problems with computers in the past, etc,
they understand in a most general and even in a structural sense etc,
and of course they have the capacity to learn what it is,
You could even explain to them what went wrong!
>My canine mate doesn't need to know the technicals of human-generated
>conniptions to sense my frustration at getting caught in them.
>Perception of others is a suit canines excel at and humans are miserable
>failures.
No, Humans are much more perceptive that Dogs, Why else would we have
achieved what we have today?
Visited the moon?
Organ transplants?
Etc, without being more perceptive than another animals.
Look at how easily humans are able to sense differences, single out
someone who is different etc.
>>That's something which can upset people, and a human of similar
>>background can understand perfectly the private property related pain,
>>a dog cannot.
>
>Private property, in terms of land, is merely something many (but /not/
>ALL) humans forever seek to bully away from nature and any other living
>beings, including each other at (and beyond) gun point.
That's a purely Ideological point HTH, I Do think that we need to be
careful with the earth and that we should have social control of
capital for the greater good, But As Far as I'm concerned the world
belongs to all humanity, It's all of ours.
>>Dogs are not as intelligent as people; There is no debate there.
>
>Not for you, because you are stuck in your world-view.
How many dogs can Build moon rockets?
>>How many dogs can perform organ transplants?
>
>So, any being that cannot perform an organ transplant is dumb? There
>are plenty of parasitic and symbiotic life forms that can do that ...
>does that make them more intelligent than you if you cannot perform such
>an operation?
>
>Your definition of 'the real world' involves cities, cars, factories ...
>civilization ... and nothing more. The /real/ real world is far more
>vast ... just because humans have managed to destroy most of it doesn't
>lend a shred of credence to the notion that the 'modern' human
>world-view is the 'real' one. The 'real world' I speak of existed
>billions of years before the species homo sapien even saw the light of
>day.
WTF are you talking about?
You're trying to talk about some kind of abstract view, You're trying
to judge it outside of the materiel and historical context, We humans
have built this world, And that alone is proof of our intelligence
over all other animals at creative & constructive works etc.
>>And Dogs cannot for example discuss Proust or Wittgenstein,
>
>Neither could I, as I've never heard of either.
But you can read right?
You can read about them?
You have the capacity and the potentional, A Dog never will.
>>Therefore
>>there will be little (none I should imagine) intellectually content to
>>the relationship.
>
>I learned to communicate intimately with my canine mate. Her
>understanding me actually required almost no adjustment; she being an
>extremely perceptive being doesn't need to understand English to know
>how I feel or even sense that I might want something from the slightest
>shift in my scent, the tone of my voice and/or whatever other indicators
>humans give off that a variety of species can comprehend so well.
Hmm, so if you're feeling existential doubt about your existence it
will understand what you're feeling?!?!?!?
>My mate tried to alert me to the fact someone I let into a house I was
>renting, for example, was untrustworthy. He was a slick con artist, but
>he didn't have her fooled for a second the way he fooled me for a long
>time, and had fooled a /lot/ of other humans as well.
You're applying what's called a positive Filter to results, You
remember the times when such has happened, But May I remind you that
there are many dogs who have NOT picked up con artists.
Also, You did say earlier about how your dog seems to not like many
people, could that have something to do with it I wonder?
Indeed Lying in such a fashion is something primates do, and lying in
the abstract is something which humans only seem to do, so it is not
that your dog could have any understanding of this.
>Would that you could accept that it happened (and I can assure you it
>did), this would make my canine mate -- a mere 'it' in your eyes -- have
>an understanding of human nature the world's foremost anthropologists
>would envy.
>
>How's your human nature? Had I any money to bet, I'd bet Covy could
>sniff out someone's real nature far more quickly and accurately than you
>could.
What do you mean by nature?
What If I'm a nice hearted capitalist pretending to be a nice hearted
socialist? How could it sniff out my capitalistic nature?
How could it even understand what Capitalism or Socialism mean?
It's well meaning to think this, But ultimately you're simply
anthromorpiiseing her to conform to your relationship ideals.
Russ
news:b15f23$c8j$1...@plaza.suomi.net...
> > You rather contradict yourself here.
>
>
> No, I do not. Even though the animal in question is capable of feeling
> sexual pleasure and feels sexual pleasure you still cannot have a
> relationship of equals with your dog. Just as Dave wrote earlier - it's
> still a human and a dog, with a human/dog kind of relationship. This is
the
> core of the discussion right here - the dog is a dog and a human is a
human.
> There are similarities between the two species, sure. Dogs are intelligent
> and social animals that fit in well in human society. But when zoos claim
> that they have "loving reciprocal sexual relationships of equal partners"
> with their dogs then the zoos are anthromorphising the dogs, projecting
> human emotions and behaviour partterns into the dogs.
And the big problem with this? Sounds like a happy human and a happy dog to
me. Even if the human is using the dogs instincts for his or her own
pleasures, the dog is following their instincts, and most animals are happy
to do that, surely? If as you suggest this is the core of the discussion
then there've been a lot of posts over what to me is quite a straightforward
question.
> Again, I did not contradict myself. I did carefully explain my views, but
> you did not (did not want to) understand them. I wrote that zoos don't
> beling in jail JUST FOR BEING ZOOS, but that their sexual behaviour was
> problematic. And that passive zoos didn't need intervention, but active
zoos
> needed therapy and that IF NEED BE then active zoos need to be forcibly
> isolated from animals.
Why? If cruelty to the animal can't be established (it's extremely
unlikely when you're talking to people in a forum specifically for people
who are very likely to anthropomorphise to the nth degree) and zoos aren't
suddenly going to become marauding mass-murderers or anything similar, then
quite frankly it's not your business.
> Have you aqquired the ability to read english text now? Or do I have to
> explain this to you a fourth time? Ffs, it's not as if the messages aren't
> there for you to read and re-read. If you don't understand something,
> perhaps you should try to read it again before you claim that I contradict
> myself. You seem to be doing that a lot.
It's spelt acquired, I believe.
> > I'm afraid I am not familiar with that term. I am afraid my
> > extrasensory perceptive abilities are not up to snuff; in simpler
> > language, I can't read minds ... I can only read what you write which
> > contradicts itself in a number of places.
>
> I'm very sorry if I overestimated your abilities. Most people I have had
> arguments with are quite capable of reading a paragraph and understanding
> the meaning of it, even if some individual word may occationally be
slightly
> badly chosen. In the future I will try to explain things as if I were
> talking to a five year old.
And hey, we should be discussing here, not arguing... IMHO, at least.
§ñühwØLf
>§ñühwØLf <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> shall never vanquished be until
>great Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come against
>him.
>
>>Dennis Carr <ke6...@spamcop.net> scribbled
>>illegibly<pan.2003.01.27....@spamcop.net>:
>>
>>>On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:47:09 +0200, Henri Vuorenmaa (Samurai Dog)
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> *The Samurai sighs and shakes his head*
>>>>
>>>> "And I thought the FAQ said zoos were welcome here"
>>>>
>>>> *Walks to the fox by the fire*
>>>>
>>>> "Can I have one of those? Looks like they will be having a long
>>>> discussion."
>>>
>>>Care if I join you guys? I can supply chocolate and graham crackers
>>for
>>>smores.
>>>
>>>
>>*yawn* The roll-playing newsgroup is thataway -------->
>>HTH
>
>ROLL OVER BEETHOVEN!
>
Hey! How about a rousing song about zoophilia?
I got me a barnyard buddy
an brother
he's hung like a horse
cause thats what he is
and he's chock fulla jizz
and he likes to bugger me too
The sheriff he done caught me
with ol hoss's bone in muh throat
now I'm in charge of the Prison Farm
and muh new girlfriend is a goat
~Prince Snuhwolf~
...still working on the chorus...
Skytech
> *blushes, hanging head a little akwardly, absent-mindedly tracing
patterns
> with a fore-hoof* I know... Avenging Lioness pointed that one
out...
>
Newsgroup timewarp...
>
> *Sighs gently, then sits heavily to pensively nibble a hind-hoof.
Snuffles
> at the scent of cookies wafting from another thread...*
>
I also realize I may not have been clear enough.
--
The Vigilant Fox
Skytech
^^
<@@>
.]
Aspen
posts at most. Sheesh
:)
-Aspen
"Aspen" <dunkelz...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:b0q9sn$1q6i$1...@velox.critter.net...
> The more I read, the more controversial zoophilia is. I read in one area
> that it is shunned, and considered horrible, and then people say the
direct
> opposite. I cannot seem to find a majority opinion from furs on whether
or
> not zoophilia is OK.
>
> And yes I know, just about anything is OK because we furs in the fandom
> don't judge people, but in your opinion, is it good or bad?
>
> -Aspen
>
>
qwertyuiop
to
> me. Even if the human is using the dogs instincts for his or her own
> pleasures, the dog is following their instincts, and most animals are
happy
> to do that, surely?
Ah, but this is exactly what is happening. As you said - the human is using
the dogs instincts for his or her own pleasures. But the thing is that the
zoos themselves don't see it that way. They are delusional in that they
project humanity into the animals and claim to have a "loving sexual
relationship of equals" with their creature, something which implies human
capabilities and intelligence. In most cases the welfare of the dog is not
an issue, but rather the mindset of the zoophile, who either is delusional
in that he actually doesn't see the difference between the relationship
between a dog and its owner and the relationship between two human lovers -
or has just forced his own lies (denial, rationalization) upon himself to
the extent that he is beginning to believe them himself.
> And hey, we should be discussing here, not arguing... IMHO, at least.
Yes, I got a bit annoyed at him there. I am frustrated by what I feel is a
real slump in the quality of the counter-arguments. Mostly it's picking my
individual words and sentences out of context, referring to the APA at every
possible (and impossible) moment and accusing me of contradiction when I
just explained things at length. Sorry. It got to me at last. ;)
qwertyuiop
> United States (and, I assume, likewise in other countries) as a
> 'condition' requiring 'treatment.'
By the way, I did some reading up on what the psychiatric community ACTUALLY
are saying about this disorder, because it is classified as a disorder.
Allow me to quote a little bit from the following page :
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3127.htm It also goes on to desribe how
to treat and manage this disorder and what medication to give to the
psychriatric patient who suffers from this disorder. In hindsight it was
perhaps not such a good idea of you to use the psychiatric community as such
a major ingredient in your counter-arguments, eh?
Quote:
"Background: Paraphilia is a rare disorder, and the best criteria for
diagnosis come from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) or the International Statistical
Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10). The disorder is
characterized by a 6-month period of recurrent, intense, sexually arousing
fantasies or sexual urges involving a specific act, depending on the
paraphilia.
Paraphilia is a means for some people to release sexual energy or
frustration. The act commonly is followed by arousal and orgasm, usually
achieved by masturbation and fantasy. These disorders are not well
recognized and often are difficult to treat for several reasons. Often,
people who have these disorders conceal them, experience guilt and shame,
have financial or legal problems, and can (at times) be uncooperative with
medical professionals.
Some psychiatrists discuss whether paraphilias are a part of the impulse
control disorders or if they fall within the spectrum of
obsessive-compulsive disorders. The more common paraphilias include
voyeurism and frotteurism, and the most rare paraphilia is zoophilia. In
this age of computer technology, individuals can easily access information
about paraphilias from any computer, thus fueling a disorder that already is
difficult to control."
Warren Forest
> >There has never been any studies, period, at least as far as I've been
able
> >to research.
>
> Then you haven't done your research. Here's a little pointer on one of
> at least three recent researchers: Dr. Max Weinberg
Hmm... You're not reading my words carefully (or I didn't write them
carefully enough), or else you might be assuming.
I have spent countless hours (100+) on-line and countless hours in various
libraries. I have spent a great deal of time researching the subject, and
am truthfully reporting back exactly what I have found: finding decent
research is incrediably scarce.
What I'm saying is that I've looked, and there's virtually nothing. Of
course, I know (hope?) that there must be *something*, but where? I haven't
found it, but if you have then please let me know exactly where to look.
> >There is no merit given to the possibility of
> >any "relationship",
>
> That counters all the valid studies I am aware of.
Careful, you've read this line out of context. It refers to the bad
research that I found.
> >so basically all the studies are about what zoophiles
> >would call bestialists.
>
> Bestiality is the sexual aspect; zoophilia (by my and a few others'
> definitions, anyway) is the relationship aspect; the difference is akin
> to heterosexuality being rather non-descript ... a heterosexual male
> could be anything from a chauvinist pig to a classical romantic to a
> variety of other things; the sexuality alone cannot be used to describe
> an individual's motivations and relationships.
Hmm... I'm not sure why you're telling me this. Again, I think you've read
this line out of context again. (ie: I know the difference, but the bad
studies I've found do not.)
> >It's not a well researched topic at all, so studies are virtually
> >non-existant. It would therefore be a mistake to use the argument that
> >"since there are no studies...".
>
> You are the one making the argument, and it isn't true; there are and
> have been a number of studies; you simply presumed there were none.
Eh? I did not make this arguement. Why would I? I just said I disagreed
with it.
My arguement was that statements of the type "there have been no studies
showing (whatever)" prove nothing. "There have been studies showing that
there is no (whatever)" are proof.
I think, most likely, that this is just a disagreement/misunderstanding over
each other's phrasing, since I basically agree with your original point
(ie. that zoophilia and pedophila are not linked). I, for example, have
absolutely no pedophile tendencies (which is a damn good thing considering I
worked with kids for as long as I did) and yet I'm a zoophile. My
observations are about some similarities I've noticed, *not* links.
> >Now, having said all that, the similarities that I'm specifically
refering
> >to are the fact that the attraction is aimed towards an intellectually,
> >emotionally, and psychologically far less mature partner,
>
> My canine mate has successfully demonstrated greater emotional and
> psychological maturity than my human partners or even myself.
I'm curious, what's your definition of "maturity"? It's a complex idea
that's open to many views.
> >perhaps implying
> >that the suitor is aiming for a 'simpler'
>
> A matter of your opinion, not objective fact.
Yup.
> >Thirdly, the target views their suitor in a trusting and
> >reverant fashion, irregardless of any of the suitor's qualities that
other
> >mature human beings would look upon negatively.
>
> Since when should a lover not trust their partner? There is no love
> without trust in any relationship that I consider to amount to anything.
> The trust must always be earned; it is no less true for interspecies
> relationships than for human-to-human relationships.
I'm *not* saying that a lover should not trust their partner. They have to
or else it won't work.
Trust built upon what, though? Low-standards? Deception?
Obviously, those are two bad examples of 'trust', but I know many
relationships that rely on them to build the needed trust.
The trust of a child is easy to win (well, I have vitually no trouble), but
the trust of a world-savvy adult is hard. Why? Because an adult who'se
been around a bit is a better judge of how trustworthy you are. If you
think an animal is a better judge of trustworthyness, then I won't argue
with you because many furries feel that way. But personally, I just don't
believe it. Hence why I'm not interested in being a zoophile, even though I
am one.
> >In these regards, I look at myself and realize that much of the reason I
was
> >attracted to furries and animals in the first place had at least
something
> >to do with the above reasons. To me, that's not healthy at all, which is
> >why I'm not interested in being an active zoo.
>
> 'Sick' and 'healthy' are subjective terms to you.
Agreed. To me, "healthy" means living my life to the best of my potential,
and in my case that potential is very high and I know from past experiences
that animals cannot provide the emotional and family framework I need.
But I also conceed that "healthy" can also simply mean living a happy and
content life in which you don't harm others.
This is why I personally have no interest in being a zoo, but have no real
problems with those who are, because it's all relative to the standards and
goals people make for themselves.
> >> Priests are more like pedophiles than zoophiles ... priests like to
push
> >> their ways on others they consider in their 'flock,' their 'children.'
> >
> >No, that's not at all true. I worked in the ministry *because I cared*.
>
> Cared about what? My minister 'cared' ... he 'cared' that 'evil
> homosexuals' were taking over the government and 'good Christians' need
> to fight such devil's work.
"Cared foremost about people's feelings" is what I meant. I agree with what
you're saying though, I know many people who 'care' in exactly the way you
describe.
> Thousands and thousands of victims of priests' "caring" for them when
> they were young boys would also disagree with you.
No, they wouldn't, because I agree with what you're saying. I think you've
misunderstood me.
> >I
> >honestly wanted to help, and honestly believed I was helping people.
>
> I'm sure that's what your belief was; I'm sure all priests fell that way
> and they see no wrong in anything they do. It's all "God's work"
> because in their mind, it is.
>
> Much as it was for the al Qaeda operatives that violently took over four
> commercial jetliners on September 11, 2001. I rather think they were
> pretty convinced they were doing the 'right thing' as well.
Actually, I'd have to disagree based on personal experience. Not "all
priests feel that way". People get involved in the ministry for different
reasons.
Many get involved because of a sense of right and wrong; they are upset that
the world is a mess and believe they can fix it because they know the
"right" rules. When you disobey, they get mad. These are the kinds of
people I think you're talking about.
However, many get involved out of a sense of empathy. They see people
suffering and wish to help. Often, they leave the "right" and "wrong" to
the preachers, and just worry about lending a helping hand. These are the
people I'm refering to in my 85% statement.
In my case, I started out because of a sense of right and wrong, but soon
learned it wasn't that simple. I stayed in because of the empathy. I was
one of those rarer breed of leaders that cared more about the people's
feeling than about what the people were doing (ie. 'sins').
> Can you show me a decent-sized random sampling of priests where 85%
> would avoid each and every one of the following activities:
I wouldn't try, because I'd fail...
> I think the ratio is the reverse of what you think in terms of the
> priests. Were you to speak of Christians in general I might agree; the
> priesthood and 'church leadership,' however, is still the same good ol'
> boys network it always has been
...because this closer to what I was saying. I was talking about the people
I worked with, most of whom are just the 'labourers' in the church. In
terms of leadership only, I'd say for my church the number is closer to
50-50, but for all the various church leaders as a whole the numbers get
closer to what you're saying.
> and if the slap-on-the-wrist treatment
> the church recently gave to priests, offering little or no comfort to
> their victims, who get caught molesting children isn't an indicator this
> is still the case, I don't know what is.
Even when I was in the church, my belief was that I was glad the world had
turned its back on the churches for corruption like this. After all, the
only time Jesus ever got mad and cursed at people was when he was talking to
church leaders.
--
Warren Forest, Canis Lupus Arctos - The Canadian Arctic Wolf
FCW3a A- C D++ H+ M- P+ R+ T++++ W Z- Sm#
RLET a30 c++ d-- e+ f h+ i+ j p- sm#
Change "Cold" to "Hot" to e-mail me.
Warren Forest
> > Zoosexuality is not considered by professional psycholists within the
> > United States (and, I assume, likewise in other countries) as a
> > 'condition' requiring 'treatment.'
>
> By the way, I did some reading up on what the psychiatric community
ACTUALLY
> are saying about this disorder, because it is classified as a disorder.
These are the same kinds of things I found in doing my research. I'm
genuinely interested, though, to see alternative information if it exists.
Russ
> Ah, but this is exactly what is happening. As you said - the human is
using
> the dogs instincts for his or her own pleasures. But the thing is that the
> zoos themselves don't see it that way. They are delusional in that they
> project humanity into the animals and claim to have a "loving sexual
> relationship of equals" with their creature, something which implies human
> capabilities and intelligence. In most cases the welfare of the dog is not
> an issue, but rather the mindset of the zoophile, who either is delusional
> in that he actually doesn't see the difference between the relationship
> between a dog and its owner and the relationship between two human
lovers -
> or has just forced his own lies (denial, rationalization) upon himself to
> the extent that he is beginning to believe them himself.
Well you're being very generous in your concerns... it's just rather a shame
that most zoophiles don't really care what others think of their psyche, as
certainly from my own experience I'm not overly concerned by it. Maybe I
don't disagree at all with regards to the truth of the matter - yes, maybe a
large number of zoophiles delude themselves as to the depths of the
relationships they're capable of sustaining with an animal, but that happens
in a helluva lot of human relationships. But they're only hurting
themselves, and sometimes when someone is happy to do that, all you can do
is warn them and then put the issue to rest. The warning's been done, it's
up to us now whether we heed the warning or not.
> > And hey, we should be discussing here, not arguing... IMHO, at least.
>
> Yes, I got a bit annoyed at him there. I am frustrated by what I feel is a
> real slump in the quality of the counter-arguments. Mostly it's picking my
> individual words and sentences out of context, referring to the APA at
every
> possible (and impossible) moment and accusing me of contradiction when I
> just explained things at length. Sorry. It got to me at last. ;)
Yeah, I know what you mean... it's a very emotive issue this one. To a lot
of zoophiles it's as though someone is telling them, "Hey you... your
identity is all wrong, go change it!". Obviously that's not a welcome
message, but maybe I'm luckier than many in that I'm not dedicated to being
a zoophile... I see it as a possible lifestyle choice, but one that can
change anytime. Like I was saying in another thread, my human sexual
orientation seems to be changing on a weekly basis, so I'm kinda used to it,
these things don't phase me as long as people don't get offensive.
*listening to some tracks just downloaded by a band called Lemon Jelly... we
have a new Avalanches here! Yaaaaaay!!!*
Elizabeth A. Johnson
Aspen wrote:
> And whoda thought that this topic was so controversial. I figured I'd get 5
> posts at most. Sheesh
lol yeah, like you couldn't google for past posts on alf and find that out...
Elizabeth A. Johnson
Russ wrote:
> *listening to some tracks just downloaded by a band called Lemon Jelly... we
> have a new Avalanches here! Yaaaaaay!!!*
heh is that anything like Yellow Jello?
Yak
"Elizabeth A. Johnson" <lizo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3E382E25...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Russ wrote:
>
>
> > *listening to some tracks just downloaded by a band called Lemon
Jelly... we
> > have a new Avalanches here! Yaaaaaay!!!*
>
> heh is that anything like Yellow Jello?
Lemon Jelly are Most Excellent.
"All the dicks are swimming in the water..."
\
(:-) - Yak
/
Yak
"Yak" <y...@llamasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b19dlu$bjb$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Erm. Ducks. I meant ducks.
hehe :)
Dave - evaD
Hmm, how about?
I'v a done it with dawgs,
Humped with hawgs,
give a licken to a chicken
a razzing to rat
but I neva knew a Goat as tight as that
Elizabeth A. Johnson
Yak wrote:
*droops* damn.
Elizabeth A. Johnson
qwertyuiop wrote:
> > Zoosexuality is not considered by professional psycholists within the
> > United States (and, I assume, likewise in other countries) as a
> > 'condition' requiring 'treatment.'
>
> By the way, I did some reading up on what the psychiatric community ACTUALLY
> are saying about this disorder, because it is classified as a disorder.
they seem to classify masturbation as a disorder too. I guess we're all
screwed.
Yak
>
>
> Yak wrote:
>
> > "Yak" <y...@llamasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:b19dlu$bjb$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > > "Elizabeth A. Johnson" <lizo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3E382E25...@worldnet.att.net...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Russ wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > *listening to some tracks just downloaded by a band called Lemon
> > > Jelly... we
> > > > > have a new Avalanches here! Yaaaaaay!!!*
> > > >
> > > > heh is that anything like Yellow Jello?
> > >
> > > Lemon Jelly are Most Excellent.
> > >
> > > "All the dicks are swimming in the water..."
> >
> > Erm. Ducks. I meant ducks.
> >
> > hehe :)
>
> *droops* damn.
I thought it was blokes did the drooping if disappointed ;).
§ñühwØLf
>§ñühwØLf <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> shall never vanquished be until
>great Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come against
>him.
>>Hey! How about a rousing song about zoophilia?
>>
>>I got me a barnyard buddy
>>an brother
>>he's hung like a horse
>>cause thats what he is
>>and he's chock fulla jizz
>>and he likes to bugger me too
>>The sheriff he done caught me
>>with ol hoss's bone in muh throat
>>now I'm in charge of the Prison Farm
>>and muh new girlfriend is a goat
>>
>>~Prince Snuhwolf~
>>...still working on the chorus...
>
>Hmm, how about?
>
>I'v a done it with dawgs,
>Humped with hawgs,
>give a licken to a chicken
>a razzing to rat
>but I neva knew a Goat as tight as that
>
*sputter*
Heh...that'll do nicely :O)
I'd change it to "rammed a few rats"
~Prince Snuhwolf~
Warren Forest
news:b195fd$cqj$2...@raccoon.fur.com...
> it's just rather a shame
> that most zoophiles don't really care what others think of their psyche,
as
> certainly from my own experience I'm not overly concerned by it. Maybe I
> don't disagree at all with regards to the truth of the matter - yes, maybe
a
> large number of zoophiles delude themselves as to the depths of the
> relationships they're capable of sustaining with an animal, but that
happens
> in a helluva lot of human relationships.
I think you've pretty much summed up exactly my overall feelings on the
subject, and quite succinctly.
I can think of a great many friends of mine who are in delusional,
unhealthy, "normal" relationships, but what can/should I do about it?
Nothing really. We all have to set our goals and standards and live with
the consequences.
> But they're only hurting
> themselves, and sometimes when someone is happy to do that, all you can do
> is warn them and then put the issue to rest. The warning's been done,
it's
> up to us now whether we heed the warning or not.
To me, the issue isn't whether or not somebody is doing something "bad", but
rather just whether they get their facts strait. If somebody smokes, fine,
as long as they're not one of those smokers who insists it's all a
conspiracy and there's nothing unhealthy about smoking.
I hear the "animals are better/wiser/more loving/better judge of
character/etc..." arguements and, well, they just don't work for me anymore
because I was wrong. They used to work for me back 5 or 10 years ago, but
I've since gone through an awakening process where I began to see that the
problem wasn't people, the problem was me. I didn't understand people, but
the more time I spend doing so now, the more I realize just what I'd been
missing all along.
Elizabeth A. Johnson
Yak wrote:
> "Elizabeth A. Johnson" <lizo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3E382E25...@worldnet.att.net...
> >
> >
> > Russ wrote:
> >
> >
> > > *listening to some tracks just downloaded by a band called Lemon
> Jelly... we
> > > have a new Avalanches here! Yaaaaaay!!!*
> >
> > heh is that anything like Yellow Jello?
>
> Lemon Jelly are Most Excellent.
seriously though, there was a band called Yellow Jello, but Jell-O got
mad and sued, so they changed their name to Yellow Jelly. But ya know
all I ever had was a pirated tape my sister gave me, and I lost that,
and it's been ages... hmm... and ages and ages...
Elizabeth A. Johnson
Yak wrote:
*facepalms and grumbles*
§ñühwØLf
illegibly<3E3917F2...@worldnet.att.net>:
>
>
>Yak wrote:
>
>> "Elizabeth A. Johnson" <lizo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:3E382E25...@worldnet.att.net...
>> >
>> >
>> > Russ wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > > *listening to some tracks just downloaded by a band called Lemon
>> Jelly... we
>> > > have a new Avalanches here! Yaaaaaay!!!*
>> >
>> > heh is that anything like Yellow Jello?
>>
>> Lemon Jelly are Most Excellent.
>
>seriously though, there was a band called Yellow Jello, but Jell-O got
>mad and sued, so they changed their name to Yellow Jelly. But ya know
>all I ever had was a pirated tape my sister gave me, and I lost that,
>and it's been ages... hmm... and ages and ages...
>
NO NO NO!!! It was GREEN JELLO and they hadda change it...had a hit on
MTV...song about the Three Little Pigs.
Hmmmm...I have that cassette around here somwHerE...
Oh...heres a website telling about their TWO cds...I have the Cereal
Kill won and its pretty funny.
http://www.rockrage.com/retrorage_archive/greenjelly.html
~Prince Snuhwolf~
...stuck in th 80's...