Zoophilia

[modest mouse]

Recently I was told that Zoophilia (beastiality) was akin to homosexuality, BDSM, and assorted other sexual thoughts that have been at one time looked down upon. The person that made this statement is/was a meember of the Lit board so one would assume they are somewhat thoughtful in regards to sexual interests.

I would have like to figure out what reasoning led her to sucha statement but she isnt returning Email so my curiosity leads to this poll/thread.

I don't buy that Zoophilia is in any way similar to any other sexual proclivity other than sexual molestation of young children or the mentally handicapped.

Its a matter of consent that separates beastiality and 'molestation' from other sexual interests.

An unwilling partner, or one incapable of comprehending the situation, is part of the act and thus it is considered illegal ( a community standard).

Homosexuality, BDSM, scatplay, missionary sex... all involve willingness and participation. They are different and do not deserve to be included with the same company as zoophilia and sexual molestations.

Does anyone have thoughts on Zoophilia as a sexual interest? Positive or negative.

 

[modest mouse]

Hmmm, according to the forum guidlines, which I think are newly linked at the bottom of the page, beastiality pics are acceptable to post. Only copyrighted and underage pictures are banned.

It was my assumption that zoophilia existed in a strange netherworld where stories were legal but pictures were not. htat thoughts were legal but that the act was not, a picture proving an actual act.

Slightly different than underage sex which is illegal in all its forms.

 

[scylis]

it's legal in a good number of areas.

i say, whatever floats your boat and doesn't harm anybody else in an unwanted way...

i personally don't care for it, but i don't have the dim view of it i have for sadism.

 

[red_rose]

We're not talkin' about mousey love here, are we?

Heh. Kidding.

I once took a philosophy class in college where the professor had us spend two whole days debating the validity of the following statement:

Sex with goats is wrong.

We argued all aspects and were left with no real proof that it was wrong.

I will say this: If a guy I met let it slip that by "sweet monkey love" he meant he was actually having sex with monkeys, I may very well "go to the bathroom" and never come back.

 

[modest mouse]

i say, whatever floats your boat and doesn't harm anybody else in an unwanted way...

Then your view hinges on whether the animal(s) is being harmed.

 

[lavender]

 

[scylis]

Then your view hinges on whether the animal(s) is being harmed.

or any participant in the act, willing or unwilling, human or non, yes.

 

[red_rose]

Then your view hinges on whether the animal(s) is being harmed.

I see where you're going with that and I agree with you. If the animal is being harmed, then I believe it is beyond sick and twisted.

In that philosophy class, we argued that maybe the goat liked it. In that case, would it be wrong? (I say yes, I still think it's disgusting...but I'm playing devil's advocate here.)

(Please note that I'm feelin' a bit squeamish just recalling those days of goat sex discussion. lol)

 

[Kitte]

I voted valid, but only in thought. Actual sex with animals is wrong. I can not control what anyone else thinks. I mean think about whatever you want...as long as it does not hurt another sentient being go for it.

However I think anyone who would actually RAPE an animal and it is rape as they can not concent....needs to re evaluate their life choices.

 

[sexy-girl]

i have to say i don't particularly see how someone could compare it would homosexuality

i voted that if someone wants to think about it as a fantasy then that is ok ... in my opinion i must admit i find it sick but i don't think its possible or right to suppress another's thoughts


lavender im not a huge flower girl but those are lovely flowers in your av ... are they yours ?

 

[hogjack]

Difficult to tell

A goat might give you that "look" (you know the one, that come hither big stud look)...

... but that could also be the 'damn I'd eat your shirt or just about anything because I'm a goat' look.

 

[modest mouse]

I see where you're going with that and I agree with you. If the animal is being harmed, then I believe it is beyond sick and twisted.

This isnt addressed to you, red rose, but kinda running with a thought.

If sex with animals is acceptable as long as the animal isnt being harmed, then what about BDSM play with an animal?

Is it merely animal abuse or pleasue derived froma non-traditional mindset?

This is a foolhardy tangent but WTF.

 

[sunstruck]

I think sex with any living creature that cannot verbally consent to sex is wrong. I think sex with animals is sick and wrong.

I may be REALLY close minded on this one, but I do not see the posibility of anyone convincing me that sex with animals of any kind is not the result of a mind in need of serious treatment.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

Save the gerbils.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

I think sex with any living creature that cannot verbally consent to sex is wrong. I think sex with animals is sick and wrong.

I may be REALLY close minded on this one, but I do not see the posibility of anyone convincing me that sex with animals of any kind is not the result of a mind in need of serious treatment.

I voted "sick" myself...and I agree with you completely Sunstruck.

Even strict fucking for pleasure between humans involves attraction, consent, and desire.

Animals show none of these traits.

 

[red_rose]

If sex with animals is acceptable as long as the animal isnt being harmed, then what about BDSM play with an animal?

Is it merely animal abuse or pleasue derived froma non-traditional mindset?

(I'm answering it even though it wasn't really directed at me. lol)

I think BDSM play is something that needs to be consented upon by all parties involved. If it's not, then it isn't BDSM - it's rape. (This is just my opinion, obviously.)

I'm a big fan of many BDSM forms of "play"... but if someone pulled something on me that I couldn't say no to, then it would move beyond BDSM and into non-consent.

Foolhardy tangents are fun and make the day go by faster...

 

[VeryBadGirl]

What if the goat doesn't LIKE it, but also doesn't mind it? Like, maybe being led around unwillingly by its neck is more objectionable than having something going in and out of their (I'm not sure what part of the anatomy zoo-freaks deal with) while they chew hay? Aren't human penises smaller than goat ones?

And I've HEARD that dogs are quite willing, especially if there's some Alpo in there somewhere.

(eeeeyooooo!)

(or, should I say, E I E I Oh)

 

[Guest]

2. You may not post sexually explicit pictures or stories featuring anyone under 18 years old. Literotica does not allow the posting of underage or animal sex pictures on the forum.

 

[modest mouse]

Thanks rules buddy.

If that was there 10 minutes ago I missed it totally. The link is new, I think.

***

Rose,

The BDSM thought brings up the metnal capacity of the animal and it seems silly to think it would have enough mental function to enjoy the psychological ramificationsof BDSM play.

Just an interesting thought on an otherwise forgettable night.

 

[Agent99]

Baa-ram-ewe. Baa-ram-ewe. To your own species, your genus, your phylum be true.

Baa-ram-ewe. Baa-ram-ewe. Fucking animals should only be observed in a zoo.

 

[Private Vasquez]

To me, it is both valid in thought and a sexual interest, but it isn't up to me to decide whether it's right or wrong for someone else.

It's the farthest thing from interesting to me, yet, if it's what someone else wishes to participate in, that's up to them. I do find it to be a form of abuse.

 

[modest mouse]

The Forum guidline was, indeed, changed. I left that window inadvertently open and it is different than the current guidline statement.

Its been policy to disallow 'animal sex' but perhaps in the composition of the newly linked guidline it was omitted.

What it used to say:

2. You may not post sexually explicit pictures or stories featuring anyone under 18 years old. There are sites that allow stories featuring characters under 18 years of age - Literotica is not one of them.

 

[sunstruck]

To me, it is both valid in thought and a sexual interest, but it isn't up to me to decide whether it's right or wrong for someone else.

It's the farthest thing from interesting to me, yet, if it's what someone else wishes to participate in, that's up to them. I do find it to be a form of abuse.

You think it's a form of abuse but you are ok with others doing it? I think the I'm ok you're ok idea can go too far. Abuse is wrong. Right?

 

[Private Vasquez]

Hey, I'm confused, leave me alone.

I belive it is abusive but is it harmful to the animal?

I think it's completely disgusting and why anyone would partake in such a thing is beyond me, but I could say the same for being a plastic surgeon.

(You see why I don't engage in the serious topics often? It takes me much too long to get my words straight.)

 

[Laurel]

To me, if there's no consent, it's no good.

I've never heard a horse asked to be sucked off, or a sheep begging for anal.

But then again, I don't spend much time on farms.