Personally, I don’t care for far-left wackos any more than I care for far-right wackos, and this Frank Kameny begins to sound a bit like a far-left wacko.

no animal wants to be raped by a human, i really don’t care usually how two consenting human adults enjoy their bodies but if it involves another party that cannot by human standards give clear verbal consent and is not mentally able to clearly understand what is about to go on then it is wrong, my philosophy is that as long as the sex doesn’t involve children or animals then a person is free to do as she or he pleases in their own home, but like 10 yr old little johnny the 2 yr old labrador cannot give consent and so i believe it is rape and rape is against the premise of “pursuit of happiness”

i personally don’t “get” people into that sorta thing. i like adult human males. but, what if the dog (just to pick an animal) is humping you and you allow it penetration? is that “consent”? probably. i mean, he started it. so really, the problem is someone sticking something into the dog. if you don’t restrain it, penetrate it, and it’s ok and sticks with ya, maybe that’s enough? i mean, we gotta separate dogs from kids a bit. a kid really doesn’t know how to fight back, but a dog can and will get you if you harm it.

Do you have the phrase ‘heavy petting’ in the States?

I’ve researched zoophilia for over 23 years now.

I can give a positive stance that there is two different forms of ‘zoosexuality’.

One form is bestiality; this is when the animal is raped.

The other form is zoophilia; where zoosexuality, as a non-rape form is introduced by passion, rather than deviancy/desperation.

It is also wrong to call all zoosexuals ’sodomites’, I can say an awful lot of ‘zoophiles’ especially, performed opposite-sex genital-penetrative sexual activities.

There is no evidence that ‘zoophiles’ are mentally ill; most of them are affectional ‘zoophiles’, like most ‘loving’ pet owners, and have developed an emotional attachment and bond to their animals; they are perfectly normal, by psychology.

Some zoophiles have depression, but this is perhaps because they are rejected by society.

Most zoophiles live in countries where it is classed as ‘bestiality’, and made illegal.

There is always the rising argument of consent; but after studying this, I’ve realised this is not a reliable argument for those against zoophilia.

Because animals, such as ‘dogs’, are Mammals, and hence have a the same sense of feeling, because their nervous system design is near enough the same (just a different shape), and is based on chemicals.

Animals, such as dogs crave for affection, sexual and fondness, this because they, in-particular, above all most known generally, are a highly hedonistic species.

In chemical research of ‘oxocotin’, we can see that a ‘dog’ feels just the same as a human does, just the nerves vary, and the oxocotin is released much more often, meaning they are much more hedonistic and affectionate than a human can ever be.

Hence giving them pleasures, by sharing them with your ‘truly’ beloved ‘dog’, by ‘making ‘passionate’ love’, as a zoophile.

Even to the more ‘perverted’ (’morally’) way of thinking; if a dog lies down, belly-up to submit to your affection, we came to the conclusion of asking ourselves, and others ‘if the dog allows you to rub their belly freely’, ‘what’s wrong with going a little further and rubbing their genitals?’; ‘after all, you’re only giving them pleasure, but then it all of a sudden becomes ‘animal abuse’ and ‘animal cruelty”.

“If you let that ‘dog’ mount you, and penetrate you, giving pleasure to the both of you, it is therefore completely outrageous, and so impulsively wrong, it should be criminal offense (and is, in a lot of cases).”

When a dog mounts you, it is beyond ‘informed’ and ‘implied’ consent, together; reason being, you might have not even consented to / expected it, yourself, and hence it was ‘expressed’ consent, in fact, the dog ‘raped’ you, because ‘you’ didn’t consent to the act; ‘humans, themselves know better not to rape, especially brutally’, is true, and ‘zoophiles’ never rape, they always make sure their lovers consent, otherwise they are ‘bestialists’, ‘mild’, unless they were ‘brutal’, and then it becomes ‘zoosadism’.

Calling consensual ‘zoophilia’, on the same lines as ‘possibly’ non-consensual ‘bestiality’, is like calling ‘non-rape’ human-human sexual activity, ‘rape’, when it clearly is not; this concept often annoys and upsets zoophiles, who’d never dream to even hurt their loved ones.

Most ‘dogs’, when you stop rubbing their belly, will climb onto you and beg for more; the same is shown when you pause between rubbing their genitals.

Often, someone against that idea and act, comes to thinking such activities, feel the emotion in emulation to feel/be ’sly, sick, trespassing, wrong, and odd (perverted)’; this strong feeling of emotion was projected ‘only’ by those who looked open ‘dogs’ as ‘gross’, or as ‘children’; this is what we call an ‘employed emotion’ (which is often brought from modern society / childhood, like your parents saying what’s right/wrong (inherited opinion), games (for example, using pets to play ‘Mummy’/'Daddy’s and ‘Children’; with the pets as the children (common cause))), a confusion of similarities that aren’t at all, truly, similar.

Actually refusing a ‘dog’ affection and pleasures of such reflects in anxiety and depression, due to a lowly enjoyed lifestyle.

‘Dogs’ often have found their own ways to masturbate themselves, with inanimate objects, such as ‘cuddlies’, and ‘the laminated flooring’, etc.

It is purely ’social stigma’ that ‘wrongly’ ‘associates’ zoophilia as being as bad as ‘bestiality’ and/or ‘zoosadism’, each to another, altogether as being ‘detestable’.

On the concept of age-orientation, it is also wrong to class an adult ‘non-human animal’, a child ‘human animal’; animals like ‘dogs’ mature ‘much faster’, in fact, at the age of ‘three’, a dog is ‘equally’ ‘mature’ in ‘dog years’, to a person aged ‘twenty one’. Most zoophiles have relationships, and have sex with adults, not ‘puppies’, ‘adult dogs’.

‘Pedozoophilia’ (which is actually bestiality, when it comes to actual sexual activity) most certainly does exist, though, many forms of consensual and non-consensual zoophilia exist, different age-orientations, species-orientations, and gender-orientations, fetishes, etc, in zoophilia, just as much as there is, and more besides with the ‘one of many’ species, ‘humans’.

Another fairly well (in literature) known bestiality term, is ‘necrozoophilia’, which is often adopted by most opportunist ‘necrophiles’, who like to have sex with any non-consensual/inanimate corpses, human or not (basically, whatever they can find), which is in non way real, loving, consensual zoophilia; and is often a bad role model that those against anti-zoophiles bring up in arguments.

When it comes to mounting a non-human animal, as a human, it is hard to say that it is consensual, because despite the obvious ‘implication’ of an animal, like a ‘dog’ bending over and lunging its own back-end in your face, or sitting on your groin area.

You could go either way with the argument, you could say, ‘do it, they are begging for it’, or say, ‘don’t do it, you’ll have to hold on, that’s rape’, well it depends on your posture, truly; if a zoophile attempts penetration with a female animal, i.e. a ‘bitch’, and the zoophile isn’t leaning over the animal/bribing/forcing it, in anyway, then it is consensual.

Because the ‘bitch’ can freely run away, if she doesn’t like it. And it is shown that some freely stay in the same position, to enjoy the sex, or if they’re not in the mood, they just run away. So, the implicated consent, could be reclassified as ‘expressed’ consent.

Even the male ‘dogs’ actually ask for initiated sex, human or not; as disclosed again, in the late homosexuality in the animal kingdom, article, that was released recently; hence, the same applies to penetrating males.

Back to the ‘males penetrating the zoophile’, and to the key argument specific issue for ‘dogs’, I can note several cases of ‘dogs’ not being ‘trained themselves’, but ‘training their owners’, into them masturbating / having sex with them.

So, basically, evidence states that, for as long as the non-human animal is not forced into having sex with you (even if it is not brutal and/or is affectionate and pleasurable), sex with animals should be allowed.

It appears to most people, because of the media, that all zoophiles are bestialists, just because they have sex with animals.

As I’ve said, the difference is that, bestiality is rape, and zoophilia isn’t; and that zoophilia relationship with the animal, and a deep, emotional bond with the animal.

The only people to get caught, are mainly (cases of any are extremely rare, in mainstream media), ‘bestiality’, because of the simple fact, ‘bestialists’ do it publically, for example ‘fence-hop’ in the open public outdoors, just to have sex with the animal they feel, and this is not zoophilia, because there’s ‘remotely, at the least’ no relationship, it is pure desperation (and that they disappoint and confuse the animal, as it gets pleasured now and then / once, by a bestialist, and not when the animal, itself feels; and/or that the animal is confused as to the person’s identity (psychological affect), and hence feels bewildered (hence is a form of harm)).

Zoosadism / brutal bestiality, leads to an animal feeling anxious, upset, cower, heart-broken, bewildered, harmed, abuse; and being hurt, bruised, scarred, etc, which makes it the worse, but also, shows clearly to anyone, that the animal has been sexually abused in such brutal ways, as it has both psychological and physical scars from such activities; and all it takes is for someone to see/hear, and get reported; and hence, makes it a news story; just like with any human-human brutal rape, even if the victim cannot talk, scars do tend to show, obviously.

There are some (very rare), publicly made news articles about true zoophiles, being called non-brutal bestialists.

They, the zoophiles, have relationships beyond sex, they use sex just to share their passions with each other, just like man and woman, or man and man / woman and woman, etc.

A true zoophile often starts off with an affectional bond, which deepens into sharing carnal passions, just being together, and giving each other pleasures, basically ‘making love’ to one another, instead of ‘taking advantage’ for one-way self-pleasure (bestiality/zoosadism).

These pleasures happen to stem, and resolute into actual intimate sexual activities; truly, there’s nothing wrong with giving pleasure to each other, but hurting each other, psychologically and/or physically, is bad.

But bestialists rape animals for coercive/self-pleasing reasons.
And zoosadists brutally rape animals for both bestiality’s reasons, and hatred towards ‘lesser beings’, most often.

Zoophiles should ‘only do it if the animal approves’.

Society may just be ignoring true love, just because of the terrorists and self-pleasers, we name bestialists and zoosadists, like to harm and coerce animals into having sex with them.

If such rejection is so, which seems highly likely, then those who don’t like zoophilia, and condemn it, are purely acclaimed ‘prudish’ people, who’s morals are inherited by society, over the descending generations by recorded literature (by literacy), originally coming from religion.

Such religions that disapprove ’sex with animals’, are for example, the Abrahamic Religions, who follow the Old Testament.

Leviticus condemned ‘only’ the ‘Jews’, but for some reason, ‘Christian’ and ‘Moslem’ states actually base their laws on the so called ‘crimes of nature’, which is a religious society charter.

If you wish to follow the Levitical laws, you have to be Jewish, basically.

There’s also an Urban Legend that HIVs was originally caused by SIV spreading to a person who copulated with an infected simian primate; this is thought to be now incorrect, because back then, HIV was a non-sexual blood-infection; it was the needle plague, originating from St Louis, when it became a human-human sexual infection, because the homosexuals and bisexuals there were outcasted into such ‘drug-addicted’ areas, and needles enhanced the anti-immunisaton of the disease and virus.

There’s a lot less STDs than in human sexuality, in fact, cases are so rare, they are rarely ever known. Leptospirosis, Q Fever, Toxocariasis, and Brucellosis are much more likely to be obtained by casual contact with animals / from other sources. Out of these four ‘possibly’ ‘killer’ diseases, which you can obtain elsewhere, which are actually small in complications and number than non-zoosexual STDs, anyway; the animal will only get it if neglected of hygiene and health, is wild (fence-hopping bestiality) and/or is so weak/ill, it’d be in such a state, it would be sent to a vetinary practice by a zoophilia, anyway; animals can quite clearly show zoonoses, because zoonoses affect all species. And such diseases/virii are too rare for knowledge in first-world countries, with top of the range, vetinary health care, in all the right places; and most zoophiles give a lot of money for looking after the pets, for this reason and more besides, for the health care and protection of their beloved animals.

In the end of the day, zoophiles can’t fight against such a majority, unless they find a human and/or animal rights loop-hole in moral and political stances, or become less minority.

But because an awful lot of zoophiles are too afraid of fighting against the majority, for fear of blackmail/violence/harm towards them, their family/friends and/or their animals; loss of their beloved partner; and/or a criminal charge, where it is obscene/indecent and/or illegal.

There are small organisations, such as EFA (Equality For All), trying to promote their ‘Zoophile Rights’, across the UN/world; failing miserably because of low knowledge, social/lawful fear, or they are / have been (at least involved with) – bestialist/zoosadist, and fear it will affect zoophilia as a whole community if they were to join an organisation/protest that goes against bestiality and zoosadism, but for zoophilia; because that’d make it sound like the whole purpose of such a rights group is for bestiality, like the public think, overall, in general, right now.

Meanwhile, PervScan and many other media services show bestiality, and this gets more and more people to think all zoophiles to think zoophilia is the same as bestiality and/or zoosadism.

Thank you for reading my comments!

All comments become the property of PervScan. You must use an email address to post a comment. However, PervScan disallows email addresses in the text of comments.