Comments on: Bestiality “OK If Animal Approves”

By: Dr James D Smith

Dr James D Smith — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:54:27 +0000

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!

By: Dr James D Smith

Dr James D Smith — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:54:09 +0000

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.

By: Dr James D Smith

Dr James D Smith — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:53:50 +0000

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.

By: Dr James D Smith

Dr James D Smith — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:53:35 +0000

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.

By: Dr James D Smith

Dr James D Smith — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:53:20 +0000

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.

By: Dr James D Smith

Dr James D Smith — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:53:03 +0000

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.

By: Dr James D Smith

Dr James D Smith — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:52:28 +0000

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.

By: Dr James D Smith

Dr James D Smith — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:52:02 +0000

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.

By: Dr James D Smith

Dr James D Smith — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:51:04 +0000

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).

By: Dr James D Smith

Dr James D Smith — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:50:48 +0000

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.