Who Here Supports Zoos?

[AMapIn2022]

As Pedophiles we know more then anyone what it is like to wanna be in a relationship with an individual and being judged for it. No one picks who they are attracted to and that is true for you, me and everyone. That is why I support the LGBT community. I'm not gay, straight, pan, ect. But I wish people to find there joy with the partner weather sexual and or romantic. So I do support both the Map and Zoo community. As long as your not harming yourself or others you should live your life to the fullest. Now yes there are sadly pedophobic/anti Map zoos and zoophobic/anti Zoo Maps, but we both need to come together in support of each other, I'm no Zoo. not at all BUT I support there right to a happy life as I wish for myself and others in our and other communities. I have no idea ware you all in the PSC fall on this topic and the reason why I asked this here on PSC is cuz I think that it would be best to better our selfs by supporting other communities that are oppressed. Pleas no bigoted replies. As nervous as I am to post this I would like to know who elce is with me in support of our Zoo brothers and sisters. <3

[Cartographer]

I think there's definitely some crossover between the two communities, and having had pleasurable zoosexual encounters when I was younger it would be hypocritical of me to judge others for wanting the same. There's also a lot of overlap in the issues of consent and harm that both paraphilias raise (although you'll have a hard time convincing me a dog mounting a woman by itself hasn't consented!).

My philosophy is to just let people enjoy what they enjoy

[AMapIn2022]

Oh yes I forgot to say that, there sure are some Map Zoos as well. Honestly I think you will know when a non person dose not consent. But yeah I agree.

[[MMb_Lover]]

What dog doesn't want a blow job or a nice hole to knot.  I am sure if you ask if he's enjoying....it will be WOOF WOOF!

[qingshomerun]

I was just about to post this topic in the debate thread. Slightly different to this one but most of what I said there applies here as well.

I think zoos are often pedophiles as well but they also have a strong anti-pedo element to their community. I always try not to judge but I cant help but feeling zoophilia is a different topic altogether despite the apparent similarities. As I point out in the debate thread:

Plenty say if dogs with the intellect of a 2 year old can consent to sex (usually they are referring to dogs having sex with each other) why not adults and kids? Whether you mean between dogs or with adult and dog I just don't know if I can even agree the consent comparison is appropriate. Communication between adult and child is complex but with a common language and body language and the child grows up to assess the relationship from an adult view. Kids also, depending on the age, are less driven by instinct for procreation than other factors of curiosity and play. Dogs (unless you are a pedo-zoophile) have body language barriers, communication barriers and animalistic instinct to procreate. I am not saying dogs can't consent (only saying this because I know some believe they really can and I respect they have more knowledge than me. Personally I am skeptical given how people regularly misinterpret their beloved pet's behavior).

I think just because you can live your whole life without ever getting a conversation with your partner where they have the opportunity to explain that you did hurt them and it wasnt consensual doesnt mean you didnt hurt them. The same applies with childlove of course but you might also have that conversation and learn they perceived no harm. You cant get that with dogs.

Those with experience know better than me and I am happy to accept I am wrong! I would never tell a zoophile they are in the wrong if they have that experience and know they are right the way I know I am right about some elements of childlove.

In that sense I fully support zoos. Just not to the level I would advocate for it the way I do childlove.

[NudieDaddy]

Zoos have my support. I even had a few friends who were zoo before they went under the radar completely.

[on the rocks]

I came across quig's thread on this subject before this one today, and I made my feelings known over there.
So I'll keep it brief here.  I do not support the idea of humans having sex with other species.
I'll also say that I don't like pedophilia being lumped in with bestiality because I feel like that reduces my sexual preference to a mere fetish.

[ConfusedPaedo]

As long as your not harming yourself or others you should live your life to the fullest.

We are presently recovering from a globe-spanning epidemic of zoonotic origin, and you claim there is no harm to oneself or others in copulating with an animal? Bushmeat is presently the greater threat, and the most probable origin of SARS-CoV-2, however it is primarily the much greater scale of bushmeat consumption that makes it so. (Which itself is a major problem; legislation on this matter must be improved much still to adequately safeguard our health!) Normalising bestiality would invariably result in a growth in zoonotic disease; I sympathise with their plight, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. One's sexual activity with an animal may bring about the death of people entirely uninvolved, and whilst one should be free to harm themselves as they see fit, I cannot condone such risk-taking as it pertains to others.

I came across quig's thread on this subject before this one today, and I made my feelings known over there.
So I'll keep it brief here.  I do not support the idea of humans having sex with other species.
I'll also say that I don't like pedophilia being lumped in with bestiality because I feel like that reduces my sexual preference to a mere fetish.

Contrarily, are you not reducing the zoophile's sexual preference to a mere fetish? If a man or woman claims to love an animal like another would an adult human or - as preposterous a claim as animal love in the eyes of society - a human child, what is it that makes their claim any less valid than yours?

[on the rocks]

I came across quig's thread on this subject before this one today, and I made my feelings known over there.
So I'll keep it brief here.  I do not support the idea of humans having sex with other species.
I'll also say that I don't like pedophilia being lumped in with bestiality because I feel like that reduces my sexual preference to a mere fetish.

Contrarily, are you not reducing the zoophile's sexual preference to a mere fetish? If a man or woman claims to love an animal like another would an adult human or - as preposterous a claim as animal love in the eyes of society - a human child, what is it that makes their claim any less valid than yours?

Bestiality is a fetish because animals do not have the capacity to love, communicate, consent, share cultural traditions, or demonstrate self awareness to anywhere near to the extent that humans do.  It's a warm body someone can stick their dick in/warm tongue to lick your junk.  That's all.  To characterize it as anything more is basically a delusion.  If your sexual 'partner' lacks the ability to ask the question, "Why?" then you shouldn't be fucking them.

Yeah, various mammals demonstrate little nuggets of emotion or can figure out that their reflection isn't another critter trying to muscle in on their shit, but that doesn't even come close what we humans have going on upstairs.  Any idea that a human and some other creature can have a consensual sexual relationship is laughable on its face.  I would even extend that admonition to the great apes.  The last chance to have an ethical sexual relationship with a non-human died out with the last Neanderthal.

[qingshomerun]

I came across quig's thread on this subject before this one today, and I made my feelings known over there.
So I'll keep it brief here.  I do not support the idea of humans having sex with other species.
I'll also say that I don't like pedophilia being lumped in with bestiality because I feel like that reduces my sexual preference to a mere fetish.

Contrarily, are you not reducing the zoophile's sexual preference to a mere fetish? If a man or woman claims to love an animal like another would an adult human or - as preposterous a claim as animal love in the eyes of society - a human child, what is it that makes their claim any less valid than yours?

Bestiality is a fetish because animals do not have the capacity to love, communicate, consent, share cultural traditions, or demonstrate self awareness to anywhere near to the extent that humans do.  It's a warm body someone can stick their dick in/warm tongue to lick your junk.  That's all.  To characterize it as anything more is basically a delusion.  If your sexual 'partner' lacks the ability to ask the question, "Why?" then you shouldn't be fucking them.

Yeah, various mammals demonstrate little nuggets of emotion or can figure out that their reflection isn't another critter trying to muscle in on their shit, but that doesn't even come close what we humans have going on upstairs.  Any idea that a human and some other creature can have a consensual sexual relationship is laughable on its face.  I would even extend that admonition to the great apes.  The last chance to have an ethical sexual relationship with a non-human died out with the last Neanderthal.

All of this from on the rocks kinda satisfies my instinctive response leaning towards being against zoophilia. Even my suggestions of finding informal support now seem misguided if not dangerous. The idea of getting advice from someone whose entire relationship is built on their projecting emotions and love on to their "sexual partner" seems a recipe for objectification and children's needs being ignored or even children being abused by well meaning pedos who got advice from misguided zoophiles.

And while I definitely think some people who identify as pedophiles tend more towards fetishists, genuine pedophiles certainly should not have their sexual identity treated as a fetish. These conversations are really useful for me to interpret my own misconceptions and intuition because I would still be considering zoophilia a sexuality if it were not for them.

[Whyme]

Not judging, but honestly...not a big fan at all.

[ConfusedPaedo]

If your sexual 'partner' lacks the ability to ask the question, "Why?" then you shouldn't be fucking them.

On practical grounds related in my earlier post I can agree to this, and whilst I cannot agree with the notion itself (my hand is likewise incapable of query yet I find no issue having sexual activity with it) I will not press the matter as I find it insignificant to the broader problem:

I came across quig's thread on this subject before this one today, and I made my feelings known over there.
So I'll keep it brief here.  I do not support the idea of humans having sex with other species.
I'll also say that I don't like pedophilia being lumped in with bestiality because I feel like that reduces my sexual preference to a mere fetish.

Contrarily, are you not reducing the zoophile's sexual preference to a mere fetish? If a man or woman claims to love an animal like another would an adult human or - as preposterous a claim as animal love in the eyes of society - a human child, what is it that makes their claim any less valid than yours?

Bestiality is a fetish because animals do not have the capacity to love, communicate, consent, share cultural traditions, or demonstrate self awareness to anywhere near to the extent that humans do.  It's a warm body someone can stick their dick in/warm tongue to lick your junk.  That's all.  To characterize it as anything more is basically a delusion.

I believe your definition of <fetishism> differs from what is commonly accepted as such. In the general definition a fetish is a notion that causes sexual arousal, and to claim one's feelings are <a mere fetish> would thus imply the attachment is naught but sexual deviancy, devoid of emotion. Delusional as they may be, can you really not accept that pet owners feel a genuine affection towards their animals, and is it truly so hard to believe the minds of zoophiles warp this affectionate emotion into genuine romantic interest? The animal may not love them back - as may well be the case in non-zoophile affection towards animals - but is unrequited love any less real? Is this not the same mistake the general public makes regarding paedophiles, thinking us monsters who wish to abuse children for our sexual gratification and not understanding we feel love for them?

[LikelyHuman]

Bestiality is a fetish because animals do not have the capacity to love, communicate, consent, share cultural traditions, or demonstrate self awareness to anywhere near to the extent that humans do.  It's a warm body someone can stick their dick in/warm tongue to lick your junk.  That's all.  To characterize it as anything more is basically a delusion.  If your sexual 'partner' lacks the ability to ask the question, "Why?" then you shouldn't be fucking them.

Yeah, various mammals demonstrate little nuggets of emotion or can figure out that their reflection isn't another critter trying to muscle in on their shit, but that doesn't even come close what we humans have going on upstairs.  Any idea that a human and some other creature can have a consensual sexual relationship is laughable on its face.  I would even extend that admonition to the great apes.  The last chance to have an ethical sexual relationship with a non-human died out with the last Neanderthal.

Two main things occur to me here. First of all, it seems you're very confident in your assessment on the capacity of animals to love, communicate, consent, etc. Secondly, I could see similar arguments being made about children's capacity for the same things.

I think reducing bestiality to the level of a fetish is very dismissive of the emotional bonds that some of these people feel towards animals. Have you ever heard about the traditions they have in Columbia regarding donkeys? Essentially, to make a long story short, to mitigate teenage pregnancies, teenage boys are overtly encouraged to fuck donkeys. They literally actually see it as a means of gaining sexual prowess before having a human partner. One unintended side effect, however, is that a lot of the men end up preferring donkeys to human partners. Now, you might be thinking, "Well, sure, they might see the donkey as more than just a means of sexual gratification, but that's one way, and the donkey can't return those sentiments" but how do you actually know that?  One major reason I bring up donkeys is because they are pretty darn intelligent animals, and you can see instances of donkeys who have been estranged from their owners for years being reunited and being very emotionally expressive upon that. Now, you might just try to then diminish that as mere affection, but where do you draw the line between what types of affection are indicative of higher thought and which aren't? If a donkey is able to miss a person and be elated once their absence is over, then what is to say that the same donkey couldn't also miss sexual affection from a person as well? Maybe they'd even be able to feel jealousy seeing such men sleeping with other donkeys. I would say that it's pretty presumptive to say this doesn't happen. Meanwhile, I'd really like to see someone try to fuck a donkey that didn't "consent" and get their dick kicked in for the effort.

But, sure, that's just donkeys. And surely not all animals have the same level of capacity, and I would say that some animals have even more. You mention an inability to communicate, but that is wholly dismissive of not only non-lingual forms of communication, but also animals that are able to use actual language, such as gorillas who can sign. I think Koko is obviously the most famous, if not the only gorilla who accomplished this, but researchers who worked with her found themselves stunned at the depths of her emotional intelligence. One of the saddest anecdotes I heard of this was when her pet kitten died, but there were also anecdotes about her looking forward to Christmas and things of that nature. Meanwhile, if you want to talk about self-awareness, it might astound you to realize that far from animals realizing they have reflections, their have been instances of elephants painting their own portraits.

So of course, all of these instances are outliers, but to me it seems like you're pretty broadly dismissing the idea out of hand, and it seems more because you don't like pedophilia being compared to it. Which, as I said, I think a lot of people would be more than willing to do. If you say that some donkeys affection for a person and/or a gorilla's minimal grasp of language isn't indicative of evidence of higher thought (which I would grant you) then what leg do we have to stand on saying that children are capable of that higher thought when their intellectual and emotional capacity truly isn't all that more well-developed than these animals'? I think, of course, that becomes less true the more they eclipse infancy and enter childhood and adolescence, but what about toddlers and infants? I mean, if the litmus test is whether they can ask "Why?" then Koko the gorilla can certainly do that, but I wouldn't necessarily go out on a limb and say that proves anything more than that said gorilla managed to grasp language. That being said, if a 4 year old asks, "Why?" then why should I convince myself they have any more capacity for love and affection than the gorilla? I'm sure there are lots of antis out there who would tell us all that we're deluding ourselves that children have this capacity for higher thought just as much as zoophiles are deluding themselves that animals do.

Now, all that said, I'm certainly not a "zoophile" in the sense that I wouldn't kid myself into thinking I could carry on an emotionally fulfilling relationship with an animal; donkey or signing gorillas included. On the other hand, I also tend to feel the same way about when people talk about truly loving children and so to me I don't know that simply diminishing it to a fetish to achieve some kind of instant sexual gratification is necessarily fair either. I don't think I could have a truly loving, emotionally fulfilled relationship with a 2 year old child any more than I could with some kind of exceptionally intelligent animal, but to me it's a bit ironic to consider that (at least here among us) the consensus would be that engaging in some kind of sexual activity with the 2 year old would be somehow less inappropriate than engaging in sexual activity with an animal of some sort. In both circumstances, I don't believe either creature truly has the mental capacity for true love or an understanding of relationships, but I also don't necessarily see it being inherently harmful for either creature, though of course care must be taken in either case.

So once we get past all that... I wonder how much of the lack of approval is really just disgust? I mean, hey, I'm not going to try to convince anyone that something they find gross is not gross, but I think that needs to be applied in all directions. I guess in essence what I'm saying is that diminishing anyone's attractions to some kind of pejorative like the term "fetish" just doesn't seem logical to me and seems to come more out of a place of personal disapproval. Which is fine! I mean... I will never understand people who have some kind of "scat fetish" but I think it's a slippery slope into casting aspersions on them to refer to it as a fetish because of the connotations that comes with that term. Yet, on the other hand, I could very much see calling it a sexual orientation or a preference as being laughable... I mean, if we're talking about what mental capacity children and animals have, there's actually room for debate there. Not much room to debate a turd has any sentience :'D

Anyway, in my own rambling way I guess what I'm saying is that I could see why conflating bestiality with pedophilia might be aggravating because of the various implications I outlined above, I also don't think that framing 'zoophiles' (or whatever they want to be called) as people who just want a soft wet hole for sexual gratification to be particularly fair.

[qingshomerun]

Bestiality is a fetish because animals do not have the capacity to love, communicate, consent, share cultural traditions, or demonstrate self awareness to anywhere near to the extent that humans do.  It's a warm body someone can stick their dick in/warm tongue to lick your junk.  That's all.  To characterize it as anything more is basically a delusion.  If your sexual 'partner' lacks the ability to ask the question, "Why?" then you shouldn't be fucking them.

Yeah, various mammals demonstrate little nuggets of emotion or can figure out that their reflection isn't another critter trying to muscle in on their shit, but that doesn't even come close what we humans have going on upstairs.  Any idea that a human and some other creature can have a consensual sexual relationship is laughable on its face.  I would even extend that admonition to the great apes.  The last chance to have an ethical sexual relationship with a non-human died out with the last Neanderthal.

Two main things occur to me here. First of all, it seems you're very confident in your assessment on the capacity of animals to love, communicate, consent, etc. Secondly, I could see similar arguments being made about children's capacity for the same things.

I think reducing bestiality to the level of a fetish is very dismissive of the emotional bonds that some of these people feel towards animals. Have you ever heard about the traditions they have in Columbia regarding donkeys? Essentially, to make a long story short, to mitigate teenage pregnancies, teenage boys are overtly encouraged to fuck donkeys. They literally actually see it as a means of gaining sexual prowess before having a human partner. One unintended side effect, however, is that a lot of the men end up preferring donkeys to human partners. Now, you might be thinking, "Well, sure, they might see the donkey as more than just a means of sexual gratification, but that's one way, and the donkey can't return those sentiments" but how do you actually know that?  One major reason I bring up donkeys is because they are pretty darn intelligent animals, and you can see instances of donkeys who have been estranged from their owners for years being reunited and being very emotionally expressive upon that. Now, you might just try to then diminish that as mere affection, but where do you draw the line between what types of affection are indicative of higher thought and which aren't? If a donkey is able to miss a person and be elated once their absence is over, then what is to say that the same donkey couldn't also miss sexual affection from a person as well? Maybe they'd even be able to feel jealousy seeing such men sleeping with other donkeys. I would say that it's pretty presumptive to say this doesn't happen. Meanwhile, I'd really like to see someone try to fuck a donkey that didn't "consent" and get their dick kicked in for the effort.

But, sure, that's just donkeys. And surely not all animals have the same level of capacity, and I would say that some animals have even more. You mention an inability to communicate, but that is wholly dismissive of not only non-lingual forms of communication, but also animals that are able to use actual language, such as gorillas who can sign. I think Koko is obviously the most famous, if not the only gorilla who accomplished this, but researchers who worked with her found themselves stunned at the depths of her emotional intelligence. One of the saddest anecdotes I heard of this was when her pet kitten died, but there were also anecdotes about her looking forward to Christmas and things of that nature. Meanwhile, if you want to talk about self-awareness, it might astound you to realize that far from animals realizing they have reflections, their have been instances of elephants painting their own portraits.

So of course, all of these instances are outliers, but to me it seems like you're pretty broadly dismissing the idea out of hand, and it seems more because you don't like pedophilia being compared to it. Which, as I said, I think a lot of people would be more than willing to do. If you say that some donkeys affection for a person and/or a gorilla's minimal grasp of language isn't indicative of evidence of higher thought (which I would grant you) then what leg do we have to stand on saying that children are capable of that higher thought when their intellectual and emotional capacity truly isn't all that more well-developed than these animals'? I think, of course, that becomes less true the more they eclipse infancy and enter childhood and adolescence, but what about toddlers and infants? I mean, if the litmus test is whether they can ask "Why?" then Koko the gorilla can certainly do that, but I wouldn't necessarily go out on a limb and say that proves anything more than that said gorilla managed to grasp language. That being said, if a 4 year old asks, "Why?" then why should I convince myself they have any more capacity for love and affection than the gorilla? I'm sure there are lots of antis out there who would tell us all that we're deluding ourselves that children have this capacity for higher thought just as much as zoophiles are deluding themselves that animals do.

Now, all that said, I'm certainly not a "zoophile" in the sense that I wouldn't kid myself into thinking I could carry on an emotionally fulfilling relationship with an animal; donkey or signing gorillas included. On the other hand, I also tend to feel the same way about when people talk about truly loving children and so to me I don't know that simply diminishing it to a fetish to achieve some kind of instant sexual gratification is necessarily fair either. I don't think I could have a truly loving, emotionally fulfilled relationship with a 2 year old child any more than I could with some kind of exceptionally intelligent animal, but to me it's a bit ironic to consider that (at least here among us) the consensus would be that engaging in some kind of sexual activity with the 2 year old would be somehow less inappropriate than engaging in sexual activity with an animal of some sort. In both circumstances, I don't believe either creature truly has the mental capacity for true love or an understanding of relationships, but I also don't necessarily see it being inherently harmful for either creature, though of course care must be taken in either case.

So once we get past all that... I wonder how much of the lack of approval is really just disgust? I mean, hey, I'm not going to try to convince anyone that something they find gross is not gross, but I think that needs to be applied in all directions. I guess in essence what I'm saying is that diminishing anyone's attractions to some kind of pejorative like the term "fetish" just doesn't seem logical to me and seems to come more out of a place of personal disapproval. Which is fine! I mean... I will never understand people who have some kind of "scat fetish" but I think it's a slippery slope into casting aspersions on them to refer to it as a fetish because of the connotations that comes with that term. Yet, on the other hand, I could very much see calling it a sexual orientation or a preference as being laughable... I mean, if we're talking about what mental capacity children and animals have, there's actually room for debate there. Not much room to debate a turd has any sentience :'D

Anyway, in my own rambling way I guess what I'm saying is that I could see why conflating bestiality with pedophilia might be aggravating because of the various implications I outlined above, I also don't think that framing 'zoophiles' (or whatever they want to be called) as people who just want a soft wet hole for sexual gratification to be particularly fair.

I think there are a number of strawman arguments in this post. I think the emotional bonds that people form with animals are creating a narrative of affection from a series of assumed behaviors that are regularly and consistently wrong when you consult an animal behavioral expert. I dont mean to say those bonds are wrong or inappropriate no more than I would discourage zoophiles from engaging with animals they are sexually aroused by. I know that on the rocks was who you were directing your comments at and his replies were more aggressive and you are right to point out the role that element of disgust plays.

It still doesnt address the distinct differences. Animals remain at the level of intelligence of a 2 year old while 2 year olds go on to develop the full cognitive capacity you and I have. The 4yo who asks why goes on to ask why did you do that in a decades time. We are held to account for our actions with children at these young ages. A dog never calls the cops on a zoophile even if there was some form of abuse. That is decidedly different.

The idea that the word fetish is a perjorative is misguided to me. Perhaps on the rocks intended it to be so and my experience with the term makes it a much less negative thing in my view. The reality is zoophiles are attracted to animals and animals never develop the intelligence to communicate and we never develop the ability to interpret any communication they do manage in a way that could form informed consent at any later time. To me fetish is the word for zoophilia and sexuality is the word for pedophilia.

[LikelyHuman]

Bestiality is a fetish because animals do not have the capacity to love, communicate, consent, share cultural traditions, or demonstrate self awareness to anywhere near to the extent that humans do.  It's a warm body someone can stick their dick in/warm tongue to lick your junk.  That's all.  To characterize it as anything more is basically a delusion.  If your sexual 'partner' lacks the ability to ask the question, "Why?" then you shouldn't be fucking them.

Yeah, various mammals demonstrate little nuggets of emotion or can figure out that their reflection isn't another critter trying to muscle in on their shit, but that doesn't even come close what we humans have going on upstairs.  Any idea that a human and some other creature can have a consensual sexual relationship is laughable on its face.  I would even extend that admonition to the great apes.  The last chance to have an ethical sexual relationship with a non-human died out with the last Neanderthal.

Two main things occur to me here. First of all, it seems you're very confident in your assessment on the capacity of animals to love, communicate, consent, etc. Secondly, I could see similar arguments being made about children's capacity for the same things.

I think reducing bestiality to the level of a fetish is very dismissive of the emotional bonds that some of these people feel towards animals. Have you ever heard about the traditions they have in Columbia regarding donkeys? Essentially, to make a long story short, to mitigate teenage pregnancies, teenage boys are overtly encouraged to fuck donkeys. They literally actually see it as a means of gaining sexual prowess before having a human partner. One unintended side effect, however, is that a lot of the men end up preferring donkeys to human partners. Now, you might be thinking, "Well, sure, they might see the donkey as more than just a means of sexual gratification, but that's one way, and the donkey can't return those sentiments" but how do you actually know that?  One major reason I bring up donkeys is because they are pretty darn intelligent animals, and you can see instances of donkeys who have been estranged from their owners for years being reunited and being very emotionally expressive upon that. Now, you might just try to then diminish that as mere affection, but where do you draw the line between what types of affection are indicative of higher thought and which aren't? If a donkey is able to miss a person and be elated once their absence is over, then what is to say that the same donkey couldn't also miss sexual affection from a person as well? Maybe they'd even be able to feel jealousy seeing such men sleeping with other donkeys. I would say that it's pretty presumptive to say this doesn't happen. Meanwhile, I'd really like to see someone try to fuck a donkey that didn't "consent" and get their dick kicked in for the effort.

But, sure, that's just donkeys. And surely not all animals have the same level of capacity, and I would say that some animals have even more. You mention an inability to communicate, but that is wholly dismissive of not only non-lingual forms of communication, but also animals that are able to use actual language, such as gorillas who can sign. I think Koko is obviously the most famous, if not the only gorilla who accomplished this, but researchers who worked with her found themselves stunned at the depths of her emotional intelligence. One of the saddest anecdotes I heard of this was when her pet kitten died, but there were also anecdotes about her looking forward to Christmas and things of that nature. Meanwhile, if you want to talk about self-awareness, it might astound you to realize that far from animals realizing they have reflections, their have been instances of elephants painting their own portraits.

So of course, all of these instances are outliers, but to me it seems like you're pretty broadly dismissing the idea out of hand, and it seems more because you don't like pedophilia being compared to it. Which, as I said, I think a lot of people would be more than willing to do. If you say that some donkeys affection for a person and/or a gorilla's minimal grasp of language isn't indicative of evidence of higher thought (which I would grant you) then what leg do we have to stand on saying that children are capable of that higher thought when their intellectual and emotional capacity truly isn't all that more well-developed than these animals'? I think, of course, that becomes less true the more they eclipse infancy and enter childhood and adolescence, but what about toddlers and infants? I mean, if the litmus test is whether they can ask "Why?" then Koko the gorilla can certainly do that, but I wouldn't necessarily go out on a limb and say that proves anything more than that said gorilla managed to grasp language. That being said, if a 4 year old asks, "Why?" then why should I convince myself they have any more capacity for love and affection than the gorilla? I'm sure there are lots of antis out there who would tell us all that we're deluding ourselves that children have this capacity for higher thought just as much as zoophiles are deluding themselves that animals do.

Now, all that said, I'm certainly not a "zoophile" in the sense that I wouldn't kid myself into thinking I could carry on an emotionally fulfilling relationship with an animal; donkey or signing gorillas included. On the other hand, I also tend to feel the same way about when people talk about truly loving children and so to me I don't know that simply diminishing it to a fetish to achieve some kind of instant sexual gratification is necessarily fair either. I don't think I could have a truly loving, emotionally fulfilled relationship with a 2 year old child any more than I could with some kind of exceptionally intelligent animal, but to me it's a bit ironic to consider that (at least here among us) the consensus would be that engaging in some kind of sexual activity with the 2 year old would be somehow less inappropriate than engaging in sexual activity with an animal of some sort. In both circumstances, I don't believe either creature truly has the mental capacity for true love or an understanding of relationships, but I also don't necessarily see it being inherently harmful for either creature, though of course care must be taken in either case.

So once we get past all that... I wonder how much of the lack of approval is really just disgust? I mean, hey, I'm not going to try to convince anyone that something they find gross is not gross, but I think that needs to be applied in all directions. I guess in essence what I'm saying is that diminishing anyone's attractions to some kind of pejorative like the term "fetish" just doesn't seem logical to me and seems to come more out of a place of personal disapproval. Which is fine! I mean... I will never understand people who have some kind of "scat fetish" but I think it's a slippery slope into casting aspersions on them to refer to it as a fetish because of the connotations that comes with that term. Yet, on the other hand, I could very much see calling it a sexual orientation or a preference as being laughable... I mean, if we're talking about what mental capacity children and animals have, there's actually room for debate there. Not much room to debate a turd has any sentience :'D

Anyway, in my own rambling way I guess what I'm saying is that I could see why conflating bestiality with pedophilia might be aggravating because of the various implications I outlined above, I also don't think that framing 'zoophiles' (or whatever they want to be called) as people who just want a soft wet hole for sexual gratification to be particularly fair.

I think there are a number of strawman arguments in this post. I think the emotional bonds that people form with animals are creating a narrative of affection from a series of assumed behaviors that are regularly and consistently wrong when you consult an animal behavioral expert. I dont mean to say those bonds are wrong or inappropriate no more than I would discourage zoophiles from engaging with animals they are sexually aroused by. I know that on the rocks was who you were directing your comments at and his replies were more aggressive and you are right to point out the role that element of disgust plays.

It still doesnt address the distinct differences. Animals remain at the level of intelligence of a 2 year old while 2 year olds go on to develop the full cognitive capacity you and I have. The 4yo who asks why goes on to ask why did you do that in a decades time. We are held to account for our actions with children at these young ages. A dog never calls the cops on a zoophile even if there was some form of abuse. That is decidedly different.

The idea that the word fetish is a perjorative is misguided to me. Perhaps on the rocks intended it to be so and my experience with the term makes it a much less negative thing in my view. The reality is zoophiles are attracted to animals and animals never develop the intelligence to communicate and we never develop the ability to interpret any communication they do manage in a way that could form informed consent at any later time. To me fetish is the word for zoophilia and sexuality is the word for pedophilia.

Well, I do agree with most of what you're saying ( see my post in the other thread) but I guess as an animal lover (and not an animal fucker) I just think that a lot of people don't give animals as much credit as they deserve. Yes, there's a lot of anthropomorphizing that happens, but there are also genuine feats of intelligence that animals achieve that a lot of people don't take into account. I think however, that such feats are probably more few and far between than zoophiles would ever want to admit, but also more frequent than people who find bestiality disgusting would like to admit. Not to take this into a totally opposite direction of discussion, but I suppose I was really thinking about it with regard to reflections I've made lately about animal rights. I think a lot of people try to diminish the intellectual and emotional capacity of animals to justify all of the other non-sexual grievances that are visited upon animals, and that such thinking ironically contributes to the idea that animals don't have a capacity for sexuality that is more broad than just instinctual procreation. I think zoophiles tend to argue along those points a lot, and so I was trying to highlight them.