Who Here Supports Zoos?

[on the rocks]

To be clear, my position was not that animals don't have emotions and can't form some kind of bond with humans.  My specific statement was that they cannot do so to the extent that humans can.

My wording in this sentence was very much intentional:

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

Because it not only applies to animals, but also baby humans.
One's sex partner should be able to articulate their enthusiastic consent in unambiguous terms.  Animals can't do that.  Babies can't do that.  So they're off limits in my mind as sexual partners.

I must also reply to the Koko the Gorilla thing.  I'm sorry to report this, but Koko was not communicating in sign language in any meaningful way.  She was simply copying what the handlers were doing in order to get treats.  She never demonstrated an ability to articulate an original thought.  Her actual 'communication' was exactly what you'd expect from a creature cycling through it's repertoire of tricks it knows to get the next treat.  At best, Koko's handlers were fooled by the Clever Hans Effect.  At worst, they were being intentionally misleading because it created a compelling story that garnered a LOT of public support for much-needed conservation.  The ends justifying the means, as it were. 

This harsh truth about Koko is further supported by the complete inability of anyone to duplicate this gorilla sign language in any other gorillas while implementing proper experimental controls to rule out all of the shortcomings about Koko and her handlers.  The general public knows very little about the academic criticism of Koko; they only know the headline-grabbing video clips from the 90's.

All of which isn't to say gorillas and other great apes are not intelligent in their own way, nor does it mean they don't have their own 'language' of sorts to communicate some basic concepts, like most animals.  It means they are more like the rest of the animal kingdom than us humans in that they lack the critical mass of neuronal connections that create the spark of mind we humans enjoy.  In other words, they are not capable of asking "Why?"

[CasualDaddy30]

I don't think this is really the right question.  Like you said, we do not choose who/what we are attracted to. We can choose what we as a society what is acceptable.  Personally I want tp say let people love what the love but ethically I don't believe children and animals are capable of giving consent and thus we as a society need to protect children and animals from thise who would abuse them for their pleasure, no matter how well intended.  However,  it is not okay to judge or condemn a person for their orientation or attraction. I support Pedos and Zoos as people who shouldhave the freedom to talk about their thoughts and experiences without fear of societal pressures.

[Malaikah]

I do.
Live and let live.
Love and let love.

[[MMb_Lover]]

Why do I suddenly have the urge for a big rottie?

[MoiLolitaaa]

I wouldn't stand in a zoos way, unless they are forcing the animal.

I wish them all best. Also, there is still some ally mentality among zoos.

[Robotboy]

It's hard for me to believe that an animal playing the top role isn't consenting. Also, if it's something like a killer whale and you try to do something, I feel like the fact that if they don't kill you, they pretty much are consenting.

It's also something I'm not into. But I don't instantly have a negative view. But its more complicated when the human takes the top role when they aren't with a predator that can easily kill them.

[[MMb_Lover]]

Oh they can be quite consenting. Said my friend.

[MoiLolitaaa]

Dogs that humped my leg a few times before appeared to perfectly consent to raping me.

[[MMb_Lover]]

Anyone got any peanut butter?

[Shorty]

Well, I do like zoos with horses, but only in hentai. Can't even imagine a full grown man taking up that size in real life, not mentioning a little boy.

[SecondChance]

As long as your furry 4 legged sex partner is having fun, I support it.

[qingshomerun]

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.

I really like your reply here thanks for making it.

I can absolutely see the angle you are coming from in terms of being aware of the consequences of how we treat animals and their capacity for sexuality impacting other protections that they deserve to have. I fully support animal welfare which is why I wouldnt ever really deny someone the ability to maintain contact with an animal for the purposes of meeting their fetish needs. Assuming these people believe that the love is real and think they have a sexual attraction rather than a fetish then they are going to take good care of the animal and that is a good thing in my view. I see that someone who doesnt take these things so seriously to think about things in detail might have their perception of the necessity of animal rights undermined if they adopted the fetish view without being across the animal welfare aspect.

To be clear, my position was not that animals don't have emotions and can't form some kind of bond with humans.  My specific statement was that they cannot do so to the extent that humans can.

My wording in this sentence was very much intentional:

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

Because it not only applies to animals, but also baby humans.
One's sex partner should be able to articulate their enthusiastic consent in unambiguous terms.  Animals can't do that.  Babies can't do that.  So they're off limits in my mind as sexual partners.

I agree that we cant deny animals their ability to connect with other living things and that we just have a much greater extent to form much more complicated bonds.

I do think that a human baby poses a very particular ethical dillema and for that reason have never found them sexually attractive at all personally. However people definitely do and whether or not the comparison can be made to the fetish for animals is uncertain to me. My stance has been if they can grow to accept and communicate that acceptance then a relationship is possible. In theory people dont recall the activities as babies so could only respond to descriptions or video records and not their genuine recollection. My stance might then be refined to if you can grow to accept your recollections as positive then a relationship that is age appropriate can be part of the pedophile sexuality spectrum even if your communication at the time was diminished. This would likely put my lower limit closer to 3 or 4. Regardless of my perception on the matter, your stance is applied appropriately to animals in my view.

I also disagree that animals are as a result off limits. I think they can be engaged if they are treated well because they have no more suffering there than we know of as just a pet. Both could be abusive and both could be harmless. Since we cannot know I think if we accept animals as pets as harmless then we can accept using animals to fulfill a fetish as harmless.

[wonderfulday]

i am supportive and even a bit curious! there used to be a porn site called animal porn rocks.ca and it had lots of home made and studio animal porn. there was even some crossover into incest and other taboo in some of the dialogue between the human participants. it was hot!

[YoungGilfLovingFurry]

As long as Nobody's getting hurt, why not have a little fun? Besides, if I were a horse, I'd be pretty down with getting sucked off >w>

[AMapIn2022]

As long as Nobody's getting hurt, why not have a little fun? Besides, if I were a horse, I'd be pretty down with getting sucked off >w>

I'd love to try out a hours cock.