I'm sure you get asked this question a lot...

[Initials]

No, it's still nice to hear other people's views. Don't feel bad. Responding to the original question is never a bad thing.

[qwertz]

yes im more than aware of an animals 'showing' to be mated. I work in this industry(not in a zoophile way!)

I will use the example of dogs and horses as they are what i work with mainly.
when they lift their tail and 'show' it is because they are at the most fertile time in their season. They want to be mated because they want to reproduce.
A horse will NOT allow a stallion to cover her if she is not ready. The only reason she would allow a person to have intercourse with her is that she just did not understand what was happening as do not see humans as potential mates.

Its simialr for a dog, but due to size they can be forced. Totally wrong no matter what (think size)

out of interest, you mentioned alot about rape...you think this is acceptable actions? since you were using it as comparison.

[Initials]

First of all, I don't condone rape. I do not think it is acceptable in any way. I don't know where you say I used it as a comparison, but, no, it's not acceptable at all.

Aside from that, there are a couple things wrong with your reasoning. First, animals and humans are much more similar than you seem to assume. When a dog displays, it's true she's normally at her most fertile. However, that's not the reason that she displays.

It's the same with humans. When a human female is ovulating, and is at her most fertile, she is also at her most promiscuous. Biologically, she is seeking sex at that time because she has the highest rate of becoming pregnant. In her own eyes, it's due to feelings of lust and the pleasure that she receives.

Dogs also feel lust and pleasure. Should ovulating women be denied sex, on the basis that they can't control themselves? It's the same argument, just for a different species.

You mentioned the size of a dog, and that they can be forced. It's self evident that if any force is used, it's rape, and sexual abuse. Zoophiles, by their own definition, do not use any force. If someone does use force, it disqualifies them from being a zoophile.

In terms of size, a human male is not any bigger than the male of female dog breeds which are large enough to have sex. Obviously smaller dogs are neither large enough, nor used for, sex, at least by zoophiles.

I looked back over the thread, and apparently I did not say something that I thought I had. So, I guess I'll say it now.

A few of things have been observed in zoosexual relationships. First, the human is usually not the more sexual partner. Often, it is the dog (sorry if I keep focusing on dogs. It's what I know. I don't know about other animals much). The humans aren't forcing it on the dogs. Quite often, the humans have to refuse the advances of the animal, since they occur too frequently to be practical, or, in some cases, even possible.

Another thing which has been observed is the bond between a zoophile and their animal is often stronger than a normal pet owners bond. The animals are neither physically harmed (as determined by examinations done by veterinarians), nor emotionally harmed (attested by the stronger than usual bond with each other).

Strangely enough, I've also heard numerous stories of female animals who not only enjoy sex when not in heat, but actively seek it out from their owners at that time when they know they can be satisfied. I can't tell you why this is, but, as far as my studies have shown, it's true. Perhaps the simplest explanation is the truth. Animals enjoy sex, and, once they learn they can enjoy it any time, they do so.

One of the other things you mentioned is that they do not see humans as potential mates. Another observation of some zoosexual relationships seems to counter this. It has been observed, in such relationships, some animals will forgo sex with others of their own species, even, yes, when in heat, and prefer to be exclusively with their human partner.

I think that answers all of your concerns so far. If you have more, or if these weren't suitable enough explanations, I will post some more. I've been trying to keep from making my posts too long. I have a habit of doing that if I'm not careful.

[qwertz]

they are not answers- just your opinion. Id like to know where you get your 'facts' from.

[Initials]

Let's see... I've discussed the issue at length with zoophiles, read a number of personal stories, looked at statistics and other information regarding demographics and the like, read through a number of arguments on the subject on the internet, watched two published documentaries on the subject, and read "Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia" by Hani Miletski. A very good and informative book. Accepted as the best study of zoophilia to date.

About animals having emotion, feeling lust, and the like, you could argue that it might be opinion or anthropomorphism. There are a number of scientific studies on the issue, and they all seem to suggest that animals do feel emotions comparable to humans. The studies show more than just stimulus response reactions, in all manner of vertebrates, including dogs. Physically speaking, they have all the necessary necessary equipment to feel emotion.

I am on the side that is supported by those experiments, and, to date, I have not heard of any experiments conducted which go against the idea.

I'll have to get back to you on the clarifying details, I have a meeting to go to right now.

[qwertz]

animals do feel emotion, im not doubting that.

However, i would like to see 'evidence' of what you said earlier with regards to sexual activity that isnt written or influenced by a zoophile.

[Initials]

I'm not quite sure what you want me to find evidence of.

Evidence that dogs seek out sex from their human counterparts more than those human counterparts are willing or able to give?

Evidence that the bond between animal and human can be strong in a zoosexual relationship?

Evidence that the animal will sometimes prefer their human lover to others of their own species?

I'm not sure which one you are asking about. If you could clarify, it would be most helpful.

[qwertz]

all of them

[Initials]

Let's see here... To be honest, I don't know how you expect me to get such data.

Here is the dilemma you have given me:

The only people who know how much an animal would want to have sex with them are those who would do so. Yet you've told me that those who would do so are to be disregarded.

You seem to have given me an impossible scenario. I don't know what to say to that. You want information, but you don't want it from the only source of information.

The only other possible sources of information could be veterinarians, or researchers.

As I said, in a number of legal cases focusing on the issue of zoophilia, it was determined by a group of veterinarians that no psychological, nor physical harm was inflicted on animals in such relationships.

The only researcher I can tell you about is Hani Miletski. In case you wonder, she is not a zoophile, and conducted her research with as objective a view as possible, reporting both sides of the issue.

However, her research was through conversations with zoophiles, and a survey (350 questions, some multiple choice, some open for responses) given out to zoophiles. Therefore, you, in your own words, won't trust her judgment since, although the scientific community regards it as, and I quote, "monumental".

You might consider this post inadequate to answer your questions. However, I can only present you with the evidence. I can't make you accept it. I have done so, though. I presented you with evidence, backed up by many personal accounts, presented you with research from a scientific standpoint, and presented you with the results of evaluation from a third party source. What else is there?

[Initials]

Well, I promised to get back to the question about how I see other people.

I don't know what is influenced by my zoophilia and what isn't in this regard, so I'll just say what I find interesting enough to note.

First of all, when I see someone for the first time, it is really difficult for me to remember their name and face. It takes me around a year and a half to remember one hundred new people's names and faces.

For a while, faces remain difficult for me. My first way to recognize someone is by their hair. Color, texture, amount, and whatnot. Once I get to know them, I stop recognizing them by their hair, but for those people I don't get to know well, it takes a lot longer.

I tend to see people's personalities more than I see the details about their looks. If two people have similar personalities, and especially if they have similar voices, I tend to remember them as looking alike, although, in some situations, they don't particularly look alike.

Something else I would like to note is race. I am pretty highly colorblind when it comes to race. By that, I don't mean I try to act the same to people of all colors. I mean I literally don't see the difference of race in the first place.

I didn't notice Obama wasn't white until someone pointed it out to me. Even now, I don't notice any difference unless I'm thinking about it and looking for it.

I've been called racist before because I am so bad at noticing the differences.

So, there you go. That's what I see when I see another person.

I also promised to show you a picture of a dog I would consider beautiful.

[url]http://www.breederretriever.com/photopost/data/635/siberian.jpg[/url]

There you go. That's all for now.

[jdm95si]

Personally, my preference is for canines (mostly), which happens to be the largest preference.

*woof woof*

[Initials]

The above post makes me very happy and sad at the same time.

It makes me remember my pets, but at the same time, it makes me miss them.

Although, as I said, I never did anything sexually with them, the emotional bond is incredibly strong. It was my cat who convinced me not to commit suicide a few years back. I don't think it gets any stronger than that.

(story on request, I guess)

[qwertz]

i havnt read your other postd properly, i will tomorrow but im tired(its late in uk)

but i will say that being a zoophile does not mean you have stronger bonds with animals than 'normal' owners.
Im talking on a mental note.

I know this for various different reasons incluidng working/owning/competing with my own.

[Initials]

Qwerty123, I don't really know what you mean by "on a mental note". Do you mean mentally as in literally how well one understands their animal, or do you perhaps mean mentally as in emotional type bonds?

Either way, I would like to say one thing. What you said contains a huge, huge flaw in logic. You cannot make a comparison between two of anything when only knowing the value of one. It is impossible.

[Initials]

Well, look at that. Apparently, some research was done on something I had previously not heard of any research about.

Besides Miletski, both Masters and Kinsey report that animals in zoosexual relationships may enjoy it if sadism is not present.

As it is, I think we have gotten a bit off topic. We haven't argued with the important premises regarding whether or not they can consent. We somehow got moved onto more off-topic type discussion.

I'm going to sum up a few points that haven't been refuted or even challenged, that, as far as I can tell, are by themselves capable of proving my point.

1) As determined by groups of veterinarians, in multiple scenarios, animals in such relationships are not harmed in any way, either physically, emotionally, or mentally.
2) Three separate researchers, none of whom are zoophiles, have agreed that animals in such relationships can enjoy the contact.
3) Zoophiles, by definition, try their best make absolutely certain that the animal in question is enjoying themselves, and if there is any indication they are not, will stop.

What more than that even needs to be discussed?

Can those points even be refuted? They aren't opinions.