• Suddenly unable to log into your ZooVille account? This might be the reason why: CLICK HERE!

Are we the most persecuted minority?

Are zoophiles discriminated against. They can be. There certainly are a lot of laws prohibiting zoophilia.

I think it is difficult to say really. I think right now zoos are more ignored by most. They are not thought about but when they are it is very acceptable to hate them. I was in a conversation with a group of guys recently. They were talking about sexuality and such. One said that there are people who have sex with dogs and one of the others immediate response was "that is wrong" "those people should be shot".

So I guess the answer is yes zoos are discriminated against if they are known but most have done such a good job of hiding that they are not even seen to be discriminated towards.


I have seen some here promoting coming out and leading the fight for rights. But the problem is how many zoos are there? A few thousand, A few hundred. No one knows. If there is just few they will be easily suppressed, either jailed and or killed, and the rest of society will just move on with their day. A lot of why I think zoos don't come out is the lack of faith in humanity to do the right thing and to have kindness and empathy. I think zoos are much more likely to see what humanity does to animals and know that humanity will easily do that to it's own if they can classify them as a sub class. They have done it and will again.


On the pedophilia, Homosexual groups used the idea of being "born" how they are and cannot help being attracted to same genders. Some zoos subscribe to this too and having been one that tried to not be for a long time I can say that although I was able to add humans to my attraction list I was not able to undo the other animals. However with pedophilia I have unfortunately seen the affects of those acting on this particular attraction. I have had to try and help children understand and deal with what happened to them and try to have a decent life. The affects of a child being sexual usually lasts a lifetime. Children are not prepared nor mature, not physically nor mentally, for sex. So while maybe people who feel that way can not help feeling those attractions. The consequences to others of their actions are too great and falls in the same line as those who have the impulse to kill others. These are things you may feel but acting them out is not acceptable.
Well, technically, there are no laws prohibiting zoophilia. Zoophilia is not a behavior, it's an orientation, or for those who don't believe it so, it is merely an attraction. That's not illegal anywhere. Might draw scorn, but can't be made illegal.

Just a game of semantics, of course. There are definitely laws against bestiality that broad-brush certain types of human-animal sexual activity as a punishable offense. Just as there have never been any laws a man feeling romantic attraction to another man, or being lovingly devoted to him. Only sucking his cock or taking it up the butt.

And there are no laws against pedophilia. Pedophiles walk among us having broken no laws.

It's the *behavior*, the "acts of" that are made illegal by law.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...
I think the root of the disagreement is screwed up definitions... The scientific definition does *NOT* include sexual preference. ...

That's why the word "zoosexual" was invented, to designate people that are both Zoo and sexually active with animals. The problem with "bestiality" is that includes too many BDSM fetish seekers that are emotionally the diametric opposite of zoophilia.

That is what I am saying all along. You can get to a number of 30 to 50% or so, if you ask a question like "assuming you watch pornography in private on the internet - nobody will ever know - could you get off to something with animals?"

That is the highest number possible, including everybody even those who just for the one time kick wanked to a horse-video.

What Aluzky et al are now doing is to compare such a number to a 5% "core" gay population where the question is basically "are you gay-married or do you want to be gay-married".

And that's just gross mishandling of statistics. The correct way would be to compare this "highest possible" number to a similar all encompassing -even one time for the variety - get off to the gay porn question, where 80% to 90% would result.

You can see the "but I wanna!" in the fact that he only cites two particular sources all the time. Which he cherry-picked (very high vs very low). - Instead of going out to find more numbers and start to build confidence intervals.
 
Last edited:
But hey, ok, on the other hand millions of people play the lottery every week despite exorbitant facts mounting against them.

Lotteries are a fun method to collect money for good causes. Giving money to the lottery is similar to giving money directly to a charity, except that you get a thrill on top and an extremely low chance to win a significant amount of money. Participating in a lottery by a responsible, charitable organization is a good thing to do and perfectly sane.
 
@pferdefreund

You talk a lot but you are not supporting your claims with evidence, nor disproving my claims with evidence. In other words, you are talking bullshit.
 
Last edited:
No, pedophiles are. Society cares a lot more about protecting children and young adults then they so about protecting animals.


Society care allot more about fucking over pedos than protecting children.

Things that protect children we don't do:
VR"child"3D porn
2d "child" porn
Creating a safe environment where talking about struggling to keep it in your pants isn't a death sentence
Child sex dolls
supporting paedophiles to stay away from children
Asking people if they have these feelings so we can keep them away from children
not treating convicts like shit so there's a incentive not to do it again
the death penalty.

Society doesn't give a shit about children, it gives a shit about it's outrage and emotional response to people who have the undesirable wish to fuck children, or even teenagers.

Shrugs, I'm in the o-harm no foul camp, if they stay away from real children they can do anything else they like.
 
Society care allot more about fucking over pedos than protecting children.

Things that protect children we don't do:
VR"child"3D porn
2d "child" porn
Creating a safe environment where talking about struggling to keep it in your pants isn't a death sentence
Child sex dolls
supporting paedophiles to stay away from children
Asking people if they have these feelings so we can keep them away from children
not treating convicts like shit so there's a incentive not to do it again
the death penalty.

Society doesn't give a shit about children, it gives a shit about it's outrage and emotional response to people who have the undesirable wish to fuck children, or even teenagers.

Shrugs, I'm in the o-harm no foul camp, if they stay away from real children they can do anything else they like.
While many people do in fact have an emotional response to it, there's a reason for some of these "laws". It's an abnormality to find kids attractive. Not to mention the harm done to a child should a pedophile act out on his/her urges.

Now, while I do agree with the idea of ending felon disenfranchisement, that would only be after someone is released from imprisonment, provided they longer have the wish to commit harm to others. If they do, they'll probably end up being locked up again.

And I definitely don't agree with the "VR" or "sex doll" part - that's actually quite disturbing. Again, having a sexual attraction to anyone who could not either physically or mentally comprehend, understand or engage in sexual activity is abnormal. While pedophiles might feel the way they do, anything they act out on can and will cause harm. Trying to redirect their attention to something else is a lot like burying your head in the sand and refusing to recognize why there is a problem in the first place.
 
While many people do in fact have an emotional response to it, there's a reason for some of these "laws". It's an abnormality to find kids attractive.

Majority of anti-pedo laws are based on irrational bigoted reasons. It is very similar to how anti-zoo laws are based on an irrational bigoted emotional reaction and not on a rational non-bigoted reaction. It does not matter if there is a reason behind a law if that reason is irrational and bigoted.



Not to mention the harm done to a child should a pedophile act out on his/her urges.

Nothing wrong with making sex with children illegal. The problem relies that those who never act on children, get totally destroyed by the law too or through bigoted discrimination. And you may think: They deserve it. But in reality, they didn't chose to have that orientation and discriminating them push them into doing crimes against real children. In the end, society behabior is only making things worse for children and pedos.

And I definitely don't agree with the "VR" or "sex doll" part - that's actually quite disturbing.

So, even if allowing those would lover the amount of children asexual abuse cases, you would still be against those because it disturbs your emotions? Who is controlling you? Your emotions or your rational brain? Are you a human or an emotion based mindless animal?

Again, having a sexual attraction to anyone who could not either physically or mentally comprehend, understand or engage in sexual activity is abnormal.

As abnormal as begin a zoophile or homophile (aka gay) nobody denies that.

While pedophiles might feel the way they do, anything they act out on can and will cause harm.

Nobody has said that they should have the right to act on real children. It is obvious that allowing that would be harmful to children. Almost all pedos are against themselves acting out on real children. So, even they agree with you.

Trying to redirect their attention to something else is a lot like burying your head in the sand and refusing to recognize why there is a problem in the first place.

Thing is, some one having a sexual orientation is not a problem. Also, is not lie you can cure some ones sexual orientation, gay treatment already showed how unhealthy it is to try to cure some one from their sexual orientation.

And obviously, is some pedo has a identifiable mental disorder, then such person obviously need mental treatment to cure the disorder (not to cure the pedo trait as that can't be cured, just like gay trait can't be cured) nobody has said that humans with mental disorders should not seek mental help.
 
Last edited:
Majority of anti-pedo laws are based on irrational bigoted reasons. It is very similar to how anti-zoo laws are based on an irrational bigoted emotional reaction and not on a rational non-bigoted reaction. It does not matter if there is a reason behind a law if that reason is irrational and bigoted.





Nothing wrong with making sex with children illegal. The problem relies that those who never act on children, get totally destroyed by the law too or through bigoted discrimination. And you may think: They deserve it. But in reality, they didn't chose to have that orientation and discriminating them push them into doing crimes against real children. In the end, society behabior is only making things worse for children and pedos.



So, even if allowing those would lover the amount of children asexual abuse cases, you would still be against those because it disturbs your emotions? Who is controlling you? Your emotions or your rational brain? Are you a human or an emotion based mindless animal?



As abnormal as begin a zoophile or homophile (aka gay) nobody denies that.



Nobody has said that they should have the right to act on real children. It is obvious that allowing that would be harmful to children. Almost all pedos are against themselves acting out on real children. So, even they agree with you.



Thing is, some one having a sexual orientation is not a problem. Also, is not lie you can cure some ones sexual orientation, gay treatment already showed how unhealthy it is to try to cure some one from their sexual orientation.

And obviously, is some pedo has a identifiable mental disorder, then such person obviously need mental treatment to cure the disorder (not to cure the pedo trait as that can't be cured, just like gay trait can't be cured) nobody has said that humans with mental disorders should not seek mental help.
Not too much of an argument from me. Again my issue is when harm is done. As far as VR goes I stand by my feelings. You are talking about children here. I'm not against something that might be an outlet for disturbing things, but there's a line being crossed here with VR. It's inappropriate. And for the same reasons you don't see children in most games rated M.
 
Not too much of an argument from me. Again my issue is when harm is done. As far as VR goes I stand by my feelings. You are talking about children here. I'm not against something that might be an outlet for disturbing things, but there's a line being crossed here with VR. It's inappropriate. And for the same reasons you don't see children in most games rated M.
I wanna start by saying i give 0 fu*ks about pedos and people in general (its just who i am i love and care about animals but wouldnt bat an eye if humanity ends today). But its just funny to me looking at all that judgemental mentality of zoos towards pedos for example. Do you people even realize that from majority/society eyes(*the normal folks*), we zoos are as fucked up as pedos are, or even more in some cases, as i have heard from a gal on that topic "they both are monsters but hey the children can at least speak and communicate while the animal cannot". So what i meant is that it is just funny to me how most of us want to be accepted by society but are so quick to judge on another sexual alteration that is just as judged as ours(even if it is very different). Try not to be so hypocritical if you ever want to achieve something.
 
VR are not children. They are zeros and ones. Pixels. So, I don't get why you are against VR.
I'm on the fence, actually. Disturbing, yes. But I recall years ago (maybe decades even) research and debate about whether permitting fantasy during masturbation led to harm or not. It was specifically about a guy jacking off, fantasizing about a woman other than his wife. Is that ... adultery? Bible, for instance, says, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). Not to argue the merits of the Bible -- let's not get distracted with that, please -- only saying, this is the reason it was being debated:

"Is a man who fantasizes about having sex with someone outside of marriage permitting himself to do something wrong?" The corollary is, will it *lead to* something further, lead eventually to committing adult.

And then, of course, it lead to further questions, not just about the fantasy but about using pornography, which feeds the fantasy? Is porn the same thing as committing adultery.

More to the point in this thread, "Will a man who allows himself to fantasize about having sex with children eventually cross the line to actually having sex with children?"

Well, to the question of adultery, back then, at the time when I was reading about this, the answer was.... no. No, the vast majority of men who looked at porn to help them fantasize about adultery never went on to commit adultery. They just wouldn't. There was a clear line they wouldn't cross. Fantasy was one thing. Actually doing it? No no. They never would.

(Good thing. They were all relieved about this -- because if they knew what their WIFE was fantasizing about during sex with them, they'd have gone through the roof!)

LOL

Seriously, though. Permitting a man to fantasize about having sex with a child, and even using 2D and 3D graphics ... maybe even child-like sex toys.... while disturbing, is that ... over the line?

We have animal sex toys. What about child sex toys?

We already know many people who use a horse or dog dildo will probably never confuse that with actually "doing" a horse or dog.

How about children? The same? They'll be satisfied to fantasize about it but never really do it?

I don't know. Where are you with that?

(I'm going to guess, if this is too much, then... you've answered the question. Child-sex folks are more persecuted. They're even judged by zoos).
 
While many people do in fact have an emotional response to it, there's a reason for some of these "laws". It's an abnormality to find kids attractive. Not to mention the harm done to a child should a pedophile act out on his/her urges.

Now, while I do agree with the idea of ending felon disenfranchisement, that would only be after someone is released from imprisonment, provided they longer have the wish to commit harm to others. If they do, they'll probably end up being locked up again.

And I definitely don't agree with the "VR" or "sex doll" part - that's actually quite disturbing. Again, having a sexual attraction to anyone who could not either physically or mentally comprehend, understand or engage in sexual activity is abnormal. While pedophiles might feel the way they do, anything they act out on can and will cause harm. Trying to redirect their attention to something else is a lot like burying your head in the sand and refusing to recognize why there is a problem in the first place.

While you may feel that way, statistics don't lie. Offenders with access to "material" have lower rates of re-offending, the simple fact is, if we can get them habitually addicted to porn, they wont be able to act out their desires.

Rape is bad, end of, but, we're not talking about raping people as far as i'm concerned that could, and possibly should warrant capital punishment on a second offence, were talking about other things.

It's not an abnormality, it's uncommon, but it's no more abnormal than being a gay rapist, it's a reproductive strategy, (that doesn't make it moral or right) but it has evolved. It's not the result of mental trauma, it's not a "perversion fo the natural order"" it is the natural order.

Fucking a doll means one orgasm not directed at a child, I consider that a win.
 
I don't feel discriminated against at all. I am not sure "discriminated" is the right word anyway. Honestly as a while male I am not sure what discrimination even feels like. ;) I think a lot of people feel "discrimination" on several different levels.....obviously some more severe than others. My views on "civil rights" is probably different than most people's. People should be treated like human beings (I apologize to all of the aliens out there!) pure and simple. However, that really doesn't happen. People feel certain ways about skin color, ethnic background, sexual identity, etc... I have been fat my entire life....you don't think I know how people look at me and feel about me? It is my choice to either feel "hurt" or to just let it go. I have learned to let it go.... not that sometimes it doesn't still hurt.

Anyway....nuff said. Probably got myself into enough trouble anyway!

Ok im not sure if that first line about "being a white male" was ironic or not.. sounded pretty ironic because everyone faces discrimination of some kind
 
@BlueBeard

Scientific studies already show that availability of porn = less sexual abuse. AKA the more legal porn the less sexual crime there is.

So, letting perverts use porn or sex toys that mimic children, would actually be beneficial, so those people can use a legal harmless option to keep their libidos in check. If they don't have a legal option, then the only option is them illegally raping a real child.

In the end, even if you take the legal porn option, they will either do it for real or seek illegal porn. Seeking illegal porn with get them in legal troubles, ruining their lives, making them not care if they actually later rape a real child because people already treat them as rapists. So, what they need is education and a legal option to keep their libido in check, this is the best course to keep children safe.
 
@Aluzky

Yeah, agree. If a person finds him-/herself attracted to children sexually, feels it as an irresistible compulsion -- or maybe even less, just an annoyingly persistent preoccupation or fantasy -- it should alarm them enough to seek counseling. Everyone they told their secret to (well, not everyone, but a lot of people) would applaud them for doing something about it.

Why? Because adults should not be sexually attracted to children. Something's wrong. Way wrong. It shouldn't be an attraction at all. Not baby penis or pussy sex toys. Just... not at all. Something needs adjustment.

Gotta wonder why their protective "adult" instincts aren't kicking in? If you want to call something bestial, there it is. That's a real bestial compulsion, to have no recognition of the inappropriateness of introducing a child (meaning prepubescent) to sexual concepts that are not naturally part of their life yet.

That's might be the biggest distinction between zoophilia and pedophilia. Leaping ahead to a stage of sexual development the child isn't naturally "at" yet. Disrupting their psychosexual development -- and being incapable of recognizing they are not at that stage. Anything sexual would be pushing a one-sided agenda. And that's abuse of a child by an adult. In no case would that kind of relationship ever be okay.

Yep. I'm seeing a distinction there that justifies persecution of child sex offenders while exonerating at least some zoophilia. I agree some interspecies behavior would be similar, but in those cases, it's equally wrong -- just as the rules for this forum state. Prurient interest in sexually immature animals is verboten here.

But yep. I'm going to make it my opinion now that child sex offenders are -- and should be -- a socially and legally persecuted, prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated class of criminals.

And anyone demonstrating interest in that sort of behavior -- but having anime or sex toys that are "child" in nature -- needs to get themselves to psychiatric help.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wanna start by saying i give 0 fu*ks about pedos and people in general (its just who i am i love and care about animals but wouldnt bat an eye if humanity ends today). But its just funny to me looking at all that judgemental mentality of zoos towards pedos for example. Do you people even realize that from majority/society eyes(*the normal folks*), we zoos are as fucked up as pedos are, or even more in some cases, as i have heard from a gal on that topic "they both are monsters but hey the children can at least speak and communicate while the animal cannot". So what i meant is that it is just funny to me how most of us want to be accepted by society but are so quick to judge on another sexual alteration that is just as judged as ours(even if it is very different). Try not to be so hypocritical if you ever want to achieve something.
I don't judge scat, incest, or many other "taboos." As long as everyone is consenting to it and no one is harmed there is nothing wrong with it. There's gotta be ethics here. And @BlueBeard already pretty much said it all in the previous post.

Edit: Just wanted to say until a crime is committed, no one should be prosecuted. No one should be jailed for a thought or feeling alone. But any actual pedos should seek help for that.
 
Last edited:
@Aluzky

Yeah, agree. If a person finds him-/herself attracted to children sexually, feels it as an irresistible compulsion -- or maybe even less, just an annoyingly persistent preoccupation or fantasy -- it should alarm them enough to seek counseling. Everyone they told their secret to (well, not everyone, but a lot of people) would applaud them for doing something about it.

Why? Because adults should not be sexually attracted to children. Something's wrong. Way wrong. It shouldn't be an attraction at all. Not baby penis or pussy sex toys. Just... not at all. Something needs adjustment.

Gotta wonder why their protective "adult" instincts aren't kicking in? If you want to call something bestial, there it is. That's a real bestial compulsion, to have no recognition of the inappropriateness of introducing a child (meaning prepubescent) to sexual concepts that are not naturally part of their life yet.

That's might be the biggest distinction between zoophilia and pedophilia. Leaping ahead to a stage of sexual development the child isn't naturally "at" yet. Disrupting their psychosexual development -- and being incapable of recognising they are not at that stage. Anything sexual would be pushing a one-sided agenda. And that's abuse of a child by an adult. In no case would that kind of relationship ever be okay.

Yep. I'm seeing a distinction there that justifies persecution of child sex offenders while exonerating at least some zoophilia. I agree some interspecies behavior would be similar, but in those cases, it's equally wrong -- just as the rules for this forum state. Prurient interest in sexually immature animals is verboten here.

But yep. I'm going to make it my opinion now that child sex offenders are -- and should be -- a socially and legally persecuted, prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated class of criminals.

And anyone demonstrating interest in that sort of behaviour -- but having anime or sex toys that are "child" in nature -- needs to get themselves to psychiatric help.


Bulshit, it's entirely natural, sorry, so's rape btw, natural =/= right.

To be frank, being interested in the physical form of a child is irreverent,that's a matter of taste, or lack thereof, it is the physical harm, and lack of consent that is and should be at issue, otherwise you'll need to ban dwarves from having sex for being the size of an 8 year old.

It's also entirely natural to not have protective instincts, I don't have them, and I fucking hate the snotty little bastards, killing children other than your own is an evolved trait, it means your children and your genes are more likely to survive in the issuance of food shortages, although is is a competing trait to the protective one which grants safety in numbers, meaning if a predator attacks your children are less likely to be the one they take.

Chronophiles exist for all age groups, the elderly, middle aged, young, indeed I submit most or not all people are particularity attracted to the traits of 20 somethings.

Yet also have to consider what a child is, just because it is said that someone can or cannot consent does not necessarily make it true. Indeed, despite our instance on chronological solution to the issue of "consent"which has little to no baring to an individuals ability to do so, not that such ability is a constant, the fact remains, it is a matter of development, not of age.

Some of these individuals fuck kids do so because of the harm it causes, others because they have an inane need to to fuck a child without the desire to harm, others because they desire the form factor, which a doll perceptually an anamatroinic one can replicate with a reasonable degree of accuracy, or non-child porn,.

In many places the recognises that ages of consent are different for different categories, for family members or teachers, it may be 18, when normally 16, prison officers can only rape prisoner regardless of consent is given because of the potential for abuse, such potential exist with not just children but also the very old.

The fact children are small has nothing to do with the issue legally, if they were made of rubber, that aspect would have no problem, it is the fact it inflict physical and mental harm, the fact that it is rape. Is.

Children are purely a legal definition, bellow 18, why, because the US says so, and it pay for the UN, but if Italy was to say 5 year olds are of maturity, they are no longer children in a definitive sense.

Beyond that it's merely a perception, if you want to say when the person peaks and stops developing, then it's 21, but we already have that as age of majority, so it has to before then, it's entirely conceptual, its an idea, with no defined boundaries, are teens children, are they not? is it when the brains tops developing? at 18? if so why are we asking 16 year old to sit life changing exams that they can't possibly fully understand the consequences of as much as they later will? Why did we split kids up at 11 into manual and clerical professional groups?

Much of all this is cultural, not in terms of the ability to consent, although the minutia of it may be disagreed on, but in there of development, a french kid lets say sexually matures at 14, (for augments sake, this is pure conjecture), but a African kid on a farm, would ergo mature earlier, partly from having had reputability to help provide for the family in harsh conditions, and to slaughter their own food, and the repeated death of siblings.

And what would a spartan boy say to all of that, who would likely mature even faster, before he was physically read to have sex, is a child who is of sound mind and has the capacity to murder their own parents, with premeditated planing and understanding of the consequence not capable of consent?

Additionally children masturbate not all but some very diffidently, a whole generation of children was introduced to sexual pleasure they day they got a game controller with a rumble function. Does a child who discovers this early develop faster? Perhaps, but also perhaps not.

When even are people, because children are people, able to consent? What defines that fact? an understanding of the consequences? hormones put paid to that idea until 21, young people think they're invincible, upto this age, is it life experience? If so then why can 18 year olds in school with none of that fuck?

And what right to we have to tell people, you can't do this if they wnat to. We let the mentally deficient fuck even if they have the maturity of a 12 year old, women who cannot legally marry, can legally fuck, who can't legally raise children can fuck, teens who we say can't fuck are fucking each other in bushes and and uploading nudes tot he internet without prompting from anybody, and right out lying about how old they are with complete contempt for what we say. and the reverse is true, 19 year olds who couldn't put a washing on are pounding away at poon like a blacksmith on an anvil. and studys show us that 10% of the male population would fuck a teenager who is "under age" (this stat could be true of zoophiles, but we don't know)

The fact something does not sit comfortably with us does not matter. Granny porn disgusts me, but so what? I'm part of a group that disgusts people, (LGBT) again so what?

If we try to kill them, they'll hide, and we'll only know once the damage is done, if we treat them like rapists when they aren't or act like they can't be helped, they will believe it and act accordingly, we we punish them for seeking help by speaking out, they won't, a problem shared is a problem haved didn't come from nowhere and paedophiles dont have that option. support group have proven to be a bad idea as the worst of them drag the others down with them, and if we say" once a rapist, always a rapist", they will rape again, because why wouldn't they?

a Pedo in prison is safer than pedos outside of prison.

killing offenders might work, or it might make them feel more righteous, despite their victims views, they believe that such harm comes from the appearance of harm, and to an extend this may have some merit, treating someone like a victim is just more victimisation, yet, we celebrate wounded warriors, and they still kill themselves, so it's not the full story.

We are in danger of creating an underclass bellow us, that treats a inane, unaquired, (sometimes) unasked for, unconsenal trait, that they cannot get rid of and celibacy is a big big ask, possible, but most will fail.

We cannot eliminate them. But we can perhaps control them, through fear of justice, yes, but not terror for their lives when they are yet to do anything wrong, that merely cements their perceived zeal and righteousness.

There are 3 element to rape, and this relates to animals.

Physical Trauma

-Physical injuries

Emotional trauma

-being force into something you don't want to be, being powerless,

Social trauma

-guilt imposed by others, "how could you let yourself be defiled" "slut", "look at what you were wearing" "your poor husband"

--the difference between animals sex (some atleast) and rape is

Physical Trauma - this need not occur

Emotional trauma - for dogs, if they have the capacity, this seems to be par for the course, fucking each other is an assertion of dominance, and other than social standing it seems to have no long term effects, an the reaction seems to be similar to acceptable human admonishment, altough I am not sure of this.

Social trauma - in non monogamous species, this does not occur.

Now im a little iffy on penetrative sex with animals, because of point two, but certainly I can see no moral justification for merely presenting oneself to an animal and allowing ti to make a choice. Hell even "sex work" if a dog is happy to fuck you for peanut butter, what right do we have to say that isn't a fair trade?
 
Why? Because adults should not be sexually attracted to children. Something's wrong. Way wrong. It shouldn't be an attraction at all. Not baby penis or pussy sex toys. Just... not at all. Something needs adjustment.

And zoophobes will make the same augment to send every zoophile to be jailed in a mental institution, or in a jail, or to the death row. I hope you are aware that your irrational pedophobic beleifs will come back to shoot you and every zoophile in their foot.


Gotta wonder why their protective "adult" instincts aren't kicking in?

What are you talking about? Your reply seem to lack context.



That's might be the biggest distinction between zoophilia and pedophilia.

What is the biggest distinction? Again, your reply seem to lack context.

Leaping ahead to a stage of sexual development the child isn't naturally "at" yet. Disrupting their psychosexual development -- and being incapable of recognizing they are not at that stage. Anything sexual would be pushing a one-sided agenda. And that's abuse of a child by an adult. In no case would that kind of relationship ever be okay.

Yea... I have no clue what you are talking about.

But yep. I'm going to make it my opinion now that child sex offenders are -- and should be -- a socially and legally persecuted, prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated class of criminals.

Fully support that.

And anyone demonstrating interest in that sort of behavior -- but having anime or sex toys that are "child" in nature -- needs to get themselves to psychiatric help.

Grrrrrr

You don't get it... just like you use that argument for them, they can also use it for homosexuals or zoosexuals to force us to seek mental help.

In reality, there is no rational reason to send some one to seek mental help if the person is not suffering from any mental disorder. Being a pedo or zoo or homo is not synonym with having a mental disorder. But you want every person who is not a heterosexual being treated as a mentally ill person. Can't you see the problem with that?
 
You don't get it... Can't you see the problem with that?

You have repeatedly said *you* don't get it. So I do not seem to be the one with the comprehension problem. Although I believe you actually *do* understand exactly what I'm saying, I'll make it as simple as I can for you: Adults vs children. Mature vs immature. There is no connection between pedophilia and other sexualities. None.

There is definitely no reason to associate pedophilia (sexual attraction to kids younger than 11) with homosexuality. Ever. Stop insisting that such a link exists. We could easily make a similar argument for zoophilia (except for zoophiles sexually turned on by immature animals). The two sexualities are not associated. There is no slippery slope.

Pedophilia should be distinguished from pedophilic disorder, even though the Merck Manual, Professional Edition lists it as a disorder: Pedophilic Disorder (pedophilia). It does not list bestiality. It does not list zoophilia. It does not list homosexuality. It does not list gay or lesbian. But it's got a prominent treatment on pedophilic disorder.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition DSM-5 still includes the term pedophilia as a disorder, not just an orientation. The link I just provided is a discussion of why it should remain listed as a disorder, even though the discussion does just as I and others here have done repeatedly, distinguishing "attraction to children" from "acting out on children." To be "branded" a pedophile, the article says, does unfairly stigmatize the person who is attracted to children. It's a "demonizing pejorative," it says. And it should be distinguished from pedophilic disorder, which is generally used to signify a pedophile who has acted on his urges (not to be sexist, but the majority of pedophiles are men). But it should remain listed as a disorder in the DSM because it is not like other orientations. This one targets kids.

Catch that? -- not like any other orientation *because* it poses a risk to kids. No slippery slope here. Distinctly different.

That's why pedophilic disorder *is* a disorder. That's why shit hits the fan when you get diagnosed with it.

Since anyone who acts on their attraction harms a child, I'm saying you better get your ass some help if you're attracted to kids. Ain't nothing irrational about that, Aluzky. Even you can understand that. Because the perp going to jail isn't the priority concern -- it's about harm inflicted on a child. The perp doesn't get forgiven for that.

But just to reiterate what I have consistently said on this topic throughout the forums here, "pedophiles" can NEVER be locked up for BEING pedophiles. Not by anyone's definition. Nor for being homosexual. Nor for being zoosexual.

There's no connection between pedophilia and any other sexuality. (Clear on that yet, or you need more context still?) No one's coming next for you and me and everyone else in here. No one's going to lock anyone up and throw away any key. You absolutely aren't going to wind up on death row. (You accused me of having an "irrational phobia"?... Your whole response made Chicken Little take a knee).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@BlueBeard

Scientific studies already show that availability of porn = less sexual abuse. AKA the more legal porn the less sexual crime there is.

So, letting perverts use porn or sex toys that mimic children, would actually be beneficial, so those people can use a legal harmless option to keep their libidos in check. If they don't have a legal option, then the only option is them illegally raping a real child.

In the end, even if you take the legal porn option, they will either do it for real or seek illegal porn. Seeking illegal porn with get them in legal troubles, ruining their lives, making them not care if they actually later rape a real child because people already treat them as rapists. So, what they need is education and a legal option to keep their libido in check, this is the best course to keep children safe.
I'm surprised you didn't cite your sources or give any evidence -- things you repeatedly demand of others.

Oh well. I'm sitting here at a computer with a fast connection to the internet. So I went looking to find out. And I'm not surprised at all at what I found -- no scientific studies proving that the availability of porn = less sexual abuse.

Not one.

But I saw about a BAZILLION references to a few popular media reports that repeated the wondrously optimistic "conclusion" based on mere...... coincidence. That's all. Coincidence.

For instance, one dude posted in Psychology Today that the U.S. sexual assault rate has fallen 44 percent since 1995 (Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey). Oh, and he noted that public access to the internet -- hence, to "porn" -- started about that same time. But... could be global warming, too. Could be fracking. Could be from when there was a hole in the ozone layer.

"He blinded me with science!"

Randomly associating a decrease in sexual assault rates with increasing ease of access to the internet is not a scientific study. Didn't explain why. Didn't examine cause and effect. Just said, "Hey, look. Internet. Sex crime goes down. There ya go!" And it's been repeated a lot.

But I'm not convinced. I'll keep looking. But if you *do* have a scientific study, post a link or email me one. I want to check it out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You are because zoophilia is...um....illegal, yeah?

I have sex with my doggies but I'm not a zoophile, zoosexual, etc. I get tied to doggies in my house and not in public where I would be arrested. Nor do I tell people that I deserve a cookie for having sex with animals, then get upset when they call zoophiles mentally ill.

I wish people would just wake up
 
Bulshit, it's entirely natural, sorry, so's rape btw, natural =/= right.

To be frank, being interested in the physical form of a child is irreverent,that's a matter of taste, or lack thereof, it is the physical harm, and lack of consent that is and should be at issue, otherwise you'll need to ban dwarves from having sex for being the size of an 8 year old.

It's also entirely natural to not have protective instincts, I don't have them, and I fucking hate the snotty little bastards, killing children other than your own is an evolved trait, it means your children and your genes are more likely to survive in the issuance of food shortages, although is is a competing trait to the protective one which grants safety in numbers, meaning if a predator attacks your children are less likely to be the one they take.

Chronophiles exist for all age groups, the elderly, middle aged, young, indeed I submit most or not all people are particularity attracted to the traits of 20 somethings.

Yet also have to consider what a child is, just because it is said that someone can or cannot consent does not necessarily make it true. Indeed, despite our instance on chronological solution to the issue of "consent"which has little to no baring to an individuals ability to do so, not that such ability is a constant, the fact remains, it is a matter of development, not of age.

Some of these individuals fuck kids do so because of the harm it causes, others because they have an inane need to to fuck a child without the desire to harm, others because they desire the form factor, which a doll perceptually an anamatroinic one can replicate with a reasonable degree of accuracy, or non-child porn,.

In many places the recognises that ages of consent are different for different categories, for family members or teachers, it may be 18, when normally 16, prison officers can only rape prisoner regardless of consent is given because of the potential for abuse, such potential exist with not just children but also the very old.

The fact children are small has nothing to do with the issue legally, if they were made of rubber, that aspect would have no problem, it is the fact it inflict physical and mental harm, the fact that it is rape. Is.

Children are purely a legal definition, bellow 18, why, because the US says so, and it pay for the UN, but if Italy was to say 5 year olds are of maturity, they are no longer children in a definitive sense.

Beyond that it's merely a perception, if you want to say when the person peaks and stops developing, then it's 21, but we already have that as age of majority, so it has to before then, it's entirely conceptual, its an idea, with no defined boundaries, are teens children, are they not? is it when the brains tops developing? at 18? if so why are we asking 16 year old to sit life changing exams that they can't possibly fully understand the consequences of as much as they later will? Why did we split kids up at 11 into manual and clerical professional groups?

Much of all this is cultural, not in terms of the ability to consent, although the minutia of it may be disagreed on, but in there of development, a french kid lets say sexually matures at 14, (for augments sake, this is pure conjecture), but a African kid on a farm, would ergo mature earlier, partly from having had reputability to help provide for the family in harsh conditions, and to slaughter their own food, and the repeated death of siblings.

And what would a spartan boy say to all of that, who would likely mature even faster, before he was physically read to have sex, is a child who is of sound mind and has the capacity to murder their own parents, with premeditated planing and understanding of the consequence not capable of consent?

Additionally children masturbate not all but some very diffidently, a whole generation of children was introduced to sexual pleasure they day they got a game controller with a rumble function. Does a child who discovers this early develop faster? Perhaps, but also perhaps not.

When even are people, because children are people, able to consent? What defines that fact? an understanding of the consequences? hormones put paid to that idea until 21, young people think they're invincible, upto this age, is it life experience? If so then why can 18 year olds in school with none of that fuck?

And what right to we have to tell people, you can't do this if they wnat to. We let the mentally deficient fuck even if they have the maturity of a 12 year old, women who cannot legally marry, can legally fuck, who can't legally raise children can fuck, teens who we say can't fuck are fucking each other in bushes and and uploading nudes tot he internet without prompting from anybody, and right out lying about how old they are with complete contempt for what we say. and the reverse is true, 19 year olds who couldn't put a washing on are pounding away at poon like a blacksmith on an anvil. and studys show us that 10% of the male population would fuck a teenager who is "under age" (this stat could be true of zoophiles, but we don't know)

The fact something does not sit comfortably with us does not matter. Granny porn disgusts me, but so what? I'm part of a group that disgusts people, (LGBT) again so what?

If we try to kill them, they'll hide, and we'll only know once the damage is done, if we treat them like rapists when they aren't or act like they can't be helped, they will believe it and act accordingly, we we punish them for seeking help by speaking out, they won't, a problem shared is a problem haved didn't come from nowhere and paedophiles dont have that option. support group have proven to be a bad idea as the worst of them drag the others down with them, and if we say" once a rapist, always a rapist", they will rape again, because why wouldn't they?

a Pedo in prison is safer than pedos outside of prison.

killing offenders might work, or it might make them feel more righteous, despite their victims views, they believe that such harm comes from the appearance of harm, and to an extend this may have some merit, treating someone like a victim is just more victimisation, yet, we celebrate wounded warriors, and they still kill themselves, so it's not the full story.

We are in danger of creating an underclass bellow us, that treats a inane, unaquired, (sometimes) unasked for, unconsenal trait, that they cannot get rid of and celibacy is a big big ask, possible, but most will fail.

We cannot eliminate them. But we can perhaps control them, through fear of justice, yes, but not terror for their lives when they are yet to do anything wrong, that merely cements their perceived zeal and righteousness.

There are 3 element to rape, and this relates to animals.

Physical Trauma

-Physical injuries

Emotional trauma

-being force into something you don't want to be, being powerless,

Social trauma

-guilt imposed by others, "how could you let yourself be defiled" "slut", "look at what you were wearing" "your poor husband"

--the difference between animals sex (some atleast) and rape is

Physical Trauma - this need not occur

Emotional trauma - for dogs, if they have the capacity, this seems to be par for the course, fucking each other is an assertion of dominance, and other than social standing it seems to have no long term effects, an the reaction seems to be similar to acceptable human admonishment, altough I am not sure of this.

Social trauma - in non monogamous species, this does not occur.

Now im a little iffy on penetrative sex with animals, because of point two, but certainly I can see no moral justification for merely presenting oneself to an animal and allowing ti to make a choice. Hell even "sex work" if a dog is happy to fuck you for peanut butter, what right do we have to say that isn't a fair trade?
It looks as if you're responding to my post? I think so. Some interesting points, like exploitive behavior being natural, too. But a lot of this looks unrelated to my post, though, so was just making sure. Not trying to step on anything you were adding.

As for my part in it, things that might be in response directly to me, I just want to touch on a couple things. Well, three if I'm referring to something you posted to Pillar earlier: "statistics don't lie." I'm not kidding -- I fell out of my chair laughing when I read that. Not laughing at your whole post, but I couldn't get past that right there. And I can agree actually. Statistics do *not* lie. It's just that they are completely meaningless shorthand until you know the full story behind them: how a given statistic was collected, what its purpose was, how it was controlled, whether the sampling was representative and sufficient enough for any conclusions, what the margin of error is. Otherwise, people famously use statistics that "don't lie" to tell every lie under the sun with them. Statistics are horribly abused. (That alone should be a kind of crime. Poor little defenseless statistics, getting abused all over).

Now the other things:

Pedophilia -- sexual attraction to kids under 11 in some definitions. Other definitions use "pre-pubescent children." Either way, if acted upon, it's a psychological disorder and a criminal act. To keep talking back and forth between pre-pubsecent children and pubescent children makes the discussion so much more confusing. So let's do this. Men who solicit sex from pre-pubescent children, you're okay with that, or no, you're not? Are you defending them? If so, why?

As for pedophilia and other sexual orientations, I'm saying there's no slippery slope. Just isn't one. There's no connection between pedophilia and non-disordered sexual orientations. Old presumptions that homosexual men posed a danger to young boys, that was shot down pretty thoroughly (and I'm not sure why people in the thread keep bringing that connection back up). There is no connection between pedophilia and any other sexuality. Let's don't be making one up. The current professional literature makes no connection between them. Everything else, just a sexual orientation or paraphilia. No treatment necessary. But pedophilia, different story. Pedophilia is a disorder.

And I don't know how this thread became a defense of a disordered sexuality that has nothing to do with our non-disordered one -- unless there are that many pedophiliacs in here who've come with that agenda?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pedophilia -- sexual attraction to kids under 11 in some definitions. Other definitions use "pre-pubescent children." Either way, if acted upon, it's a psychological disorder and a criminal act. To keep talking back and forth between pre-pubsecent children and pubescent children makes the discussion so much more confusing. So let's do this. Men who solicit sex from pre-pubescent children, you're okay with that, or no, you're not? Are you defending them? If so, why?

As for pedophilia and other sexual orientations, I'm saying there's no slippery slope. Just isn't one. There's no connection between pedophilia and non-disordered sexual orientations. Old presumptions that homosexual men posed a danger to young boys, that was shot down pretty thoroughly (and I'm not sure why people in the thread keep bringing that connection back up). There is no connection between pedophilia and any other sexuality. Let's don't be making one up. The current professional literature makes no connection between them. Everything else, just a sexual orientation or paraphilia. No treatment necessary. But pedophilia, different story. Pedophilia is a disorder.

And I don't know how this thread became a defense of a disordered sexuality that has nothing to do with our non-disordered one -- unless there are that many pedophiliacs in here who've come with that agenda?

Stats can be misued, but given how criminal content is hard to find, and swedens stats went up after they made it illegal, meaning its not an increase in reporting is very interesting. This is only figures for IRL crimes, not cyber ones.


Pedophillia
No, no I'm not okay with that, and I'm not here to defend criminals, unless the crime is stupid (i.e. weed), now I'm not sold on 11 being the age, puberty can start at 8, but if we draw a line on consent, im not oaky with people fucking children who can't consent. Or anyone else for that matter.


If you mean people who feel things, but don;t do anything, then yes I guess I am, because it's justice, you punish the guilty not the innocent, and emotions are not a crime. It's also not productive in protecting people.

I'm also not convinced that people can consent when puberty starts, or in their early teens, I'm not a psychologist, I shouldn't be drawing any lines here. But if a child matures by 7 somehow, for whatever reason, and can fuck without getting hurt, I have no issue with that.

But morally, fucking children isn't wrong per-say,the child part is, superfluous, which is my point.

However we get outraged over the topic, and it isn't helpful. We're not protecting people by driving these people into hiding, we're doing the opposite.

There's no logic behind any of it, and we haven't a metric to measure it, kids under 5 shouldn't be shagged, 21 year olds should be shagging, other than that, it's up in the air, it's a big grey space, and the only thing I'm sure of is 16 is the age here because that's as high as parents could get it so they could put off the idea of their precious little timmy shagging a bird, because we still treat sex as dirty.

Honestly part of me thinks you should have to leave education first because it's a distraction, but then also there's the autonomy aspect.

The only thing I know is whatever the metric is, it's not time.

I'll be honest, I know jack shit about children, other than them being loud bastards when i walk past a school, I haven't seen a child since I left my own school. To be perfectly honest I don't know if any given child is 3 or 9, I also don't give a shit.

But I've seen the harm raping kids can do with adults, and what we're trying to achieve is being hampered by our method of doing that.

Y'know what else is a DSM-5 metal disorder? Trangenderism, it's a book, you can put anything in a book.
 
I create this post because I want to have the maturity to consider a broad range of perspectives in civil rights.

Does the notion that "zoophiles are the most discriminated minority", as a friend once said, hold legitimacy? What about individuals who are LGBT, Jewish, or African-American? Assume for the sake of argument most zoophiles are Caucasian.

Obviously given our current state of affairs, our situation is very dim. Furthermore, does anyone think that society can look past our deeply rooted anthropomorphization to accept zoosexuality as an orientation one day? Some surmise that being zoo is very different from simply being LGBT. Perhaps the idea of sexually and romantically loving an animal is too much for most people to ever understand; its issue is not patently human-centric.
No, they aren’t. Case closed
 
@d3bbievictor

An 8 year old? Are you for real?


Assuming you an abnormal case of puberty starting at that young of an age (it should start around 11 to 13, and yes, there are exceptions) you couldn't possibly expect that child to have the appropriate development needed until they are around at least 13! I have to ask myself, are you out of your mind?
 
@d3bbievictor

An 8 year old? Are you for real?


Assuming you an abnormal case of puberty starting at that young of an age (it should start around 11 to 13, and yes, there are exceptions) you couldn't possibly expect that child to have the appropriate development needed until they are around at least 13! I have to ask myself, are you out of your mind?
*shugs* ive no idea how children develop, all I know is an 8 year old bleed on her self in our primary school.

Your emotionality is showing, that was the point that's no necessarily right to fuck a post pubestent 8 year old. If anything blue beard would be the one arguing for it.
 
It is called precocious puberty, and it happens more often, I think, to girls that come from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds and who have absent parents in their lives.

There are people that believe that the world is a simple place that it is easy to make straightforward rules for to try to understand, but the rest of us are just thankful to survive in it for a while and to find enough joy in it to justify the trouble.

If you get out and meet enough people and talk to them and listen to them, you will find that you can learn how to just keep them talking. Whatever you do, just keep them talking. Keep them talking as if your life and your sanity depends on you keeping them talking. Let them talk for hours and hours and hours. Say as little as you possibly can, but just get them to keep talking. Let them tell you their stories.

I could start telling other people's stories now, but instead, I would invite people to just go out and practice this exercise.

If you want to complicate the matter by comparing your situation to that of others that have had very different life experiences, then you may.

Instead, I am going to focus on the most simple and elementary facts: if you are a zoo, you might think that sticking your head in the sand and hiding behind blinded windows and locked doors will save you, but it will not.


Before DeVoren got arrested, he probably would have been one of the people on here that cruelly scoff the idea that changing people's minds about zoos will ever matter, and he was so certain that his very cowardice had congealed into such an impenetrable shield that nothing could possibly hurt him as long as he stayed behind it.

Have you ever seen a cat sitting in a box? The cat likes the box because, while the cat is sitting in the box, he can have an illusion that nothing threatening can ever find him. He is like a small child that is playing "fort" in a cardboard box or behind a pile of pillows and saying "what's the password?" because the cat enjoys the illusion of being in a small space separated from the scary and complicated world around him.

It is still just an illusion. Cowardice does not really keep you safe from a complicated world.

What us activists are trying to do, instead, is get a little bit better at dealing more effectively at the complicated world around us. We are working very hard on getting good at it and at measuring our success. We are becoming more grown-up about acknowledging when something we tried did not work out as well as we had hoped, and we are learning how to focus on those efforts that have gotten the most positive reactions. It has been a very long and difficult learning process, and we are trying to mentor other like-minded individuals to make sure that they can avoid repeating some of our own mistakes from the past.

Even Michael Kiok is honest about things that have not worked out all that well. The "yellow press" screwed him over. He made the mistake of agreeing to an interview with a bad tabloid, and he has said, ever since then, that it is really better to avoid the attention of the "yellow press" if at all possible. He is actually still very active in Europe, and he has been getting interviews by more reputable journalists. Every experience that he has with this complicated world helps give him new lessons that he never really has to learn again, but instead, he can pass on those lessons.

On the other hand, if all you do is avoid trying to engage effectively with the world around you, then you are just like a cat hiding in a box and pretending that the rest of the world can never find him as long as he stays in his box. It does not really make the world around you go away, and you are not really as invisible as you imagine yourself to be. People have just not cared enough to bother because they have problems of their own. You have developed a false sense of security built out of a combination of dumb luck, other people genuinely not having time to bother, and your own wishful thinking.

Whenever you choose to, you can come out of that box and try learning to engage effectively with the world around you, but when you do, I strongly encourage trying to get some mentoring from people that have become relatively successful. That way, you can avoid having to relearn the same difficult lessons that they have had to learn.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top