73340
Did the works/literature of Peter Singer also play a major role in accepting your zoosexuality as well?
Did the works/literature of Peter Singer also play a major role in accepting your zoosexuality as well?
YIMBY
Tourist
73342
www.youtube.com
Ahh After 10,000 years I'm free! Time to conquer Earth!
Ahh After 10,000 years I'm free! Time to conquer Earth! -[0:00 ]-REPEAT / PRESS 0Sampled for educational purposes only, all rights retained by respective cop...
www.youtube.com
Still haven't got around to reading his work. I really should get on that.
73344
No, unfortunately my path was a bit more harsh. Wasn't until a friend said something just right to me that I accepted it. Looks like I have some reading to do too.
73346
73350
73352
73357
73360
73363
My road to accepting this part of myself came from first losing my religion. Then, it went down a path of discovery. I knew I had these feelings pretty much since the onset of puberty, but I kept them bottled up because of religion. I started to look for evidence that both painted bestiality in a good light and in a bad light. I went in thinking that I'd confirm that bestiality was indeed immoral and unethical. But what I was surprised to find was that the arguments for ethical bestiality made more logical sense than the flat arguments against it. I could see that most anti-beatiality and zoosexuality arguments rested on emotion and disgust, rather than facts and logic.
One of the earliest pieces of literature I discovered was from Peter Singer called "What (if anything) is wrong with bestiality." He's a well respected modern day philosopher, but that piece was one of his most controversial works. But instead of emotional responses and even traditional moral arguments, he basically demonstrated that the way most people look at bestiality is actually quite flawed, and most of those flaws stemmed from emotional responses, and disgust, rather than logic. Reading it, it just... made sense. It wasn't created to convert people into zoos, nor was it created to really promote it. It was a piece examining the reasons as to why logically it can indeed be ethical even if you absolutely despise the act. It challenged the notion of what IS moral, and what arguments ARE emotional.
The other source of information that helped me was actually, oddly enough, Wikipedia. Surprisingly their entry for bestiality is actually quite rational, and present both arguments for ethical bestiality and zoosexuality, and fairly thought provoking counter arguments as well. It really wasn't biased toward one belief or the other.
My road to accepting this part of myself came from first losing my religion. Then, it went down a path of discovery. I knew I had these feelings pretty much since the onset of puberty, but I kept them bottled up because of religion. I started to look for evidence that both painted bestiality in a good light and in a bad light. I went in thinking that I'd confirm that bestiality was indeed immoral and unethical. But what I was surprised to find was that the arguments for ethical bestiality made more logical sense than the flat arguments against it. I could see that most anti-beatiality and zoosexuality arguments rested on emotion and disgust, rather than facts and logic.
One of the earliest pieces of literature I discovered was from Peter Singer called "What (if anything) is wrong with bestiality." He's a well respected modern day philosopher, but that piece was one of his most controversial works. But instead of emotional responses and even traditional moral arguments, he basically demonstrated that the way most people look at bestiality is actually quite flawed, and most of those flaws stemmed from emotional responses, and disgust, rather than logic. Reading it, it just... made sense. It wasn't created to convert people into zoos, nor was it created to really promote it. It was a piece examining the reasons as to why logically it can indeed be ethical even if you absolutely despise the act. It challenged the notion of what IS moral, and what arguments ARE emotional.
The other source of information that helped me was actually, oddly enough, Wikipedia. Surprisingly their entry for bestiality is actually quite rational, and present both arguments for ethical bestiality and zoosexuality, and fairly thought provoking counter arguments as well. It really wasn't biased toward one belief or the other.
73365
73367
Thanks for sharing your story Floofy. Sent me right down memory lane.
Thanks for sharing your story Floofy. Sent me right down memory lane.
RezErection247
Tourist
73369