Finished thinking, at least the main chunk of this.

[99744078]

Well, I took my time to think about what I personally believe about zoophilia and do some research, from both zoos and non-zoos. And in some ways, my perception has changed, but I think when I come down to the complex details to questions like, how should we compare and contrast humans and other animals? What makes someone, or an animal, capable of fully consenting? How should intelligence be measured, if at all? What do dogs really think of sex? I just end up looking too deep into scientific studies and research, that bring up more questions than I can keep track of, if I put myself in the position of trying to prove that zoophilia is logically sound. I’m just not an animal expert and might struggle with research.
But, I have thought about this deep enough to feel that this whole thing might not be a question of morality for me anymore, but logic, because I have thought about the scenario in which it’s just like two people of differing cultures coming to mate together, but the main problem I have in that is that it’s an entirely different species, and I’m not willing to fully believe that we can understand everything about them, if even possible. So if you’re ok with not fully informed consent, when it isn’t possible, then yeah, I can see how this seems fine.
And since I haven’t found that much clear or good evidence that it causes any harm to animals, when done as consensually and safe as possible, I think I’ll just tolerate it from a distance.
And I can definitely see how that’s the best option you can do if you’re a zoophile. All you can do is the best you can, and I didn’t want to be here to try and persuade anyone. It’d be irresponsible to try to when I have no real answers for what to do if you just refrain. I really want this to continue to be a topic for people to openly talk about, research more, and probably give some food for thought, and tolerance/acceptance when needed.

 

[btwiamazoophile]

I don't really understand what you're asking but I'll try to give you a response.

Two people of differing cultures coming to mate together? That's not what sexual contact with animals is like. To use something other than the act itself to come to a justification doesn't make sense.

Sexual contact with animals can happen in an enormous amount of ways with an infinite number of contexts, just like sexual encounters between humans. Step away from the science and inapplicable words like informed consent(animals only tolerate some of our human nonsense) and consider a rather frequent scenario: a dog male trying to hump a person's leg.

This happens all the time and typically dogs are shooed off, punished, etc. If you simply didn't do that, you now find yourself in a situation where you're having sexual contact with an animal. What does this mean? Well it means a dog is using your leg to pleasure himself. So what? Does this seem like a situation where considering a dogs informed consent makes sense? How much different is letting a dog get his rocks off from giving him a good life in any other aspect? Oh, to be a dog. If the allowing him to do so were to continue, as many zoos can attest sexual expression becomes much more common.

Again, there are a myriad of ways you can arrive at a sexual encounter with a dog, some ways moral some ways immoral. But to me, saying it's immoral or even despicable to have any kind of sexual encounter with an animal is just not coming from a place grounded in the real world. While dogs are not humans, they are their own individual beings with cognition and agency.

You're not likely to win this discussion with someone who does not understand no matter how prepared you are. Especially depending on how it is approached, many people find even thinking of this topic very aversive, and you're not going to get a logical discussion out of someone who is deeply wrapped up in their feelings.

 

[99744078]

I don't really understand what you're asking but I'll try to give you a response.

Two people of differing cultures coming to mate together? That's not what sexual contact with animals is like. To use something other than the act itself to come to a justification doesn't make sense.

Sexual contact with animals can happen in an enormous amount of ways with an infinite number of contexts, just like sexual encounters between humans. Step away from the science and inapplicable words like informed consent(animals only tolerate some of our human nonsense) and consider a rather frequent scenario: a dog male trying to hump a person's leg.

This happens all the time and typically dogs are shooed off, punished, etc. If you simply didn't do that, you now find yourself in a situation where you're having sexual contact with an animal. What does this mean? Well it means a dog is using your leg to pleasure himself. So what? Does this seem like a situation where considering a dogs informed consent makes sense? How much different is letting a dog get his rocks off from giving him a good life in any other aspect? Oh, to be a dog. If the allowing him to do so were to continue, as many zoos can attest sexual expression becomes much more common.

Again, there are a myriad of ways you can arrive at a sexual encounter with a dog, some ways moral some ways immoral. But to me, saying it's immoral or even despicable to have any kind of sexual encounter with an animal is just not coming from a place grounded in the real world. While dogs are not humans, they are their own individual beings with cognition and agency.

You're not likely to win this discussion with someone who does not understand no matter how prepared you are. Especially depending on how it is approached, many people find even thinking of this topic very aversive, and you're not going to get a logical discussion out of someone who is deeply wrapped up in their feelings.

I think what I meant was this explanation I found a couple of times being like, two people of different speaking languages still being able to consent by body language.
And I understand what you mean, I have a reputation for going too much into the bits and details about things, but my main problem starts from putting myself in between two paths when considering the humping, as you mentioned: Dog able to do this because he doesn‘t know any better or Dog simply expressing his wants and visible consent. Either the animal is “consenting” as much as a human child could, or can consent simply because he‘s sexually mature.
My mind splits at this when I try to see from the human’s perspective and the dog’s perspective. And so of course I try and see if I can find reliable and researchable proof, because it feels like it‘s a path between taking advantage or feeling as though I can trust the dog to have the same level of will, agency, and awareness as an adult human. Which, I’m not entirely sure if I can find evidence of, and that’s where I stop because it’s not worth risking, in my eyes.
https://equusoma.com/can-animals-consent/
This article was interesting as a middle ground of where I found myself, between whether I was using too much anthropomorphism, or can potentially be accused of being anthropocentric.