Raising, or creating, the ethical bar for zoophilia

[pferdefreund]

In short, we have to establish ethical boundaries for zoophilic acts.

Why do you guys always have to reinvent everything, and why is the go-to assumption that in 2019 you are the first who came up with the idea?

We already have the Zeta Principles, which pretty much cover this thing entirely.

 

[pferdefreund]

I never hear about principles at all unless specifically asked about them. Not enough people follow them. That could change.

A pity, but that shows most of all that I am kindof on the wrong forum, foremost.

 

[pferdefreund]

...

Also:

Zoophilia
The ZETA principles are:

Bestow upon animals the same kindness one would wish bestowed upon oneself.

Consider the well being of an animal companion as important as ones own.

Place the animal’s will and wellbeing ahead of one’s desires for sexual gratification.

Teach those who seek knowledge about zoophilia and bestiality without promoting it.

Discourage the practice of bestiality in the presence of fetish seekers.

Censure sexual exploitation of animals for the purpose of financial gain.

Censure those who practice and promote animal sexual abuse.


%%%

and the wording is shit - I can say that, I fucked up the translation into several languages of that set back then.

 

[pferdefreund]

I just wanted to mention there is - in a way - already something in existence. Don't mind if you extend on it, or do something completely new. Just no reference to the past - that made me post.

Otherwise I am not bothered much anymore. - We zoos lost really hard in Europe, and there's not much to come back to or back from there. As I realize here "they" have been successful in wiping out all the history of us. Like these principles first came up on usenet groups. But a quick google-search turns up almost nothing on them anymore. And we used to have forums full of people sworn to that. ... : /

 

[Tailo]

I just wanted to mention there is - in a way - already something in existence. Don't mind if you extend on it, or do something completely new. Just no reference to the past - that made me post.

They have been referred to and fully quoted in this thread already. But it doesn't hurt to do it again.

 

[1KnottyGirl]

Also:

Zoophilia
The ZETA principles are:

Bestow upon animals the same kindness one would wish bestowed upon oneself.

Consider the well being of an animal companion as important as ones own.

Place the animal’s will and wellbeing ahead of one’s desires for sexual gratification.

Teach those who seek knowledge about zoophilia and bestiality without promoting it.

Discourage the practice of bestiality in the presence of fetish seekers.

Censure sexual exploitation of animals for the purpose of financial gain.

Censure those who practice and promote animal sexual abuse.


%%%

and the wording is shit - I can say that, I fucked up the translation into several languages of that set back then.

I've never seen this anywhere before but it seems like something good to follow.

 

[Doglover84]

I do wish more zoos would give consideration to vegan ethics. There is no justification for harming animals for food, clothing, entertainment, and so on. They are sentient beings that want to live, just like we are. I would think that zoos could understand this idea better than most people.

I would say I agree and disagree. Agriculture is a disgusting practice all around, but I say this as someone who has tried a vegan diet because I do care about animals... I am physiologically incapable of living a vegan lifestyle. There is also the fact that even if I myself were vegan my dogs themselves eat primarily meat and fish. I do not feel my dogs corn meal and never will (except in a dire emergency) it is called the circle of life and there is absolutely nothing wrong with nature, it is humans greed and gluttony that causes the majority of animal suffering.

 

[Zoo50]

I would say I agree and disagree. Agriculture is a disgusting practice all around, but I say this as someone who has tried a vegan diet because I do care about animals... I am physiologically incapable of living a vegan lifestyle. There is also the fact that even if I myself were vegan my dogs themselves eat primarily meat and fish. I do not feel my dogs corn meal and never will (except in a dire emergency) it is called the circle of life and there is absolutely nothing wrong with nature, it is humans greed and gluttony that causes the majority of animal suffering.

The "circle of life" argument is nonsense (it is a naturalistic fallacy). If you really care about the well-being of animals, then you should stop eating meat. It is possible to have a vegan diet AND be healthy at the same time -- in fact, not eating meat is far healthier than eating it. You are not "physiologically incapable" of being vegan -- that's just an excuse to keep eating meat.

Meat-eating is speciesist and unethical.

 

[Doglover84]

The "circle of life" argument is nonsense (it is a naturalistic fallacy). If you really care about the well-being of animals, then you should stop eating meat. It is possible to have a vegan diet AND be healthy at the same time -- in fact, not eating meat is far healthier than eating it. You are not "physiologically incapable" of being vegan -- that's just an excuse to keep eating meat.

Meat-eating is speciesist and unethical.

What part of my physiology is different from yours did you misunderstand?

 

[arcticwolf69]

Meat-eating is speciesist and unethical.

I am living a perfectly happy healthy life being a speciesist, unethical , meat eater ... i don't preach non stop to you that you should be vegan
Please stop preaching in every single thread your extreme highly opinionated ethical morals to the rest of us.

 

[IHO]

That would make sense if animals strictly stuck to their own species. But just like humans, they have exceptions that will mate with other species. So an argument can certainly still be made that interspecies is a natural thing.

On some occasions when I watch "funny animal" compilations on YouTube, I'll see one with a clip of an animal who clearly wants to bone a person. I've seen a few where some horny deer is chasing around and attempting to mount both women AND men. Of course, the people think its funny and are giggling and running around, but there's a very significant element where zoophilia is concerned: the animal is not only interested in inter-species copulation, but also with humans. Plus you can find numerous clips of dogs having sex with sheep, cats, etc, horses with cows, sheep with pigs, and so on.
"Animals don't have sex outside their species!" is just an ignorant statement from anti-zoos who don't bother to fact-check their shit.
Here's just one example - clip of horny deer is at 06:10

 

[silkythighs]

Just adding some fuel to the fire.

 

[turboman420]

My standard is to compare the sex act to various other acts that society has generally deemed to be acceptable. If its ok to neuter a dog, I'd say that if were ok with cutting a dogs balls off, there's no grounds to call it wrong to suck a dog's balls. We make our dogs get into crates sometimes that they dont like if we have to drive somewhere, oftentimes in situations that only benefit the owner when the dog might have been happier staying at home alone, so there's precedent that causing your dog mild discomfort to make your life easier once in a while isn't a big deal. This is where it really comes down to being able to read an animal's reactions - We all irritate our pets to some degree, sometimes I'll grab my cats paws and lift them up and down and go "doopa doopa doopa!" - she doesn't enjoy it, but I don't enjoy when she walks on my face when crossing from one side of the bed to the other, so i call it even. Sometimes I'll do a real quick doopa for like 3 seconds and she doesn't mind at all, other times well be doing the doopa doopa for a good minute or so, at the end of which, she is clearly annoyed and making an effort to squirm away from me, and if I ever go on too long or accidentally do something that really bothers her, she'll howl and give me a pretty solid bite and claw her way away from me (of course if this happens I let her go right away and apologize and offer her snack treats to make up for being a jerk) but she always forgives me in a couple minutes as long as I dont play too rough.

I don't have any sexual attraction to my cat, (I'm a male interested in being fucked by male dogs), but my feelings are that any sexual interactions with an animal should have the animal taking some initiative to start the sex act, like a dog mounting a human on all fours, (simply "dildogging" from the start, I think is an iffy area of morality), once the dog has shown an interest and desire to fuck his bitch, then I'd say it's fair to do certain things like hold the dog in place, which may cause the dog some discomfort and stress, but if he has knotted a human, its a fair trade of, he gets to fuck, we hold him in a somewhat uncomfortable position for a bit so the knot doesn't completely tear the humans asshole open. if a dog is clearly yelping and showing true signs of distress, then of course all action should stop and the dog should be cared for.

As for men penetrating female dogs, I'd say it's fine as long as the dog shows no signs of distress and hasnt been trained/abused to take the fucking without complaining. It would be hard to tell on video what the real story is. All I can say is that it's not inherently unethical, it's just hard to prove that the dog is really ok with it.

 

[IHO]

As for men penetrating female dogs, I'd say it's fine as long as the dog shows no signs of distress and hasnt been trained/abused to take the fucking without complaining. It would be hard to tell on video what the real story is. All I can say is that it's not inherently unethical, it's just hard to prove that the dog is really ok with it.

As a hetero zoo into canines, and after being around dogs most of my life (whether there was sex involved or not), plus some breeding experience and one exclusive, long-term canine lover many years ago, it seems pretty clear to me in videos - via facial expressions and body language - if a female dog is enjoying herself and/or doesn't care, or if she is not happy and/or is in discomfort/pain.
I cannot express enough how important it is for anybody who is thinking of having sex with bitches to educate themselves on size, anatomy, heat-cycles and sexual behavior. You can't just lift up her tail and shove it in. You will most likely hurt her and/or make her afraid of the activity (or get yourself bitten). I won't get into details here since there is plenty of good information in the How To's and Educational forum, and any search online for "canine sexuality".
I will say that those who don't care for the timing and well-being of their girl can go fuck themselves. One MUST be sure she is ready and showing the signs of being willing to try sex. It is a process - especially if she is intact but has never been previously bred - and it can be rewarding for both you and her if approached thoughtfully. The good news is, once you've gotten past the initial process (which can be both fun AND sexually frustrating) and she is okay or even happy with your cock inside her it's pretty smooth-sailing after that whenever she is in heat. She may even be willing to do it when she's not in heat if you've made it an enjoyable experience for her. It takes time and self-restraint; you just need to be patient, smart, and keep your eyes on the prize.

 

[Wolf2]

As a hetero zoo into canines, and after being around dogs most of my life (whether there was sex involved or not), plus some breeding experience and one exclusive, long-term canine lover many years ago, it seems pretty clear to me in videos - via facial expressions and body language - if a female dog is enjoying herself and/or doesn't care, or if she is not happy and/or is in discomfort/pain.
I cannot express enough how important it is for anybody who is thinking of having sex with bitches to educate themselves on size, anatomy, heat-cycles and sexual behavior. You can't just lift up her tail and shove it in. You will most likely hurt her and/or make her afraid of the activity (or get yourself bitten). I won't get into details here since there is plenty of good information in the How To's and Educational forum, and any search online for "canine sexuality".
I will say that those who don't care for the timing and well-being of their girl can go fuck themselves. One MUST be sure she is ready and showing the signs of being willing to try sex. It is a process - especially if she is intact but has never been previously bred - and it can be rewarding for both you and her if approached thoughtfully. The good news is, once you've gotten past the initial process (which can be both fun AND sexually frustrating) and she is okay or even happy with your cock inside her it's pretty smooth-sailing after that whenever she is in heat. She may even be willing to do it when she's not in heat if you've made it an enjoyable experience for her. It takes time and self-restraint; you just need to be patient, smart, and keep your eyes on the prize.

Thanks for your info and stance. It can be tricky to have an effective, consensual sexual relationship with a male human and female dog. That is unfortunately one good reasonable argument against zoophilia in fact - the possible risk of harm to the animal. (And to the human, but who cares about that, lol.) More seriously, if it were allowed, we would simply make rules and enforce them so that animals were protected, just like they are now. Raping your dog would get you the same jail time as raping a human, but they’d have to prove you were harming the dog physically or emotionally. And most good zoos won’t be doing that.

 

[IHO]

Honestly, I think the ONLY somewhat valid anti-bestiality argument is that if a human is being physically, emotionally and/or sexually abused, they can say something and seek help if they have not been made too afraid to do so, or if the abuse outweighs their fear. An animal cannot do this because of the language barrier, or if they do it is not accurately interpreted by people. And likely no one who physically harms an animal without caring - especially sexually - is going to risk discovery by a veterinarian.

Where being a "true-zoo" is concerned - being accepted by society aside - I think it's just common-sense and a human obligation to not hurt another being for our own pleasure. The difference of considering your partner as a living, feeling, thinking, self-aware, sentient being and not just a property object to use as you please regardless of the effects on them. Whether you're a zoophile, bestialist or a fetishist, consideration for the animal's willingness (or indifference) and well-being is paramount, especially if we're trying to appeal to the legality of it. I'd like to think that anyone keeping and/or engaging with animals (sexually or otherwise) prefers to keep them as healthy and content as possible. I'm not naive; I know that's not the reality or we likely wouldn't be where we are with some of the newer laws.

 

[Tailo]

Honestly, I think the ONLY somewhat valid anti-bestiality argument is that if a human is being physically, emotionally and/or sexually abused, they can say something and seek help if they have not been made too afraid to do so, or if the abuse outweighs their fear. An animal cannot do this because of the language barrier, or if they do it is not accurately interpreted by people. And likely no one who physically harms an animal without caring - especially sexually - is going to risk discovery by a veterinarian.

I don't think this is reasonable argument for a ban. I think you have described why a law against bestiality is quite ineffective.

Where being a "true-zoo" is concerned - being accepted by society aside - I think it's just common-sense and a human obligation to not hurt another being for our own pleasure.

I suppose most people would agree with this when asked and yet most people will hurt other beings for their pleasure—either themselves or they pay others to do so. Often, common sense is not very reasonable, correct or consistent. Another example is that many people would probably claim that it is common sense that non-human animals don't want sex with humans.

 

[Barb Dwyer]

it is common sense that non-human animals don't want sex with humans

You can't lump them all together like that. Some animals are interested and some are not. They can signal Yes or No. Respect their choice and you can still enjoy plenty of cuddling etc., without any sexual element.

 

[IHO]

Another example is that many people would probably claim that it is common sense that non-human animals don't want sex with humans.

Those are the people (bigots) who don't care to know the reality, as it can be demonstrated that such opinion is incorrect. Those are the people who want to force others to adhere to their beliefs and ideals, don't care for facts that contradict them, and push for unnecessary, oppressive laws.