Sunday, April 6, 2008
Elitezoo drama
Elitezoo seems to have way too much drama. Fausty is always fighting with somebody, lies and rumors are happening against everyone, zoos fighting other zoos. Why does it seem every zoo forum attracts drama? Is it possible to find a place where there isn’t any? The contributing members are few and far between in these places as they move elsewhere. I think one of the biggest problems on places like Beastforum and Elitezoo is the amount of porn content. I’m not suggesting I’m against porn or even zoo porn but I do realize it attracts a lot of problems. Many of these porn hungry members don’t contribute anything at all to positive zoo discussions but instead beg that the porn tracker be fixed ASAP. Another problem I see with Elitezoo especially is the people allowed on the forum in the first place. There are truths and rumors in this world, and unfortunately the truth is more than a handful of Elitezoo members have been involved in animal abuse of all types: neglect and even murder. How can these “zoos” be allowed on the forum? They do not love animals! They simply abuse their animals who they are supposed to love and protect. People like this give normal zoophiles a very bad image in the media, as if we didn’t have a hard enough time as it is. The only solution is to ban all of these offending members, restrict who has access to the porn content, and cut down on the drama and shit stirring. Elitezoo is falling just like Beastforum and it is no fault other than GPrix2K9/Chief and his cronies for allowing it to happen.
Friday, March 21, 2008
New zoo forum
This is a temp forum which eventually will be transfered to a private host where porn can be traded. Until then, no direct images or links to porn. Use the PM :)
http://dogssup.makeforum.org
http://dogssup.makeforum.org
Thursday, March 20, 2008
A positive voice
Peter Singer on Zoophilia
From Wikipedia, Peter Singer on zoophilia:
"In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers's Dearest Pet: On Bestiality,[28] Singer stated that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities. Singer explains Dekkers belief that zoophilia should remain illegal if it involves what he sees as "cruelty", but otherwise is no cause for shock or horror. However, Singer does not claim to endorse the views of either Dekker or Soyka, merely to be explaining them. Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural,[29] it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals or, more specifically, "we are great apes".[28] Some religious individuals and animal rights groups have condemned this view,[citation needed] while the animal rights organization PETA has expressed cautious support."
From Wikipedia, Peter Singer on zoophilia:
"In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers's Dearest Pet: On Bestiality,[28] Singer stated that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities. Singer explains Dekkers belief that zoophilia should remain illegal if it involves what he sees as "cruelty", but otherwise is no cause for shock or horror. However, Singer does not claim to endorse the views of either Dekker or Soyka, merely to be explaining them. Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural,[29] it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals or, more specifically, "we are great apes".[28] Some religious individuals and animal rights groups have condemned this view,[citation needed] while the animal rights organization PETA has expressed cautious support."
Heavy Petting by Peter Singer
Not so long ago, any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. The idea that it could be wrong to use contraception in order to separate sex from reproduction is now merely quaint. If some religions still teach that masturbation is "self-abuse," that just shows how out of touch they have become. Sodomy? That's all part of the joy of sex, recommended for couples seeking erotic variety. In many of the world's great cities, gays and lesbians can be open about their sexual preferences to an extent unimaginable a century ago. You can even do it in the U.S. Armed Forces, as long as you don't talk about it. Oral sex? Some objected to President Clinton' choice of place and partner, and others thought he should have been more honest about what he had done, but no one dared suggest that he was unfit to be President simply because he had taken part in a sexual activity that was, in many jurisdictions, a crime.
But not every taboo has crumbled. Heard anyone chatting at parties lately about how good it is having sex with their dog? Probably not. Sex with animals is still definitely taboo. If Midas Dekkers, author of Dearest Pet, has got it right, this is not because of its rarity. Dekkers, a Dutch biologist and popular naturalist, has assembled a substantial body of evidence to show that humans have often thought of "love for animals" in ways that go beyond a pat and a hug, or a proper concern for the welfare of members of other species. His book has a wide range of illustrations, going back to a Swedish rock drawing from the Bronze Age of a man fucking a large quadruped of indeterminate species. There is a Greek vase from 520 BC showing a male figure having sex with a stag; a seventeenth-century Indian miniature of a deer mounting a woman; an eighteenth-century European engraving of an ecstatic nun coupling with a donkey, while other nuns look on, smiling; a nineteenth-century Persian painting of a soldier, also with a donkey; and, from the same period, a Japanese drawing of a woman enveloped by a giant octopus who appears to be sucking her cunt, as well as caressing her body with its many limbs.
How much of this is fantasy, the King Kong-ish archetypes of an earlier age? In the 1940s, Kinsey asked twenty thousand Americans about their sexual behavior, and found that 8 percent of males and 3.5 percent of females stated that they had, at some time, had a sexual encounter with an animal. Among men living in rural areas, the figure shot up to 50 percent. Dekkers suggests that for young male farm hands, animals provided an outlet for sexual desires that could not be satisfied when girls were less willing to have sex before marriage. Based on twentieth-century court records in Austria where bestiality was regularly prosecuted, rural men are most likely to have vaginal intercourse with cows and calves, less frequently with mares, foals and goats and only rarely with sheep or pigs. They may also take advantage of the sucking reflex of calves to get them to do a blowjob.
Women having sex with bulls or rams, on the other hand, seems to be more a matter of myth than reality. For three-quarters of the women who told Kinsey that they had had sexual contact with an animal, the animal involved was a dog, and actual sexual intercourse was rare. More commonly the woman limited themselves to touching and masturbating the animal, or having their genitals licked by it.
Much depends, of course, on how the notion of a sexual relationship is defined. Zoologist Desmond Morris has carried out research confirming the commonplace observation that girls are far more likely to be attracted to horses than boys, and he has suggested that "sitting with legs astride a rhythmically moving horse undoubtedly has a sexual undertone." Dekkers agrees, adding that "the horse is the ideal consolation for the great injustice done to girls by nature, of awakening sexually years before the boys in their class, who are still playing with their train sets . . . "
The existence of sexual contact between humans and animals, and the potency of the taboo against it, displays the ambivalence of our relationship with animals. On the one hand, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition — less so in the East — we have always seen ourselves as distinct from animals, and imagined that a wide, unbridgeable gulf separates us from them. Humans alone are made in the image of God. Only human beings have an immortal soul. In Genesis, God gives humans dominion over the animals. In the Renaissance idea of the Great Chain of Being, humans are halfway between the beasts and the angels. We are spiritual beings as well as physical beings. For Kant, humans have an inherent dignity that makes them ends in themselves, whereas animals are mere means to our ends. Today the language of human rights — rights that we attribute to all human beings but deny to all nonhuman animals — maintains this separation.
On the other hand there are many ways in which we cannot help behaving just as animals do — or mammals, anyway — and sex is one of the most obvious ones. We copulate, as they do. They have penises and vaginas, as we do, and the fact that the vagina of a calf can be sexually satisfying to a man shows how similar these organs are. The taboo on sex with animals may, as I have already suggested, have originated as part of a broader rejection of non-reproductive sex. But the vehemence with which this prohibition continues to be held, its persistence while other non-reproductive sexual acts have become acceptable, suggests that there is another powerful force at work: our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals.
Almost a century ago, when Freud had just published his groundbreaking Three Essays on Sexuality, the Viennese writer Otto Soyka published a fiery little volume called Beyond the Boundary of Morals. Never widely known, and now entirely forgotten, it was a polemic directed against the prohibition of "unnatural" sex like bestiality, homosexuality, fetishism and other non-reproductive acts. Soyka saw these prohibitions as futile and misguided attempts to limit the inexhaustible variety of human sexual desire. Only bestiality, he argued, should be illegal, and even then, only in so far as it shows cruelty towards an animal. Soyka's suggestion indicates one good reason why some of the acts described in Dekkers book are clearly wrong, and should remain crimes. Some men use hens as a sexual object, inserting their penis into the cloaca, an all-purpose channel for wastes and for the passage of the egg. This is usually fatal to the hen, and in some cases she will be deliberately decapitated just before ejaculation in order to intensify the convulsions of its sphincter. This is cruelty, clear and simple. (But is it worse for the hen than living for a year or more crowded with four or five other hens in barren wire cage so small that they can never stretch their wings, and then being stuffed into crates to be taken to the slaughterhouse, strung upside down on a conveyor belt and killed? If not, then it is no worse than what egg producers do to their hens all the time.)
But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop. Soyka would presumably have thought this within the range of human sexual variety.
At a conference on great apes a few years ago, I spoke to a woman who had visited Camp Leakey, a rehabilitation center for captured orangutans in Borneo run by Birute Galdikas, sometimes referred to as "the Jane Goodall of orangutans" and the world's foremost authority on these great apes. At Camp Leakey, the orangutans are gradually acclimatised to the jungle, and as they get closer to complete independence, they are able to come and go as they please. While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very small penis." As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not. That may be because Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.
Not so long ago, any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. The idea that it could be wrong to use contraception in order to separate sex from reproduction is now merely quaint. If some religions still teach that masturbation is "self-abuse," that just shows how out of touch they have become. Sodomy? That's all part of the joy of sex, recommended for couples seeking erotic variety. In many of the world's great cities, gays and lesbians can be open about their sexual preferences to an extent unimaginable a century ago. You can even do it in the U.S. Armed Forces, as long as you don't talk about it. Oral sex? Some objected to President Clinton' choice of place and partner, and others thought he should have been more honest about what he had done, but no one dared suggest that he was unfit to be President simply because he had taken part in a sexual activity that was, in many jurisdictions, a crime.
But not every taboo has crumbled. Heard anyone chatting at parties lately about how good it is having sex with their dog? Probably not. Sex with animals is still definitely taboo. If Midas Dekkers, author of Dearest Pet, has got it right, this is not because of its rarity. Dekkers, a Dutch biologist and popular naturalist, has assembled a substantial body of evidence to show that humans have often thought of "love for animals" in ways that go beyond a pat and a hug, or a proper concern for the welfare of members of other species. His book has a wide range of illustrations, going back to a Swedish rock drawing from the Bronze Age of a man fucking a large quadruped of indeterminate species. There is a Greek vase from 520 BC showing a male figure having sex with a stag; a seventeenth-century Indian miniature of a deer mounting a woman; an eighteenth-century European engraving of an ecstatic nun coupling with a donkey, while other nuns look on, smiling; a nineteenth-century Persian painting of a soldier, also with a donkey; and, from the same period, a Japanese drawing of a woman enveloped by a giant octopus who appears to be sucking her cunt, as well as caressing her body with its many limbs.
How much of this is fantasy, the King Kong-ish archetypes of an earlier age? In the 1940s, Kinsey asked twenty thousand Americans about their sexual behavior, and found that 8 percent of males and 3.5 percent of females stated that they had, at some time, had a sexual encounter with an animal. Among men living in rural areas, the figure shot up to 50 percent. Dekkers suggests that for young male farm hands, animals provided an outlet for sexual desires that could not be satisfied when girls were less willing to have sex before marriage. Based on twentieth-century court records in Austria where bestiality was regularly prosecuted, rural men are most likely to have vaginal intercourse with cows and calves, less frequently with mares, foals and goats and only rarely with sheep or pigs. They may also take advantage of the sucking reflex of calves to get them to do a blowjob.
Women having sex with bulls or rams, on the other hand, seems to be more a matter of myth than reality. For three-quarters of the women who told Kinsey that they had had sexual contact with an animal, the animal involved was a dog, and actual sexual intercourse was rare. More commonly the woman limited themselves to touching and masturbating the animal, or having their genitals licked by it.
Much depends, of course, on how the notion of a sexual relationship is defined. Zoologist Desmond Morris has carried out research confirming the commonplace observation that girls are far more likely to be attracted to horses than boys, and he has suggested that "sitting with legs astride a rhythmically moving horse undoubtedly has a sexual undertone." Dekkers agrees, adding that "the horse is the ideal consolation for the great injustice done to girls by nature, of awakening sexually years before the boys in their class, who are still playing with their train sets . . . "
The existence of sexual contact between humans and animals, and the potency of the taboo against it, displays the ambivalence of our relationship with animals. On the one hand, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition — less so in the East — we have always seen ourselves as distinct from animals, and imagined that a wide, unbridgeable gulf separates us from them. Humans alone are made in the image of God. Only human beings have an immortal soul. In Genesis, God gives humans dominion over the animals. In the Renaissance idea of the Great Chain of Being, humans are halfway between the beasts and the angels. We are spiritual beings as well as physical beings. For Kant, humans have an inherent dignity that makes them ends in themselves, whereas animals are mere means to our ends. Today the language of human rights — rights that we attribute to all human beings but deny to all nonhuman animals — maintains this separation.
On the other hand there are many ways in which we cannot help behaving just as animals do — or mammals, anyway — and sex is one of the most obvious ones. We copulate, as they do. They have penises and vaginas, as we do, and the fact that the vagina of a calf can be sexually satisfying to a man shows how similar these organs are. The taboo on sex with animals may, as I have already suggested, have originated as part of a broader rejection of non-reproductive sex. But the vehemence with which this prohibition continues to be held, its persistence while other non-reproductive sexual acts have become acceptable, suggests that there is another powerful force at work: our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals.
Almost a century ago, when Freud had just published his groundbreaking Three Essays on Sexuality, the Viennese writer Otto Soyka published a fiery little volume called Beyond the Boundary of Morals. Never widely known, and now entirely forgotten, it was a polemic directed against the prohibition of "unnatural" sex like bestiality, homosexuality, fetishism and other non-reproductive acts. Soyka saw these prohibitions as futile and misguided attempts to limit the inexhaustible variety of human sexual desire. Only bestiality, he argued, should be illegal, and even then, only in so far as it shows cruelty towards an animal. Soyka's suggestion indicates one good reason why some of the acts described in Dekkers book are clearly wrong, and should remain crimes. Some men use hens as a sexual object, inserting their penis into the cloaca, an all-purpose channel for wastes and for the passage of the egg. This is usually fatal to the hen, and in some cases she will be deliberately decapitated just before ejaculation in order to intensify the convulsions of its sphincter. This is cruelty, clear and simple. (But is it worse for the hen than living for a year or more crowded with four or five other hens in barren wire cage so small that they can never stretch their wings, and then being stuffed into crates to be taken to the slaughterhouse, strung upside down on a conveyor belt and killed? If not, then it is no worse than what egg producers do to their hens all the time.)
But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop. Soyka would presumably have thought this within the range of human sexual variety.
At a conference on great apes a few years ago, I spoke to a woman who had visited Camp Leakey, a rehabilitation center for captured orangutans in Borneo run by Birute Galdikas, sometimes referred to as "the Jane Goodall of orangutans" and the world's foremost authority on these great apes. At Camp Leakey, the orangutans are gradually acclimatised to the jungle, and as they get closer to complete independence, they are able to come and go as they please. While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very small penis." As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not. That may be because Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Beast Forum
I wonder how many actual zoos are left on beastforum? It seems to me that the entire site is just full of porn. I even came across a few posts buy guys who are not willing to try anything with an animal but were a-okay with being lurkers, the kinda guy who wanks to a video of a horse pounding away at some girl from Brazil. I have nothing against zoo porn really, there are some problems with it in terms of *some* of the animals involved that I won't get into right now, but if this is the major focus of the 'zoo community' I'm worried. I unfortunately wasn't around during the early internet zoo years (I got online ~1998ish and had no idea about zoophilia and the internet...) but I have seen the older discussions from way back. It seems like there was a more positive discussion about zoo issues. Reading through these archives I can tell zoos cared more about each other, helping new people, and on and on. No wonder so few zoos are actually online!
New places
One of the keys to success when writing about controversial topics is always being prepared for those who'd rather silence what you write.
Step 1) Create backups of all material from journals and blogs including their comments.
Step 2) Dump it on another site and keep people updated about it.
Some may ask what this is about. Well, nothing in particular right now. I'm getting roughly 50 messages a day and about 85% of of them are assholes who'd love to see me dead, and all zoos, animals taken away, and places like this blog removed from the Interwebs. A few good people suggested I stay on the safe side, keep doing what I'm doing, but be prepared to do it elsewhere if need be. I'm doing just that and will keep people updated on any changes. In the coming months I'm looking for a private host...
Step 1) Create backups of all material from journals and blogs including their comments.
Step 2) Dump it on another site and keep people updated about it.
Some may ask what this is about. Well, nothing in particular right now. I'm getting roughly 50 messages a day and about 85% of of them are assholes who'd love to see me dead, and all zoos, animals taken away, and places like this blog removed from the Interwebs. A few good people suggested I stay on the safe side, keep doing what I'm doing, but be prepared to do it elsewhere if need be. I'm doing just that and will keep people updated on any changes. In the coming months I'm looking for a private host...
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Does Dogssup need a therapist?
"You need some serious counseling you sick piece of shit".
Counseling for what exactly? The DSM-IV clearly states zoophilia is not a mental illness. So in regards to counseling, there is actually nothing that can be done from a professional standpoint. The issue is nonexistent.
Maybe people who think there is something psychologically wrong with people who have loving sex with animals should read this book by Dr. Hani Miletski.
A lot of research is finally coming through about zoophilia. Some psychologists are coming to the idea that zoophilia is another possibility for sexual orientation. Just like being homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. I will post more updates about this in the future when I have more time.
Counseling for what exactly? The DSM-IV clearly states zoophilia is not a mental illness. So in regards to counseling, there is actually nothing that can be done from a professional standpoint. The issue is nonexistent.
Maybe people who think there is something psychologically wrong with people who have loving sex with animals should read this book by Dr. Hani Miletski.
A lot of research is finally coming through about zoophilia. Some psychologists are coming to the idea that zoophilia is another possibility for sexual orientation. Just like being homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. I will post more updates about this in the future when I have more time.
Peace, love, and the zoo haters
"Fucking animals isn't vegan. So um, we have a hard time understanding where you get off bitching about others who are ACTUALLY vegan and enjoy the occasional bag of motherfucking DORITOS." ---- Disgruntled LJ hater.
I'd like to see to logic behind her thinking? How is one not vegan if they fuck animals?
To all the zoo haters who are trying to shut my blog/LJ down: I am protected under the first amendment, the right to free speech. Because I don't post porn here (or even tell you where to find it), and because I don't condone doing anything illegal where you live, I am doing nothing wrong. Readers must be 18+ to read this blog/LJ.
Now go find something else to do my zoo haters. Go find some actual problems to solve instead of messing with someone who hasn't done anything to you.
I'd like to see to logic behind her thinking? How is one not vegan if they fuck animals?
To all the zoo haters who are trying to shut my blog/LJ down: I am protected under the first amendment, the right to free speech. Because I don't post porn here (or even tell you where to find it), and because I don't condone doing anything illegal where you live, I am doing nothing wrong. Readers must be 18+ to read this blog/LJ.
Now go find something else to do my zoo haters. Go find some actual problems to solve instead of messing with someone who hasn't done anything to you.
Monday, March 3, 2008
New zoo IRC!
Hello everyone!
I created a zoo-themed IRC chatroom. You will need something like Xchat, mIRC, etc to connect:
Here are the connection details:
irc.anthrochat.net
port 6667
#thefarm
If you need any help connecting or don't know how to use IRC just leave a comment and I will help you out :)
I created a zoo-themed IRC chatroom. You will need something like Xchat, mIRC, etc to connect:
Here are the connection details:
irc.anthrochat.net
port 6667
#thefarm
If you need any help connecting or don't know how to use IRC just leave a comment and I will help you out :)
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Zoophilia vs. vegetarianism
I recently came across a blog from another Zoo who writes about who he calls VegHeads, those holier than thou zoophilies who believe being a vegetarian is better than a meat-eating zoo. His stance is that VegHeads are wrong and that it is okay to continue eating meat.
There are some valid points to the whole zoophilia/Veg debate. First, let me say I believe we all have the right to eat whatever we want. I don't look down or up to anyone who has a particular diet. What works for some obviously can't be expected to work for all.
"Are VegHeads harming animals directly and indirectly? How do they you ask? Answer: It’s in all the things we have in life as humans. Material things like motor vehicles, modern homes, paper, computers, electricity, beauty products, plastics, medications and modern shoes to name a few."
The things humans use to live on a daily basis can and do cause harm, directly or indirectly, to animals. However, it is all about something called 'mindful treading'. The idea that it is better to perserve and protect as much as possible instead of reckless abandon on the premise that it will always be. A real "VegHead" would not own a car but rather ride a bike or walk. Likewise this VegHeaf woud use 100% recycled papers, alterative energy like solar or wind, organic and harm-free beauty products, alternative medicines, etc. If someone were to live like this, the death impact to animals and the environment would be significantly less than alternative forms of living. Is it possible to avoid killing animals both directly and indirectly? Yes, but unless you live Life on the Pond it is a very remote life. That is where the 'middle road' comes into play: Minimizing the the damage to animals and the environment.
DP further claims:
"What happens to the used products the packing or the chemicals that make up any products we consume? Where do they end up? Most likely these toxic chemicals end up in landfills or other environmentally friendless places. Once there they infest the environment with toxicity, which harms or kills animals in one eco system or another. So we ALL harm animals. We all are to blame just by the way we live. Even the lifestyle of VegHeads actually harms animals. Do they ever wonder about the animals that die so they can eat veggies? No of course they don’t. An example. A farmer has a problem with rabbits or mice or other vermin. So he shoots them or worse he poisons them. He may even spray the crops with chemicals to kill the insects. Did you know that many birds of prey eat dead vermin (rabbits, mice or other small animals and insects). One fact is certain happened when The American bald eagle (USA’s national bird) almost disappeared from the USA. The American Bald Eagle was eating fish and vermin that had ingested DDT. Ever wonder why the USA banned its use of DDT almost totally? It was also in the water. Water used to grow crops like veggies."
That is why a true VegHead buys 100% organic. No chemicals. No GMOs. No pesticides.
"Did you know it takes 39,000 gallons to make one car? Most VegHeads drive cars right?"
Where does DP get the idea "most" VegHeads drive cars? Was that just made up or does DP have some valid proof on this? Few VegHeads I know drive cars. They walk or ride bikes...
Eating meat or being a VegHead causes animal suffering directly and indirectly. However, it is clear that the meat-eater is causing more damage.
Not that I really give a shit in the end --- but there might be something about loving animals, both as friend and erotically, and respecting ALL animals by not eating their meat. Afterall, zoophilia means the love for animals. How can we as Zoos say we love animals when we just pick and choose which animals we love? Something to think about.
There are some valid points to the whole zoophilia/Veg debate. First, let me say I believe we all have the right to eat whatever we want. I don't look down or up to anyone who has a particular diet. What works for some obviously can't be expected to work for all.
"Are VegHeads harming animals directly and indirectly? How do they you ask? Answer: It’s in all the things we have in life as humans. Material things like motor vehicles, modern homes, paper, computers, electricity, beauty products, plastics, medications and modern shoes to name a few."
The things humans use to live on a daily basis can and do cause harm, directly or indirectly, to animals. However, it is all about something called 'mindful treading'. The idea that it is better to perserve and protect as much as possible instead of reckless abandon on the premise that it will always be. A real "VegHead" would not own a car but rather ride a bike or walk. Likewise this VegHeaf woud use 100% recycled papers, alterative energy like solar or wind, organic and harm-free beauty products, alternative medicines, etc. If someone were to live like this, the death impact to animals and the environment would be significantly less than alternative forms of living. Is it possible to avoid killing animals both directly and indirectly? Yes, but unless you live Life on the Pond it is a very remote life. That is where the 'middle road' comes into play: Minimizing the the damage to animals and the environment.
DP further claims:
"What happens to the used products the packing or the chemicals that make up any products we consume? Where do they end up? Most likely these toxic chemicals end up in landfills or other environmentally friendless places. Once there they infest the environment with toxicity, which harms or kills animals in one eco system or another. So we ALL harm animals. We all are to blame just by the way we live. Even the lifestyle of VegHeads actually harms animals. Do they ever wonder about the animals that die so they can eat veggies? No of course they don’t. An example. A farmer has a problem with rabbits or mice or other vermin. So he shoots them or worse he poisons them. He may even spray the crops with chemicals to kill the insects. Did you know that many birds of prey eat dead vermin (rabbits, mice or other small animals and insects). One fact is certain happened when The American bald eagle (USA’s national bird) almost disappeared from the USA. The American Bald Eagle was eating fish and vermin that had ingested DDT. Ever wonder why the USA banned its use of DDT almost totally? It was also in the water. Water used to grow crops like veggies."
That is why a true VegHead buys 100% organic. No chemicals. No GMOs. No pesticides.
"Did you know it takes 39,000 gallons to make one car? Most VegHeads drive cars right?"
Where does DP get the idea "most" VegHeads drive cars? Was that just made up or does DP have some valid proof on this? Few VegHeads I know drive cars. They walk or ride bikes...
Eating meat or being a VegHead causes animal suffering directly and indirectly. However, it is clear that the meat-eater is causing more damage.
Not that I really give a shit in the end --- but there might be something about loving animals, both as friend and erotically, and respecting ALL animals by not eating their meat. Afterall, zoophilia means the love for animals. How can we as Zoos say we love animals when we just pick and choose which animals we love? Something to think about.
Consent: Can animals really say yes or no to sex?
One of the main attacks against bestiality/zoophilia is the issue of consent. These arguments take shape into something like this: "having sex with a dog is wrong because the dog can't say no". Through logic I will show that these arguments by anti-zoos hold no logical reasoning at all, and in fact the consent issue is generally a smoke screen for the icky factor. I will show here that animals can, and do show sexual consent with a human.
Before I can effectively show that animals do have the ability to consent for sex, I need to define exactly how I am using consent:
–verb (used without object)
| 1. | to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often fol. by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented. |
| 2. | Archaic. to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony. |
Animals are sentient beings just like humans, that is they have the power of perception and a consciousness. An animal experiences pleasure and pain. A person who owns a dog knows if what they do causes pleasure or pain. When we scratch a dogs head we can tell the dog enjoys this, he may roll on his back and let you rub his stomach. Likewise, hitting the dog in the head with a shoe causes pain and the dog will shy away and be fearful in the future.
Animals can not verbally say yes or no to sex in our human languages but they have other ways to show how they feel. Surely a dog who has mounted, say his human lover, experiences pleasure. This is evident because of his orgasm. Female dogs have orgasms too. Once a dog for example realizes you as a sexual being, they show sexual desire quite often: females will sway their tales revealing their swollen vagina's and dry hump the air in front of you, males will become erect and try to mount.
Anyone who is zoo will be aware of when their animals want sex. More importantly, they will respect their animal partner when they do not want sex. Sometimes when you rub your partner down there they will pull away and sit elsewhere. That is how animals show they are either interested or not.
If an animal does not enjoy what is happening to them they will show bodily signs of this: they will tense up, their eyes and ears will move, tails might jitter, and they will pull away. If you continue it could bring painful results: Dogs have powerful teeth and will bite you! Horses can break bones (or worse) with a single kick. Quite simply, it is obvious to see what causes pleasure and pain.
As I said before, the consent issue is really a smoke screen for the icky factor. By and large people are disgusted about the idea so they claim consent is a big issue when in fact it is not. People do many awful things to animals who do not consent to what is being done:
(1) Do animals consent to locking them in a cage?
(2) Do animals consent to being slaughtered and killed in the millions every year for food?
(3) Do animals consent to being tested on by chemicals?
(4) Do animals consent to being 'fixed'?
If you did any of those four things to a human you would be thrown in jail for life (possibly killed in many US states). Not so ironically though, doing those things to animals is okay. It is accepted and happens everyday.
But as soon as you have loving sex with your dog who you care for more than anything in the world, somehow you are a sick and awful human being.
Ironic?
Who's there?
After seeing everyone else has a blog these days I thought it was due time to give a try at it as well. I'm a follower at heart, have to be cool, loved and accepted ;-)
Well! First things first: this blog will probably disgust and shock people as the primary subject I will be writing about is zoophilia. I have set an open comment policy here which means even those who are not registered with blogger can comment. I don't actually expect many people to find let alone care to read a nobody writing about zooish issues, but mostly I am writing for myself. I have always found writing to be therapeutic. Oh, and I love to hear myself talk too! I hope my zoo friends will enjoy reading though I know they're busy with their own sites/forums/blogs/farm animals ;)
Who am I? I go to school.
That is all I am...
I'm bi/zoo and have a girlfriend too.
Keeping it short to start, going to fall asleep now.
I also x-post but try to keep stuff unique in these locations:
http://dogssup.wordpress.com/
http://dogssup.livejournal.com/
----------
Notice: You won't find porn here so look elsewhere. I am not condoning zoophilia/bestiality or breaking any laws in your state of residence.
----------
Adult Blog Cloud // Submit Blogs
Well! First things first: this blog will probably disgust and shock people as the primary subject I will be writing about is zoophilia. I have set an open comment policy here which means even those who are not registered with blogger can comment. I don't actually expect many people to find let alone care to read a nobody writing about zooish issues, but mostly I am writing for myself. I have always found writing to be therapeutic. Oh, and I love to hear myself talk too! I hope my zoo friends will enjoy reading though I know they're busy with their own sites/forums/blogs/farm animals ;)
Who am I? I go to school.
That is all I am...
I'm bi/zoo and have a girlfriend too.
Keeping it short to start, going to fall asleep now.
I also x-post but try to keep stuff unique in these locations:
http://dogssup.wordpress.com/
http://dogssup.livejournal.com/
----------
Notice: You won't find porn here so look elsewhere. I am not condoning zoophilia/bestiality or breaking any laws in your state of residence.
----------
Adult Blog Cloud // Submit Blogs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
