"Farmhand busted for 'having sex with miniature donkey named Doodle'. . .

[dawny0826]

Yet it was worth replying to.

To point out that we're all hypocritical when it comes to this topic.

But not by educated folk or those who simply know better.

This isn't a term that I write about often, Skwim. Either way, you knew what I was referencing.

And I don't believe anyone here, myself included, has ever presented such a premise or intimated as much. You're tilting at windmills.

Read my dialogue with Badran. He absolutely stated that consent (by animals) can be provided through other means (sans verbal communication) and reiterated to me not once but multiple times that my generalizations against zoophiles were unfair in this regard.

And your prejudice is sufficient. However, one's prejudice is hardly a convincing argument. In fact, it's no argument at all.

And I've already taken ownership of this, so what more can you possibly expect from conversation with me on this topic?

And you know this as a fact how?

Because a therapist that approaches a disorder as a psychosexual disorder will treat the disorder as such. Treatment is contingent upon approach and the individual.

And I've already told you that I acknowledge that zoophilia wouldn't necessarily be approached in the same manner from one therapist to the next.

Treatments for Zoophilia - RightDiagnosis.com
zoophilia - definition of zoophilia in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Such a person may well be treated for his predilection for bestiality, but not necessarily as a psychosexual disorder. This is nothing more than an presumption on your part.

All I've stated is that SOME professionals would approach bestiality (look! I'm spelling it right!) as a psychosexual disorder. Though there isn't consistency in the terming of zoophilia, you will find it referred to as a psychosexual disorder and if a disorder is approached in such a manner, a form of psychotherapy is likely to be chosen, but then, there's a broad spectrum of treatment under the umbrella of "psychotherapy" as there is a broad spectrum of disorders and conditions treated under the auspices of "psychotherapy".

Psychotherapy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Psychosexual Disorders - Medical Disability Guidelines
Medscape: Medscape Access
Paraphilias Cause, Symptoms, Treatment, Medication and Tests

Is that so. Then please share your sources. (plural)

Is homosexuality a paraphilia? The evidence f... [Arch Sex Behav. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI
Homosexuality is a Mental Illness | Connect2Mason
The Annals of Homosexuality

Homosexuality is not commonly referred to as a paraphilia, but there is argument for and against this terminology.

I am not one who views homosexuality as a paraphilia.

There's no moving goal posts, dawny. You said. "I am wholly prejudiced against zoophiles." (post 74)

It's mindsets and actions that I struggle with. I am prejudiced against those who rape. It's hard to unwrap my brain around this prejudice.

Really? Mind showing me where I suggested as much, because all I recall saying is "now we can properly judge your answers."

That's how I construed your statements. If I didn't understand you correctly, I apologize.

 

[McBell]

Is homosexuality a paraphilia? The evidence f... [Arch Sex Behav. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

From the article your link refers to:

Thus, although homosexuality is probably better said to be distinct from the paraphilias, that conclusion is still quite tentative.

Homosexuality is a Mental Illness | Connect2Mason

:biglaugh:
This opinion columnists best argument:

In total, only approximately 20 percent of the organization actually said yes to removal, meaning that as much as 80 percent of the APA in 1973 might have opposed removal.

The Annals of Homosexuality

Ah yes, an ever convincing article from 1978 detailing why he is upset his "side" lost...

 

[Skwim]

This isn't a term that I write about often, Skwim. Either way, you knew what I was referencing.

Of course I did. My BTW was simply a friendly piece of information, "The term is bestiality, not beastiality"

As for the rest of your post, and our continuing exchange, I'm going to take my leave. You've been a tenacious but gracious adversary, and if I've been a bit brusk I apologize. Hope to see you in future discussions.

 

[Badran]

Read my dialogue with Badran. He absolutely stated that consent (by animals) can be provided through other means (sans verbal communication) and reiterated to me not once but multiple times that my generalizations against zoophiles were unfair in this regard.

Some clarifications:

First, i'm re-posting something i posted earlier:

To share another important thing which i was waiting for your answers before i address, i would like to talk about the supposed rape aspect. Here are a couple of thoughts that were already alluded to or stated by others as well as some other things i want to add for consideration:

1) Animals are frequently compared to children in that they can't give consent. I think this is an invalid argument because animals obviously can and do partake in sexual activity with each other, and seem to have the ability to refrain or engage with each other based on some criteria, as well as possibly being able to enjoy it. Children on the other hand are not ready for sex at all, of any kind or with anybody. It would damage them on account of many reasons that might not be present in an adult or grown animal.

2) I think the animal is capable of showing signs of wanting to engage or refrain from doing so in regards to the action of sex with a human being, and are usually capable of doing serious damage to defend themselves if needed. That's obviously not to say that a human can't rape an animal, but to say that there seems to be many signs to look for, obvious ones, where consent or non-consent can be detected.

3) If we discount those signs due to inferiority of thought process (to ours), IOW, say that whatever signs and/or actions they do don't matter, then we can't consider anything we do to be good for the animal, or perceived as such by it. As then we can never know whether or not anything we do is good or bad to them, or whether or not they want it. To put it differently, if we discount these signs of consent or non-consent then we essentially claim that we can't decide anything in regards to what an animal wants. I would not be able to know whether or not feeding the animal a certain type of food makes him happy, or whether playing catch is a good thing or a form of unspeakable torture.

Now, what i do think is lacking is perhaps informed consent. Animals would not be aware of the possible consequences of sex with humans. As such while i think it does not negate their consent, it does make it one that is lacking information. This makes a considerable amount of difference in m view. As then the issue seems to revolve more around the possible consequences, their likability, and what possible actions can be taken to minimize such consequences. The outcome of consideration of these aspects then seems to become the main crux of the matter as to whether sex with animals should be legal or illegal.

As to my replies to you. You had stated that zoophilies are okay with taking advantage of other creatures, and made comparisons between them and rapists who try to justify their rape of women and children. This and other generalizations is what i was objecting to in your posts. The conversation flowed from there and i tried to present you with the other side of the issue.

You also actually acknowledged these things i was objecting to.

Finally, something i think still needs clarification for some reason; as i said before that i'm not necessarily arguing for the legality of zoophilia, and explained exactly what i'm doing here. Which is attempt to address inconsistencies in the arguments presented and attempt to learn more on the topic.

 

[dawny0826]

As to my replies to you. You had stated that zoophilies are okay with taking advantage of other creatures, and made comparisons between them and rapists who try to justify their rape of women and children. This and other generalizations is what i was objecting to in your posts. The conversation flowed from there and i tried to present you with the other side of the issue.

You also actually acknowledged these things i was objecting to.

Finally, something i think still needs clarification for some reason; as i said before that i'm not necessarily arguing for the legality of zoophilia, and explained exactly what i'm doing here. Which is attempt to address inconsistencies in the arguments presented and attempt to learn more on the topic.

I understand you and this is what I meant in my explanation to Skwim. If I misrepresented you in any way, I apologize.

I'm with you. If my responses didn't reflect such...that's a measure of poor explanation on my part, not an issue of misunderstanding where you're coming from and what you're trying to accomplish through discussion.

 

[Badran]

I understand you and this is what I meant in my explanation to Skwim. If I misrepresented you in any way, I apologize.

I'm with you. If my responses didn't reflect such...that's a measure of poor explanation on my part, not an issue of misunderstanding where you're coming from and what you're trying to accomplish through discussion.

Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification and once again for the interesting discussion.

 

[dawny0826]

Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification and once again for the interesting discussion.

Likewise.

 

[Rexor]

Was the donkey at the age of consent in that state? Defining by age seems to be of the utmost importance in modern Western civilization especially when it comes to sexual issues.

 

[Me Myself]

Awesome! With that huge gulf of moral ambiguity, meat-eaters obviously have cart blanche to rape, kill and otherwise diddle with anything breathing that can't say otherwise!

Which moral ambiguity? I am saying slaughter houses are wrong and I find it ridiculous that people who support killing non human animals without consent and for nothing other than their gastronomical joy say the problem in this case is that the donkey "couldn´t express consent"

 

[dgirl1986]

True that. Still strikes me as odd how people make this stupid mistake though

Ignorance and fear I believe.

 

[Knowledge Gourmet]

I don't think it is wrong if the animal is not being hurt.

We have come to accept so many different things that were once taboo.

I think this all stems from humans wanting to see themselves as somehow "different" or "better" than other animals