Teen Forums - Teen Chat, Teen Help, Teen Advice & Support

omg no, just no

Still as gross as ever.

Zoophilia, I can live with (still creepy though). But actually doing it is another story altogether!
[Zoophilia is the attraction but not the act, just to clarify]

One word... Sick

I think it's disgusting and perverted.

Why they do it? Who knows it's sick and twisted and morally screwed. It's kinda like rape as well since I'm pretty sure they don't consent to a human having sexual pleasures over them.

Hm, I know some object to it, but I consider humans animals so really one should say more specifically "humans having sex with non-humans" but I guess that could include stuff like trees so "humans having sex with non-human animals" I guess you'd need to say in full to disambiguate.

One could even get more specific than 'animals' and specify something like mammals. To be honest, I'd find someone wanting to get with insects or reptiles to be much more confusing than a mammal since they're more similar and usually what you hear about in the news. Then again, based on some art I see people draw, with enough anthropomorphism anything can be made more appealing.

Now 'wrong' in an objective sense: I think it's wrong to do something to someone important if they're not properly informed about it. Animals haven't demonstrated the information-processing ability to be called 'informed' about the risks.

That said: this usually applies to animals that I value the wellbeing of, such as humans, or specific animals that I have a personal attachment to like pets. As individuals and society, we seem to lack a sense of care for many animals.

From a moral sense of right and wrong, killing someone harms them more than sex, so I can't keep condemning something with a cow consistent with my apathy towards how we butcher it for hamburger. I suppose vegans/vegetarians don't have that sort of confusion.

Certainly I have felt disgust/grossness/disturbedness/sickenedness towards imagining the existence of some of these acts. That said though: my (or anyone else's) disgust is an emotional reaction and not reason in and of itself. Many people feel disgusted by relationships which don't fit their tastes (like towards same-sex, interracial, height differential, certain positions, general attractiveness, masculinity or femininity of partners, etc). To give my own disgust weight while disregarding any potential weight of others' whose disgust I don't agree with or share is not a consistent way to reason.

Not being a doctor, I don't feel qualified to diagnose something as 'sick' based on so little information. Certainly anyone who was sick would be in need of help. I don't think being shot would help improve someone's health though, more like counseling to deal with possible psychological dilemmas.

Sickness and health are complicated subjects which require learning more about people involved besides isolated urges. I do think someone who breaks laws which forbid actions has some antisocial aspects which could be associated with illness, but it would be extreme to condemn everyone who does the slightest thing illegal as 'sick', otherwise I'd be condemning all pot smokers.

While boredom could account for some cases, I don't really see that as something that'd be a regular prime motivator. I get bored too, but I usually go play games or have a soda, not decide to fondle a pigeon.

The idea of someone being horny/desperate and not being able to sleep with humans is also possible, but I also think that doesn't account for all instances, because it makes the presumption they can't find partners. I don't think everyone doing this is necessarily unattractive. Some people may legitimately prefer this even when a human alternative is more easily accessible.

The word unnatural is not really applicable here, because it exists and 'nature' describes all existence, including aberrations from the norm. Rather I'd say, it is not an evolved trait, because it doesn't serve the ends of procreation (since one can only do that with a fertile member of one's own species of the opposite sex).

One could call an impulse which causes someone to deviate from evolution's established path towards procreation a "perversion." Rather than coming out of thin air, a twist of the normal way things are programmed that result in something different. The thing is, based on that outlook, you could view homosexual impulses as a perversion of either the homosocial impulse or a reversal of the sexual attraction natural selection which is programmed towards the opposite sex.

Based on that, I can't condemn something on the basis of not serving procreation without also condemning homosexuality or relations between infertile couples, and that seems cruel. Similarly, even our embracing of birth control, it seems contrary to the instinct to create children, but I don't condemn that.

Emotional reactions may be okay for snap decisions, or to lead us into new areas of thinking, but they don't always result in fair or moral choices. For example, it is bad for a woman to rape a man. I know this morally.

That said, I don't have the same emotional reaction when envisioning that scenario as with the genders reversed. I feel less sympathy for a male victim and more forgiving towards a female aggressor. Yet unless I can justify those reactions with some sort of clear reasoning which I can describe well enough to put it up to another person's scrutiny to see if it holds up, it's not fair to base how I react to those situations just on the emotional reaction.

So, discarding the emotional reactions (which are too prevalent here, I don't condemn old people for making out even when it grosses me out) basically the only valid objection here is that animals are not aware or informed enough about the issue at hand. It's the same reason why you can't do it with braindead people, the comatose, babies, etc.

Now, considering the apathy meat-eaters have towards food-species, the reason which I have to then condemn it is: even if I don't care for the wellbeing of a potential burger, I am worried by the patterns of thinking someone who gets kicks out of satisfying themself with something so base and lacking complexity might do elsewhere in their life.

But then, I also get just as worried by people who degrade/abuse women in relationships or are satisfied with bimbos' bodies and ignore interacting with them to any degree. If someone actually cared about and related on a higher level with a cow than how some jerks barely do with humans, it almost seems like I got my priorities out of whack to ignore the human tragedies just because they're more common and accepted.

I say shortly: NO

human can can go animalistic sometimes...

^ Yes, but that still doesn't make it right.
After all we're different species.

This is true.
I've seen plenty of this art.
Believe me, the non-yiffing stuff is much better.

You know I found this website about horse-porn once, well, I should say said link was presented to me... Damn that shit was killer funny!
I should go find that, I almost died laughing.
Yeah, there was no porn - but there was a lot of humor.

But back on-topic:
I can understand having an attraction to animals, after all with the way humans are today it's just like being with an animal anyway... Except some animals will actually obey.
But I digress... I don't care if one has the attraction. If they can live with it but not act on it, I'm fine.
I'm more concerned with the actual act rather than the attraction.

yuck!!!! it's very gross!!````` even when i'll just think about it im gonna puke////... only persons who are out of mind would do that`````

White text is impossible to read and a pain the ass to highlight.

Nevertheless, agreed.