Social Aspects & Zoophilia

From Zoophilia Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
We're so glad you came
Zoo Sexuality
Icon sex.svg
Its time to talk tail

Social Aspects & Zoophilia

Zoophilia is a very controversial issue. While some stand for the cause, there are opponents who want all of this to go to hell. This section aims to examine most of the arguments. One or the other disagreement will surely arise here as well.



[ edit ]

Is the animal humanized?

From some points of view: yes. A zoophile sees and treats his animal not only as an equal sexual partner, but mostly also as a life companion. Whether the animal is humanized depends on the one hand on the point of view and on the other hand on what is defined as "humanized".

[ edit ]

Does man become an animal?

No, humans and animals remain what they are. But zoophiles don't find the difference essential. In contrast to other people, for whom this difference is often very important. Even if animal behavior has to be discussed in order to communicate, this does not change anything.



[ edit ]

You have to have sex with an animal to be considered a Zoophile.

Not true. A person can be attracted to an animal much more than a traditional dog lover but does not need the sex included. Sex could be considered something "extra" to the relationship. But this is what separates the term for Bestiality, and Zoophilia. A person who only has an attraction to an animal is a Zoophile. One who only wants to have sex with the animal with no love in the picture is considered a beastlist.



Can or does an animal want to have sex with humans?

Yes and no, it is not just the human partner who starts the zoophile acts. If an animal "knows" that its human partner also likes the sexual relationship, then it will again and again offer itself to the partner and also invite him to sexual acts (7.10). To avoid any misunderstandings, I would like to remind you once again of the mutual agreement of both partners. Likewise, it is not specified which of the partner is the active one and which one takes on the passive role.



[ edit ]

Is zoophilia cruelty to animals?

No. Zoophiles abhor all forms of violence. Actions that are carried out with coercion and against the will of the animal are of the "zoosadistic nature" and are not only rejected by the zoophiles but are frowned upon. A zoophile will always make sure that "his" animal is not forced to do anything against his will.



[ edit ]

An animal cannot express itself.

Every living being has possibilities for communication, but many people disregard these expressions or are not able to interpret them correctly. Without the ability to communicate, hardly any animal species could survive. One must not forget that the human being is linguistically an "ear animal". It communicates mainly through complex acoustic signals, while in animals a large part of communication takes place through smells and body language. In our highly civilized (really?) Culture, people have also forgotten how to consciously perceive these other types of communication. In addition, there are many prejudices against animals, which they portray as stupid living beings that only follow a fixed genetic program. That this is not the case is being proven more and more often from a scientific point of view. Anyone who tries to decipher animal communication encounters complex behavior and understanding patterns.



[ edit ]

An animal has no will of its own.

An animal also has a will. However, this is not the same for all species and races. In the case of domestic animals, this is mostly disregarded or suppressed (which almost brought the European bison to extinction because it could not be domesticated like the primitive), since the same often only serve as a product supplier for food and goods, or are misused as presentation objects. Or as guard and service dogs often unable to lead their species-appropriate life. Don't forget the dogs too[1]which are kept as pure prestige objects. Many dog ​​breeds have already gone through this phase (Lassie, Boomer, ...). The consequences are almost unmanageable, diseases such as hip dylapsia (HD) are only part of it, and all of this just to meet the ideal of humans. It is now also to be expected that the animal shelters will fill up again because the Disney film 101 Dalmatians once again raised this breed to prestige. One only wants to hope that it will not be so and that the need will be provided in breeding factories under inhumane conditions.

[ edit ]

An animal obeys blindly.

Obedience must also be trained in an animal, unfortunately this is often done with violence to intimidate the animal. Under the same conditions, a person also becomes an intimidated and ostensibly willless being, since he then also does not dare to contradict himself and carry out the commands of the others in order to avoid punishment. On the other hand, an animal that has not had any negative experiences with the people around it will also trust them completely in most cases.



[ edit ]

An animal cannot defend itself.

Every larger animal can defend itself against humans, be it by scratching, hitting, biting, etc. In the vast majority of cases, humans would be physically inferior to the animal if they had no tool that they could use as a weapon.



[ edit ]

Sex with animals is unnatural.

This is a man-made definition. Several cross-species sexual contacts between different races are known. See 3.11, 3.15, 3.18. Even plants use animals for their sexual contacts, which in many species is even necessary in order to reproduce.



[ edit ]

Do animals mate with other species on their own?

Yes, albeit rarely. Various cases are known in which animals have chosen a sexual partner of a different species. The fact that such events are rarely made public is due to the fact that most of the time no offspring are produced in such mating, and only in the rarest cases is a human observer present who records the event in a documentary way for other people. (See 3.21) More well-known are the cases that occur in zoos. There are crossbreeds between different big cats such as between lions and tigers, which have already been observed in the wild. Brown and polar bears also mate in zoos while they never meet in nature. The oldest document that is known to me and in which there is talk of cross-species mating,

(Picture elefnahs.jpg)

[ edit ]

Zoophilia is forbidden!

As far as Germany is concerned: no. Distribution as pornographic material is prohibited. In Austria, as far as I know, zoophilia is still classified as a disease, contrary to the DSM (see 3.13). However, depending on the interpretation of the law (see 6), zoophile acts are permitted. According to one network participant, zoophiles are also allowed in Switzerland. In Germany, zoophile acts have not been punishable since 1969. In that year Paragraph 175b, which previously made zoophilia a criminal offense as fornication, was abolished. The now valid paragraphs of paragraph 184 date from 1973. However, the paragraph was expanded (tightened) with regard to child pornography in 1994 and 1997.

In other countries this may be different, in the USA it even varies from state to state. If there is something to be read in the newspaper about "animal molesters" or someone has been caught by the police or the owner in a stable, he has committed another criminal offense (trespassing, cruelty to animals, damage to property).



[ edit ]

Zoophiles are sick.

Zoophilia is not classified as a disease in most countries, but as an additional sexual addiction. The classification of sexual diseases is now regulated worldwide exactly according to the information of the "American Psychiatric Association". The classifications and the classifications of sexual inclinations were laid down in a binding book called "DSM-IV" (old version still DSM-III-R). Zoophilia is classified as "minor" or "minor" paraphilia because of its lower frequency, as it is formulated there. Paraphilia is the modern, polite term for "perversion". Homosexuality and voluntary SM (Sado-Masocism), like zoophilia, used to be viewed as severe perversions. In the meantime, after this work, the two are no longer perversions.



[ edit ]

Aren't zoophiles sick weirdos?

No! Zoosexuals (= zoophiles) come from ALL strata of the population. Bus drivers, academics, car mechanics or medical assistants can have this tendency. They are completely normal, productive people who do not attract attention in everyday life.


Discriminating sexual contact between a person and an animal - as opposed to sexual contact between people - as "disorder", "abnormal", "unhealthy" etc. is nothing more than a DEFINITION. Every single aspect from which this is devalued in relation to sex between people also occurs there, but WITHOUT necessarily leading to a corresponding devaluation: e.g. sex between homosexual people cannot lead to procreation either, but from today's point of view it is still no longer perverse ; Even sex between people who come from different cultures and speak different languages ​​cannot (as a rule) lead to a more far-reaching relationship in the human sense, but is still not perverse;

The assumption, which is by no means empirically proven to this day, that a zoophilic tendency has "early childhood" (traumatic!) Causes and can and should be dealt with through psychoanalysis, contains precisely this unjustified negative evaluation: because no one comparatively comes up with the idea of ​​"normal" "Seeing human heterosexuality as a result of early childhood trauma and wanting to deal with it through psychoanalysis. The devaluation is already implicit in the psychoanalytic question.



[ edit ]

Do zoophiles not react their "drive blockage" on animals because they are unable to find a human partner?

No! Many zoos live in "normal" human relationships, some even have families and children and are happy with them. But they also tend to have sex with animals for various reasons. As an additional "kick" in their sex life and / or from a close emotional relationship with their darlings. As long as this is done amicably with the animals, it will not harm anyone and should be acceptable. Even more people just have fantasies involving sex with animals. They are only interested in stories, pictures, etc. The boundaries are fluid here. There are probably only a few who, again for different but respectable reasons, exclusively have sexual relations with animals. But not in order to react to your "impulse accumulation",



[ edit ]

Aren't zoophilia suffering from their predisposition?

Nonsense, zoos don't suffer from having sex with animals, in fact they are very happy with it. They only suffer from the pressure of not being able to publicly admit it and of constantly having to lead a double life, as otherwise they could lose friends, family and jobs. The social taboo and the resulting isolation and feeling of guilt are more likely to be the trigger for depression, for example. This is why public acceptance of zoo sexuality is so important. Since the end of 1993 there has been a zoophile interest group IZM that wants to contribute.



[ edit ]

Animals are domesticated and subject to humans.

Even domesticated animals do not obey unconditionally and do not completely submit to humans. They just got used to living with humans.



[ edit ]

Sex with animals is immoral / unethical.

That may be the case now, but it has not always been and will not always be so. A few decades ago, homosexuality was frowned upon and despised by society. Nowadays, with few exceptions, homosexuality is accepted by our society. Otherwise, I recommend taking a look at the oh-so-chaste Bible. Anyone leafing through an older complete edition will be taught better with regard to morals and ethics. Among other things, the first midwife in history was a pastor's daughter. That's right, in the past it was perfectly legitimate for priests to have offspring. So a thing that is considered highly immoral in the Christian world. Likewise, almost all women have been banned from the Bible and the Catholic world and replaced by men, where the names were replaced by similar ones from the world of men. Apparently very morally justifiable.

Elements of zoophilia can be found in the earliest mythologies, folk tales, and in the various cults and religions. In the fine arts and literature, too, zoophilia was and is again and again the subject of representation. While in our culture the zoophilia is met with aversion, in other cultures even the religions demanded coitus with "holy" animals as a cultic service. Today's symbol of medical ethics, the snake, was a living snake during the Aesculapian cult that was used sexually by girls and women in the temples of Aesculapius - "Aesculapius" is a Latinized form of the Greek god of medicine Asclepius .

In Japan, sexual intercourse with animals was hardly ever disapproved. Sexual occurrences of this kind were generally not encouraged, but no severe bans were issued. The horse plays a special role in the imagination of the Japanese woman. The ancient expression "Uma-tawake" means doing nonsense or foolishness with a horse. In Japan, however, this word is also used quite generally as a term for zoophilia, sexual intercourse with animals in general.

[ edit ]

Animals feel differently than humans.

People don't feel exactly the same either. Every transfer of one's own feelings to another person is only a projection of one's own perceptions. In the same way, no one can say 100 percent what an animal feels. He will only ever be able to deduce this from its behavior, which, if you know the animal well, usually works very well.



[ edit ]

A leg jumping dog wants sex with people.

This statement is not true. The dog here primarily wants to satisfy its sexual drive. It does not matter to him whether he is satisfied by rubbing his leg or whether he has the person himself as a sex partner, although he will prefer the latter if he can choose. A dog will - if it has not had bad experiences here - always endeavor to mate with its pack partner (human) if it does not have a canine partner as a better alternative. However, if the animal, due to a lack of contact with conspecifics, is too influenced by humans as a social partner, then it will recognize them as the only sexual partner and, for example, prefer a male to his humans to a female. In this respect, the animal would then rather want sex with humans than with other members of its own species (see 3.21).

[ edit ]

Which partner does an animal prefer: humans or animals?

An animal will instinctively always prefer an animal of its kind as a sexual partner if it is not taught something else from an early age. There are enough counterexamples in nature to show that this is not always the case. (See 3.11).

An animal that has only got to know "its" human being as a partner will then almost always be fixated on human beings as a sexual partner. If this is to be avoided, it is very important that the animal come together with similar species in its childhood. Kinsey and co-workers report that males who are regularly masturbated may, in certain cases, transfer their sexual readiness to the person who manually stimulated them. These animals then no longer react to bitches that are ready to mate, since they are to a certain extent "fixated" on the human sexual partner. It is generally known that animals can also develop a strong affection for humans. There are innumerable stories, true and fictional, about the animal's love for its master. It cannot be ruled out



[ edit ]

Zoophilia is a pervert.

It is simply wrong to only speak of perversity. As with the other types of sexual behavior, in sexuality with animals a distinction must be made between engaging in sexual intercourse with an animal for pathological motives and, on the other hand, behaviors in which the animal is included in certain acts to increase sexual arousal.

(See also 3.18 and 3.13) In addition, it is important to note that people are taught what they consider perverted or not, and that differs from religion to religion, from culture to culture, and sometimes also opposite to ours Culture in general is handled. Much of what is considered good in our religion and culture, just as right, is seen in others as highly perverse and immoral.

Quote from a book by G.Schmidt, sexologist in psychiatry and mental hospital: "Perversions are not simply unusual preferences, for example the preference for children among pedophiles, the preference for leather, lingerie or boots with fetishists, the preference for showing the male genitals with exhibitionists. Most perversions are rather rigid rituals through which a whole structure of interaction and conditions must be created so that pleasure and orgasm can be experienced. "(p.63) Here it also becomes clear that with everything that is understood as zoophiles , so after the exclusion of the zoosadists, one cannot speak of a pervert or a perversion here in any way. Zoophiles do not have a rigid ritual in their relationship with their animal partner.



[ edit ]

Do animals have a consciousness?

Yes. Animals have a consciousness. They dream when they sleep, with all the bullying like REMs (rapid eye movement), movements, twitching, vocalizations and erections like humans do. The dreams are related to what was previously experienced.

   Example dog:
   - Was there an excited and aggressive situation; Baring teeth and "barking".
   - a fear-inducing situation is played out by "whining" when dreaming
     again.
   - If there was a playful situation, the runs fidget more often in the dream.
   etc, etc ... 



[ edit ]

Sex with people is not species-appropriate for animals.

That may be true from the human point of view. However, one must then also face the following facts:

  • Is it "appropriate to the species" that a dog is normally not allowed to have sex with other dogs in its entire life, and when it tries it is usually scolded very badly?
  • Is it "appropriate to the species" that horses are _forced_ to mate in breeding ? The mares are tied up with aids such as nose brakes and ropes in order to cause rape by the stallion?


A zoophile would never _force_ his animal to something with force or mechanical aids, which is common in animal breeding.

Many people have got used to factory farming, which in no way does justice to the species-specific characteristics of the animals. You buy cheap supermarkets without thinking about the background.

[ edit ]

Zoophiles have sex with animals when they are not harmed.

This point has been and is pointed out several times in this FAQ because there are still many misunderstandings in connection with zoo sexuality. Where this misunderstanding comes from is unclear, probably from the press, which immediately equates animal abusers with zoosexuality instead of differentiating them out of convenience or ignorance. So it haunts many people that an animal suffers during sex with a person. That zoos do _not_ physical harm to their partners should be unmistakably clear to the reader of this ZOO FAQ at this point in time.

[ edit ]

But what about others, for example psychological damage?

In contrast to humans, "damage" in animals is unlikely to be proven. Most likely in behavior. But I would bet that the animals do far better than some pets in our society when they are zoophiles. Zoophiles who keep their own animals could be accused of having a similar relationship of dependency as an abused child to its abuser. But children are also dependent on their parents and pets are also dependent on the pet owner in a non-zoophilic relationship. What all cases have in common is that the child or animal will retain damage if they are directly exposed to violence. Zoophiles as well as caring parents will therefore avoid any kind of violence, which, in contrast to this, cannot be said of an abuser and also of some "normal" animal owners. Furthermore, it should be clear to everyone that an animal, unlike humans, does not drag any moral ballast with it. It would also not occur to the idea that cross-species sex can lead to societal discrimination. Sex is a natural act for an animal.

And whether "licking the genitals" is so much worse behavior, like hopping on your hind legs at the table, is an ethical question. Either our society has to solve this for us, or each individual for himself.

Animals only have "sex" in order to reproduce and that is anchored in their instincts.

Church teaching asserts that in nature there is only purposeful sexuality that is fixed on the reproduction of the species. Hence there should be no deviation from this principle in other creatures. According to the Church, there is no pre-maturity sexuality among animals, no masturbation, no oral or anal sexual practices, no homosexuality, and no sexual contact between different species. But all of these sexual acts by animals are known. So you are natural. However, thanks to political correctness and ecclesiastical influence, this is seldom raised.

Sexual acts before sexual maturity; Riding of sexually immature animals with cattle, goats , sheep and wild asses . In the Berlin zoo, a young giraffe with an extended penis was constantly chasing an older mare. All documented facts that, if our church is of the opinion, should not even exist. But all of this is there and is pure reality.

   (See e.g. Sexual Science Picture Lexicon, p.816)

Masturbation is widespread in the animal world and occurs not only in captive animals, but also in wild males living with females of their own species. Male monkeys frequently masturbate using their hands, feet, or mouth. Masturbating horses and donkeys excavate the penis and beat it rhythmically against the abdominal wall. Bulls, billy goats , deer and antelopes obviously have the option of deliberately narrowing the foreskin tube. They then masturbate until they ejaculate by extending and withdrawing the rod several times. Male and female dogs masturbate by licking their genitals intensely.

Oral practices take place in many animals in such a way that the partner's erogenous zones are licked before sexual intercourse. Josef Massen was able to observe several times how young mares who knocked off the stallion despite tall horses immediately gave up their resistance after the stallion had nibbled her udder with his lips.

Homosexual behavior is very common in the animal kingdom, especially stallions, bulls, dogs , rabbits, and especially goats and sheep . Interspecific animal contacts also take place, which are demonstrably not just simple errors. And these are not just rare individual cases, but such cases occur all the time ... just nobody talks about it, the topic is a big taboo in the modern Catholic religion.

In any case, it is not true that animals only have sex for reproduction.

[ edit ]

Dogs do not lick their genitals on their own.

As for the licking thing ... as a smell animal, every dog ​​is extremely interested in the typical sexual smells of humans. The stronger a person smells, the stronger the dog's interest. In particular, the smell that develops on the external genitals over time is irresistibly attractive to a dog. Many biological waste products such as sweat, dead skin cells, vaginal secretions, sperm, urine and excrement residues, which are chemically and bacterially broken down in a warm, humid climate, mix in this area. (This is also the case with people who normally keep themselves hygienically clean.) Originally, the dog was not only a hunter, but also a scavenger, so it perceives this smell as extremely appetizing and does not even need to be "made" to lick become.

However, many dogs are annoyed by the strong acidic odor of the fresh vaginal secretion. This is where the often observed increase in dog sympathy towards menstruating women comes from. During menstruation, the acidity is greatly reduced.

   The following saying is certainly also known:
   Question: "Why do dogs lick their tails? [Note: penis ]"
   Answer: "Because they can."

[ edit ]

Zoophilia can therefore be presented as a variant of love for animals.

Yes, many like animals. It is all the more peculiar, however, that almost all of their animals deny their animals any sexuality. Bitches are sterilized or given medication to suppress their heat. Males are stuffed full of drive-suppressing tablets, or they are completely emasculated. And why the whole thing? Because it doesn't fit the picture of the cute little cuddly toy when Fifi suddenly clings to his owner's leg or Asta puts her tail to one side when you stroke her back. Animals have to be kind and innocent! Most people don't want to have anything to do with the fact that they, too, are drive-controlled beings with sexual needs!



[ edit ]

The difference between cattle and humans is too great for both to have a sexual relationship with one another.

The difference between humans and "cattle" is nowhere near as great as human hubris tries to convince itself. Humans are only mammals ... Humans probably have a lot more in common with animals in the emotional realm than we usually want to admit to ourselves; and even when it comes to intelligence, we tend to vastly underestimate animals, just because they have no "linguistic" intelligence in the human sense and can therefore only communicate to us to a very limited extent. Every dog ​​owner knows from personal experience that animals are capable of amazingly intelligent behavior - orders of magnitude more intelligent than any "artificial intelligence" that we humans have been able to teach computers so far. And some people can lead to certain

It is therefore inappropriate to judge a human sexual crossing of the border to the animal as "beastly" negatively from the outset. Because there is an unreasonable devaluation of the animal as a prerequisite.

[ edit ]

You shouldn't let an animal lick you off.

There are many reasons why people shouldn't be licked off: "It's disgusting", "It's unhealthy" and so on. But why that should be so no one can answer. The fact that, for example, the saliva of dogs has a germicidal effect, or that the change in disease transmission from animals to humans is far less than the probability of disease transmission between two people is simply ignored or even suppressed. That it can be licked off and the saliva of the animals is simply "Bäääh" is something that is taught from an early age. Only the exaggerated cult of hygiene in our society seems to be the only explanation for this.

Since this is apparently a very emotional topic, here are a few more considerations.

[ edit ]

Social aspect:

Mutual grooming is an essential part of social cohesion for many animals. This begins with brood care, which is directly used for hygiene, and extends to symbolic acts of grooming among adult animals. With our pets, grooming is mostly done with the tongue. As pack members, we are included in this type of communication unless we reject it. Such rejection is often based on prejudice or false hygienic concerns (see below). In the meantime, a skin-caring and wound-healing effect of saliva has been scientifically proven. Eberhard Trumler dealt objectively with this topic in his books "Taking dogs seriously" and "With the dog". As is known, snout, Licking corners of the mouth and kisses with tongue are common and even necessary means of communication among dogs. If we accept it and respond, we can build a much better relationship with our dog than those people who are constantly disgusted avoiding the dog's snout. Finally, licking also serves as an exchange of tenderness and sexual communication. Among humans, as is common among animals, humans and animals can communicate in this way, if both want to. Finally, licking also serves as an exchange of tenderness and sexual communication. Among humans, as is common among animals, humans and animals can communicate in this way, if both want to. Finally, licking also serves as an exchange of tenderness and sexual communication. Among humans, as is common among animals, humans and animals can communicate in this way, if both want to.

[ edit ]

Medical aspect:

As already mentioned, the saliva contains nourishing and healing substances. A comparative microbiological study also shows that the human oral flora contains the richest range of bacteria (around 250 different bacteria are found in the mouth), not those of dogs or cats. A search in the database of the medical data service DIMDI brings up 6 examples of infections that were transmitted by licking pets.

The number of microbiological complications caused by bite injuries is significantly higher, since bacteria are pushed deep into the tissue when biting and the flora of the gingival pockets, which mainly consists of anaerobic microorganisms, is expressed. In addition, little saliva is transferred when biting. The effects of a bite injury are therefore not suitable as an argument to view leak contacts as a risk of infection. Only parasites represent a certain residual risk, whereby dangerous parasites (fox tapeworm) are extremely rare here.

One must be aware that physical contact between two individuals always carries the risk of catching the other's illnesses in the process. However, this risk is also present in every interpersonal relationship and should be seen as a normal, natural "element of danger" of the hundreds that belong to everyday life. For example, the possibility of transmitting the pathogen of the infectious gastritis Helicobacter pylori through kisses has often been described. In such a case, both partners have to be treated. Ultimately, however, you have your immune system to deal with the microorganisms in your environment.

In summary, there is no valid reason to refrain from leaking for medical reasons.