Trying to tie instinct to consent is not only invalid, but it helps prove part of my point. Outside of dolphins, animals do not pursue recreational sex. They either select the strongest available mate for the purpose of continuing their species (yes, there are a few well documented cases of biological coping mechanisms when this is not available but they do not apply to my next point) Animals acting purely on instinct (instead of human modified behaviors) do not pursue sex with humans for the purposes of continuing their species either.
The only time that animals show anything resembling this behavior, is when their instincts have been modified by their relationship with humans. If you go onto any Zoophiles "how-to" webpage, what you see is instructions on how to modify their behavior to submit to the act. This is coersion, not consent.
Your argument is that because animals instinctively engage in sexual encounters, when they do it's consent. (?) Since they instinctively will not have sex with humans unless that instinct is modified and that human is willing to coerce that behavior out of them, it is rape in every instance.
This does not even call into account the fact that consequences of even these acts that you call “consensual” include infection and disease, physical damage (stomach churning things like tissues tearing) and additional psychological damage. Because this occurs, this requires a higher understanding that instinct for anyone to reasonably attach the label of consent.
The fact that animals cannot even clearly state “yes” or “no” without a human interpreting the behavior means that consent is never given under any circumstance. The fact that I may look at an animals behavior and interpret it’s meaning and you may look at it another way still can never define an animals consent. And a zoophile’s self-interest makes that interpretation of behavior suspect.
In other words, until someone’s St. Bernard can say to everyone involved that “it’s OK if my master makes my @** bleed,” or a sheep can read and sign a document saying that they do not hold their “human partner” liable for causing an infection, etc. it will always be rape of a defenseless animal. (Yes, how very anthropomorphic of me. /sarcasm)
Additionally, how normal or balanced these folks appear to you is immaterial. Ted Bundy appeared very normal and cool to all his neighbors, yet he still went out and committed violent, vulgar acts. Your friends are, too. Why an elaborate façade? Because they want to be free to commit their acts of violence and still be accepted somewhere. This has been the center of my argument, they seek legitimacy for something that should never be legitimized by trying to say that “my partner [victim] is completely cool with this, isn’t that right fluffy?” “[whimper]”
Actually whether they are saying it to fool you, or they’re trying to fool themselves is immaterial, also. These are violent criminals trying not only to be free to continue what they do, but they want to feel legitimate by trying to find a sympathetic ear. Not only do furries have a focus on animals, but most of us understand what it’s like to be misunderstood. What better place to find a sympathetic ear, right? Again the core problem is that furries do not commit acts of violence upon animals. But if we continue to tolerate these folks, we ARE guilty by association, just as we would be if we knew someone was raping other humans and said nothing.
Stop defending these disgusting criminals. They are not furries.
Trying to tie instinct to consent is not only invalid, but it helps prove part of my point. Outside of dolphins, animals do not pursue recreational sex. They either select the strongest available mate for the purpose of continuing their species (yes, there are a few well documented cases of biological coping mechanisms when this is not available but they do not apply to my next point) Animals acting purely on instinct (instead of human modified behaviors) do not pursue sex with humans for the purposes of continuing their species either.
The only time that animals show anything resembling this behavior, is when their instincts have been modified by their relationship with humans. If you go onto any Zoophiles "how-to" webpage, what you see is instructions on how to modify their behavior to submit to the act. This is coersion, not consent.
Your argument is that because animals instinctively engage in sexual encounters, when they do it's consent. (?) Since they instinctively will not have sex with humans unless that instinct is modified and that human is willing to coerce that behavior out of them, it is rape in every instance.
This does not even call into account the fact that consequences of even these acts that you call “consensual” include infection and disease, physical damage (stomach churning things like tissues tearing) and additional psychological damage. Because this occurs, this requires a higher understanding that instinct for anyone to reasonably attach the label of consent.
The fact that animals cannot even clearly state “yes” or “no” without a human interpreting the behavior means that consent is never given under any circumstance. The fact that I may look at an animals behavior and interpret it’s meaning and you may look at it another way still can never define an animals consent. And a zoophile’s self-interest makes that interpretation of behavior suspect.
In other words, until someone’s St. Bernard can say to everyone involved that “it’s OK if my master makes my @** bleed,” or a sheep can read and sign a document saying that they do not hold their “human partner” liable for causing an infection, etc. it will always be rape of a defenseless animal. (Yes, how very anthropomorphic of me. /sarcasm)
Additionally, how normal or balanced these folks appear to you is immaterial. Ted Bundy appeared very normal and cool to all his neighbors, yet he still went out and committed violent, vulgar acts. Your friends are, too. Why an elaborate façade? Because they want to be free to commit their acts of violence and still be accepted somewhere. This has been the center of my argument, they seek legitimacy for something that should never be legitimized by trying to say that “my partner [victim] is completely cool with this, isn’t that right fluffy?” “[whimper]”
Actually whether they are saying it to fool you, or they’re trying to fool themselves is immaterial, also. These are violent criminals trying not only to be free to continue what they do, but they want to feel legitimate by trying to find a sympathetic ear. Not only do furries have a focus on animals, but most of us understand what it’s like to be misunderstood. What better place to find a sympathetic ear, right? Again the core problem is that furries do not commit acts of violence upon animals. But if we continue to tolerate these folks, we ARE guilty by association, just as we would be if we knew someone was raping other humans and said nothing.
Stop defending these disgusting criminals. They are not furries.