You have obviously chosen to ignore where the previous threads in reply to this poster regarding "Zoophila" have gone. Let me summarize: whether you wish to call it "zoophilia" or beastiality and whatever attempts to philosophically tapdance around the definitions of consent, this still does not change the fact that this is illegal. So, even though I believe that the poster and anyone else is within their rights to say "your actions are completely disgusting and run counter to everything that we believe in" and you obviously do not, they are still perfectly within their rights to say "stop performing this criminal act in our name."
Nothing that you or your additional link said refuted anything already presented about consent. In fact, you are trying to meander into the territory that animals both do and do not consent while your pet essay simply tries to pass off interpreted behavior as some replacement for an ability to say yes or no. This is only self-serving.
I'll just stick with your points:
1) First an animal does not care about consent because it does not consent. Trying to change the language does not change what it is. You try to seperate your behavior as different from rape by saying that an animal experiences no pain? Sorry, besides the occurance of disease and infection even in what only you call "consential sex", there is physical pain simply due to forcing physical structures to do things they weren't meant to, and there is no doubt that there is psychological damage done due to coerced behavior.
2) First, its already repeatedly been pointed out that while one animal may resort to aggressive behavior if it doesn't want to, another can have their behavior modified to submit. This is still not any form of consent. Additionally, the only time an animal initiates sexual behavior with a human is by instinct modification (intentional or unintentional) that can occur with human contact, coupled by additional coersion to actually perform the act for the self-gratification of the human involved.
You use the example of a dog humping a human's leg. First off, dogs that have no human contact do not instinctively seek humans for sexual contact, leg or any other part. A dog that pursues this contact has in some way lost its concept of what species it is, what species humans are, and what species other dogs are. This behavior can be corrected as simply as pushing Fido away, or putting him outside, and can be trained as not proper behavior. But in order for the type of contact that we are talking about here to occur, the dog must be additionally taught to modify its behavior to engage in sexual activity to gratify the human. This is also not consent by any credible argument. Animals acting on their true, unmodified instinct never make sexual advances toward humans.
3) Tying or drugging the animal is immaterial. The only ones trying to argue that there can be any type of sexual contact other than rape are you and the other posters who practice in or sympathize with your violent, criminal, and immoral activities. The only arguments presented have been self-serving, offensive, and laughable.
Arguing that a "zoo" [animal rapist in every instance] should be accepted or tolerated in any ordered society is selfish. It's basically saying "life would be so much easier for me if you let me continue tearing the genitals of my pets." And, please. feel free to tell me that you can. I will not only feel free to tell you that I find your actions completely offensive and your presence reviled, I will be motivated to inform animal control, the police and any one else I feel would stop your criminal activity and rescue any poor creature within your slimy grasp.
You have obviously chosen to ignore where the previous threads in reply to this poster regarding "Zoophila" have gone. Let me summarize: whether you wish to call it "zoophilia" or beastiality and whatever attempts to philosophically tapdance around the definitions of consent, this still does not change the fact that this is illegal. So, even though I believe that the poster and anyone else is within their rights to say "your actions are completely disgusting and run counter to everything that we believe in" and you obviously do not, they are still perfectly within their rights to say "stop performing this criminal act in our name."
Nothing that you or your additional link said refuted anything already presented about consent. In fact, you are trying to meander into the territory that animals both do and do not consent while your pet essay simply tries to pass off interpreted behavior as some replacement for an ability to say yes or no. This is only self-serving.
I'll just stick with your points:
1) First an animal does not care about consent because it does not consent. Trying to change the language does not change what it is. You try to seperate your behavior as different from rape by saying that an animal experiences no pain? Sorry, besides the occurance of disease and infection even in what only you call "consential sex", there is physical pain simply due to forcing physical structures to do things they weren't meant to, and there is no doubt that there is psychological damage done due to coerced behavior.
2) First, its already repeatedly been pointed out that while one animal may resort to aggressive behavior if it doesn't want to, another can have their behavior modified to submit. This is still not any form of consent. Additionally, the only time an animal initiates sexual behavior with a human is by instinct modification (intentional or unintentional) that can occur with human contact, coupled by additional coersion to actually perform the act for the self-gratification of the human involved.
You use the example of a dog humping a human's leg. First off, dogs that have no human contact do not instinctively seek humans for sexual contact, leg or any other part. A dog that pursues this contact has in some way lost its concept of what species it is, what species humans are, and what species other dogs are. This behavior can be corrected as simply as pushing Fido away, or putting him outside, and can be trained as not proper behavior. But in order for the type of contact that we are talking about here to occur, the dog must be additionally taught to modify its behavior to engage in sexual activity to gratify the human. This is also not consent by any credible argument. Animals acting on their true, unmodified instinct never make sexual advances toward humans.
3) Tying or drugging the animal is immaterial. The only ones trying to argue that there can be any type of sexual contact other than rape are you and the other posters who practice in or sympathize with your violent, criminal, and immoral activities. The only arguments presented have been self-serving, offensive, and laughable.
Arguing that a "zoo" [animal rapist in every instance] should be accepted or tolerated in any ordered society is selfish. It's basically saying "life would be so much easier for me if you let me continue tearing the genitals of my pets." And, please. feel free to tell me that you can. I will not only feel free to tell you that I find your actions completely offensive and your presence reviled, I will be motivated to inform animal control, the police and any one else I feel would stop your criminal activity and rescue any poor creature within your slimy grasp.