Will bestiality ever become socially acceptable?

The question says 'Will bestiality ever become socially acceptable?'.
Only 23% of the world's nations ban the activity.

In places like Germany, Greece and the Czech Republic, zoosexuality often announced a heraldry of history. And other countries often end up using animals as their icons, just because they feel like copying them!
While this isn't always the case, it is often used as an example - people have always been attracted to animals.

And according the Kinsey reports, 10% of the American/European (Western) population has had at least on sexual encounter with an animal in their lifetime; with about 5% 'reportedly' zoosexual.

The question is very laughable (at least, to me).
Will 'society' accept 'bestiality'?

Firstly, 'bestiality' is the wrong word.
And secondly, 'society' is not 100% of human life on Earth.

The society we are talking about here, the so called 'Western' society, only consists of 'three billion' people.
Over four billion people live outside this society, some even live outside civilisation.

I suggest you look at the laws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - Notice only socialist and/or religious countries ban it.

It seems that acceptance follows, seen as most people don't even know it exists, as they are brainwashed from a young age to look to the other sex, same species.

Humans are Animals.
Animals are 'nervous beings', characterised by 'VOLUNTARY' movement.

The examples of 'intelligence', are designed around the way HUMANS perceive things.
Seen as non-humans are not Humans, they may or may not perceive things the same way as we do. And our genetics (and perception), alters person-to-person, we really, we are own species. Just we only call an individual a different species if it's features are very distant, and distinguishable as a set 'type', thus 'species'. However, this not the definition of 'species', most people describe it that way.

However, we are all animals, and our differences are merely small genetic advantages and disadvantages towards certain 'features' of how they operate in subjected situations.
Everything we do has a reason, press a button and it will perform it's action. A nervous being is exact;y that, 'nervous', thus every move is makes is a reaction to set stimulus, triggers of behaviour, powered by physical forces. Normally, when you do a complex task like move an arm, we send more than one signal to all them 'nerves', thus it is rather a 'chain reaction', than just a 'reaction'.

The trigger, however, would be a different stimulus, a sensor. While we feel it is 'controllable', we believe we have 'free will', when in truth, we are limited to what we have, and every motive, every thing we do, has a reason, a reaction to certain stimulus. Without this 'stimulus', we are not motivated and never perform that action.

Thus, the very fact of asking for 'consent', actually relies on free will and choice, considering this, universally, is actually inexistent, to acquire consent 'mentally', you require an obvious expression from the other party saying it's ok, in your mind.
Fair enough, and a non-Human Animal being, as you called it, can express their intent, with tooth and claw. This may sound a little far-fetched to some, but an Animal will fight for survival, a Human trying to rape it, will scare it, and an Animal will attack in fear of its own life if threatened by such 'forceful' conduct. Thus, sex, if the animal does not 'consent', becomes 'violative', if the Human continues whilst the animal is clearly showing its fear, and rapes it by constraining it in some way, then 'cruelty' will take place. Considering 'cruelty' is already inacceptable, there is no real 'logical' point of saying that all 'zoosexual acts' are 'non-consensual' - because when does 'rape', they are committing cruelty 'anyway', and when they are not, the act is 'consensual'.

I understand your logic, but you are missing a lot of key points.
Too many people jump to the conclusion with half the required information when talking about such subjects, thus I suggest if you 'really' don't understand it, you don't look into it, at all.

Regards,
James

Oh my goodness, please do everyone a favor and go away.
you "preaching" about this topic is not going to make anyone change their mind that beastiality is vile and messed up, and wrongfully compared to homosexuality and other sexual orientations. (stick to your own species, seriously)

It really makes me lose faith in humanity when people (like yourself) ask others to explain why bestiality, necrophilia, or pedophilia is wrong. I don't even see how any of these things require an explanation. If you are a decent human being who is right in the head and has morals, you should just KNOW that it IS. And if you think any of those behaviors are okay for a human to do, then the first thing I will say to you is that you need SERIOUS help. And I am saying this as someone who is a huge supporter of anything that is LBGT. I see myself being open-minded as hell, but never will I ever think that beastiality, necrophilia, or pedophilia are okay behaviors for a human to commit. EVER.

Anyway, you've said what you had to say over and over again, and if anything, your responses to people's answers are just making me facepalm even more. Just because you see human beings as nothing more than animals, doesn't mean we have to. Sorry, but I know for a fact that I am more than just an 'animal'. So yeah. Speak for yourself, not others.

Plus, don't you have some dogs you need to attend to right now, you sick, perverted ****? :)

(But really, you're just wasting your time, I hope you know that. It's obvious that noone is going to change their mind for you, no matter what you say. If anything, you're just making us all look down on your actions even more.)

Say it the other way around and you'll realise how ridiculous that is.
Have you noticed all those who voted the same as you are all traditionalists?

Acceptance should not be given on the lines of morality.
You say animals cannot consent, but if they initiate with their natural desire alike Humans, it is still unacceptable and non-consensual.

I remind you the law was not based on interspecific relationships and humanity is only present in humanity.
However, there are lines of discretion - while animals may not be 'Human', I remind you there is no such thing as the 'Human gene sequence', we all alter at least 0.01% in DNA - that actually makes us different species - eventually our descendants will be very distant and thus, specifically incompatible and different to any stranger - our children will divide into different species (though, I doubt we'd ever get that far).

Though I doubt with the falsehoods of creationism on nearly everybody's minds I very much doubt they'll realise how nihilistic it is to be against such sexualities, or as they call it 'perversions'.

(Males) I remind you the stimulus that leads any Animal, including Humans, into sexual activity is the crave for hormonal release.
Once that Animal realises sex is enjoyable, they should begin to realise that the best fit to experience that relief, is a tight, soft-padded orifice, like the ones on the opposite sex.

When copulation takes its hold, it's the microbiological cells' duty to cause procreation.
Sexuality existed before procreation, but copy-cells have turned the act over time into a way of survival by reproducing themselves, using the host's DNA that they have been produced by. Eventually, the best design won, and the others died out (natural selection).

After the last few billion years, sexual life has survived because it is so advertising to the host.
The female, no matter how similar, is actually a completely different kind of organism, that simply mimics the male's DNA.

An organism's motivation is based on hormonal relief. It consumes energy to ensure that it can survive, and exhausts (relieves) itself to ensure that it can multiplies/terminates its mass, so the organism it forms can continue surviving. There is no reason for survival, it is purely repetitive clockwork. Physics lays down the rules, the forces the expansion of matter in all ways, and life follows exactly that. Natural life as we see it is only one tiny percentage of life forms, somethings we don't even think are alive, just because they don't act like us, are destroyed - but we cannot help this, it is also a mandatory part of our survival.

Without going too far into detail, I ask why so many people use these invalid arguments, there are pros and cons to everything, all the way down to the most minutiae detail.
For what is sex, if there is no constraint or harm involved, what are they not consenting to?

And if they initiate it themselves?
Please treat the above philosophy as example only.

Care to cite yours?

Do you mean 'marriage'?
Marriage is not about legal contract, it is merely a gaelio-greek tradition (adopted by Abrahamic religions). Modern legal contracts are only designed for human-human relationships.

Or do you want to explain how an animal consents to being owned by another species?
At least marriage is just a ceremony of spiritual matrimony, quintessentially, proving human-human legal contract to a human-animal bond is wrong in the sense of the actual subjected contract.

Thus, you are merely defeating the object in favour of your opinion.
In the logical sense, a legal contract is hand-signed, if you have a paw (instead of a paw), you cannot hand-sign, reason being, that subjected limb cannot do so.
Yet, there is no real need to consent, as an owner you are given more rights over your 'pet', than with marriage - thus, marriage is more a downgrade in rights for the animal lover, than an upgrade.

But back to the subject - I have no idea why you brought this up, since the article is discussing about the sexual activity with an animal becoming acceptable (see Village Voice archives).
In cultures other than yours, it is perfectly acceptable - for morals are in the eye of the beholder, thus you must respect other people's ways, or they shall retaliate.

Zoosexuals hope to bring about a peaceful approach, we are more than often attached 'spiritually' to our animal lovers.
We refuse to show violence, as most of us proudly support anti-violence and veganism towards all living beings.

I am pleased to say that I am a vegetarian, and an ex animal-rights activist.
All the law ever cares about is Human rights, they can exploit animals in every single way - torture them, murder them, skin them, eat them! Yet we are wrong for loving an animal?

Google "human-animal marriage", you'll realise it is legal mostly everywhere.
You say an animal cannot consent, but for is the consequences? It's not like you're signing their death warrant like most of these animal exploits. Is there something wrong with marriage?

I remind you it is of contract that the subject cannot be animal, not that the animal cannot enter it.
And don't expect humanity in non-human beings.

By the way, a 'chimp' can sign.
You say 'not with mental awareness'? With mental awareness to what? Having their brain wired into a computer system like in most scientific experiments?

But oh no, that's ok... Isn't it?
You're full of garbage, like the rest, aren't you? All you can do is make invalid remarks, right? Haven't you something better to do?

Looks like you don't meet any at all.
Get life! Buy a dolphin :D!

Actually, Humankind can't consent - they are compelled by fatalistic sensory stimulus, like any other Animal. And Humans are Animals.
All Animals are devoted, just Humankind and a few *other* lizards form the delusion of asexuality, for where they are not devoted to pleasure.

Animals (including Humans) seek reward in anything, this is because they are formed out of something called a 'nervous system', this enables them control other organs, allowing them to survive, reproduce and gain pleasure.

An Animal is a nervous, living organism characterized by voluntary movement.
Yes, 'voluntary' means 'consensual'.

Hence, body language would show the intent for what they want and don't want - and if they don't want something, but are regardless, they don't care.
Intent is compelled by the need for something, without intent, one does not consent.

Yet, Animals after such long evolution, have become so advanced they are capable of creating a version of reality to oneself via the sought set of feeling and emotion.
This is delusion is characterised with 'life', so we call it 'alive'.

Animals that gain awareness beyond their own reality, such as Humans, for no real reason other than to worry themselves and devote educational aspirations in fields to hobby, enabling hormonal upkeep, thus allowing one to feel better (emotion).
Although the awareness of a reality is one out of a thousand different things, those who 'realise' this nature, call themselves more 'supreme', simply because it makes them 'feel better', yet those whom do not follow it, are still pretty much alive and hedonistic.

By ad hominem, species alike humanoids develop their own sense of emotion, reward and flavour to ones own aspiration and cause, which makes them feel enriched with confidence, supporting ones own effort on what's usually a scale of widespread propaganda, at least as far as they can take it - just to support their own cause.
Yet, opinions are no more better than any other's person - thanks to conceptualism, we all hold our own thoughts, developed by other forces, literally, a universal angle of what they've experienced through the course of spacetime as an entity with the data stored,

Originally, memory was to allow Animals to store instincts, develop new ones, and employ them into their offspring via the course of genetic encapsulation, which is released from the brain, as a copy of DNA into the sexual reproduction organs (regardless of gender).
Not all Animals are motile, let alone sexual, however, most are. And for those who are, they are more than likely dedicated to complex pleasure to their nervous organism.

Animals mediate the application of pleasure, a mental entity that forms the sense of reward.
Nervous beings like Animals are dedicated to pleasure, and no matter what, follow pleasure as a form of reward.

Here goes the standard Luper-Carlisle mental decision theory:
Feel for sense of replenishment -> Ask for need (has Reward?) -> Reject | Apply (Mediate) -> Compliment action -> Perform task.

An organism thrives on energy, whatever the form of structure.
The nervous system allows the decision as to whether it will take away (steal) energy or apply energy (feed).

Pain to a nervous being causes energy loss (which a torturer could theoretically take for their own demonic doing), hence the nervous system has stimulus to reject further damage (loss).
Pleasure to a nervous being causes the relaxation, leading to the absorption of energy, the sensual stimulus wants more, as relaxation gains energy by cancelling out the need to burn up any extra energy (relax, to add).

Sexually hedonistic species often crave sexual pleasure, and because the brain's central organ is the sexual reward system, orgasm leads to the highest possible pleasure, though the lack of hormones causes it to be temporary in most beings.
Animals vary in behaviour, but species like dogs desire to mate with their leader, in order to have the reward of being your mate (high in the pack), and the sexual pleasure.

Hence, it would be very wrong to deny a willing, sexual Animal from sharing it's pleasure with it's leader.
This leads a sexual relationship, whether an aesthetic or romantic one already be present or not.

Sex does not cause harm, it causes pleasure - otherwise neither party would participate.
However, pain is the opposite, therefore such persons of humanity are wrong to condemn it.

I have calculated that about 90% of their arguments in pure misconception.
Thinking the reward lies elsewhere, but because they feel an award in condemning what could violation their own lifestyle (aberration), they reject it.

Sexualism is more closer to religious hated than racial hatred.
Thus, zoophobic persons should reflect their ideas with core evidence of opinion in mind (think before you speak!).

I have much more to say.
I can elaborate if this seems like philosophical jargon, as most of this is copy-pasted from old essays.

Thank you for reading!

Regards,
James

What does 'homosexual' mean?
(Of or relating to 'homosexuality': ) A same sex relationship.

Can 'same sex' not occur between species?
Am I heterosexual for picking a *male* Animal?

A child is not mature, so it shouldn't do anything 'conceptually' mature..
Sex with them would mean obvious injury (too small), and/or cause them to think to behaviour is so ok they do it themselves when they get older (while when they were abused, they might not have been 'raped', but when they become 'pederasts' (if they do), while they choose to rape?), which causes the problem to expand.

The same also applies between species, it's the maturity, unconstraint and participation.
It's not the intelligence level that counts, otherwise it should be wrong to have sex with someone with a lower IQ than you, because that'd be 'taking the advantage', would it not?

Dogs prefer to mate with their closest persons.
And that so happens to be you.

A dog participates in sex with your leg, for the very reason it cannot reach your genitals, seen as you are on a erect carriage when stood up; they are not.
Even penetration doesn't matter. For it is only modern Western delusion (not even 'mankind') that decides sex is wrong.

A horny bitch will lift her tail, harden her nipples and relax her vagina (perhaps even sit on your lap or playing in front of you, begging for it).
Also, this behaviour is present in some males (homosexual), as anal intercourse, like in Humans leads to prostate orgasm.

If a nervous Animal does feels it has to submit to your advances in fear, it will show fear by shivering, etc. But it's not the sex they fear (hence it's not 'sex' to be condemned), it's the prelude and interlude, the constraint and harm that some of these sick, twisted 'sadists' perform, that causes them to submit (in order to not be harmed, they obey, like with any other zoosadist act).

If a zoophile sees their lover doing it (which is won't happen, because they aren't sadist), they will stop what they're doing and comfort them.
It is the sign of no consent.

Any person without the ability to speak can do the same.
In fact, it's untrue that Animals cannot verbally consent - they can growl, yap and bark visciously, or yip/yelp in worry or hurt.

If you force an Animal to do anything, regardless of what you're trying to get them to do. The practicality of constraint and/or harm is 'zoosadism'.

Zoosadism doesn't necessarily mean that it's sex you force them to do.
Yet, still, it's wrong to force an Animal to experience pleasure, but not to feel pain and die, just so you can have a lingual 'orgasm' (taste).

And there's other things from Animals used, other than food.
The scientific and material industries are perhaps two of the worse Animal exploiters.

But for a lover to snuggle up, feel the warmth of their lover, and have natural pleasure that both find ecstatic is wrong, and a 'perversion'.
What kind of sick, twisted mind thinks that murder is ok, but not obsessive affection?

What is wrong with loving an Animal who is not your own species?
Is there? Be truthful, is there?
So is it also ok to put down an Animal, just because you'd rather spend money on your selfish items, rather than pay for the right, life saving treatment?

And what is people like PETA?
In what way do they help? The only thing they ever do is seek warfare with larger, industrial challenges - it's good what they do, sure - but all they do it for is the fetish of activism, is it not?

Sex or no sex, I love my non-Human lover with all my heart.
For I will never cheat on him, neither - unlike what these whores who abuse animals and zoosexuality (for their own pleasure), do with 'bestiality' pornography, and the times they ask a zoosexual to do whorish things when they wish not to do so.

I support people like EFA all the way (http://equalityforall.net/)
And their film 'Coming Soon' that showed the lifestyles of some fellow zoosexuals and zoophiles from all different background and species and gender orientations.

I wish the best to them all.
And want to recommend it to others (http://comingsoon.cz/#).

Thank you for being kind, and also reading my honest reply.
We do not wish harm; in fact, I hope you are well.

Regards,
James

Person...
1. An individual (Latin, 'personae'); one who has character.
2. A Human Being (Old French adaption of [1]).
3. A subject (in legal terms^).

It is actually very common in nature, where the habitat is not isolated or confined. We call it 'cross species' or 'inter-specific' sexual behaviour, when a Human is not subjected to the act.

"Haeberle (1978) states that sexual intercourse is not so very unusual between animals of different species as it is between humans and animals. Kinsey et al. (1948, p. 668) states "When one examines the observed cases of such crosses, and especially the rather considerable number of instances in which primates, including man, have been involved, one begins to suspect that the rules about intraspecific mating are not so universal as tradition would have it". Kinsey et al. (1953) further point out that genetic studies have shown the existence of a "large number" of inter-specific hybrids, that have occurred in the wild, and investigations (eg, Cauldwell, 1968; Ford & Beach, 1951; Harris, 1969; Masters, 1962; Ullerstam, 1966, etc) have found that interspecies mating is a "natural occurrence". (Miletski)"

"In the wild, where observation is harder, genetic studies have shown a "large number" of inter-species hybrids, and other investigations describe productive and non-productive inter-species mating as a "natural occurrence"."

And the Discovery Channel often gets comments (sometimes even complaints) about filming sexual behaviour of Animals (isn't it 'porn' scenario), for which a lot of cases were 'interspecific'.
Thus, you can see that modern English and Abrahamic society sees it as 'wrong' or 'disgusting'.

The figures are high in suggestion that people see more problems with zoosexuality by 'disgust', as opposed to intellectual reasoning to why it is wrong (in their arguments).

Humankind finds it rarer for zoosexuality to occur, as they like to minimalise the Animal populations in the areas they wish to live in.
Hence, people who live in urban areas are less likely to have access to Animals for sex, whether they are zoosexual or not.

Kinsey reported zoosexuality had bigger figures in the rural areas of places like America (as it's monitored).
With rural areas on the decline, this is likely to drop.

However, this is not so.
People in urban areas seem to be keeping more and more pets, thus a zoosexual or someone who does not have access to the object of their own sexuality, will be able to resort to non-Human Animals, still, in 'urban' areas.

But you see, what's wrong with fulfilling both your love and your own sexual desire.
If you love each other, and want to give your lover comfort. If sex is a good form of comfort, then why not?

It's only those who hurt others in desperation or perversion to gain access to the sexual object in a coerced state that are bad.
Zoosadists are the worst, bestialists are the mild. But zoophiles are lovers.

This isn't just my opinion.
It is of modern, *official* research opinion.