• S E X
    L O V E +
    R E L A T I O N S H I P S


    ❤️ Welcome Guest! ❤️


    Posting Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • SLR Moderators: axe battler | xtcgrrrl | arrall

Zoophilia?

That was Fausty. He's your typical animal rapist claiming that he's a "victim" or some bullshit when he raped animals and should be in prison.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/douglas-spink-arrested-in_n_541379.html

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/04/top_5_douchebags_douglas_spink.php

https://onename.com/lcs

http://wrinko.net/


He seemed like a cool dude until the news got out. Shit, man. I agree what you said about pedos, here in the shelter people talk about this korean type brothel that has 16yo slutting it up, i find the shit disgusting and fucking wrong. Which is why i keep to myself.

I read in the newspapers that bestilaty(sp) is on the rise in Switzerland. I guess thats where the idea came from for porking sheep? Could be wrong. You know that theres sick fucks all over this planet, and i'm sure when those people die and when its their time for judgement those animals will be waiting.
 
okay so having sex with animals without their consent is morally wrong, but breeding and killing them under worst conditions (without consent ;) ) is?

don't get me wrong, I'm neither zoophile nor vegetarian, but I find this double standard here pretty amusing.

I'm not for the killing of animals in the way you described, such as in factory farms, slaughterhouses/Kosher slaughterhouses, etc.

I am not vegetarian either; but I may become one eventually?
 
Hey Heather, don't listen to Wraiven, his logic is fucking absurd, yes your man needs help; however, there is no reason to think that because he gets satisfaction looking at animal porn that he must instantly have the mind of a child abuser. That kind of view is dangerous and doesn't help anyone, it also makes him sound incredibly ignorant and quite frankly stupid. He also talks as if child abuse, incest and beastiality are a modern phenomenon and a product of our time - these have existed since the dawn of man and are not considered 'normal' in our society, they are also not linked, why would they be? Don't you worry, concentrate on getting help for your man.


When an individual regurgitates insults in order to placate the reader from his/her adversary's point of view of the discussion, it becomes clear that he/she has nothing left to say. How quickly one resolves to insults and even acts insulted while handing out those insults just because they do not agree with their opponent's logic. And by the way, Mushet...the logic is sound. Don't want to believe me? Have a look for yourself...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/cdc-official-charged-child-molestation-bestiality/story?id=14713259

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...lity-during-job-interview-with-border-patrol/

And if you want to get in to the psychology of it...might I suggest you read this written by Allie Phillips, J.D.

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/The Link Monograph-2014.pdf


The fact is, some doctor say there is no correlation, while others say there is. Personally I believe if there is even a chance, I want no part of it. I would not want to be with anyone who got their kicks off being with animals and if they are sick enough to want to be with animals, then they are potentially sick enough to molest a child as well. I suppose Mushet here would feel perfectly okay with leaving his kids alone with a known animal sexual abuser. Me...I'd rather not. I'll keep my kids safe and chose my partners more wisely than that.

But never mind anything that I say, my logic is "fucking absurd."
 
Wow. "Slaughter". That is really ironic.

I think I get some of the argument you're trying to make here, Wraiven. The mindset to "diddle" a pig - which pretty much has the brain of an infant - can be the same mindset to "diddle" a small child.
 
Last edited:
Hey Heather, don't listen to Wraiven, his logic is fucking absurd, yes your man needs help; however, there is no reason to think that because he gets satisfaction looking at animal porn that he must instantly have the mind of a child abuser. That kind of view is dangerous and doesn't help anyone, it also makes him sound incredibly ignorant and quite frankly stupid. He also talks as if child abuse, incest and beastiality are a modern phenomenon and a product of our time - these have existed since the dawn of man and are not considered 'normal' in our society, they are also not linked, why would they be? Don't you worry, concentrate on getting help for your man.
This sounds a little note plausible because you aren't jumping to conclusions which I didn't want to do so thanks for the advice. I have had a lot of mixed comments on here but this one probably made me feel the most relieved and I appreciate it
 
WTF did i just read, this is beyond fucked up. This guy used to be a member here? He got only three years for almost 400 pounds of coke, talk about snitching in its highest degree.
Definetly a snitch. I bet georg jung didn't get that kind of generosity lol
 
But never mind anything that I say, my logic is "fucking absurd."

I agree, it is pretty absurd. You're just pointing to anecdotal cases. So your argument seems to takes one of these two logical forms:

Premise 1: There have been some known cases of people who were both pedophiles and zoophiles.
Premise 2: Person A is a zoophile.
Conclusion: Person A is a pedophile.

or

Premise 1: A person has to be very sick either to want to molest children or to want to be with animals
Premise 2: Person A wants to be with animals
Conclusion 1: Person A is very sick (supported by these premises)
Conclusion 2: Person A wants to molest children (not supported by the premises)

This conclusion doesn't follow from the premises in either case so the argument is logically invalid. As such, it cannot be sound (soundness requires both validity and true premises). I am not defending pedophilia or zoophilia, just logic. If you want to lay out a better logical argument than the one I typed above then go for it, but if you want to talk logic lets actually talk logic and not fuck around.
 
While I'm ranting about logic, it seems like a lot of people are making an assumption that if a person gets enjoyment out of watching a certain act then they must want to engage in this same act themselves. This doesn't seem to necessarily follow however.
 
You need to research the subject of zoophilia and the people interested in it to make any valid predictions about what he might want to do in the future. Just suggesting he might bring home a horse or rape children or anything like that on the basis that you know nothing about the the fetish and thus anything is possible is making reckless predictions out of ignorance.

Now I don't know much about zoophilia, maybe it wouldn't be out of character for people who watch zoophilia porn to want to have a threesome with an animal, I doubt it, but wtf do I know about it. The difference is I know and accept I don't know and so won't make predictions at all.
 
I just think the idea of humanity stooping down to connecting with lower creatures (animals) in a sexual manner just kind of makes me think less of the human race/psyche in general. You would think that when a species advances to the level that humans have, that it would be universally incomprehensible to be sexually attracted to a less intelligent, simple minded, non human creature like a horse or something...... but I guess that despite the immense evolution that humans have undergone, there are still people who would fuck a horse or something..... or possibly fuck a duck..... damn that actually rhymes.

On a side note, I doubt he wants to molest children. The two do not go together in any way, I wouldn't think. Being sexually attracted to animals is sick and demented, but it has nothing to do with pedophilia. They are two separate types of perverted behavior entirely. Every type of perverted thing like this is entirely different and separate from other perverted acts. There rarely is any correlation between two things.

Well to be honest, I think you overestimated the human race. We really have no idea how advanced we are, since we have no idea how much more advancement we could potentially achieve.

In my opinion, we're for the most part still just animals. A small gifted few of us make up almost all the advancement, and everyone else are almost entirely primitive by comparison to those few who who drive the achievement, and the few more who could but for whatever reason don't.

Though in my experience, even the most intelligent and gifted of our kind often have truly animalistic desires when it comes to sex. Even our most advanced and enlightened retain a little animal in them.

The parts of our brain that drive our sexual nature tends to be part of our primitive side and can often be far less displaying of sophistication than our higher order brain capacity and functioning.
 
@Wraiven - What on Earth are you talking about? These are isolated cases, most child molesters don't also fuck animals, so yes, your argument is illogical. Yes, I believe both acts are sick, but I don't believe that because someone is a 'zoo' it automatically makes them a child abuser, does that mean that all child abusers are also into animals - no.
 
I agree, it is pretty absurd. You're just pointing to anecdotal cases. So your argument seems to takes one of these two logical forms:

Premise 1: There have been some known cases of people who were both pedophiles and zoophiles.
Premise 2: Person A is a zoophile.
Conclusion: Person A is a pedophile.

or

Premise 1: A person has to be very sick either to want to molest children or to want to be with animals
Premise 2: Person A wants to be with animals
Conclusion 1: Person A is very sick (supported by these premises)
Conclusion 2: Person A wants to molest children (not supported by the premises)

This conclusion doesn't follow from the premises in either case so the argument is logically invalid. As such, it cannot be sound (soundness requires both validity and true premises). I am not defending pedophilia or zoophilia, just logic. If you want to lay out a better logical argument than the one I typed above then go for it, but if you want to talk logic lets actually talk logic and not fuck around.


Much like your bullshit response? You are much like the media in your responses by how you leave out key words that change the subject completely. The key word is, "potential."

But hey, you sound like another supporter to me...so talking sense to you is like talking sense to a grape.
 
@Wraiven - What on Earth are you talking about? These are isolated cases, most child molesters don't also fuck animals, so yes, your argument is illogical. Yes, I believe both acts are sick, but I don't believe that because someone is a 'zoo' it automatically makes them a child abuser, does that mean that all child abusers are also into animals - no.

My god, you are as thick skulled as the other fella in here. Yes, potentially they are. If one is sick enough to lay with animals then they are sick enough to also "potentially" lay with children as well. It amazes me at how much energy you will exert to defend a monster mind.
 
Sure, but virtually anyone could 'potentially' be a pedophile. In practice they tend to be seemingly normal family members. He's defending logic. Fact is theres no reason to bring up pedophilia at all. Just lumping all deviant or abnormal sexual acts together is not good and people are right to be opposed to it. It's this kind of lazy ignorant assumption making that enables real pedophiles to go undetected, while innocent people are ostracized and alienated by witchhunts and mob mentality that demonizes people who are different. Cause most real pedophiles who act on their desires, look and act like normal people otherwise.

Now I think zoophilia is sick too. But comparing it to the kind of horrible evil things pedophiles do is not ok with me. Zoophilia may be sick and wrong, but it's a hell of a lot better than people raping children, and the two shouldn't be conflated.
 
Away you go, you sound like a severely neurotic individual - this is the OPs partner, a bit of sensitivity regarding the matter wouldn't hurt as she has come on this forum understandably confused and needing some constructive advice, perhaps difficult when you are a Neanderthal like yourself. Nobody is defending what he is doing, this all in your warped gung-ho mentality, of course what he is doing is unacceptable and he obviously has severe issues that need addressed, nobody in their right mind thinks that this kind of behaviour is normal, but what your are suggesting that this man is capable of is something completely different, which we will have to agree to disagree on. You are the kind of person that would have burned witches at the stake during the dark ages, mob mentality that sadly can't think outwith the parameters of a black and white world.

What this lady needs to do is go with her partner for counselling, find out where these ideas come from, how long he has had them and find out how deep they are and also more importantly can he stop. Then she can make a decision on if she would like to continue with this relationship. Now, the OP has been through his internet history, all she found were disgusting animal porn videos or whatever, it seems that there was no indication of something more sinister.

Edit: This post is directed at Wraiven, JessFR must have been posting at the same time as me (good post Jess, much the same as what I was typing!).
 
My god, you are as thick skulled as the other fella in here. Yes, potentially they are. If one is sick enough to lay with animals then they are sick enough to also "potentially" lay with children as well. It amazes me at how much energy you will exert to defend a monster mind.
avatar387884_1.gif
 
Let's look at some of the reasons people say zoophilia and pedophilia are the same.

Consent
- Most people believe that neither children nor animals can consent to sex because neither are aware of what sex is or what it entails or means. The simple fact is, once an animal reaches sexual maturity, he or she is aware of what sex is and how it works, and therefore capable of consenting to or denying sexual contact. Whether children have this ability before they are sexually mature, what constitutes sexual maturity in humans, and when children stop being "children" are questions that belong somewhere else.

Predation
- Largely because animals and children are both seen as "helpless", both zoophilia and pedophilia are thought to be predatory behaviors. However, animals are quite capable of making their wishes known, and will do so. Therefore, zoophilia is not an inherently predatory behavior. Sexual predation, like rape, has very little to do with the sexual act itself. It is a far more complex behavior and often does not make distinctions based on attraction. In other words, a sexual predator might very well prey on animals as well as children, for the next reason we will discuss.

Reporting
- One thing which sets animals apart from humans is that they cannot "tell on" someone who has abused them. We can see the results of abuse but there is often no way to know any specifics because of the communication gap between humans and animals. Children are able to tell others what happened, but often they don't know exactly what happened and/or they don't know that it is wrong, or why it is. So in both cases, abuse goes unreported.

Sexuality
- In both zoophilia and pedophilia, sex is involved. Sex with beings that most people do not view as being sexual, therefore such activity must be wrong. In the case of rape or any kind of abusive behavior, it is most definitely wrong, in both cases.

Perception
- The most-often used reason is usually the one that's overlooked. A vast majority of pet owners perceive their animals in the same way they perceive their children. However, humans almost never see animals as beings with any real emotional or intellectual capabilities beyond bringing in the newspaper. People forget that animals reach sexual maturity far faster than humans do, and that mature animals probably have a somewhat different view on life, just as humans do as they get older. This view of animals as helpless, child-like beings doesn't do either animals or children justice.


So are zoophilia and pedophilia the same? Not really. Do the people involved necessarily have the same mindset? Maybe. However, the same can be said of any population, since sexual predation is by no means confined to atypical interests.



That being said, Heather, you should definitely try to understand what exactly your boyfriend means when he says he is into zoophilia and how he feels about it, so you can make an informed decision. He may need professional help, or he may need something else. I wish the two of you the best of luck.
 
They still cannot give consent in the same way that a human can..... and they don't really 'know how sex works', they just act it out instinctually.

You are absolutely correct in saying that animals cannot consent in the same sense that humans can. Perhaps I misspoke. What I meant was that they are able to show agreement to sexual contact.

Also, many humans don't know the complexities of sex, such as the names of chemicals released throughout the body, but they know enough to participate. I would argue that sexually mature animals know enough about sex to make decisions about sexual contact. It is in this way they are different to children. The merits of how animals communicate that agreement are a matter for a different discussion.
 
Top