• Suddenly unable to log into your ZooVille account? This might be the reason why: CLICK HERE!
The Official Zoophilia Debate Sheet

The Official Zoophilia Debate Sheet

A blog dedicated to responding in exquisite detail, with references to counter all the misconceptions regarding zoophilia and why its a fully valid orientation. Debate topics will be listed here and input can be added via pming @ZTHorse for updating each topic sheet.

If you know if any zoo who plans to debate the topic in a public and objective space, please reference them here to this blog. This will prepare them for the typical anti-zoo arguments and how to counter with scientific backing and truth.
Author
ZTHorse
Views
7,330
First release
Last update
Rating
4.86 star(s) 7 ratings

More resources from ZTHorse

Share this resource

Latest updates

  1. Consent - How to debate this topic.

    Consent is a core issue that will be brought up in any zoophilia debate. It is important to...

Latest reviews

Well said.

I simplify my argument in this capacity.

While it is much more difficult to determine "consent" from the entity being penetrated or physically stimulated, consent is implicit by the penetrator (unless coerced). This is true regardless of the entity and is applied universally across the board.

So in the argument that animals cannot consent, I bring up a situation that would likely still be viewed as both illicit, lewd, and illegal under the law.

[Situation where consent is inherent]
If a person is minding their own business and an animal mounts them, has the animal given consent? In this situation the person has not provoked or encouraged this behavior. Choosing to do nothing is a valid choice, the same as letting a dog hump your leg. So if the animal mounts and penetrates and the subject being penetrated does not attempt to stop this action, then both parties are inherently consenting, as both are acting on their own accord and are free to stop/leave.


The argument of determining consent of the penetrated or stimulated is much more difficult.. To use dogs as an example:

[Situation where consent is uncertain]
If a dog is able to be penetrated without restraint (meaning it is free to leave at any time) and it has not been trained to accept this behavior as a means to getting a reward, then an argument could be made more easily that "consent" is possible. -- It's simply a lot harder without the communication (verbal or written) skills we use with people or in the clear conveyance of non-verbal skills by people. But if a dog is being restrained, trained to accept this behavior using a reward or punishment system, or is being stimulated orally, then it's much harder to determine consent - even if consent was given previously, (ie in the case of a dog mounting where consent is implied, but then receives oral).

[Summary]
In cases where the animal is subjected to pleasure by a person, the issue of consent is an argumentative and uncertain one.. in contrast, cases where the animal freely acts on it's own behalf (ie licking genitalia or mounting) there is often clear and inherent consent.
Some people just denies the right to pleasure. Zoo, bdsm, blowjob, whatever, even a handjob...
Sex only to procreate, or not sex at all.
But they may do all kind of bad things to other persons...
Respect.
That is what we are missing. Respect. If I do bdsm with other person, on a free basis, what the hell is the problem? The same for the zoo and all the rest of fantasies...
I dont understand scat, but if someone feel pleasure in eating shit, do it. I dont care, is not my problem, does not do arm to others, so I will not judge.
Just dont do any arm to others and be happy.
Well written! Brilliant!
Good stuff so far but will this be updated?
All my thoughts are here! You’re telling the truth!
Keep it coming
Absolutely brilliant
Back
Top