*thumbs up* obviously right; is like saying that an hetero couple is 50% gay, so already in sin, or illegal, or whatever :-( but dishonests with a mauvaise foi are always in search of something to attack...
**thumbs up** obviously right; is like saying that an hetero couple is 50% gay, so already in sin, o
People who complain about feral porn 99% of the time give 0 shits about animal sexual abuse. It's almost always performative for good boy points without any ideological backing. Somewhat depressing considering the fact a large amount of anti-abuse activism is basically that, performative without any real discussion.
But hey, why have important social discussions when you can have tons of clout for harassing artists making fictional content?
People who complain about feral porn 99% of the time give 0 shits about animal sexual abuse. It's al
My dictionary says bestiality means interspecies sex and zoophilia means interspecies love. So bestiality could be referring to love too. Just because someone specifies sex doesn't mean there's not love involved. Usually love is part of sex.
My dictionary says bestiality means interspecies sex and zoophilia means interspecies love. So besti
The issue of bestiality is its inherently non-consentual, not that there isn't love in it.
I think there's a lot of sexually abusive relationships with love (define that word how you will) involved, most notably pedophilic, zoophilic, and domestically abusive relationships
Love isn't a defining trait in morality. There's even a term to describe this, 'love nihilism'
The issue of bestiality is its inherently non-consentual, not that there isn't love in it. I think
If there is harm then it's not loving unless someone got hurt accidentally but sex is usually really safe. Sex is loving if everyone is having fun. So when bestiality is fun it's love and is the same thing as zoophilia which means love. That's all I was trying to say that sex doesn't mean rape. That's a really negative thing to think if someone thinks rape when they think sex. That's a problem and I'd wonder if they were raped.
If there is harm then it's not loving unless someone got hurt accidentally but sex is usually really
Again, you are assuming because you love someone you can't hurt them...that's not a healthy ideology.
I understand how you feel, but to love someone and to hurt someone are not exclusive to each other. Plenty of abusers are 'good faithed'/care for their victims, but that doesn't justify, nullify, or excuse their behavior.
That's the biggest issue with your pro-beastality argument, loving someone isn't a sign of a healthy or ethical relationship. There's way more to it, starting with consent....
I'm not trying to moral boast or shame you, but its something you really should understand because a lot of people do fall into the trap of thinking 'love' is the universal justification
Again, you are assuming because you love someone you can't hurt them...that's not a healthy ideology
I'm defining love as no harm. If someone is being harmed, that's not love. That isn't to say someone could do something harmful they thought was okay or even good. "Tough love" is a good example of that since it often refers to someone punishing someone else thinking it's helpful when it could be far more hurtful. Accidents can happen. Someone could be a rapist. There are all sorts of possibilities. But those possibilities existing doesn't justify destroying harmless actual love.
Most everyone agrees rape is wrong. Most everyone should also agree sharing love is right. Whether that love is being shared through pleasure, or any other way. If there's no harm in it, it's actual love, so it's good.
I'm defining love as no harm. If someone is being harmed, that's not love. That isn't to say someone
Your defining love by a collection of actions, rather than emotions and feelings, which is informal to how most people use that word
Regardless, you acknowledge the exception, that exception is the issue I'm trying to bring up. I'm sorry but I heavily doubt the presence of meaningful consent in human/animal relationships :/
That's not me saying you want to hurt animals or that someone's goal is to harm an animal by having sex with them, but that exception is what I'm talking about here.
Your intentions can be good, but the objective presents of consent is what really matters and I don't think its very reasonable to suggest bestially has that...
I don't think I can link the article on love nihilism here, but try to keep in mind your intentions and the objective reality of the situation may differ
Your defining love by a collection of actions, rather than emotions and feelings, which is informal
Because the specific harmless pleasurable activity that is yiff is part of love. This is why protecting love requires protecting yiff too. Everyone deserves the freedom to love. For example, denying a male canine the right to fuck someone based on something bigoted like the species of the fuckee, rather than something real like if someone doesn't like it or is being harmed, is the opposite of a loving law. No country should allow bigoted laws. Banning harmless activities is bigotry.
Because the specific harmless pleasurable activity that is yiff is part of love. This is why protect
