Announcement

Collapse

Warning

WARNING: This Sub-category contains controversial subjects, viewpoints, and opinions. Due to the nature of these discussions, reports coming from these sections will be held in respect to freedom of speech and for the free debate of zoo issues. If you choose to engage in this sub-forum, you hereby agree to limited harassment reporting in regards to the topics discussed.
See more
See less

Why do you think zoosexuals should be accepted

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Why do you think zoosexuals should be accepted

    As someone who has been interested in zoosexuality for a while, i thought id come here to ask you guys why you think its ok to do what you do. as a current dog and cat owner the idea of shoving my cumberland down my pooches pipes seems revolting, but i wanted to see your view on the matter. and why you people should be accepted just as much as the lgbt community is. P.S idk if this is the right section of the forum to put this, so im sorry in advance if i placed it wrong

    #2
    A mare can EASILY take a human's dick. There is absolutely no harm done to the animal. No force required. If a mare wants to have sex with you, she will visibly wink her clitoris at you and lift her tail up or to the side. There will be all kinds of signs that she wants you. If she doesn't consent, trust me, your ass is getting kicked into next year. There is no physical or emotional harm done at all as long as you treat her with respect. She sees you as a potential mate if she allows you to penetrate her without objection.

    As for bitches, it's a bit different, and I'll let someone else with more experience with them explain.

    I don't expect zoophiles to ever be accepted like LGBTQ, but AT LEAST make it legal to have intercourse with sexually mature, powerful beasts that can easily defend themselves if needed.
    Last edited by Seabiscuit; 09-10-2019, 08:43 PM.

    Comment


    • JonathanSmith
      JonathanSmith commented
      Editing a comment
      when it comes to humans a full grown horse can be as fragile as a puppy, if the horse is in a thirsty enough persons hands it wont matter wether something it powerfull or not, in my oppinion. as for the easily part. fair point, horses and large animals are probably a more better suited choice if you are interested in commiting the act, however, if this was made legal, do you realise the amount of people who would ignore consent, "zoosadists" i believe you call them? if it was made legal it would skyrocket. and due to what i said earlier about how human technology makes any animals "defending" useless. legalising it would make a difference then legalising a dog or a goat or whatever.



      sorry if this makes no sense btw, kinda writing down ideas as i go without properly organising or making sense of anything

    • Seabiscuit
      Seabiscuit commented
      Editing a comment
      JonathanSmith Zoosadists will continue to abuse animals whether or not bestiality is legal. The difference in it being legal to have sex with animals is that good people who have consensual sex with them will be not be thrown in a prison cell to be around very dangerous people, or have their entire lives ruined by making it known that they are zoophiles.

      I think that people who have sex with horses or other large animals should not be prosecuted under the law if there were no constraints or other coercion involved. It would still be possible to punish animal abusers even if bestiality were legal. And there wouldn't be a proliferation of zoosadists if it were legal, either. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

      The law should read as follows:

      "Having sexual contact with an animal is lawful unless it is evident that the animal was forcibly raped or molested."

      If there is evidence that the animal was abused in any way, punish them as defined by law.

    #3
    Accepted? I don't really care, I'd be happy with merely being tolerated.
    As to the usual cry about what about animal abuse if it's not illegal? I would expect abuse to still be punished as abuse; it changes nothing except allowing a group of people who are unconventional to exist without fear of reprisal for engaging in non-abusive activity. If they are abusive, it will be discovered the same as any other abuse.

    I don't care if my neighbors find me disgusting, I don't plan on telling them now or in a world where it's legal - it's none of their business either way.
    One might argue then that it doesn't matter if that is the case, but it does. If a partner has an injury or illness that is in no way related to sexual activity and during examination a vet discovers it, the person is fucked for doing the right thing and seeking professional medical assistance when needed.

    Comment


    • JonathanSmith
      JonathanSmith commented
      Editing a comment
      yes but how would you differentiate abuse from non abuse, theres no way, as animals cant report it for obvious reasons. so how would any abuse crimes ever be known? or even evidentially backed?

      also of course you wouldnt tell your neighbour, that goes for anything sexually related, unless you know anyone chatting to their next door neighbour about the hardcore asian scat porn they watched last night.

    • egoldstein
      egoldstein commented
      Editing a comment
      The same way you show it for any other abuse. It's not like the only abuse that ever happens is sexual in nature - and that only when it isn't "animal husbandry" related. If you treat a dog like shit, but you don't starve it or leave visible wounds you're A-OK, but if it sticks it's dick in you, or you it, and you both have a good time, BAM, instant abuse. Why is it that nobody seems to care unless sex is involved?

      Signs of abuse and mistreatment should be followed up on; signs of sexual contact - especially when there's no indication of harm, should be ignored.

    #4
    Seabiscuit yes but how would they know its rape, theres no evidence and an animal cant report a case. and i doubt people are gonna pick up on it if the dog is a house dog or the horse is a darker breed, it wont show and there would be no reason to check if someone used force because it would take too much of the polices time to check everyones horse or animal of choice. it wouldnt be practical to legalise it

    Comment


    • egoldstein
      egoldstein commented
      Editing a comment
      @JonathanSmith

      you know what goldstein, fair point, i think i may have been using a bit of a stupid way of thinking, but if a legalisation would be made, what would happen then, i could guarantee the animal abuse rate would go up, since among those intending to do good there is still a certain group which the legalisation will enable to allow certain individuals to go on a raping spree of sorts, with little to nothing the crown can do against them.
      I'd like to see the evidence for your guarantee. Having sex with non-humans isn't a common thing, study after study shows it's consistent, but uncommon, regardless of the legal status of such actions. I think you'd have the same general rates, people who are interested would still be doing it and the rest of society would wonder WTF is wrong with those people.


      so my new stand point would be something im pretty sure anyone could find stable in theory and practice, legalise under a tighter animal checkup law, shorten the time between the checkups, and make them absolutly mandatory, and any one who doesnt gets investigated. quickly thought up this after seeing seabiscuits comment, and i think that its probably the most efficient method to catch out animal abusers and rapists without too much hassle. idk. however this would be a pain for cattle but it would practically eliminate abuse.
      If you meant for all domestic animals, I'd largely be in support of that. Problem is it'd get undermined right from the start. Most industry would be exempted leaving just pet owners, who I suspect are a smaller portion of all animal abuse in contrast to industry, due to having an attachment to the non-human whereas in industry it's largely just walking assets. If you meant just for zoophiles, I'd ask why you're singling out a group for special harassment without any evidence that they are causing more abuse than the general pet owner (or industry). I get it that for most people there's a yuck factor, that's OK, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that the average zoo provides far better care for their wards than the average pet owner. So once again, it seems you might be at a point where you might be trying to harass people because you don't approve of their sexual preference rather than a desire to reduce actual animal abuse.

      As for it eliminating abuse, if that were the case why haven't the animal abuse laws we have NOW eliminated abuse? The laws we have now are even stricter than this hypothetical case where bestiality were not illegal.

      If you really want to understand, I suggest instead of trying to control us you instead get to know us. Some of us are utter pieces of shit, some of us are amazing human beings, and most of us are just like everyone else, we just happen to have different sexual interests than the majority.

      Edit: I see later on you made a comment that suggests maybe you have started to understand, if so, kudos to you for being able to change your mind; we need more of that in the world.
      Last edited by egoldstein; 09-14-2019, 08:21 PM.

    • JonathanSmith
      JonathanSmith commented
      Editing a comment
      there is no evidence, but once its legalised (more like if but thats not the point) more people will do it, which means more people who dont understand how to properly practice the act will be doing it, which means more people who dont know how to know what consent it and how do get it, and will most likely end up in idiots abusing animals since they dont know any better

      also for my theoretical law, of course i dont mean only zoophiles, as you cant really tell zoophile from regular pet owner from looking at them. it goes for all people who own an animal of some kind, of course im pretty sure the animals in the food industry have some sort of regulations in place in that regard already, if not they need one.

      as for eliminating abuse factor, there is a really simple solution that guarantees that they will be protected, imagine a database, like they have for humans, but for animals, which would guarantee that they get checkups and that the owner takes care of them. mind you im only laying out my basic idea for the plan and dont really plan to take it any further than a quick idea i got in the middle of the night.

      as for the edit, i always understood you wernt bad people, or at least i hoped, ill be as accepting as you want, as long as theres a good argument for the acceptence of it.and we do need more of that open minded attitude in the world, not just for zoosexuals, for any sort of against the norm behaviours

    • egoldstein
      egoldstein commented
      Editing a comment
      The argument that if legalized, more people will do it is common, but not very logical. That has been argued as a point against legalizing hmosexual behavior back when it was still illegal and for many drugs. My usual response has typically been if morphine, homosexual sex, and now bestiality were decriminalized, would *you* be more inclined to go out and do them? Typically the answer is no for people who don't have an interest in those activities and those that do, well they've usually gone ahead and experienced those things already.

      But, for the moment let's assume that rates of bestiality would increase, an increase in activity is typically reflected by more discussion of it in general society, which wold allow for better dissemination of information, potentially *lowering* the chances of accidental abuse as now more people are aware of the issues. If you're old enough to remember when being gay was decriminalized you'll see a potential parallel. Both this perspective and yours are pure speculation, I'm just trying to show that it can go both ways.

      In regards to checkups for non-humans, I already comply without a law; my wards get routine care as needed and yearly checkups for diagnostic testing (heartworm, etc). I'm mostly in favor of such things in concept, but a law adds complications and unneeded expense for every caretaker and does very little to reduce actual abuse. Once you make it a law, there's more taxes to pay for employees to track it, approve it, monitor it, penalize for non-compliance, and it all mostly just gets in the way of providing quality care; at the end of the day you'd be back to where you started with there still being abuse because it's not the average pet owner/zoophile who's abusing. You'd still have no recourse for industry, people who are willing to abuse *other people's animals*, people willing to disregard the law and keep/abuse animals in secret, and the issue of some abuse not being self-evident.
      Last edited by egoldstein; 09-15-2019, 06:14 PM.

    #5
    egoldstein yes it would be easy to see abuse fair enough but how would they decide on who to check, theres no way theyre just gonna find out out of no where and if your the only witness and the scars arnt easily visable e.g dark fur, its really easy to get away with it, which is my main concern

    Comment


    • egoldstein
      egoldstein commented
      Editing a comment
      You would check using exactly the same methods society already uses to police for animal abuse. It's pretty easy and interestingly enough, consistent!

      So you're obviously against bestiality, but how about eating meat? Are you a vegetarian? If not, how do you justify making an action which *could be* harmful illegal with one that is not only harmful, but fatal (and not illegal)?

      Edit: Do you seriously think this is a topic which we, as a community, haven't discussed in detail on many occasions? That we would suddenly wonder why none of us ever stopped to question if we were harming our partners? If we had ever considered if it were possible to discover how we could tell?
      Last edited by egoldstein; 09-10-2019, 11:13 PM.

    • egoldstein
      egoldstein commented
      Editing a comment
      ...if your the only witness and the scars arnt easily visable e.g dark fur, its really easy to get away with it, which is my main concern
      How does that differ from any other incident which might or might not be abusive? One can ride a horse without abusing it, or one can use sharp spurs, tighten straps too tight, whip, or otherwise assault the horse. How are those not important to you just because the rider didn't fuck it? If those are important to you, why are you focusing on an action which it seems you readily admit isn't inherently harmful?

    #6
    Since you say you've "been interested", I'm wanting to hear from you just exactly what that interest might be. Your phrasing makes ME, at least, feel that what you actually want is an opportunity to bash a group that doesn't have much, if any, recourse against your preconceived ideas on the subject.

    As for the acceptance part, I frankly don't give a shit about being accepted. I care only that me and mine are left alone to do as we see fit. I call myself a zoophile/ethical bestialist - I have had animals I consider "lovers", but I'm in no way averse to having a "no strings attached" boink session with a willing critter if one comes along. The key word being "willing". Work with them long enough, and only a damned fool can fail to see the difference between willing and not. The critter that isn't interested has multiple ways, up to and including doing a human some serious, even fatal, physical injury to make that disinterest known. Ferinstance, a mare who says "talk to the hoof" can easily leave the fool who ignores her "no" wondering why his head is laying in one corner of the barn, and the rest of him is in another corner, if you take my meaning. Likewise, a critter who either doesn't particularly care, or is actively interested, has ways to make that known just as clearly. A zoophile/zoosexual/ethical bestialist will take note of the critter's wishes, and act accordingly. Failure to heed a critter's "no" moves a person from whatever other category they might think they fit, into a whole other one: Rapist.

    A rapist will do whatever it takes to overcome those "I don't wanna" signals, and shove his dick in regardless of the animal's views - assuming he's capable of doing so. If that guy decides to tie a mare down, or hobble her, or whatever, then do her anyway, he's no different from the guy who drags a screaming woman into an alley and puts the meat to her - He's a rapist, and deserves whatever consequences come of his act. The quicker, the better.

    Comment


    • JonathanSmith
      JonathanSmith commented
      Editing a comment
      egoldstein if we were speaking on my morals, itd be a different story, since i have no morals practically, besides obvious shit like dont murder or steal or rape. and normally when someone who says something like this they do mean their own morals but i usually base it around common morals when refering to them in conversations

      as for your morals, im not exactly a philosopher so i cant say i understand most of what you said, but as for the logical approach to life, i can totally agree on, and as a child you proberbly didnt understand the concept in its entirety anyway, but fair enough

      as for your neighbours, you should probably move, sounds like a loony bin to me, religious overly patreotic homophobic idiots personally doesnt sound too great of an environment to me

    • egoldstein
      egoldstein commented
      Editing a comment
      As for moving and my neighbors, I am a relatively recent import, but came here as my last move in life. I tend to keep to myself mostly, but when I deal with my neighbors I prefer to interact with them honestly and openly and to ask them questions which I suspect they will have a hard time answering. Sunday surprise visitors who come bearing messages are always welcome, it's great entertainment and I hope I have opened a few minds already.
      Last edited by egoldstein; 09-15-2019, 05:24 PM.

    • juan_too
      juan_too commented
      Editing a comment
      JonathanSmith - "by interest i mean interest in the roots of the interest"

      just a note to say if you already haven't, this would be the thread to read - https://www.zooville.org/forum/main-...78-why-animals

    #7
    Anyone can abuse a animal or person and rape them. This is wrong no matter what. Laws are in place for that to protect the innocent. Agreeing to have sex is NOT wrong. Many people and animals agree to have sex and those who don't believe it have just never run into the situation. In my sex with animals over the years, the animals most of the time started the sexual behavior. They are the ones who got me intristed I never thought about it till I relized we were made about the same way and had the same desires and they let me know that. there are days now that I try to provoke sex and they are not in the mood. I respect that because I'm not all ways in the mood when they try to have sex with me. On the other hand, most of the days we have lots of consenting fun. Why can't the world understand that. I accept that we are all animals with different likes. Different doesn't make it wrong.

    Comment


    • JonathanSmith
      JonathanSmith commented
      Editing a comment
      yes but one thing ive been interested in is the whole "i fell in love with an animal" how, i see my dogs show what could be called "sexual behaviour" yet can never understand those who see and act on it, as for the concent fair game.

    #8
    What about the millions and millions of people who don't have sex with their pets that viciously abuse them ? I don't read many stories of animals being raped to death. but I do read 1000s of stories of animals being horrifically abused by just your standard run o the mill ass holes. From what I can tell most people who are zoo exclusive treat their animals partners better than most people treat their family pet their wife their human partner. I as some one that has fostered many many many dogs and cats that ass hole humans have neglected and cast aside when this living creature became to much of a burden can attests that that most people who abuse their pets have likely never stuck their cock in them.

    Comment


      #9
      What a retard thread to open to zoo exclusive section - OP assumes that people who care and love the animals the most would hurt animals by default.

      Comment


      • Gigelina
        Gigelina commented
        Editing a comment
        Earlier years i used to debate the matters of right and wrong, and the laws being unjust and stuff (despite zoophilia is still legal where i live now).
        Nowadays i'll just say that the OP will lose interest opposing zoophiles way before i die of old age while being a zoo exclusive. The similar thing has happened for centuries despite sex with animals has been penalized heavily.
        No witch hunt has stopped us from having sex with animals. So maybe the OP will succeed now ?

      • JonathanSmith
        JonathanSmith commented
        Editing a comment
        i said i didnt know if it was the right place to put it. sorry man first time here. and i assume so because there are people here who will. small percentage as it is.

      • JonathanSmith
        JonathanSmith commented
        Editing a comment
        also for the second comment, wut?

      #10
      I think the OP, initially, had a really good question. And the first reply was a really good response. But for those who claim this type of thread is retarded, that this bashes the community, are living in a world of ignorant bliss. It's a good thing to bring up, given it's so controversial. Being gay used to be controversial also, but hey-ho, people spoke up about that. Made good points, now it's acceptable. Which is why I think it's worth discussing instead of shoving it aside.

      At the end of the day in my opinion, whether you're having sex with a dog or a horse. You're still a human being. You have a life, just like everyone else, a job, interests, tastes and ambitions. Nothing else is different about you, mentally & physically. Except of course that you're incriminated by the society (which I believe is wack), and are believed to be ill.

      The only thing that has ever felt iffy to me when it comes to Zoo, was IF someone knew, for sure if they had their pet partner's consent. Some people, here, can tell I imagine, but some can't. That's probably the underlining reason it's not legal, let alone accepted.
      Last edited by HighlyWobbly; 09-12-2019, 12:12 PM.

      Comment


      • HighlyWobbly
        HighlyWobbly commented
        Editing a comment
        op stated in his post that he posted in this section by accident -.- don't get why it matters though. sort of proves my point though, some people see these threads, read title, get triggered & bash the thread to hell

      • Gigelina
        Gigelina commented
        Editing a comment
        well maybe op was made by accident also

      • JonathanSmith
        JonathanSmith commented
        Editing a comment
        Gigelina I can confirm i was planned

      #11
      The answer to your question, OP, depends heavily on what you/one understands with the words "zoosexuals" and "accepted". Because as (that nutjob) Randall Terry pointed out: "he who frames the question, wins the debate." [If someone says something logically correct, then it doesn't matter who this is as a person - the pope or a crackwhore. The argument is logically correct and therefore valid, disattached from the maker of the argument]. Or put another way - mankind wastes centuries of debating time (especially online) every day, because they do not realize the very terms they are using to describe something either mean different things to each side (so different conclusions are "obvious"), or already preclude/include etc certain debate derivations.

      There are many pages of people debating what "zoosexual" means, but I think you hit on the word which most commonly would be seen as the absolute and rather sciency umbrella term for "everything with animals and sexual".

      And what does "accepted" mean? Do you mean that it is celebrated? People should be congratulated at work for their coming-out? Do you mean that it is just treated as a normal thing where one is like "oh the neighbour is a ... hm hm yeah I know. Oh by the way, we need more cake mix". Or do you mean that it should simply not be illegal so that you are not hit with a 50000 USD "animal welfare violation fine" for petting your mare under the tail? But otherwise it can stay in the shadows like gay sex in the 1920s?

      For that fraction of "zoosexual", where you have the (exclusive) zoophiles [or what term you wanna use for that fraction now], so people who are exactly as in love with a certain and particular sole animal as some husband you know is with his wife who you met - that should at least not be leavied with further legal fines and retributions in my opinion. That's all I would ask for. These people are completely in love, just the same way - as I said - as two humans can be in love with each other. Their dog or horse or cow or goat etc means the absolute world to them, and they shower them with attention, maintenance, their time, affection, and .... love. You must know what love is. Now - assuming that we have no error in judgement and execution of this love in such a person (compare e.g. human stalkers stalking humans) - they would rather pull out one of their own nails on the spot than causing their loved-one discomfort, or even *gasps* pain.
      These people can be completely content, happy, over-the-moon to have a two week vacation with their dog in a mountain chalet, brushing the dog, bathing the dog, walking the dog, playing with the dog, cuddling the dog (in the normal way), preparing a lavish meal for the dog, etc pp - without even having sex. They are spending excellent quality time with their loved-one! YAY!
      These people would never "shove down" something into a "pipe". They'd strive to be a dog or an equivalent in their dogs eyes, and they burst with pride and joy when the dog (and yes, that state arrives at some time) starts to hit on them from his complete own volition. Every cat would be out of the question, as it is obvious that a man could never fit into a cat. And dog breeds are of course "targeted"/chosen from the beginning to have the necessary size, although some people chose to go completely penetration-less and live their entire life just being together with that tiny dachshund. No sex, but hey, some people are completely happy like that.

      So yeah, for that fraction of people and in the sense of "you know, at least let us be ourselves in the shadows - we don't disturb anyone, you don't disturb our privacy", I would turn your question around and ask why it should not be so?

      But for combinations where "zoosexual" means types of people who see "just fucking ANY dog" as a kinky thing to spice up their sex life for a weekend and then "dump" the dog again, that should in no way be "accepted" what ever the meaning of that. Certainly it shouldn't be celebrated. I for one hate the so called "fencehoppers" with a passion. Simple motivation: I do have a fence and I want everything outside to stay out.

      Comment


      • JonathanSmith
        JonathanSmith commented
        Editing a comment
        i do have genuine intrest, its kinda been an intrest of mine, along with other "taboo" sexualities, unfortunatly ive only had the oportunity to ask 2, including this one. as for the question at the end, yes, yes i do. even though people are explaining it i still feel confused, even though for the most part, its practically just regular sexualities but a 3rd dimension, being that of species added to the mix (dont know how to descibe it but thats the best i can do)

      • Pferdefreund
        Pferdefreund commented
        Editing a comment
        "ts practically just regular sexualities but a 3rd dimension"

        yeah, you got it.

        And now I say I am ok with people marrying their dog if the dog seems happy and undisturbed, and you were invited, and the dog his this gigantic room, and the best doggy bed on the market, and a garden, and you saw the two cuddling on the sofa, exchanging kisses and face-licks.

        That's great for both of them, that's the sub-category of "zoophile". Why should that be weeded out with police and lawyers and fines?
        But for those parts of the vast landscape where you have rape and such things, of course that should be illegal. Just as in the human-human sex universe rape would be illegal.
        Last edited by Pferdefreund; 09-13-2019, 01:33 PM.

      • JonathanSmith
        JonathanSmith commented
        Editing a comment
        i can see where your coming from, dont know if i was being prejudice due to the bad rep or the morals or society. but this thread has been an eye opener of sorts for me. your not bad people, if anything just misinterpreted, glad i came here. you guys seem pretty chill

      #12
      I've always been a bit bemused by the idea that forcing a human body extremity into an animal for artificial insemination is totally accepted, whereas gently allowing another extremity to enter her for mutual pleasure is considered abuse.

      Maybe it would be better to judge whether the animal experiences any physical or emotional abuse during the act, and base the (il)legality of zoosexuality on that. We already have laws against animal abuse, so singling out sex on top of that seems not to make a necessary contribution to legislation.

      If we want to safeguard animal well-being - be it in zoosexual acts, non-zoosexual acts, artificial insemination, or anything - then it's up to people to have a good grasp of reading animal body language. They have their own ways of showing what they (dis)like. Ignore that, and you're committing rape. Of course we could stay on the safe side and keep all human-animal sexual encounters illegal (unless it's for profit of course, see artificial insemination), but then we also might be better off banning all human-human sex because there are rapists about.

      People like to think that morality is set in stone, but it isn't. In the 17th century it was morally right to keep slaves, because that would lead them onto the path of religious redemption. Nowadays we have different views on the morality of keeping and exploiting slaves. On consent it would be great if we could ask the animal in question whether he/she rather wants to have interspecies sex, or being killed for human consumption.

      Comment


      • JonathanSmith
        JonathanSmith commented
        Editing a comment
        "forcing a human body extremity into an animal for artificial insemination is totally accepted"

        what? maybe im just not up to speed on how animals are treated but what does this all mean?

      • caikgoch
        caikgoch commented
        Editing a comment
        Most female large animals are self cleaning. Mares will gush fluid spectacularly immediately after being bred. Natural stallions can carry multiple hands full of dirt, dead skin, dried urine, and bacteria on their penis so mares are equipped to flush the crud out. That means that if you wish to inseminate a mare, you must deliver the sperm to and through her cervix. Depending on the mare, that can be more than elbow deep in her vagina. Given that the stallion's penis is longer than that, she won't mind.

      • UR20Z
        UR20Z commented
        Editing a comment
        Actually, to AI a mare, you insert your (gloved and well lubed) hand and arm through her anus, into her rectum, gently (if you're anything like a decent person) palpating through the wall of her rectum to find and follow the vagina, which, with practice, can be easily felt as a distinct structure, until you reach her cervix. Grasp the cervix (still through the wall of the rectum) then with the other hand, insert the already loaded pipette into her vagina, easing it in until you can feel it bumping against either the cervix itself, or the hand you've got holding it. Using your grasp on the cervix, and working by touch, you guide the end of the pipette into the opening of her cervix, then a little further by holding the cervix in alignment as you press the pipette a bit further in then slip deeper with the hand you have in her rectum, then follow the hand with the pipette, alternately repeating the motions of hand and pipette until you can feel that the tip of the pipette is located roughly in the middle of the uterine body, just before it branches into the paired uterine horns. By this time, your arm is probably inside her rectum past the elbow. (Side note: By exploring even deeper in the same fashion, you can follow her entire reproductive tract all the way to her ovaries, which is what a vet is doing when he palpates a mare to determine when she's due to ovulate - a "ripe", soon-to-burst follicle on an ovary has a VERY distinctive feel, and can easily be detected. Some mares are laid out such that doing it requires your arm to be in nearly to the shoulder before you can make contact with an ovary - which is why equine OB gloves go all the way to the shoulder, if not beyond) Once the end of the pipette is positioned in the body of the uterus, you press the plunger, squeeze the bulb, pull the trigger, or use whatever other method of activation your particular brand of inseminating gear employs to empty the pipette, depositing the semen it contains directly inside the body of the uterus. The procedure is nearly done - Gently withdraw the pipette, then once again grasp the cervix through the rectal wall, and gently knead and roll the cervix in your fingers for a few seconds (some do this, some don't - Opinions vary as to whether it is or isn't needed - some claim that it helps to close the cervical opening and may trigger contractions of the uterus that will transport the semen deeper into the uterine horns (where fertilization is most likely to take place) some say it's a waste of time and effort. When I do an AI, I do it, on the "it might help, and so long as it's done gently, probably won't do any harm" theory) then slowly and gently (ideally, in sync with the natural contractions of her rectum, so that she essentially "poops out" your arm and hand) withdraw your hand from her rectum. Don't make the withdrawal overly fast - just snatching it out can cause her anything from "some discomfort" (which in turn might well cause *YOU* some serious discomfort in the form of a kick to the shins...) to actual tearing of the rectum, which has the far-too-real potential to be fatal. Notice that, at no time during the procedure, does a human appendage enter the mare's vagina - only the pipette full of semen. But you're likely to be elbow deep or beyond in her rectum.

      #13
      This thread turned out to be very good, though it had a rocky start.

      To get a broader idea of how human animal relations can exist do some reading about Columbia, Argentina and Venezuela. For centuries it has been normal for young boys to first have sex with animals to get some practice before meeting their future girl friends. This may or may not have started due to religious concerns about celibacy until marriage. Or under age pregnancies or even STD's. Or those excuses were added later.

      There is a documentary forbidden donkey love, the men claim they never go back to donkey sex once they are married but you just know they don't stop. All the young women know that their new boy friend has been bonking animals for years.

      The guys from The Grand Tour did an episode on Columbia and the interpreter said that the men still make love to donkeys after they marry but only female donkeys.

      This level of acceptance would be great in the rest of the world. It is sort like you are expected to do it but no one cares if you do or don't as long as you don't harm the animal.

      There is never a question of can the animal consent in writing like the modern world wants. It is yes an animal can defend itself if it objects but if you do it right the animal is happy. The animals welfare has to be looked out for as your livestock are a very expensive part of life. Not like the western world where animals are disposable.

      The rest of their culture treats animal sex like human sex no one talks about it outside the bedroom.

      In the western world they look for excuses to stop it from happening. We are all mammals with similar bone counts similar organs and similar brains from our shared evolution. It is strange that we try to hide that history.

      Comment


      • JonathanSmith
        JonathanSmith commented
        Editing a comment
        "this level of acceptance" "expected to do it" i dont want be expected to have sex with donkeys thank you

      • Black_Unicorn
        Black_Unicorn commented
        Editing a comment
        You missed the point, if you don't want to you don't have to. Those that do want to do it, should not be persecuted as evil or sick. Which is how gay people were treated for centuries.

        The "expected to" comment relates to the countries where it is acceptable to love animals rather than have teen pregnancies or STD's. In a western world view we just deal with teen pregnancies and STD's after the fact rather than the solution that these countries use to reduce it.

        I assume you are not gay and have no intention of having a homosexual relationship, If you are not zoo I would not expect you to have a zoosexual relationship.
    Working...
    X