...but animals can. I sent this response to the author of this post.

Zoophilia and Pedophilia
This is another topic I touched on in another post, a long time ago, but given the amount of discussion I've had on it recently I feel I ought to talk more about it.

Almost invariably, like some sort of sexual Godwin's Law, when debating with someone about the morality of zoosexuality my opponent will claim that zooerasty (or "be(a)stiality" as it is far more often termed, which as far as I'm concerned is like calling anal sex "assrape") is just the same as pederasty because animals, like children, have no concept of sex and are too uneducated to appropriately respond to it.

There are many arguments against this. Most shouldn't be necessary: any ethologist, comparative psychologist, or animal breeder will know from study or observation that animals frequently proposition others for sex, have sex, react favourably towards sex, and eventually come back again for more sex. Sex can even be used as a reward stimulus in Pavlovian conditioning. Humans too. And anyone with any knowledge of natural selection would surmise that if every animal on the planet apart from humans was not capable of showing sexual readiness, propositioning others for sex, and enjoying sex, then biodiversity would be very slim indeed. And this enjoyment of sex is definitely not limited to same-species intercourse.

But let's assume correctly that these assertions are not enough for many people, who believe that the reason children should not have sex with adults, and therefore the reason animals should not have sex with humans, is because children do not have the mental capacity to understand it. This is true, but what these individuals do not realize is that this truth does not extend to mature animals, and that this fact is readily observable. The easiest way to find the onset of sexual interest is to examine sex hormone levels. These hormones are necessary not just directly to the sex drive but also to the development of various somatic and neurological structures. We can actually see a child's brain readying itself for sexual intercourse, and this does not take place until puberty. The same goes for any mammal, and the chemicals (mainly estrogen and testosterone) and brain structures (especially the hypothalamus and other subcortical structures in the forebrain, such as the pituitary gland, nucleus accumbens, and caudate nucleus) involved are universal, with only slight changes to relevant structures and none suggesting any human exceptionalism.



There have been organizations of pedophiles who have suggested otherwise. Perhaps most famous is the Party for Neighbourly Love, Freedom, and Diversity (Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit) in the Netherlands, in existence from 2006-2010. It advocated initially for a drastic reduction of age-of-consent and eventually its elimination, and it and other organizations have released pamphlets, for adults and children, with the suggestion that pre-pubescent youth can desire and even frequently proposition adults for sex. Is this any different from what zoosexuals say about animals?

I would naturally argue that it is. Active pedophiles tend to view entirely innocuous gestures as sexual proposition: an eight-year-old girl does a headstand and inadvertently shows her panties, or a six-year-old boy urinates at a campground, unaware or uncaring of his visibility. themselves, of course, Children don't respond sexually when they see one another's undergarments, and even were adults to perform them, these gestures would never be recognized as sexual overtures. The assumption would then have to be that not only are children capable of making such overtures, but have a far more complex social and sexual mind than do their post-pubescent counterparts that belies the fact that they may not get why peeing in public should be embarrassing.

It is sometimes suggested that prepubescent children masturbate or even engage in sexual conduct with one another, but this is a misrepresentation: while children may touch themselves, or touch one another in what is called "sex play" by developmental psychologists, these never result in orgasm, nor do they ever result in consistent sexual attention. It is best regarded as exploratory, in the same fashion that a seven-year-old child who plays around with the terminal of a Linux box is not intending to learn to superdo his way into becoming a hacking sensation. He's just curious about what's going on.

Animals are entirely different: the signals they give off, whether they be humping, displaying of genitalia, or other relevant actions, are unmistakably sexual in nature and could not conceivably be perceived to mean anything else. As expected, animals respond sexually to one another when presented with these signals. And unlike children, and like adult humans, they seem to benefit from consensual sexual intercourse physically and psychologically, whether their partner is of their own species or not. It should be noted that there are many long-term physical and psychological consequences for victims of child sex abuse; indeed, the majority of individuals diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder are victims of child sex abuse.

Finally, there is the question of authority. This, I think, is best answered with observation and common sense: while a child, even if he or she really does not want to do something, such as going to school, washing the dishes, or eating their broccoli, they will usually do so when told to by an adult, especially one with authority, such as a parent or a teacher. This is because we as humans have a very developed social intelligence; we have language, we have culture as a result, and we have very complex social norms that often even supercede basic needs and conditioning: that child will eat his broccoli even if it makes him vomit later, because his mother told him to.

Anyone with an animal, on the other hand, even an animal traditionally regarded as very loyal, like a dog, will know that there are many things they will simply not do without a fight no matter how much they seem to dote on you otherwise. Whether it be going to the vet, going outside when it's cold out, or swallowing a pill, their resistance is clear even if they eventually give in. With animals such as cats or horses, this resistance is even more clear, and more likely to result in injury to your person. While there may be a social hierarchy in the mind of your animal, then, the importance of that power you have over them is not nearly as important as their basic needs to not be ill, not be cold, or indeed, not be used or abused sexually. Any animal, particularly a female, will make it incredibly clear that she is not in the mood for sexual intercourse, regardless of how much she loves you: as an adult, she knows what it is, and knows that now is not the time, and that knowledge is more important than any thought that you might take away her walk privileges.

Which brings up the notion that an animal will jump to these conclusions in the first place: we don't tend to punish our animals for resisting when we want them to go outside, or take a pill. We just make them go outside, or take the pill. This is of course different for children: "If you don't stop whining and eat your greens, you won't have TV for a week," isn't that uncommon of a statement. Children are trained early on to do everything their parents, and other authority figures, want, for fear of punishment. We are far more lenient on our animals, so why should an animal ever even imagine that should they not consent to sex with us that something bad will happen? If anything, this is much more likely to happen with our (adult!) human partners, who have been educated socially to believe that sex is necessary for a stable relationship. To imagine that animals have any such concept is, frankly, to afford them some very hefty intuition about how our modern human culture is organized. This is not to say that we do not have some level of control over the lives of our animals, and therefore responsibility particularly to take care of them and to ensure they act appropriately in the public space, it is not to all the same extents as children with developing biology and views of the world.

That's the end of my argument. This took a lot of time out of a day that maybe should have been focused on something that will be productive in my career or for my family, given the time of year (Happy Holidays, zetas & friends!) but given the discussion that has been happening recently, I really felt I needed to update the blog again.

I would just like to finish on one note: despite the abuse and lunacy propagated by the most visible of pedophiles, I believe the average pedophile is someone to be pitied. The PNVD actually advocated for a ban of zooerasty in the Netherlands, interestingly enough, all the while proclaiming that they should be allowed to have sex with prepubescent children; however, the large majority of pedophiles are not only fully aware that pederasty is grievous abuse, but are indeed terrified and often traumatized by the idea that they may someday lose control and be perpetrators of such abuse. They have nowhere to turn in our current social system, and even mental health professionals that are willing and capable of assisting pedophiles are few and far between. So while it has nothing at all to do with zoosexuality, I would like to appeal to the readers of this blog to empathize more with those sad individuals who are cursed with a sexual attraction to prepubescent youth. It is only through this empathy, and the resulting support, that these individuals can be helped, and thus child sex abuse prevented for the future. Thank you.

While I do agree you should be allowed to have sexual interactions with animals where you do not force yourself on them or harm them I have many gripes with a lot of your assumptions. First off I will refer to myself as AK47, I will refer to pedophiles as minor attracted adults (MAA)

because children do not have the mental capacity to understand it (sexual interaction). This is true

You being so used to people making up lies and distortions about your attraction that you might be able to think outside of the box a little bit. Human children (over the age of 3) have higher intelligence and mental capacity than the animals you want to be sexual with. When you get to the late preteens there is especially no question about this. So if a child "can't understand sex" neither can the animal. Lucky for both you and me and everyone else, sex is not something that needs deep understanding. It is natural to animals and humans (of any age) it is instinctual. Often children are from birth indoctrinated to fear sexuality and avoid it and never given words to form concrete thoughts around sex and sexuality. Thus this gives the illusion that they "can't understand it" when that is false. If I take a child, never explain basketball to him, punish him when he talks about basketball or tries to play, react very negatively when he tries to bring it up to me, then he will seem to not be able to understand basketball either.

We can actually see a child's brain readying itself for sexual intercourse, and this does not take place until puberty.

There is more to sex than just sexual intercourse and baby making. Look at Bonobos, one of the humans closest relatives in the animal kingdom. This also seems to ignore the fact that, children capable of sexual pleasure and orgasm from toddler years onward (sometimes earlier). Is this not evidence that children can be sexual?

and brain structures

All of children's brain structures and other bodily structures are not fully developed. This does not mean they can't use those structures and in fact, humans use those structures to help them fully develop. The repression of sexuality in children is actually likely to stunt healthy sexual growth and explain partly why people are so messed up sexually in adult life. Do you say we should ban children from anything that involves emotional investment? After all the parts of the brain that handle emotion are not fully developed.

Active pedophiles tend to view entirely innocuous gestures as sexual proposition: an eight-year-old girl does a headstand and inadvertently shows her panties, or a six-year-old boy urinates at a campground, unaware or uncaring of his visibility.

No. And my friend if you took time to talk with some of us you would see we actively try to get other minor attracted adults to understand your point. I know damn well when my little girl friend (when she was 8, she's 10 now) was playing and her skirt rides up revealing her panties that she wasn't trying to be sexual. However when she said "hey AK47 look" and pulled her pants down then her panties to flaunt her butt that is very likely there were sexual implications. Never mind the time she told me to rub her vagina. I said no, because if we were found out she would be sent to abuse therapy and I would be jailed just for an enjoyable consensual experience. Please don't assume that I think these flirtations and requests meant that I could just fuck her. Absolutely not. Just like if an adult female flaunts her butt a little bit at the club does not mean she wants a guy to hope on her and fuck her either.

Children don't respond sexually when they see one another's undergarments, and even were adults to perform them, these gestures would never be recognized as sexual overtures.

This isn't true. Children get horny, especially by mid childhood. This isn't debatable honestly, it is a fact. Little boys get erections and little girls get wet. Once again especially by the late preteens (8-12). Of course they can't recognize sexual gestures (well thanks to ease of access to all kinds of information via the internet this is changing) because they are in a state of forced sexual ignorance. Again, if I never teach my son about basketball and act aggressively when he tries to learn, of course he won't understand the different nuances in basketball movements etc.

It is sometimes suggested that prepubescent children masturbate or even engage in sexual conduct with one another,

Suggested? No this is known to happen, a lot, and it is also known that it is punished, heavily in most of the western world. So of course kids will repress their sexuality.

while children may touch themselves, or touch one another in what is called "sex play" by developmental psychologists, these never result in orgasm, nor do they ever result in consistent sexual attention.

Now you are making things up because this is out right not true. I say this as a licensed clinical social worker who works with children and studied child psychology heavily in college. As I said, children are capable of orgasm (dry for boys) usually by the toddler years to early childhood and often before that. Punishment, negative reactions from parents, and forced ignorance are the reasons kids never give consistent sexual attention.

It is best regarded as exploratory, in the same fashion that a seven-year-old child who plays around with the terminal of a Linux box is not intending to learn to superdo his way into becoming a hacking sensation. He's just curious about what's going on.

Poor analogy. Sexual stimulation requires rubbing and a few minutes, knowledge to become a hacking sensation requires training and practice and work. Children can do that by the way. Also curiosity leads to increased exploration, more involved actions and questions, etc. A child will eventually begin to seek out more "sexual" actions for pleasure and a loving caring adult can guide them safely and give them useful information.

Animals are entirely different: the signals they give off, whether they be humping, displaying of genitalia, or other relevant actions, are unmistakably sexual in nature and could not conceivably be perceived to mean anything else.

Children do those things though. Children flash genitals, they hump and grind, they make requests, but they are more often than not shamed and punished for it so they repress their sexuality.

And unlike children, and like adult humans, they seem to benefit from consensual sexual intercourse physically and psychologically, whether their partner is of their own species or not.

For humans (and I assume animals) sexual intercourse is not the only kind of sexual interaction we can partake in. Also children can benefit from various sexual activities physically through physical pleasure. They can benefit mentally from bonding, knowledge gained, releases of oxytocin, etc. There is absolutely no research showing that children who were involved in a consensual sexual interaction hat they enjoyed were harmed intrinsically by the sexual interaction. Iatrogenic harm is, however, very common.

It should be noted that there are many long-term physical and psychological consequences for victims of child sex abuse; indeed, the majority of individuals diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder are victims of child sex abuse.

Yes, sexual abuse, not consensual sexual interaction. No minor attracted adult (well the sane ones anyway) argues for the ability to rape or molest children. They often seek to allow children sexual rights and rights over their own body. The right to say NO as well as YES. Almost all studies that talk about child sexuality and adult interaction never account for consent vs force, never account for social/cultural views, and that is a terrible offense scientifically. Imagine if I did a study on homosexual interactions and included consensual interactions with rape. Then said that based on my research all sexual interactions between homosexuals were harmful based on my analysis. I'd be laughed out of my license. This happens with almost every study on adult/child sexuality. Let's not forget, studies that DO control for abuse vs consent find that children who consented were not harmed psychologically. People who make these studies are attacked by the mob, and even condemned by the government. I can offer you some resources if you are interested.

This, I think, is best answered with observation and common sense: while a child, even if he or she really does not want to do something, such as going to school, washing the dishes, or eating their broccoli, they will usually do so when told to by an adult, especially one with authority, such as a parent or a teacher. This is because we as humans have a very developed social intelligence; we have language, we have culture as a result, and we have very complex social norms that often even supercede basic needs and conditioning: that child will eat his broccoli even if it makes him vomit later, because his mother told him to.

My friend... have you ever interacted with a child? Children put up fights all the time which is why "how to control your children" is a multimillion dollar business model. Books, tv shows, workshops, movies, etc. When a kid does not like something, they make it known. Forcing them to then do it, is not consensual and in the case of sexual interaction would be molestation/rape. You have no argument from me there. However, just assuming a child will say okay because it is an adult? That simply isn't true. Humans are naturally independent and rebellious. We desire freedom and autonomy at all ages and especially during childhood the toddler and adolescent years specifically. Besides, I am a youth rights advocate myself as are many minor attracted adults. We feel children should be (need to be for mental health) raised with more autonomy.

Anyone with an animal, on the other hand, even an animal traditionally regarded as very loyal, like a dog, will know that there are many things they will simply not do without a fight no matter how much they seem to dote on you otherwise. Whether it be going to the vet, going outside when it's cold out, or swallowing a pill, their resistance is clear even if they eventually give in.

It is the same (and more pronounced) with children. God damn it some kids throw a fucking hissy fit if you don't look at them the right way. Dogs on the other hand are bred to be submissive and loyal, humans are evolutionarily resilient, independent, and rebellious against strong handed authority. How you described animals acting is exactly what kids will do. They will fight and resist even if they eventually give in.

Any animal, particularly a female, will make it incredibly clear that she is not in the mood for sexual intercourse, regardless of how much she loves you: as an adult, she knows what it is, and knows that now is not the time, and that knowledge is more important than any thought that you might take away her walk privileges.

Do you interact only with children horrible beaten by authoritarian parents on a daily basis? Children fight their parents every damn day about brushing teeth, cleaning up, eating vegetables. If someone threatens to take a child's object away for a blow job that is black mail and that will always be illegal and wrong and I would beat someone who did that to a child.

Children are trained early on to do everything their parents, and other authority figures, want, for fear of punishment.

And if you interact with kids you will find that children resist this "training" early on and into adulthood. The only children I have meant that are compliant are kids who have been beaten into compliance or have respectful parents who are not ridiculously demanding and don't make ridiculous demands and generally treat their kids as equals.

This comparison you have going with "power, obedience, and authority" is not good for your argument. I tell my dog "sit!" in a demanding tone and he fucking sits and gives me paw without me asking. I tell my little girl friend "sit!" in a demanding tone and she says "fuck off, why don't you sit". She has a colorful vocabulary.

This is not to say that we do not have some level of control over the lives of our animals, and therefore responsibility particularly to take care of them and to ensure...

... and to ensure they are safe, happy, having fun, and above all consenting. Applies to all humans and animals.

I would just like to finish on one note: despite the abuse and lunacy propagated by the most visible of pedophiles

Most visible because they are the ones splashed all over the news sites and TV. Any good pedosexual is told to be a manipulative lying psychopath. It's be like if the only thing you heard about zoosexuals is when they rape and murder animals and then people assuming that's what all of you were like because that is all they heard. Imagine now when someone like you tries to bring a voice of reason they ban you from the internet, raid your home looking for child porn, interrogate any child you have ever associated with and scaring those children, and splash your face all over the news as a rapist sicko.

I believe the average pedophile is someone to be pitied.

Do not pity me. I am confident and happy with my sexuality. I love that I love little girls more than most people and it brings me and it brings the little girls I know joy and happiness. I don't want to explain my life story but it has truly made me a better person.

Empathize with me, we who are misunderstood, we who are thought to only care about fucking those we love, we who have to watch those we love abused by those who claim to protect them. We who are thought to be sickos because of love and caring.

The PNVD actually advocated for a ban of zooerasty in the Netherlands

And they were, in my opinion, wrong for this. Misguided.

the large majority of pedophiles are not only fully aware that pederasty is grievous abuse

No, the sad thing is that they think it is always abuse and they think that they are monsters and terrible people. This mentality creates the monsters.

They have nowhere to turn in our current social system, and even mental health professionals that are willing and capable of assisting pedophiles are few and far between.

On this point you are correct but understand that your views help in propagating this awful situation.

I would like to appeal to the readers of this blog to empathize more with those sad individuals who are cursed with a sexual attraction to prepubescent youth. It is only through this empathy, and the resulting support, that these individuals can be helped, and thus child sex abuse prevented for the future.

Now you are beginning to piss me off and thankfully this is the end of your post. You do now what the homosexuals did to us. I hate them for it. I can't help it. I can't stand most homosexuals. However, I will fight for their right to love and be loved, I will fight for your right to love and be loved. Even as you sit there regurgitating lies that get people like me sent to prison and the ones we love and who love us back into abuse therapy that scars them for life.

Just think on what I have said here.