I'm a bit confused by all of your points Una and we've strayed from the debate a whole lot. Let's try to remember that the focus of this discussion is whether zoosexuality is wrong. I don't really care if animals can't engage in endless and senseless debates on the morality of abortion with us; ironically a concept that we "intelligent" humans can't agree on either, I also don't care whether you have absolute proof that some animals are more dominant than the other, I wouldn't care if animal behaviorists were infallible or if they were actually unicorns, I don't really care about dogs humping each other for whatever reason they would like too and I wouldn't care if a Californian sea otter was seen smashing mussels with his cock. What I do care about is how any of these are connected to whether you think bestiality or zoosexuality is wrong or not. You clearly seem to be avoiding the question. And to make my self clear, when I say wrong, I mean wrong in every and any definition that you so may wish to choose. You have so far provided me with nothing on this main subject and every attempt to provide me with something has been concepts which also apply or can happen in human sex.

Do you have anything to offer the topic at all, other than avoiding commiting to anything and not making any claims at all?

Again, before you say anything get this straight. There are humans that don't have any understanding on the opinions of abortion, STDs, Christianity and generally any concept you can come up with. So why is it necessary for a creature to have the faculty to understand them? Unless you also argue that it is wrong for ignorant people to have sex.



Also, I have a concern with your statement.
You have an amazing tendency to contradict yourself. You said that "An appeal to authority would have been- statement x is true because person x is an authority" and then you contradicted that by saying "So if you want to pursue this line of argument you would need to prove that I said all animal behaviourists are infallible which I haven't."

Those two contradict each other, you don't need to say someone is infallible to make an appeal to authority argument.

Nevertheless, what you said is wrong. An appeal to authority argument is this:

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We will accuse you of this if you suggest it, you do not literally have to say "This person is infallible, look what he says". Arguments in the form:

"Concept x is true"
"But Person b says it's false"
"Relying on Person b for truth is an appeal to authority, because there's nothing to lead us to believe that Person b is actually correct."
"I'm not saying he's right, I'm just saying he said it."

Very tedious mode of debate, very very tedious indeed. Nevertheless, I'm prepared to accept that you're just randomly saying irrelevant things in this debate.

Tuttles, you agree?

You are asking the forum to explain why zoosexuality is wrong. My argument is that animals lack the capabilities to express themselves to give informed consent or to withhold consent; and humans lack the ability to interpret animal understanding. Communication between animal and human is not yet effective enough to form a consensual sexual relationship- thus why bestiality is wrong.
An animal can't comprehend the prospect of sexual relationship with a human any more that it can comprehend concepts of Christianity- thus why I used the examples. A human can not interpret whether or not a sow is aroused because of instinct or intelligence. But hey if you don't believe that an animal's understanding of sex ;or a human's understanding of sexual animal behaviour is not reverent to the discussion then call a mod out to decide.

Woah, if you want be nasty that's fine but don't expect me to play with you from now on.

Yes you did....I quote: I am claiming we know nothing about animals and their cognitive abilities and sapience as you so put it while you are stating that it is silly to claim we know nothing. I am also claiming that we assume a lot about animals but have no way of proving our being correct about our assumptions.


>.> I wasn't asking for proof that a human observed the animals. I am simply asking for proof that the explanations offered by the human are indeed true.

How do you know that? How can you possibly know whether or not an animal understands if you have not been that animal? Maybe animals just don't care about the morals we assign ourselves to govern our lives? Can you prove me wrong?

I never claimed that zoophiles understood animal behavior ._. I simply stated that zoophiles may identify themselves as animals rather than humans. I even gave an example about homosexuality....homosexuals identify with those of the same sex. Identify meaning...being what they are identifying with. So a person who identifies as a dog, would consider their self as a dog of some sort. I am not claiming someone who thinks they are a dog can read other dog's minds and intentions...that would require some gift like ESP. Not even humans can truly know another human's intentions. A woman could verbally consent to having sex with a man, but truly she is not consenting in her mind and rather planning on stabbing him in the chest while they screw. So I am not sure what your point is when you say we can't understand their intentions as we cannot even understand other human's intentions.

You will not condemn medieval people for their lack of knowledge....
but you will condemn 21st century people for their lack of knowledge....

Why are you contradicting yourself?

1. You can't prove it.
2. Even if you could...so what?

I am not asserting that we can interpret origins at all...>_>...in fact I am arguing that point against you as you are claiming animal behaviorists are capable of doing this through observation alone.

Like I said above, humans cannot even understand other humans' intentions. What exactly is your point?


Your argument would work better if you provided specific context. I don't care if you are anti-hunting against castration, eat organic, etc. Thats not what this thread is about. This thread is about the legal aspect. That requires a society involvement factor. Individual opinions are irrelevant.

Bestiality in United States is ILLEGAL.

1. Hunting is legal.
2. Castration is legal.
3. Pesticides and Traps are legal.
4. Keeping a human caged in a room is the equivalent of keeping an animal caged in a house. Why is one a punishable offense, and the other encouraged?

Please argue in context.

No you can't. The evidence available is limited by the human's understanding of an animal's capability through observation alone. Your whole premise is based on observation...nothing more. A woman that is witnessed being chained up, beaten, and knifed while a male is having sex with her would be observed as abuse by any "vanilla" passerby and they will probably call the cops. This of course, could be entirely unnecessary, as through the assumptions of observation they were wrong. In actuality the woman was thoroughly enjoying herself because she is a masochistic submissive that loves being dominated and hurt. >.>

I never asserted that. I am arguing against that point as I explained earlier. You are the one claiming that animal behaviorists have the ability to do this ._.

I lumped a couple of posts together to reduce size and make it easier to answer :)

It is silly to claim we know nothing when we have theories and hypothesis and studies which attempts to explain animal behaviour and cognition through various academic approaches. Which is just the same for any other academic field of study like sociology, psychology, biology ect. As I said before we can not deal in absolute truths we can only deal in approximations. I mentioned it before but I find it hard to believe that you distrust studies into animal behaviour when you referenced one of your premises to such a study- the nobel award winning piece about bee social patterns of behaviour.
How do I know an animal does not have insight into human values ect- well it's common sense. Morals are not innate it is something we are taught. Do you remember when you found out how babies were? It wasn't something instinctive was it. An animal can only have opinion x if it knows of matter x and how is it going to learn that?

Homosexuals are human- it's just a hunch but a human might have some insight into what it is like to be human. Where in life are we exposed to animal cultures? People who feel they have an affinity with animals don't necessarily understand animals. For example Timothy Treadwell felt an affinity with bears and choose to live with them and they ended up eating him. Poor guy-rip.


Because these two very different circumstances. One is a micro-organism and the other is an act with a huge moral dilemma attached to it. The two are not the same it's not like I'm saying the victims of the black plague are blameless while those suffering from syphilis in medieval times deserved it. Where as the concept of bestiality was known about in medieval times.


We can assert different types of behaviour, some are more easy than others. For example a chick learns through imitation to pick up grain because it has witnessed it's mother exhibiting that behaviour. Where as a chick hatched in isolation will ignore the grain on the floor. Other more tricky ones would things like animals using tools. So a certain type of woodpecker is observed inserting a twig into an ants nest then thrusting the twig back and fourth so the ants pour out the hole and woodpecker gets dinner. So is this the product of imitation or trial and error? That's a bit more difficult to speculate. Science is methodology of observations, I don't know how familar you are with the various academic approaches to animal behaviour but you would be gravely mistaken into thinking that it is purely observing animal behaviour.

That too is a ridiculous assertion. We have the ability to make our intentions known- i.e I love you! But sometimes we choose not to do this, there is the age old joke about women- yes means no, no means yes and maybe means no way. It's not true so don't eat me, but you get what I mean.




If this thread was about the legal aspect it would have ended in bestiality is wrong because it is illegal. This is the first time you ever mentioned legality and what has law got to do with human standard? People break the law don't they? We still get murders, drug addicts, and the general deviants sort. Plus I'm not even from the US, laws vary across the world. Again this universal notion of standards and laws is ridiculous. China doesn't exercise human rights so does that mean the rest of world shouldn't either. Just because one bad thing happens doesn't mean the logical follow through is to let the rest of world go to shit. Gawd :(


The whole of science is based on observation- does that make it defunct? We can use science models about the structure and evolution of the brain to gain insight into the intelligence an animal possesses, e.g. triune brain.

As I said before they gather an indefinite number of facts and make generalisations from them. Read their research and they'll tell you that themselves. I've always maintained that animals and humans lack the ability to communicate with each other successfully. Where as you are saying person x feels an affinity with animal x therefore we must go with their judgement and let them do the nasty animal x because if we don't we are condemning to a life of misery and other baw.

I don't understand why you (or anyone) would think a concept such as "informed consent" is necessary where we can easily discern what an animal wants or doesn't want from it's behavior. Some people achieve outstanding levels of communication between themselves and their animals and most people quickly learn what foods an animal likes or dislikes just by the primitive mode of communication emotional response. Also the idea that an animal can't comprehend the prospect of a sexual relationship with a human is moot and an ipsedixit, that's basically your opinion, what reason do I have to believe it? Comparing sex with a human to Christianity isn't making your point any clearer either...

Moot again, arousal is not the basis for determining sexual consent, as I showed earlier. Women have been observed as being aroused by copulating bonobos and homosexuality even if their particular preference is heterosexual, does this mean they are consenting to sex with non-human apes and other women? No... So whether we can tell if a sow is aroused because of instinct or not is useless to the discussion and useless in general. Human's react on instinct too.

I'm not being nasty, I'm sorry you see it that way, I was just stating my honest perspective on your posts.

In order to want sex you need to know what sex is in the first place. How can you want something that you don’t know about? Thus why animal comprehension of the idea of sex is crucial in the aspect of wanting. As I said to Tutela do you remember when first found out about how babies were made? This sort of knowledge is not innate, it is acquired and that my friend is not an opinion just good ole country common sense. So when was the last time you sat down with your dog to talk about the birds and the bees. The idea of not having an incling about the depths of animal understanding is also poo poo. We can look evolutionary psychology and evolutionary models of the brain to make educated guesses.
Point deux- bravo we cannot tell why the sow is aroused. That was my whole point. So how do we know if they want sex or are just following instinctive procedure? We can’t. Thus why we can’t rely on human judgement to decide whether an animal wants sex. We can probably make assertions about what type of food they like through trial and error- so I know my dog hates mints but loves carrots. But it’s not really the same, you can’t exactly sample sex and spit it out.
Finally if you are going to make claims like, animals might be able to understand sex and animals are capable of wanting sex,, don’t be so shocked when people, like me, go hai let’s talk about animal behaviour and learning processes to see if your logic bares up to scrutiny! Kay :)


When you tell me my contribution to the topic has been a load of old baw then it maybe interpreted as ever so slightly condescending and rude.
Una will not be mugged off again :talk2hand:
As it's the Sabbath and I'm feeling very Christ-like today, I will absolve you. :squee:
And I mean that with love :heart:
(but not 'that' kind of love O_o)

Before I go on with my point of view...
The article you posted... TLDR.
Perhaps you should have summarized the main ideas into a few short sentences?

And now what I say about zoo-sexuality.

Of course it's wrong. There shouldn't be anyone who thinks it right, I don't believe in God, but if he was real, would he approve of this? If God wanted us to attempt to mate with other species, would he have made other species? I think not. Maybe if he did want us to, he'd have made us able to understand animals, and the mating the same way.
Compare how a bird and a horse mate. They wouldn't work together, so obviously he doesn't want inter species mating.

I actually believe in evolution, and on that side of things, it's still wrong.
Just because we're related to monkeys doesn't make it okay to try and mate with them. It's like trying to say touching a five-year-old is okay.

What do you mean? Animals have sex with each other? How do they not know about sex?

Well actually, 2 people can have consensual sex without any words being exchanged. Do you claim that an animal would commit to having unwilling sex with a human?

But animals have sex with each other, again... and they can be homosexual, they masturbate etc. These are signs that they receive some form of reward for sex. What says they don't?



Well thank you ^^

----------

@Jymphoni

The point of this thread is to display to people the flimsiness of any logical basis in most systems of morality. The fact that you're relying on a god you don't believe in for this topic isn't helping much, but let's address your points.


Let us remember that "species" is a human definition and also that inter-species mating does occur in nature and is a proponent of evolution IF a fertile offspring is produced, in the cases where no fertile offspring is capable of being produced (or not offspring at all), this is no different than a case of homosexuality or using contraceptives, so you shouldn't have a problem with it. If god wanted us to do those things why wouldn't he make us have a natural condom?

Communication is not a problem as we mostly communicate via body language anyway. This is why two people that can't speak the same language would still be able to have sex.

Lastly, giving a bizarre scenario like a bird and a horse only suggest that a more fitting scenario like a man and a horse is okay.

But children aren't animals, we wouldn't let children have sex among themselves, but animals do. Hence they are able to make sexual choices that children aren't allowed too.

Unless they've had their cherry popped, they are not going to know. Think about domesticated animals like dogs and cats that have not come into contact with other animals.



People are a little different, we have foreplay ect. We don't randomly hump each other. It is a possibility. As I said before some animals such as wolves hump other animals to established dominance. A dog for example may interpret the experience as an act to establish dominance opposed to a sexual act. As I pointed out to inertia learned helplessness is a possibility.

I think as my first point suggested that is a generalisation, not all animals have had sexual experiences. Sexual pleasure is attainable through sex and I have no doubt that animals are capable of experiencing sexual pleasure.

Your welcome! :P

deleting this because yikes

I've mentioned this several times, so I'll just quote myself;

My dog hates having a bath, but he never fights back. He hates being taken to the vet and having injections but he never fights back. Why? Because he has been conditioned not to fight back.


An animal doesn't reach sexually maturity then suddenly have a magical sex ed vision. There is nothing remotely magically about their behaviour- it's instinct initiated by lots of hormones and other such complex bio-chem gravy. Mammals share the same reproductive system- did you have a magical vision when you first started your period?

How can they know what they want and don't want without knowing 'what' is. How are you going to explain to an animal complex ideas?

i know you can still see it in quotes in other people's posts lol but i'm deleting this. jesus. 100% disagree with past me

Don't worry, it is massive argument. If I see something I've mentioned before I'll just quote myself- I'm too lazy to retype it :)
My dog knows what he likes and what he dislikes through experience. He didn't like baths until he had his first one. Just like the vet. Plus some animals consider humping as an act of dominance. So to a dog their owner might be establishing their dominance over it rather then making love to it. He doesn't fight because he has been taught to be submissive.
We all possess instinctual behaviour. But that not the same as understanding why we do that behaviour. An animal will follow instinctual procedure, so for example when a sow is in heat if you stroke it's back the sow will go rigid. Your not doing anything sexual to it and there is no boar insight. The sow is acting on instinct. She has no insight into why. If she knew what sex was she be able to distinguish the difference between a boar and a stroke.


merci :boogie:

@Zegummi: Are all mine and Inertias posts invisible? We are debating for it as well. You are not the only one lol. As soon as I have access to a computer at work again I will certainly be back >.>

But we can't simply single out one group of animals that are cut off from communication with their species, we're talking about animals in general here. If they're not sex-aware, they're not likely to want or allow you to have sex with them.



This is irrelevant, besides animals have foreplay too and exhibit signals, signs and actions that they are ready for or wanting sex, not just humans. As for dogs, they do generally hump each other commonly, but penetration doesn't always follow. "Learned helplessness" and other possibilities aren't helping the discussion at all because we want to deal with facts that have at least passed a degree of reasonable doubt here, not possibilities.

The claim isn't that every animal has had sex, but that all animals have sex. There's a difference, the first denotes that every creature alive has had sex, including young and unborn ones, which isn't what I or anyone means at all. The latter provides the generalisation that all species of animals engage in sexual intercourse (naturally excluding asexual lifeforms) and does not require individual animal lives to be invoked in the terms at all.

Are you saying the former or the latter is incorrect?

Okay. I'm bored. Time to put in the other side.

I'm totally FOR bestiality. I don't see anything wrong with it.
We're all mammals. We all use sex for both pleasure and reproduction.
Some animals also prostitute themselves. Why should it be wrong?

That single group is the most likely to be the victims. It's not like you are going to hop into a zoo or into the forest and find yourself a tame wild animal- plus wild animals are not that clean and might have rabies O_o- I jest but you get the idea. Domesticated animals are tame and available from your local pet store.


As I said before you are confusing instinctual behaviour for intelligent behaviour. The sow is reacting to instinct. A human differs from the sow because it can engage in and learn new methods of foreplay from porn, magazines ect.
Learned helplessness is not a hypothetical scenario. It did happen- I don't believe it was ethical and I hope it is never repeated, but it did show insight into animal depression. Basically an animal is abused and it becomes submissive and does not fight back. Why is this important, because a human can abuse an animal and mistake it's submission for wanting. This whole notion that the animal will fight back is ridiculous. A domesticated animal is conditioned not to fight back.

All animals are capable of having sex. Just because they have that capacity does not mean they want to have sex- rape does happen in the animal kingdom. Even if they do want to have sex, would they want to have it with a human? What if they are not sexually attracted humans? What if they start a relationship with a human and then the animal decides it does not want to continue with it- where does that leave the owner? What happens to the animal?

delete

But this concept also applies to humans and makes little difference.


Animals don't learn from magazines specifically because they don't have a system of writing that they understand. But they do acquire traits and learn new tricks from each other, which is the same concept. Humans also have instincttual sexual responses, which make this point meaningless.

This is abusive conditioning where the animal initially shows it's discontent and then less and less and less. The same behavior exhibited in oppressed human beings to the extent that human beings can tend to eventually enjoy their oppression.

Please provide me with something that doesn't apply to humans also.

Same.... concept applies to human beings. Just because human beings have sex doesn't mean they want it. There is such a thing as asexuality. Rape happens in the human world too.

As for relationships, this happens with humans too in marriages and similar circumstances world wide where divorce isn't exactly an option. Does this make human sex wrong in general?

Anything can be wrong when circumstances are applied, so your points aren't really going anywhere here, but your reasoning suggests that you believe zoosexuality would be just fine if animals wanted it and could give consent to them, is this true?

----------

The main point of this thread was to address the ways people reason. I generally don't agree with sex outside of marriage (unless it's awesome), but I don't believe that all these taboos (homosexuality, premarital sex, zoosexuality) are the crimes against nature that we seem to believe they are.

(I know I'm kind of jumping in here but...)

I agree with you, Domesticated animals or animals that have been tamed will probably be the only ones subjected to this kind of use. Commonly farm animals are included as well.

What concept are you talking about?

The first part about instinct I'm not sure is accurate. You can make the argument that humans react on instinct by trying to increase their sexual pleasure through other means. After all, sexuality is pretty much programmed into us.

However part of being domesticated is they generally will not attack humans or their masters. This is pretty obvious. Animals would probably not fight back if they have been trained not to. Despite if it hurts or if they don't like it. There are cases of dogs who are told to lie down so their masters can kick the shit out of them, but they'll always obey and lie down. They are trained animals.

Yes, why don't we talk to some of those girls who were kidnapped at 10 or 11, forced to do sexual things for years until they were found or maybe they were never found. Enjoyment is not necessarily something that comes about, and it's certainly not normal. The key here is that the humans who are oppressed are being treated like dogs and trained animals so they exhibit better behaviors because that puts their master or oppressor in a better mood. This does not mean consent or choice and this does not make it okay to oppress people who animals.

Asexuality refers to no sex. Rape happens in the human world and in the animal kingdom because animals cannot give consent. When a child is thought to not be old enough to understand truth and lies and the subject matter, they are not put on the stand at court because they simply can't understand. The reason children cannot give consent for certain things is because they don't understand in the implications of it. For the same reason, animals cannot give consent because we have no way of knowing the animals understand things enough to give consent to begin with. In many ways, we should treat animals like children.

I speak of the original concept Una posted concerning secluded animals that aren't sex-aware (we presume). Our current discussion is a continuation of that. There are also human beings that are the same way, does this make it wrong for them to have sex?

You don't need to be attacked to know that someone or something doesn't like what you're doing. Body language is the key and animals are good at wriggling and trying to escape from you and expressing discontent.

My point wasn't that it was okay if you MAKE them enjoy it, but that the cases of abuse proposed were similar to how human beings respond to abuse. YET one is being used as an argument against zoosexuality and the other isn't being used against human sexuality.

Abuse happens... whether to a human or animal. What we're addressing here is two creatures, a human and an animal that wish to copulate with each other, without precarious circumstances that you may wish to apply, is that wrong?

Asexuality refers to the sexual disposition where a person has no inclination or desire for sex.

But animals have sex among each other, this demonstrates that they are able to give consent, unlike children. If they weren't able to, they wouldn't be able to have sex among each other, but they do and so they can.

Also, whilst rape does happen in the animal kingdom, often females refuse sex too. Such as a bitch will NOT allow a male to mount her during the first stage of estrus, even though she is in heat.

Humans in zoos?!? I guess you're talking about illnesses. You can test your pet for diseases like aids ect.




Humans have sexual instincts but we also possess an intelligence that allows us to over ride these instincts i.e celibacy, preventing pregnancy ect. You can't simplfy every argument by saying that animals and humans are the same. We are not, even different species of animals differ sexually.
If animals learnt sexual responses or were capable of learning sexual response then we would be able to observe diversity in sexual behaviour.



I'm sure those dogs in the experiment didn't enjoy being electrocuted to death and find something unethically unnerving about sexually abusing an animal until it enjoys it.

What do you mean?



What's the difference between animals and humans? Communication. How can a animal communicate it's feelings without the aid of language? Humans don't tend to live with their exes once they have broken up. If a human buys an animal only for sexual pleasure and the animals wants nothing to do with it- what happens to the animal? Is it just dumped in a shelter for being frigid or taken to the vets to put to sleep?

Yip.

----------


I don't see homosexuality as a taboo and personally I think purity rings are more of a taboo then premarital sex nowadays in western society. Zoosexuality doesn't exactly fill me abhorrence but I do have concerns about animal welfare which I have outlined in posts.

There is diversity in sexual behavior among animals, masturbation, homosexuality, heterosexuality, fellatio and even sexual objectification are but a few. The main advantage we humans have is dexterity, not specifically intelligence. We have bodies that are capable of moving in different angles and positions and such that we can easily invent more and yes... Chimps can too.


You missed the point..........

Animals can be abused sexually, humans can be abused sexually. What's the difference?


All your points could easily be applied to humans in similar circumstances. Why is it important to you that animals are abused yet not humans.



You're applying a human concept to animals here. Bitches are generally humped by random male dogs when they are in heat, leading to a litter of children from multiple fathers, there is no reason to believe they have relationship issues with this. Generally after being humped (especially by professional breeder dogs) the bitch won't see the stud for a whole year at least. Why don't you complain about issues like this? Maybe try to train dogs into having a more family oriented approach to breeding.

And if someone was buying an animal strictly for sex, they're not looking for a loving relationship to begin with and isn't the kind of circumstance we're debating here.

I don't exactly see how this pertains to the issue.

My point is they are trained to obey.

The last sentence in your first part makes no sense. If you could clarify what exactly you're referring too I'd be much appreciative.

It's okay for a human and a human to have sex with each other with consent. Being that they both say yes. However an animal having sex with a human is not the same because animals cannot communicate a yes or no answer. Animals mate with other animals of their kind and seem to communicate with each other fairly well, but until a human can completely confirm that an animal understands and consents to sex between them and a human, we cannot say that we're not taking advantage of them, us being in authority over them.

Before we continue please read this article: Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use Of His Creation

Personally, if wikipedia is not good enough for academics even in high school, it isn't good enough for a reasonable debate source, especially with sound definitions.

According to dictionary.com

Asexual reproduction means reproduction without the process of sex. Asexual means without sex or sex organs.

Lack of a sex drive would be an adapted meaning, not a true meaning. People are using the word incorrectly because there is no word that properly fits a lack of a sex drive. However asexuality truly means without gender. So your statement is incorrect.

Ah but here are two little issues with that.

1. You cannot communicate with a dog, the way a dog can communicate with another dog. Therefore since you can't understand that dog you cannot be positive it is giving consent.

2. Humans are really the only observed creatures that have sex without the wish to procreate. Animals do not have sex for pleasure that we can identify, but for one reason only. Instinct to reproduce. Animals may hump as a sign of domination. However if animals had sex for pleasure, then they would always be having sex, because animals repeat actions of pleasure.

Again, this is within the animal kingdom. Female animals have been known to choose their mates based on visuals and show off factors as an attempt to find the best genes to reproduce. A female animal would not refuse necessarily because she "doesn't want sex" but because she doesn't think the male has good enough genes to reproduce.

I do agree with this. If humans relied solely on sexual instinct we would do nothing to prevent pregnancy. Also, a good proof that many over-ride sexual desires is that a good portion of the population waits to have sex until after a marital commitment. This is a conscious choice and often a hard one that fights against a sexual drive, especially as hormonal teens.

Sexual behaviors such as the ones you listed do not give conclusion to anything other than animal behavior. This does not conclude intelligence nor does it conclude that these animals are making conscious decisions to act out such behaviors for any purpose other than mimicking. A simple snapshot of two animals in an odd position does not prove that animals do these things. Try linking a relevant, reliable article instead.

Una brings up a good point here. There is some serious ethical issues with sexual relations between an authority and the subject of that authority. This could also be considered a form of rape as well. If a Boss tells his secretary she has to have sex with him to keep her job, this is blackmail. If she wishes to keep her job, she is forced into a sexual relationship. If she does anything wrong, she is forced to perform sexual things that she may object to. However when a couple kids at home are relying on her to bring in a paycheck what is she supposed to do? The situation is worse for animals because they do not choose to stay in a place where they are being forced into a sexual relation. They did not choose to be there in the first place and they cannot leave. If they object to the point of attack or forcing the authority off of them, they are put to sleep for attacking a human.

There is none. But it is still abuse. That's what your missing. For some reason you keep saying that if a concept that would prevent zoosexuality applies to human's then it's not applicable which... doesn't make sense.

We cannot prove that animals care about these issues. Also, females do refuse males at times, but because of genetics. The point of sex is procreation, humans have added this whole idea of pleasure.

Zoosexuality does not specify a loving relationship. Neither does heterosexuality, homosexuality, or any other kind of sexuality. Sexuality infers sex, not a loving relationship so actually, your statement is the one in error. You cannot say "oh well that doesn't count" when you do not have a response to a point without a legitimate excuse. Your original prompt does not specify that Bestiality requires a loving relationship, therefore it doesn't.

Also, you cannot change the rules partway through a debate simply because you started the thread. This isn't fair to other debating.

Every definition I could find for Zoophilia/Bestiality/Zoosexuality (even wikipedia) specifies this as a sexual relation between a human and an animal. And we all know that it's possible to have sex without a loving relationship.

Do animals "consent" to being taught stupid tricks for our amusement? Do they "consent" to having their testicles cut off? So long as the animal is not harmed, I see nothing wrong with bestiality.