Ftk
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
| Quote | | She NEVER said that sexual relationships with animals could be "meaningful for others" (that is flat-out quote-mining right there, cut-and-dry); rather, she said that SINCE human relationships with animals are often deep and meaningful, zoophilia is UNSURPRISING. She addressed two common arguments against zoophilia (animal abuse and lack of consent) and showed that they are not valid in certain circumstances. |
I'm sorry, but that is NOT how I read this paragraph:
| Quote | | Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Obviously they can’t obtain the same level a deep human-to-human relationship, but loving your pets isn’t anything unusual. People care for their pets, talk to them, spoil them, feel relaxed in their company, and mourn them when they die. This relationship is so underestimated. Why does it come as a surprise that when someone feels a deep connection to their pet, they might be interesting[sic] in doing something more expressive and intimate like we do in human-to-human relationships? |
--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero
|
