10.jpg

" Zoosexual topics "

zoosexual topics.jpg
R03d759c37e164ba4b9ed4c3eac01a66b - Copy - Copy.jpg

I consider myself to be first, a 100% sexually female receptive and my desired partner to be a male donkey

My partner Edward, a older standard male donkey met when I was 10 years old became friends, then when I became sexually interested at puberty at age 13, and because I want to be like a girl or female-roled,the opportunity arose one day and I performed fellatio on Edward,which I then continued then to do routinely, by age 14 Edward was mounting me and impregnating me with his semen .
                           
From 1975 to 1996 or 21 years Edward was my Male companion/lover.  

Zoosexuality

 

The term zoosexual was proposed by Hani Miletski in 2002[4] as a value-neutral term. Usage of zoosexual as a noun (in reference to a person) is synonymous with zoophile, while the adjectival form of the word – as, for instance, in the phrase "zoosexual act" – may indicate sexual activity between a human and an animal. The derivative noun "zoosexuality" is sometimes used by self-identified zoophiles in both support groups and on internet-based discussion forums to designate sexual orientation manifesting as sexual attraction to animals.[4][10

      Similar to homosexuality, zoosexuality is now no longer considered a mental illness under the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-IV unless it significantly interferes with daily functional life)

This finding has since also been agreed by Andrea Beetz, who in her 2002 book Love, Violence, and Sex with Animals concurred that there had been an omission in some previous studies, and that:

"Findings of this study agree with the view of recent authors... that indeed a sexual orientation towards animals - a zoosexuality - exists, even if it is not appropriate to regard all persons who have sex with animals as zoosexuals." (Beetz 2002, section 5.7)

    All this is confusing in certain ways for myself, as first of all I consider myself 100% psychosexually female or 100% sexually inverted thus in many ways I see myself as a heterosexual female psychologically as it 100% natural for me to be only attracted to heterosexual males....Thus first I am psychosexually female, then primarily attracted to male donkeys, then horses, then men...all three I would be able to perform in female-role for given the proper context/content.

   And my primary motive for sex is ;

companionship, serve a sexual   partner;  (fulfill their sexual needs) , in turn fulfil my  need of affirmation of being a viable female roled partner, my need for feminization and emasculation, and Edward my jack donkey lover/partner very much fulfilled these needs best

              Human–animal marriage-Wikipedia


 

Human–animal marriage is a marriage between an animal and a human. This topic has appeared in mythology and magical fiction.[1] In the 21st century there have been numerous reports from around the world of humans marrying their pets and other animals. Human–animal marriage is often seen in accordance with zoophilia, although they are not necessarily linked. Although animal-human marriage is not mentioned specifically in national laws, the act of engaging in sexual acts with an animal is illegal in many countries under animal abuse laws.

I very much consider Edward to be like a husband and loved him emotionally just as I can love another human being, simply because he was a donkey does mean I felt any less love.

We were very compatible sexually, his maleness and my femininity and the fact that I am "want to be transsexual type person , both of us had high sex drives so fit us perfectly. 

We could easily breed multiple times daily, he in male role for me, me in female role for him.

The concept of zoosexuality as a bona fide sexual orientation, as opposed to a fetish, paraphilia or affective bond, can be traced back to research such as Masters in the 1960s. This was around the time (following Kinsey) that minority sexualities and sexual interests began to be seen as other than a sign of mental abnormality, and instead, began to be seen as indication that the range of typical human sexuality was a richer field than had been previously perceived.

Ordinary People with Extraordinary Desires

  It is not enough to say that bestiality has simply got a ‘bad reputation;’ it is still a strong taboo. Not only is it something not to be done, but also something not to be talked about. “Heard anyone chatting at parties lately about how good it is having sex with their dog?” Singer inquires, and the obvious answer is: “Probably not” (Singer 2001).

- THE PREDICAMENT OF ZOOPLEASURES: HUMAN-NONHUMAN LIBIDINALRELATIONS                                                                                                         -  Monika Bakke

Zoophilia - wikipedia

 The Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine (Vol. 18, February 2011) states that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself;[31] it also states that there are several kinds of zoophiles:[31]

  • Human-animal role-players

  • Romantic zoophiles

  • Zoophilic fantasizers

  • Tactile zoophiles

  • Fetishistic zoophiles

  • Sadistic bestials

  • Opportunistic zoophiles

  • Regular zoophiles

  • Exclusive zoophiles   I have considered myself a " exclusive zoophile " since 2003 as I only desire to have a sexual relationship with a male donkey or male horse, myself in the role of female partner for them.

  • Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human relationships as well or at the same time as zoosexual ones, and that zoosexual partners are usually dogs and/or horses (Masters, Miletski, Beetz)[34][35]

  • Zoophiles' emotions and care for animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals' abilities) reciprocal, and not just a substitute or means of expression.[36] Beetz believes zoophilia is not an inclination which is chosen.[34]

  • Society in general at present is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning.[34] The distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a critical one to these researchers, and is highlighted by each of these studies. Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by misunderstandings regarding zoophilia: "This destroy[s] the lives of many citizens".[34]

Forms of zoosexual activity psychology.wikia.org

 

Although its findings go back consistently many decades, the study of zoosexuality with modern research methodologies, is still relatively new. Massen (1994, p. 57) distinguished nine basic forms of zoosexual activity, which he stated frequently overlap:

  1. Incidental experience and latent zoophilia

  2. Zoophile voyeurism (also called mixoscopic zoophilia)

  3. Frottage

  4. The animal as a tool for masturbatory activities

  5. The animal as a surrogate object for a behavioral fetishism (sadomasochistic practices, sexual murder, etc. See Zoosadism)

  6. The animal as fetish

  7. Physical contact and affection

  8. The animal as a surrogate for a human sex partner

  9. The animal as deliberately and voluntarily chosen sex partner.

                                                                 I see myself as fitting in 7,8,9

  Early life experience shaping what is appropriate                       sexual behavior for a individual

I believe for myself, the factors that lead me to start having sex with my donkey lover Edward was ;

1. I am a transsexual type person,I desired to be female like sexually,be bred like a female.

2. I was extremely attracted to Edward's "maleness"

3. Once I found out Edward would allow me to masturbate,suck his penis,and take his semen orally, the activity became routine, though I realized it was likely quite unusual as to what I was doing, it never seemed wrong just between him and I.

4. Once Edward and I found that he was able to actually mount and copulate with me as though I was his female sexual partner, mimic actually breeding me. I had no desire for anyone other then him.

5. By chance Edward was ideally the correct body size which allowed him to be able mount and penetrate me anally as though I was a female donkey, and since he didn't have female donkeys to mate with, I was able to offer myself to him for this purpose.


                                             " It was Appropriate for Edward and I ",

                            yet maybe not the rest of the world is the way I felt about it.

       After all being attracted sexually to males was not  " Appropriate "  socially then,(1975) let alone being a male to female transsexual type person, thus not being Appropriate seemed a way of life.

R03d759c37e164ba4b9ed4c3eac01a66b - Copy
741044342_125d8d4a14_o.jpg
cock in hand1.jpg
cock in hand2.jpg

Until Edward's penis flared it was very similar to human penis in shape,thickness, just much longer.

I think it is very important that it be outlined in context/content in which a person has a relationship with their animal partner.

I consider myself a X, Exclusive zoophile  due to fact I only desire to have a male donkey to live with me as my companion and lover and a myself to be in female sexual role for him. To be loyal, faithful , love him just as married couple is suppose to do or is outlined in a marriage agreement.  

Table 1 A Summary of Zoophilic Classes Class, Name Characteristics Alternative Terminology

I, Role player Enjoys having sex with a living human pretending to be an animal. -“Furry”.

II, Romantic zoophile Keeps an animal as a pet for psychosexual stimulation; does not engage in sexual activity with animals. —

III, Zoophilic fantasizer Fantasizes about intercourse with animals, but does not indulge in actual intercourse. May masturbate in the presence of an animal. Zoophilic voyeurism

 

IV, Tactile zoophile Strokes erotic parts of an animal like genitals, anus, or perianal region to achieve orgasm. May rub genitals against an animal. Zoophilic frotteurism

 

V, Fetishistic zoophile Preserves parts of animals like furs to use as a fetish for zoophilic activities. Zoophilic fetishism

 

VI, Sadistic bestial Derives sexual pleasure from sadistic activities with an animal, such as torture. Zoophilic sadism, zoosadism

VII, Opportunistic zoophile Engages in sexual acts with animals when consenting humans are not available. Bestialism

 

VIII, Regular zoophile Prefers sexual intercourse with animals; does not enjoy sexual acts with humans. Zoophilia erotica, Zooerasty (depending on presence or absence of emotional bond)

 

IX, Homicidal zoophile Prefers killing an animal and having sex with it over sexual intercourse with a living animal. Necrozoophilia

 

X, Exclusive zoophile Engages exclusively in sex with animals at the exclusion of human partners. Zoophilia erotica, Zooerasty Zoophilia erotica, Zooerasty (depending on presence or absence of emotional bond) .

       If one reads these classes, one can see they apply to human to human relations as well

 " Do they have a ‘paraphilia’, a psychiatric term combining the Greek prefix ‘para’ meaning ‘besides’ with ‘philia’ meaning ‘love’? Or are they just normal people who happen to have a minority sexual orientation? Given the fraught debates about consent in human-on-human sexual encounters, it is worth asking whether nonhuman animals can ever consent to libidinal relations with humans? " - Loving Animals: On Bestiality, Zoophilia, and Post-Human Love By Joanna Bourke 

This video reveals the many types of human  who have sex with many species, and many very disgusting.

                                                               Giving zoosexuality a bad name

" On the Topic of a Animals ability to show Consent "

I realize I am bias on this topic due to fact I am only attracted to Male Donkeys primarily, and from my experience I felt Edward was giving his consent through his actions, showing the interest, then getting a erection then mounting / breeding me like he normally would a female of his own species.

Thus I believe sex between humans and animals should only take place when the Animal is male and doing the penetrating (Male animal breeding Human)

  And the like human marriage, and as Edward and I ;

                                    " a monogamous partnership "

                -Heavy Petting-

by Peter Singer

[Reference to:]

Dearest Pet: On Bestiality
by Midas Dekkers, translated by Paul Vincent, Verso, © 2000.

Not so long ago, any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. The idea that it could be wrong to use contraception in order to separate sex from reproduction is now merely quaint.

If some religions still teach that masturbation is "self-abuse," that just shows how out of touch they have become.
Sodomy? That's all part of the joy of sex, recommended for couples seeking erotic variety.

 In many of the world's great cities, gays and lesbians can be open about their sexual preferences to an extent unimaginable a century ago. You can even do it in the U.S. Armed Forces, as long as you don't talk about it.

Oral sex? Some objected to President Clinton' choice of place and partner, and others thought he should have been more honest about what he had done, but no one dared suggest that he was unfit to be President simply because he had taken part in a sexual activity that was, in many jurisdictions, a crime.

But not every taboo has crumbled. Heard anyone chatting at parties lately about how good it is having sex with their dog? Probably not. Sex with animals is still definitely taboo.

If Midas Dekkers, author of Dearest Pet, has got it right, this is not because of its rarity. Dekkers, a Dutch biologist and popular naturalist, has assembled a substantial body of evidence to show that humans have often thought of "love for animals" in ways that go beyond a pat and a hug, or a proper concern for the welfare of members of other species.

 His book has a wide range of illustrations, going back to a Swedish rock drawing from the Bronze Age of a man fucking a large quadruped of indeterminate species. There is a Greek vase from 520 BC showing a male figure having sex with a stag; a seventeenth-century Indian miniature of a deer mounting a woman; an eighteenth-century European engraving of an ecstatic nun coupling with a donkey, while other nuns look on, smiling; a nineteenth-century Persian painting of a soldier, also with a donkey; and, from the same period, a Japanese drawing of a woman enveloped by a giant octopus who appears to be sucking her cunt, as well as caressing her body with its many limbs.

How much of this is fantasy, the King Kong-ish archetypes of an earlier age?

In the 1940s, Kinsey asked twenty thousand Americans about their sexual behavior, and found that 8 percent of males and 3.5 percent of females stated that they had, at some time, had a sexual encounter with an animal. Among men living in rural areas, the figure shot up to 50 percent.

Dekkers suggests that for young male farm hands, animals provided an outlet for sexual desires that could not be satisfied when girls were less willing to have sex before marriage.

 Based on twentieth-century court records in Austria where bestiality was regularly prosecuted, rural men are most likely to have vaginal intercourse with cows and calves, less frequently with mares, foals and goats and only rarely with sheep or pigs. They may also take advantage of the sucking reflex of calves to get them to do a blowjob.

Women having sex with bulls or rams, on the other hand, seems to be more a matter of myth than reality. For three-quarters of the women who told Kinsey that they had had sexual contact with an animal, the animal involved was a dog, and actual sexual intercourse was rare. More commonly the woman limited themselves to touching and masturbating the animal, or having their genitals licked by it.

Much depends, of course, on how the notion of a sexual relationship is defined. Zoologist Desmond Morris has carried out research confirming the commonplace observation that girls are far more likely to be attracted to horses than boys, and he has suggested that "sitting with legs astride a rhythmically moving horse undoubtedly has a sexual undertone." Dekkers agrees, adding that "the horse is the ideal consolation for the great injustice done to girls by nature, of awakening sexually years before the boys in their class, who are still playing with their train sets . . . "

The existence of sexual contact between humans and animals, and the potency of the taboo against it, displays the ambivalence of our relationship with animals. On the one hand, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition — less so in the East — we have always seen ourselves as distinct from animals, and imagined that a wide, unbridgeable gulf separates us from them. Humans alone are made in the image of God. Only human beings have an immortal soul. In Genesis, God gives humans dominion over the animals.

In the Renaissance idea of the Great Chain of Being, humans are halfway between the beasts and the angels. We are spiritual beings as well as physical beings. For Kant, humans have an inherent dignity that makes them ends in themselves, whereas animals are mere means to our ends.

Today the language of human rights — rights that we attribute to all human beings but deny to all nonhuman animals — maintains this separation. On the other hand there are many ways in which we cannot help behaving just as animals do — or mammals, anyway — and sex is one of the most obvious ones. We copulate, as they do. They have penises and vaginas, as we do, and the fact that the vagina of a calf can be sexually satisfying to a man shows how similar these organs are.

The taboo on sex with animals may, as I have already suggested, have originated as part of a broader rejection of non-reproductive sex. But the vehemence with which this prohibition continues to be held, its persistence while other non-reproductive sexual acts have become acceptable, suggests that there is another powerful force at work: our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals.

Almost a century ago, when Freud had just published his groundbreaking Three Essays on Sexuality, the Viennese writer Otto Soyka published a fiery little volume called Beyond the Boundary of Morals. Never widely known, and now entirely forgotten, it was a polemic directed against the prohibition of "unnatural" sex like bestiality, homosexuality, fetishism and other non-reproductive acts. Soyka saw these prohibitions as futile and misguided attempts to limit the inexhaustible variety of human sexual desire. Only bestiality, he argued, should be illegal, and even then, only in so far as it shows cruelty towards an animal.

 Soyka's suggestion indicates one good reason why some of the acts described in Dekkers book are clearly wrong, and should remain crimes. Some men use hens as a sexual object, inserting their penis into the cloaca, an all-purpose channel for wastes and for the passage of the egg. This is usually fatal to the hen, and in some cases she will be deliberately decapitated just before ejaculation in order to intensify the convulsions of its sphincter. This is cruelty, clear and simple. (But is it worse for the hen than living for a year or more crowded with four or five other hens in barren wire cage so small that they can never stretch their wings, and then being stuffed into crates to be taken to the slaughterhouse, strung upside down on a conveyor belt and killed? If not, then it is no worse than what egg producers do to their hens all the time.)

But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop. Soyka would presumably have thought this within the range of human sexual variety.

At a conference on great apes a few years ago, I spoke to a woman who had visited Camp Leakey, a rehabilitation center for captured orangutans in Borneo run by Birute Galdikas, sometimes referred to as "the Jane Goodall of orangutans" and the world's foremost authority on these great apes. At Camp Leakey, the orangutans are gradually acclimatised to the jungle, and as they get closer to complete independence, they are able to come and go as they please. While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very small penis." As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not.

That may be because Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.

©2001 Peter Singer and Nerve.com, Inc.

Being able to be Monogamous

For myself ,  and due to the fact that  I am a transsexual type person and needing a Straight heterosexual Man to take me as his female-roled partner in a monogamous 

relationship , I simply felt Edward my donkey lover was the only male partner that would have me.

   And from 1998-2003 after being a female roled sex partner for many different straight men I clearly realized it would be extremely unlikely to find a straight male whom would want to be with me for anything other then occasional sex.

                                Zoophilia-Implications for Therapy
                                                                                Hani Miletski​

An exploratory, descriptive study of 82 men and 11 women who have had sexual relations with animals reveals that the majority of its subjects report being happy and not wanting to change. The study involved a 350-item, 23-page, anonymous questionnaire which was self-administered and returned via postal mail. Subjects reported that acceptance of their bestiality and zoophilia is the most important factor for their sense of well-being. Clinically, it appears that in most cases of true zoophilia, this condition is not treatable; the sexual acting out can be stopped when the person is highly motivated, but the attraction and the desire will always be there. Zoophiles may come to the attention of sex therapists, counselors, and educators for a variety of other reasons. Living a life of secrecy, as many zoophiles do, can lead to many psychological issues such as depression, anxiety, feelings of isolation, and suicide ideation. However, many will not reveal their true selves unless they feel they can trust the mental health professional to be confidential, nonjudgmental, open-minded, and accepting. It is therefore imperative to learn more about the phenomena of bestiality and zoophilia so that sex therapists, counselors, and educators can understand zoophiles' therapeutic needs, and be able to discuss these issues with clients and students in a supportive, empathic manner.

Although this study cannot be representative of the zoophile community, and had its inherit flaws (no control group, etc.), it nonetheless resulted in abundant and rich information about the life and behaviors of its participants. One of its surprising findings was that only six men (8%)-including two who have already stopped and none of the women reported they wanted to stop having sex with animals. The participants' reasons for not wanting to stop focused on wanting to be true to themselves, enjoying the sex and the relationship with the animal too much to give it up, and having accepted their lifestyle.

The study further revealed that the most popular animal sex partner for men (74 = 90%) and women (11 = 100%) was a male canine. Second most popular for men (59= 72%) and women (8 = 73%) was a female ca-nine. The third most popular partner reported by men (44 = 54%) and women (6 = 55%) was male equines. The men reported female equines (43 =52%) as their next most popular animal sex partner, and the women reported about male felines (3 = 27%).

When it came to male animals, the men reported they masturbate the animal (52= 64%), perform fellatio on the animal (33 = 42%), and submit to anal intercourse performed by the animal (27 = 34%). The women reported they masturbate the male animal (7 = 64%), have the animal perform cunnilingus on them (6 =55%), have vaginal-penile intercourse with the animal (6 =55%), and perform fellatio on the animal (5 = 45%).