Anziris

Updated list of important threads! #Zoosexual #Zoosexuality #Zoophile #Zoophilia #ZooPride #Zeta #Antizoo Consent argument: teapawt.net/Anziris/status/1255022… Informed Consent: teapawt.net/Anziris/status/1273867… Zoonoses: teapawt.net/Anziris/status/1292740… Power dynamic: teapawt.net/Anziris/status/1282232…

There's more I can say but that's good enough for the time being. Last point - if we converse, please just use your own words and set the LLM aside. Imagine you've walked down the street and you're having a lovely conversation with someone! I want YOUR stances in YOUR words.

The needless verbosity of the document makes it tiring to unpack what you're actually trying to say. I understand why though since, once it's translated, the system is honestly disgusting. It's like putting a nice coat of paint on a decrepit house.

"Self-correction" relies on the non-human knowing what to correct and how. How can a canine self-correct in an asymmetrical relationship? You used asymmetry as a defense earlier, even: "An asymmetrical exchange often stemming from a canine's lingering nursing habit"

"The system is self-correcting because the animal can leave" - I do not think you're fit for stewardship Just because you're free to *exit* an interaction does not mean someone has the freedom to refuse. Why does a dog come back to a physically abusive owner? But it gets worse!

"abusus non tollit usum / X isn't invalidated by misuse." Your ONLY guard against misuse goes against guardianship ethics. You rely on 1 interested party to self-police and catch severe signals in an asymmetrical relationship. YOU hold all knowledge, the non-human is vulnerable.

"the assertion of trauma requires the injection of human moral judgments into a biological system that does not possess them." - I love this bit so much <3 any ethical claims about non-humans already do this, including yours whenever you label something as abuse.

You remark on invisible trauma then list *severe* physical markers. Trauma can still occur through other means - learned helplessness, which can show as the animal being calm, which would be okay for you since the animal is mobile and not running away.

You take the freeze counter, use a weak argument against it, and move on as if freeze is resolved. You make no mention of how canines have a unique bond with humans due to co-evolution, how they perceive us, what they're willing to tolerate, etc.

On reinforcement with food: You only ever mention treats and such, you make no mention of how sex is pleasurable, that pleasure can be a motivator in itself, and how that can very well play a role in conditioning or how the non-human behaves.

It's why your framework is exploitative, your remark of oral as nursing/suckling is unironically objectifying. They cannot understand what YOU, their guardian, are actually doing, and you're taking advantage of that vulnerability for pleasure.

If you're still confused - would this still be okay if the non-human understood what was actually happening? Stewardship is more than "did the non-human end up okay? Did they run away?" it's not just about breaking down a creature into observable states.

Under your framework, taking a dog and shaving "slut", "whore", and "cum dump" into their fur is entirely acceptable. There's no literal harm, it doesn't register to the dog, they'll just think it's the usual grooming/bath, hell they can't even read it. Do you see the issue?

You stated a cause yourself, "often stemming from a canine's lingering nursing habit." You're aware the animal perceives the act as something else, but because it isn't causing physical/psychological harm, you permit it. It completely ignores your guardianship and their status.

Conveniently, your framework makes no mention of dignity, degradation, or anything adjacent to it. Just because an act isn't physically/psychologically harmful doesn't mean it's permissible. You're highlighting one reason why zoos like myself don't advocate for this act, lol.

You cannot claim to be a steward who cares about a non-human's wellbeing and then go on to defend a human using a canine's muzzle. We can literally walk through this in an easy-to-understand fashion. Is there physical harm? Probably not. Is it traumatizing? No. Permissible? No.

We'll start off small. "provided the human correctly interprets these SSMS signals" - Well duh, interspecies sex is permissible if it's free of harm, coercion, or manipulation. The issue this ignores is humans, society, and your doc generally ignore non-human wellbeing.

The main issue is that your document primarily relies on obvious/severe physical tells and observation, downplays genuine concerns, misconstrues numerous signals, and (despite claiming stewardship) generally doesn't give non-humans greater moral consideration.

So, let's talk about these problems in plain language that's free of overly complex statements! ^_^ First - one issue, be it the document or your profile, there's SO MUCH effort put into obfuscated bestiality discourse and little into *anything else*

This is an exceptionally erudite composition! It employs a lexicon of considerable intricacy to overlook objectification, and the sheer prolixity thereof causes the reader to become utterly bewildered or succumb to a state of somnolence! But not me, I'm stubborn uwu

I don't blame them for leaving considering, ya know, the state of Twitter nowadays. I've just never understood the mindset is all. Good voices leave and it gives more room for bad voices to chime in.