“We are living in a country where nobody should be afraid to admit their sexuality only because of fear of intolerance.““

2014-01-31 10:26:51, stanislawski napisał(a):
Powinna na tym forum zaistnieć funkcja "like".

2014-01-31 10:47:42, Alter_Ego napisał(a):
Panowie, widzieliście filmik z Vladem?

2014-01-31 11:33:53, ewa28300 napisał(a):
Niech sobie demonstrują. Demonstrowac wszystkim wolno. Ba, nawet partie moga sobie utworzyc

Zoosexuality

The term "zoosexual" was proposed by Hani Miletski in 2002[3] 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 a non-human 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 romantic or emotional involvement with and/or sexual attraction to animals.

Arguments for zoophilia

Defenders of zoophilia argue that "consent" is irrelevant because human practices (such as hunting, laboratory testing, artificial insemination, and slaughtering animals for meat) do not involve the consent of the animal.[111] Brian Cutteridge states the following regarding this argument:

"Animal sexual autonomy is regularly violated for human financial gain through procedures such as [artificial insemination and slaughter]. Such procedures are probably more disturbing physically and psychologically than acts of zoophilia would be, yet the issue of consent on the part of the animal is never raised in the discussion of such procedures. To confine the 'right' of any animal strictly to acts of zoophilia is thus to make a law [against zoophilia] based not on reason but on moral prejudice, and to breach the constitutional rights of zoophiles to due process and equality before the law. [...] Laws which criminalize zoophilia based on societal abhorrence of such acts rather than any real harm caused by such acts are an unjust and unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty."[80]

Miletski believes that "Animals are capable of sexual consent – and even initiation – in their own way."[112] It is not an uncommon practice for dogs to attempt to copulate with ("hump" the legs of people of both genders.[113] Rosenberger (1968) emphasizes that as far as cunnilingus is concerned, dogs require no training, and even Dekkers (1994) and Menninger (1951) admit that sometimes animals take the initiative and do so impulsively.[105] Those supporting zoophilia feel animals sometimes even seem to enjoy the sexual attention[114] or voluntarily initiate sexual activity with humans.[115] Animals such as dogs can be willing participants in sexual activity with humans, and "seem to enjoy the attention provided by the sexual interaction with a human."[80] Animal owners normally know what their own pets like or do not like. Most people can tell if an animal does not like how it is being petted, because it will move away. An animal that is liking being petted pushes against the hand, and seems to enjoy it. To those defending zoopilia this is seen as a way in which animals give consent, or the fact that a dog might wag its tail.[116]

Utilitarian philosopher and animal liberation author Peter Singer argues that zoophilia is not unethical so long as it involves no harm or cruelty to the animal[117] (see Harm principle). In the article "Heavy Petting,"[118] Singer argues that zoosexual activity need not be abusive, and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed. Singer and others have argued that people's dislike of bestiality is partly caused by irrational speciesism and anthropocentrism.[119][120] Because interspecies sex occurs in nature,[121] and because humans are animals,[122] supporters argue that zoosexual activity is not "unnatural" and is not intrinsically wrong.[81][123]
Zoophiles claim that they are not abusive towards animals124]
"In other recent surveys, the majority of zoophiles scoffed at the notion that they were abusive toward animals in any way—far from it, they said. Many even consider themselves to be animal welfare advocates in addition to zoophiles."[124]

Jacob M. Appel has also advocated for the decriminalization of bestiality, arguing that lack of consent is not a meaningful concept when discussing human-animal sex. He has written that society does "not describe owning a pet dog as kidnapping, even when the canine is restricted to the inside of a home, although confining a human being in the same manner would clearly be unethical." He also states that animals do not "consent" to have sex with each other. According to Appel, such relations "may well be neutral or even pleasurable for the animals concerned", and are primarily prohibited because of social taboos and knee-jerk reactions.[125] He argues that there are no defensible philosophical reasons for the creation of anti-zoosexual laws which prohibit non-cruel bestiality, and that such laws are unjust, irrational and discriminatory.[125] He also believes that current negative attitudes towards zoophilia may be a result of cultural relativism, since other cultures in the past have accepted it.[53][54] In 2011, American attorney Carl Person listed bestiality as one of several "victimless crimes" he felt should not be regulated. He later stated that he does not practice or advocate bestiality and "threw (it in) for the sake of controversy."[126]

Research has proven that non-human animals can and do have sex for non-reproductive purposes (and for pleasure).[127] In 2006, a Danish Animal Ethics Council report concluded that ethically performed zoosexual activity is capable of providing a positive experience for all participants, and that some non-human animals are sexually attracted to humans[128] (for example, dolphins).[129]

Teoria queer

Uważana jest ona za alternatywę esencjalistycznego podejścia do tożsamości seksualnej, które głosi, że tożsamości/ orientacje seksualne istnieją obiektywne i jedynie czekają na nazwanie. Jednocześnie w nurcie esencjalistycznym utożsamia się te pojęcia z rzeczywistością. Podnosi się jednak kwestię, że w tym ujęciu np. termin "heteroseksualny" dla każdego może znaczyć coś nieco innego. A zatem znacznie lepiej ludzką różnorodność płciową opisuje teoria queer. Zakłada ona ludzką niepowtarzalność i fakt, że każdy jest indywidualny i różni się od innych wskutek wpływów biologicznych, psychologicznych i społecznych. W świetle powyższego definiowanie tożsamości seksualnej jest wytworem kultury i jedynie wtórnie kreuje rzeczywistość. Wskutek takiego definiowania dochodzi do wyższego wartościowania jednych tożsamości, a niższego innych, co prowadzi do sztucznej kategoryzacji. W odpowiedzi na to teoria wysuwa następujące postulaty:

należy odejść od sztywnego kategoryzowania tożsamości na rzecz uznania ich naturalnej różnorodności

ludzie mają prawo nie podlegać społecznemu naciskowi do określenia własnej tożsamości seksualnej

ludzie powinni mieć prawo do samookreślenia, czy to przez pojęcia wypracowanie kulturowo, czy przez ich modyfikację, czy przez samodzielnie stworzone pojęcia

należy odejść od ignorowania lub modyfikowania tego, co nie mieści się w konstruktach społecznych dotyczących seksualności

istnieją osoby, które postrzegają własną płeć i seksualność jako niejednorodną i zmienną

wszystkie tożsamości seksualne i płciowe są równowartościowe[4]

„Teoria queer stanowi obecnie ważny nurt studiów genderowych. Zawdzięcza swe narodziny głównie studiom gejowskim, lesbijskim, jak i feministycznym.” – stwierdza dr Maciej Duda, członek Pracowni Krytyki Feministycznej i wykładowca w ramach Gender Studies na Uniwersytecie Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu i Podyplomowego studium Gender mainstreaming przy Instytucie Badań Naukowych PAN Warszawa. Wg wyjaśnień dr Dudy ‘queer’ znaczy przede wszystkim ‘lesbijski’, ‘gejowski’, ‘homoseksualny’ (czy generalnie ‘nie-heteroseksualny’, ‘nie-heteronormatywny’, zaś teoria queer stanowi „krytykę wszelkich tożsamości płciowych i seksualnych, które uważa się za naturalne czy normalne, […] jest krytyką tożsamości normatywnych… Ideologia środowisk LGBTQ (queeryzm) stanowi więc ważną część genderyzmu.

Obecnie ‘queer’ nie można utożsamić ani z homoseksualizmem ani z biseksualizmem, lecz z wszelkimi nienormatywnymi tożsamościami i zachowaniami seksualnymi.