- Joined
- Dec 18, 2019
Yeah, exactly.
Just like how pedophiles shouldn't be allowed around children, people who go out of their way to sexually abuse an animal in their care should not be allowed to own animals. I don't care if they didn't make the animal bleed or it mounted them and they just went with it; it's the responsibility of a pet's owner to not take advantage of them in such a manner. An animal is about as dependent upon the person caring for it as a child is, and using that to exploit them for sex is rape no matter how gently it's done, or whether the animal was in heat or had a boner. None of those factors fucking matter where the consent is concerned, because they cannot communicate why they are responding to you in a tangible fashion.
"Body language" can only go so far and misses a lot of important information that simply cannot be communicated without linguistic nuance.
You can't tell a dog what HIV+ is and have it understand what the fuck you mean.
You can't tell a dog that, no, it mating with you will not produce any offspring or that the action is purely for personal gratification.
You can't tell a dog that its largely involuntary reaction to reproductive impulses are only acceptable towards you, and not every other human they encounter once they start associating humans with breeding opportunities.
You can't tell a dog that it fucking you was fine but it biting you (a natural part of sex for dogs) is unacceptable, and then throw the dog to another person to deal with. (Except that's exactly what Allison did, wasn't it.)
You can't tell a dog that if it does try to reject your attempts (assuming you're the sort of zoophile who would take the hint and back off) that it won't get punished for it in some way; explaining this further, a lot of people don't discipline their animals with violence, of course, but being put into their crate earlier than usual or giving them some other mild sign of rejection can be just as devastating. Animals, like small children, can be eager to please those who they consider their family (especially if they're being provided food and care by said family) and may put up with abuse in order to avoid rejection rather than out of genuine interest.
On that note, reading through Allison's massive "explanation"post (because it certainly wasn't a fucking apology) is so much to process.
I think a large part of it is genuine acknowledgement that what they did was wrong, and a willingness to put themselves in a compromising situation (submitting themselves to law enforcement, psychiatric therapy, and/or keeping away from potential targets) to prevent things from escalating further. While it can be argued that Allison did this by her explanation post, she also did everything she could to gloss over the details and it reads far more as a personal vindication for her behavior (basically, a narrative she's concocted in order to make her history more palatable to herself) rather than genuine dedication to acknowledge the root of the problem; her attraction to animals and her willingness to have sex with them in order to get gratification. Whether she was having a stressful episode in her life is largely irrelevant; we all go through bad times and some of us struggle with mental illness and domestic violence, and some of us further do horrible, regretful things as a result. But a critical part is to acknowledge what was done and to, most importantly, ensure that it doesn't happen again.
If that means not owning or taking care of animals (or at least not the type of animal you might be attracted to), then that might be what it takes. Especially for someone like Allison who has not really done anything to redeem herself until public pressure has forced her to make a statement.
Edit: Originally double-posted, sorry.This may be rather soft-hearted of me but I am willing to be sympathetic to someone who has actually put in substantial effort to change their behavior, or has gone through some extreme trauma (domestic violence/coercion is really the only thing that could come to mind in this) that could've led to this behavior, provided they are doing everything available to them to change. While Allison may be able to argue for domestic violence, I don't get the impression that her boyfriend was forcing her to screw the literal pooch.
Someone who has committed harm to a child or animal in a sexual fashion is abominable in my opinion, but a readiness to acknowledge that in a sincere fashion (as well as taking steps towards ensuring that it doesn't happen again, regardless of personal risk) isn't a bad start. I feel I should also note that this does not apply to no-MAPs or non-contact Zoos either; if someone has taken enough pride in their sexual fixations to consider the fact that they don't go out of their way to fuck kids or critters a commendable effort, then they really aren't apologetic at all when it does happen.
A lot of pedophiles and zoophiles will move goalposts in order to pass the "I'm not so bad, at least I didn't do _____!" statement in order to justify their behavior. That is typically not a sign of someone who is legitimately apologetic or even really aware that what they're doing was wrong, and that's a problem if they are attempting to placate people who are asking for them to acknowledge their error. Regret and recompense is only really adequate as long as it's for the benefit of the harmed rather than simply to ease the conscience of the abuser, particularly so they can feed the notion that they've become a better person by surviving a trial of fire, such as getting outed publicly on Twitter and being forced to talk about what they did. Because, quite frankly, once they've harmed another person or animal in such a way then their ability to sleep at night or live with themselves really isn't anybody else's responsibility, especially not at the victims' expense.
On that note, the biggest thing I dislike about the "zoosexual" and "pedosexual" rhetoric are the claims that such behavior is a completely involuntary impulse and can't be changed or altered once they're rooted, when that isn't really true. There are enough people who grow out of your bog-standard loli/shota shit that despite decades of research the jury is still out on whether drawn pedophilia is a sincere danger or if it just makes people into that kind of weird; and there are a lot of people who think dogs are hot in a similar fashion, but keep their shit to furry art, with a good percentage of these people not going so far as to fuck animals. However, once the active consumption IRL child porn or bestiality porn is involved the odds of "turning back" are greatly diminished, and it can be argued that exploitation of a child or animal (even indirectly through shared content) is actively occurring even if the viewer wasn't physically there.
Our mentality is probably the one thing in the world that we can truly have some degree of control over; you can't will a cancer to disappear from your body on thoughts alone, but you can change the way you think about it. Likewise, you can change the way you think about a lot of things, including paraphillias. Sexual fixations aren't just random impulses you need to or should follow just because you have them; it's a choice to be made like any choice, and acknowledging it as such is important for anyone to have a healthy sex life.
I think the reason you have seen her straight up ignoring the drama until it boiled over was an attempt to prevent it from destroying her business. Even if she weathers the storm and continues to operate, the more exceptional of the bunch will ensure she won't have any customers or conventions to go to.

