[shadowfyr]

I never said it wasn't possible to abuse such an animal, but I think you would agree that "most" types of abuse involve either a) keeping a safe distance from the animal, while clothed, possibly with the use of a weapon of your own, or b) it involved, more accurately, neglect. Now, lets consider what happens in the former case when the person is completely naked and in *intimate* close contact with something that has teeth with a high bite strength and probably claws... Seriously, I find the idea that someone could "force" themselves on an animal while in both an emotional and physically vulnerable state, where they are not expecting to get attacked, just completely absurd. As for the idea that exposure to it may make it easier, sure, if it actually qualifies as an abuse, which sex isn't. Its not like animals haven't been caught on film engaging in what should be impossible or useless cross species mating, without humans being involved in making the choice for them. Rare yeah, but not unheard of. So, you still have to explain how/why it constitutes any more abuse than some idiot that insists on shaving their poodle or making their bulldog wear a sweater, both of which are *way* less natural, but which, oddly, no one questions as possibly somehow mentally or physically hurting the animal.

Also, frightened animals will try to hide in a corner, but even the most frightened, if trapped, will attack. I don't care how much abuse you direct at them, their natural instincts, if they can't run away or hide from you, is to fight. Repeated abuse isn't going to change that instinct. It just doesn't make any sense to claim that, just because they don't generally engage in sex between seasons, that they couldn't, or that they wouldn't derive anything from it if they did. Though, I will say that the odds are that the males would be more likely to engage than females, precisely because of that seasonal limitation in female libido.

Point is, the claims being presented on the subject are exaggerated projections, not facts, and there are indications, where animals, usually males (though you can't do that without some sort of female of a different species), *have* engaged in such cross species sex, which contradict the assertion that they can't, wouldn't or might be negatively effected by such from a human. Its all about the "Ick!" factor, not any objective considerations. Well, that and *traditionally* most cultures, like the romans, found it objectionable for the purity of humanity, believing that monsters and half breeds where possible, despite often using the practice as a form of punishment for specific crimes (like a temple virgin daring to not stay a virgin). It was most definitely in those cases not a mutual choice, and usually was with something that, if it didn't kill the criminal "while" doing it, would after they where done. Likely the general aversion is a mix of the silly superstitions (including one from the early 1900s, which said that physical appearance or deformities could be caused by close contact with an animal "resembling" the physical trait), and some hold overs from what it was used for in punishments, not on actually facts or dangers. Its just mutated more towards animal rights issues, which presume that some humans, who never engaged in any such thing to know, in fact do know better than the animal if humping someone feels good, instead of the other more traditional aversions.

Its pertinent to the idea of nudity being bad, as well as sex in general, since its based not on factual evidence of harm, but the presumption that harm *must* be the logical outcome. Still, ironically, some on the right, even if they have an entirely religious aversion to it, would probably agree with the assessment that its not harmful. After all, one of them made himself rather famous a year or so ago by stating, "Well, when you live on a farm and your hormones are racing, anything thats warm, wet or vibrates starts to look good to you." lol