I don't think attraction to children is problematic. An attraction is just an attraction and the person with the attraction doesn't choose it.

You probably meant to ask about acting on the attraction, in which case there's a big difference. Human children are not sexually developed and have no desire for sex unless an adult human convinces them they do. Adult non-humans ARE sexually developed and DO have their own sexual desires. While it is possible to force a non-human into sex, it's also possible for them to want sex themselves. Naturally it is completely wrong to force anyone into sex when they don't want it, including non-humans.

It has nothing to do with ability to report abuse, in fact, human children are very capable of reporting abuse if they have a basic sexual education. There is data that shows this. What matters is the potential for harm, and all children are demonstrably harmed by sexual activity with adults, physically, mentally, and emotionally. While it is possible for a non-human to be harmed with sexual activity with a human, the harm they typically experience also accompany other kinds of abuse. That's why so many of the studies saying sex between humans and non-humans is abuse, because they look at abusers who also happen to have had sex with their victims, they don't even look for non abusive sexual relationships.

I'm not sure why I'm being asked about children, I've never made any comments relating to them, but I don't believe they're inferior, simply underdeveloped. I don't necessarily agree that there's a set age where they are developed enough for sexual activity, but I can't think of any other way to really delineate when it's okay. This does mean I think safe sexual interactions with them are impossible. This, however, doesn't make the attraction itself problematic. An attraction can only be harmful if acted on. I know that the attraction can not be changed. Anyone attracted to children should have access to and get any help they need to avoid acting on it and actually harming children.

Okay, I read the whole thread and it seems like they're being taken out of context when you only point to the idea of the slope. What they seem to be saying isn't that all zoophiles will torture animals, but choosing comfort over trying to actually work to our goals protects those who do. They even say that they're still a zoo, do you think they believe they're going to abuse animals? Absolutely not.

The thread reads as someone frustrated with those focusing only on a comforting acceptance and treating anyone truly fighting for animals as detrimental. You can't simply take a single part of the thread and conclude that zoophilia always leads to zoosadism when the author clearly doesn't believe that.

Do I want acceptance for my attraction? Absolutely, but that's not the fight. The fight is understanding WHY people don't like my attraction and changing that. Most of the hate comes from the idea that non-human animals are inherently inferior and we're disgusting for being attracted to them because of it. Acceptance won't come until we can change minds on that.

I've seen arguments that appear good, but as soon as they are questioned in any way the person making them devolves into insults and hate. In other words, the person making the argument doesn't actually understand it enough to back it up. I, personally, have yet to have any anti-zoo approach me in good faith, it has always been malicious. Of course, I haven't really been around very long, and I don't really like debating this stuff, so it's possible the more reasonable people choose to respect me and not come to me. What I have had, is studies I've shared dismissed or ignored. If the only way an argument can stand is to hide contrary evidence, it's not a good argument.

At the end of the day, my existence is a fact. I'm sexually attracted to animals and that is no more mutable than same sex attractions. The question that needs to be asked, and antis often think they have an answer to, is whether or not it is possible to have loving sexual relationships with animals. Most studies that say it's not never ever tried to look for them and just focused on readily available data, which is generally police reports. Naturally that data is going to say it's not possible, but there are so many of us out there with happy, loving, sexual companions that are clearly not accounted for. I've long said that more research is needed, and stand by that, but they need to put in effort to find more data.

It's really not, they're not the same thing at all. You even use the phrase "slippery slope" which is a type of logical fallacy. What you're saying is, "you're sexually attracted to animals, so clearly you're going to want to torture them." The sillyness of the argument is obvious if you simply change the group, "you're sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex, so clearly you're going to want to torture them."

I think beliefs like this typically stem from 1 of 2 places: their own desire to torture and inflict pain or, more commonly, a misrepresentation of zoophilia with the more visible zoosadism. It makes sense that most exposure to non-human attraction comes from the horrors of zoosadism, but that doesn't mean all zoophiles are that kind of monster. If that's what guides your opinion, I suggest you to learn more about us and see that so many of us have no desire to hurt animals in any way. If your opinion comes from your own sadistic desires, I urge you to seek professional help to manage those thoughts.