Derek wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006 12:17:56 -0700, " > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:

(snip) >
> >It goes byond a bond, it is total identification.
>
> No, you have no way of knowing that,

The effects of human imprinting on birds is well established.

> and bonding with an animal or bird should never include debasing it by availing
> yourself as its sexual partner.
>
How should a responsible owner of an human-identified bird procure
sexual release for her avian friend? So far, you've come up with
putting it back in its cage until its desire subsides. Not really a
solution for the bird, though. Is it? Giving it a dangerous toy and
hoping it will miraculously come to see an inanimate object as a
suitable mate. Got anything else?

> >> >It makes them "better pets"
> >>
> >> No, it does not. And besides, making them "better pets" isn't
> >> in the animals' best interests; it's in the human's best interests.
> >
> >Well, yeah.
>
> Then it's clear that YOUR interests come before the
> animals' interests.

Would "Duh" been easier for you to understand?

> You want to make them "better pets"
> for you, even if that interest debases both you and the
> animal.

I don't want there to be _any_ pet birds. (I can't remember, have
you always been this dense? )

But, since pet birds already exist, responsible bird caregivers have an
obligation to meet their charge's needs, _all_ their needs including
the often inconvenient sexual and possessive ones.
>
> >> <restore>
> >> >> or,
> >> >> failing that, instead of following your abusive alternatives,
> >> <end restore>
> >> >> gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down
> >> >
> >> >Sexual instincts dont just go away, Derek.
> >>
> >> You wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
> >> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird,
> >
> >I don't believe Karen claimed to manipulate the bird into a state of
> >sexual arousal.
>
> I didn't claim that she did. That little dodge out of the way,
> you wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird, and
> yes, sexual arousal does go away while a suitable alternative
> is being sought.

Sexual instincts lead to sexual arousal. You have a bird that sees its
caretaker as its mate. The caretaker takes the bird out of its cage
daily, at the very least. Since most uncaged birds have their flight
wings clipped to avoid injury from walls and windows, (Flight is
another instinct we must prevent in pet birds.), the bird hops around
and usually winds up on the arm, head, leg or shoe of its human
companion. Birds seek physical contact of all kinds with their
caregiver. Sometimes, this contact turns sexual based on the mood of
the bird. It is an unconscious impulse of the bird and I don't think
they should be "punished" for it by being stuffed back into a cage.
It's not as if you can train a bird or any other living being not to
have sexual impulses.

Maybe your next suggestion will be chemical castration?
> .
> >> >> or do what it wants to do on a soft toy.
> >> >
> >> >The bird sees Karen as it's mate
> >>
> >> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
> >> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
> >> hand.
> >
> >No, it sees Karen as its mate.
>
> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
> hand.

How many times do I have to explain it to you? Birds are not given
soft toys. Any toy suitable for a bird is hard enough to injure the
bird with prolonged rubbing.
>
> >> >and many birds are strictly
> >> >monogamous. It would have no impulse to treat a toy as a mate.
> >>
> >> A bird will masturbate on a soft toy just as readily as on
> >> a person's hand.
>
> Well?

Well, what? Soft toys are dangerous for birds.
>
> >> >Besides, you can't give birds "soft toys".
> >>
> >> Yes, you can.
> >
> >Not if you care about the health of the bird.
>
> A bird can masturbate on a soft rubber toy just as easily
> as on Karen's hand without any harm to the bird at all.
>
> >> > They would immediately rip it apart and eat the fibers
> >> > causing serious intestinal problems.
> >>
> >> Then give it a soft rubber one.
> >
> >Same thing. Birds beaks are strong. They can tear apart anything with
> >flexibility.
>
> No, they cannot tear apart a strong rubber toy.

Crikey! A rubber toy hard enough to withstand the beak of a cockatiel
is hard enough to injure the bird if it rubs against it, just as a
wooden toy or perch or water container will.
>
> >> >>What she shouldn't do is debase it or herself by allowing
> >> >>it to masturbate on her hand.
> >> >
> >> >What a prude!
> >>
> >> So, if I were to distract my labrador from using my leg to
> >> masturbate on I would be a prude?
> >
> >If you have an intact male labrador it would be cruel not to provide
> >him some means of sexual release.
>
> Then you would allow a dog to masturbate on you, debasing
> him and yourself.

I alter all animals in my care because I want to end the breeding of
domestic animals. Masturbation in altered animals is a non-issue.
>
> >> If he continually tried
> >> to mount my face and I refused to suck his dick, I would
> >> be a prude?
> >
> >Can't imagine any living being wanting to get that close to your face,
> >but since it sounds as if that experience would be uncomfortable and
> >possibly dangerous, you would be well within your rights to refuse his
> >advances.
>
> Sucking off a dog wouldn't physically harm him,

Dangerous for the catcher, not the pitcher. Again, crikey!

> and if he continually tried to mount your face, according to your
> perverted standards you would have no option but to
> oblige him.

No, I would have the poor, confused and sexually frustrated animal
altered. Let's face it, a human sexual partner for a dog is a distant
second choice. If the dog is not allowed to mate within its species,
it should be altered. It's the kindest thing to do.

Unfortunately, cockatiels, like most birds, do not withstand anesthesia
and surgery well. Unlike male mammals, removal of testicles in birds
is an invasive procedure and not one done unless its a matter of life
or death.

> >> >Sexual behavior in animals is not "debasing".
> >>
> >> It is when that sexual behaviour includes availing oneself
> >> as its sexual partner.
> >
> >According to Karen, she did not initiate sexual contact.
>
> She availed herself as his sexual partner, thereby debasing
> him and herself.

That's not how I see it.
>
> >> Clearly, you are not fit to keep animals either,
> >
> >Like the opinion of a man who beheads mewling kittens with a garden
> >shovel has any value?
>
> From the same source which made that accusation;
>
> 9) He's never abused animals. This part of my story was obviously
> a fake you stupid ******s.
> http://tinyurl.com/hwm4o

Since one of the statements is clearly a lie, I think it's the second
one. This choice is not based on personal preference alone, but
follows from the general lack of empathy you have demonstrated toward
animals in real life situations. (Remember your rabid defense of the
money-minded vet who let a cat die from seizures because its caregiver
could not pay in full before the administration of phenobarbitol, the
cheap anti-seizure drug of choice for felines?)

> tut tut tut. You've got to do better than that, Mary.

My point stands. You have said nothing over the years to lead me to
believe you are a competent animal caregiver. Your posts are full of
theoretical wordgames and juvenile tattle-telling. They are undermined
by your continued use of pharmacueticals and a quite probable
meat-based diet.
>
> >> because like Karen you're willing to
> >> debase yourself and the animal in the hope that it will
> >> make it a *better pet* for you, you dirty little animal-fiddler.
> >
> >You thick-headed junkie,
>
> That little outburst isn't going to help you, either. I don't even
> smoke cigarettes these days.

Whose talking about cigarettes. Still popping those scripts, aren't
you?

> >neither Karen nor I are interested in making
> >any animals "better pets".
>
> Yes, you are. You admitted it further up this thread, you
> dirty little animal-fiddler.

You must be loaded...again.