Sintactivist is the name the KBH gives to any member of the wicked flank of the anti-circumcision movement. Sintactivists argue that we should have our foreskins so that we can do more perverted things (like “docking”) and damage our brains more with self abuse.
The name Bonobo3D, for this James Loewen (LewinskyⓀ) who is probably living in Vancouver, Canada, comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of nature, in which faggits claim that animals in the wild have orgies, masturbate, have anal sex, misopedia, incest and other crimes. Perhaps one of the most shocking and deceptive of these wild animals is the great bonobo monkey, which might seem to be doing just these things. However, as National Geographic explains:
Usually there’s no orgasm culminating these activities. 
So typically these acts are a form of dominance behavior or other non-verbal communication.
But Loewen sees a mirror of himself in animals, and that animals affirm his own behavior. He thinks even blue whales are also depraved. Consider this exchange:
Despite the enormous size of blue whales, we know very little about them. Their migration routes are still a mystery, and we have absolutely no idea where they go to breed.
Wikipedia’s article mentions nothing of “homoerotic” behavior of blue whales, and I still have yet to see film of bonobos (or any other animal for that matter) in the wild masturbating to ejaculation. What else is in the sick imagination of the nation’s number one sintactivist?
Also ask dog breeders and other farmers, or otherwise research animal husbandry. Do even animals in captivity, who are often saddened and go crazy, penetrate each other in the arse and start poojabbing? Uh, no. Again this is called dominance behavior, and there is no penetration, deathspasm or loss of creative fluid. Wanker idiots like “kleenex3000” cannot bring their addled minds to understand, that there is the full potential in each release to create a whole new life, the loss of which would be detrimental to survival – particularly in the wild.
The second problem with an appeal to nature is that wild animals do not have any morality at all. This is because they are not thinking creatures but rather swimming, flying or otherwise greatly physically adapted creatures meant to do something else other than to be logical, think, write articles, symphonies or control their emotions like humans do. If we are to follow wild animals as a guide for behavior, we could regularly commit infanticide, eat our young, fight to the death for poontang, eat our own poop, be polygamous, and be incestuous.
The original point being made to Loewen is that, though animals are indeed savage and have nothing of what humans might call morality, they are superior to humans in that they do not masturbate, have “sex lives” or otherwise waste their time and life creativity on literally mind-blowing and ultimately destructive experiences. However, there are millions of animals with all different kinds of behaviors, and animals have a lower quotient of consciousness than humans. Humans imitating the behaviors of any animal is odd – something like imitating four-year-old children. Isn’t it obvious that animals are not proper behavior models for intelligent, adult humans?
Finally, natural does not equal good. Sounds too simple to mention, but everywhere you see this falsehood that natural is the same as good. Why we have to write here, to counter millions if not billions of idiots, that nature just means “untouched or modified by man”, that many if not most of these things are dangerous, harmful or disgusting to a human being, is beyond us knights at the KBH. Cocaine, plague, hookworms, cat feces, rabies, freezing cold temperatures, quicksand, mosquitoes, volcanic eruptions and so on and so forth are all natural. If natural were always good, humans would have zero problems to fix or jobs to do in the world, and we could just be naked and live outside.