@Tobin: You dont have to citate almost the whole thread for your statement. As every good rider can tell you, a horse dont need to talk to give consent.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 28 2008 : 7:25PM
so far this is the best statement anyone has made, by Random.... "And if I caught somebody trying to fuck my dog, I'd kick their ass. But I'm just saying." I think a lot of dog owners feel the same way, i do. That should be somewhat of a deterrent to this type of behavior.
Just to interupt the 'It's wrong! It's right!' discussion... I was curious as to why people are interested in watching pornstars fuck animals? I don't mean that in a judgemental way. I am honestly curious. Why does it push your buttons?
^^^Its the ultimate in degradation for many voyeurs.
[Link]
Dither Persona non grata
I love America 650 Posts 8/05
Posted - Mar 29 2008 : 8:50PM
^ Maybe it's the illusion that porn stars will compulsively fuck any object in sight - living or inanimate - that can be stuffed inside a body opening. Part of the fantasy that they're obsessively horny all the time.
Interesting question. I don't understand it either, regarding the pornstar requirement. Why isn't plain ol' bestiality, with "unknown" participants, good enough? It seems to me that further narrowing of an already small niche will just yield disappointment.
This is a funny thread. It reminds me of a thread on RAME way back in the day on Usenet where people where arguing back forth about whether or not animals can be gay. That was when it was still modded by humans and not robots, too. Somehow that was tied to porn and got approval to be posted...
It just occurred to me that if animals can't consent to sex, they are essentially raping one another every single time they have sex. Again. Not arguing in favor of bestiality. Just a thought.
There is a biological attraction, but it's sort of like a 'last resort', when there's nothing better to fuck than a sister/brother, kid or animal. Some study even showed that a photo of a naked pre-teen girl resulted in the same brain activity as a photo of a naked woman, making all men potentially pedophiles. Attraction is sometimes overruled by sexuality, like the classic example of gay sex in prison.
(obviously, most of this thread is about people not even trying to understand, not wanting to, how convenient to shield oneself from the horrors of bestiality... seems the more disturbing the subject, the less willing are people to look at it objectivily, just the same strongly biased argument over and over... actually I'm surprised by how normal porn fans are in that sense, just like regular non-porn-watching people)
Porn fans span a broad spectrum. Most people draw the line somewhere. There is nothing wrong with forming strong opinions. Those opinions what make up societal norms. Those norms become the laws we live by. Some draw the line at scat and piss, some bestiality, some child porn, some authentic snuff films, and some have no line at all. Sometimes we can't have everything we want. Do you think porn would have become as accepting as it is now if "Deep Throat" was put in the same category as "Donkeys from Uranus"?
I guess the problem is that sometimes, things that really don't hurt anyone (such as piss and scat) get put into the same category as things that do. Maybe some of us don't care what a person who will accept vanilla porn but who will not accept piss porn thinks. He/she doesn't have to watch it and jerk off to it. Just don't hassle the people who like it and stand up for their right to enjoy it if they want. Yes. Lines have to be drawn. Most everyone would agree that kiddy porn is wrong. And probably bestiality too. But you have to watch out for the people who would expand that category by putting anything that offends a sizable number of people in the same category. Just because they don't like it, I don't think, for instance, anyone has a right to put piss play into the same category as kiddy porn. Edited by - randomprecision on 3/30/2008 9:44:17 AM
[Link]
sam46 Deactivated User
564 Posts 1/07
Posted - Mar 30 2008 : 11:22AM
Animal cruelty is never warranted.
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Mar 30 2008 : 11:23AM
Ask Little Miss Ridding Hood.
[Link]
sam46 Deactivated User
564 Posts 1/07
Posted - Mar 30 2008 : 11:25AM
Animal rape is not physically possible.
[Link]
sam46 Deactivated User
564 Posts 1/07
Posted - Mar 30 2008 : 11:28AM
Hong Kong has the highest rate of animal abuse in the world.
Shake for me girl... I wanna be your backdoorman ! 2776 Posts 10/07
Posted - Mar 30 2008 : 8:09PM
^ Actually no. Animals do consent in some form when females concede to the alpha males. In animals it's a base instinct to preserve the species. It's more complicated in humans involving choice derived from a higher level of thinking (hopefully). (although it is our second strongest instint) That's the difference and makes humans "choosing" to have sex with an animal that wouldn't normally have sex with humans some sick muthafukkers.
[Link]
sam46 Deactivated User
564 Posts 1/07
Posted - Mar 30 2008 : 8:39PM
lol
[Link]
sam46 Deactivated User
564 Posts 1/07
Posted - Mar 30 2008 : 8:42PM
There should actually be laws banning tranny animals, which occur quite often in nature, and result in very confused humans!
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Mar 30 2008 : 10:50PM
+1 I can't see how Dither could take RP's statement as a 'good point' as it completely misses the centre of the consent argument. Two young children having consenual sex play is not the same thing as an adult having sex with a child, two people with mental disabilities having sex is not the same as an adult with full mental capacity having sex with a retarded woman or man. These degrees of capacity for consent seem clear to me. Regarding the fact we eat animals, sure, but we still don't look kindly on the torturing or undue suffering of animals. Another interesting point is the assumption that with dog fucking it is always a dog fucking a woman, there is bestality porn with men sodomizing dogs, cats, chickens, etc which seems clearly abusive to me, but I'm sure some here will find a way to argue otherwise. But now, to get back to the REAL point of this thread: [ invalid url ]
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Mar 30 2008 : 10:53PM
^^^^ Nice! Tijuana Bibles are great (not animal ones specifically, mind you), thanks for the link. I'll have to search through that site.
dude, seriously. stop quoting huge volumes of the last post just to say 'lol' or whatever. learn how to quote properly. it's not that hard. really. don't quote massive amounts of text. it's really annoying, as other people have agreed on many other occassions. k?
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Mar 31 2008 : 4:17AM
Yeah, I love them, I have a great book that collects a bunch with an Art Spiegelman (yep, of Maus fame) intro that has some great ones featuring stars and comic characters from the 20s and 30s. The one where Donald Duck does Minnie Mouse is particularly memorable, I'd scan it and post it but my scanner is busted.
[Link]
sam46 Deactivated User
564 Posts 1/07
Posted - Mar 31 2008 : 7:31AM
LOL! Man, don't I have to look at that ugly mug every time you post?
Perhaps a historical perspective might be another way of looking at the "is it right to fuck animals question"? The Victorian notion of humans being "above" animals - that humans had progressed in a linear fashion from savagery and barbarism to civilisation and that part of that civilisation was the shaping of nature to our demands - generally our economic needs, not our sexual needs. Just a thought.
[Link]
conquistador Deactivated User
Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03
Posted - Mar 31 2008 : 12:07PM
Actually you don't even have any room to complain about this. Turn off automatic image loading on your browser if you don't like avatars. [o\|] Your 'wall of text' style posts are much more annoying and difficult to avoid then seeing images. Edited by - conquistador on 3/31/2008 12:09:24 PM
[Link]
Dither Persona non grata
I love America 650 Posts 8/05
Posted - Mar 31 2008 : 1:44PM
Now you're just defining "consent" as you see fit to promote your own arguments. If I can define "capacity for consent" as I want ("this or that definition seems clear to me"), I could use the consent-argument to argue for "anything is legal" just as well as "everything is banned". Then the whole thing becomes little more than an exercise in sophistry.
You seem to be taking more out of my statement than I actually said. The original argument was that animals can't give consent. I simply said that if that is so (which it clearly isn't), then animals are raping each other when they have sex. I was simply shooting down an invalid argument. I'm not even gonna get into whether or not interspecies sex is right or wrong. Whatever. I don't have to make that judgment. Fucking animals isn't something I want to do and I'm not responsible for any animals which are likely to be the subject of an animal fucker. Thus, the whole debate is just a curiosity to me. People who want to fuck animals can make their own decisions. As long as I don't catch them trying to fuck my dog (My dog is female and too small for a human being to have sex with her without injuring or killing her), it's an impersonal debate. As far as the rest of your argument, kids can't legally fuck other kids, either. Right or wrong, that's the law. The argument was that animals can't consent. You took that a step in a direction that wasn't intended with kids. As I've said earlier, whether the disparity is actually there or not, we don't look at animals (such as horses and cows) the same way as we do human children. Their mental state may be roughly equivalent to that of a very young child but the similarities would seem to end there.But again. Death is clearly worse than sex. Unless you're talking about humans penetrating small animals, I'm not even sure it amounts to torture. It's unsavory. It's disgusting but I'm not sure animals such as horses or cows or sheep or whatever are significantly harmed by this. There are a lot worse things a person could do to a horse than fucking it. I'd kind of rather they didn't do anything to it but frankly, it's not as disturbing to me as the fact that many animals are slaughtered every day. I'm not a PETA member or anything like that. I eat meat. But I'm aware of where it comes from.
[Link]
Dither Persona non grata
I love America 650 Posts 8/05
Posted - Mar 31 2008 : 2:48PM
So, if someone/something doesn't provide consent the way you have defined it, that means it is suffering?
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Apr 1 2008 : 4:21AM
I'm confused by your response Dither, are you saying that one cannot define different levels of mental capacity for consent? If not, then why would one not be able to molest a child because they 'consent' by getting an erection? Often children who are molested eventually derive physical pleasure from the sexual acts they are forced to perform, does that make the act less abusive? I don't think so. Lines and degrees of what is and isn't acceptable can be drawn. If you're arguing that 'everything is subjective' that is real sophistry. Edited by - BlackSix on 4/1/2008 4:56:43 AM
Let me see if I have this right. Your argument is that bestiality is wrong because people who like to fuck animals are taking advantage of the fact that animals don't think like humans? If some dude fucks a horse and the horse doesn't resist or fight in any way or even seem to care, it's just that "the horse doesn't know any better". Isn't that it? But the whole issue is that if the horse doesn't care and doesn't seem to be harmed, who cares? Only people who are so offended by the whole operation that they go above and beyond just going "WTF would wanna fuck a horse?". Ah hell. I don't even know what you're saying. But it is amusing. This whole thing is funny. On my settings, we now have 17 pages of people arguing over whether people shodl or shouldn't fuck animals. Nothing better to talk about, I suppose. Which is probably the main reason why anyone would ever fuck an animal. Nothing better to do.
[Link]
Dither Persona non grata
I love America 650 Posts 8/05
Posted - Apr 1 2008 : 12:29PM
Lines for what's acceptable have to be drawn, but it ultimately is a subjective assessment, it is not natural law. If an animal (or even a molestation victim) doesn't suffer any physical or psychological damage, gets an erection and enjoys what happens (perhaps without fully understanding it), who determines we're talking of a victim? It's us, it's society that determines it, on the basis that empirical and theoretical knowledge suggests the likelihood of damage is high enough for it to be beyond where we draw the line. And add some tradition and social values into it too, no law is purely scientifically based. But it is us, people, who draw the line and that is subjective. When people talk of "consent" they often treat it as natural law, something that just "is", even when in it isn't. That's why the argument is a dead end. You say animals can't consent, that's your definition. In Denmark to pick an example, the law doesn't prohibit bestiality and as such they have used a different definition. And I don't think you can say that "you are right" and "they are wrong" just like that, like it's natural law. It is subjective, but we have agreed collectively or culturally to draw a line and that line is the law. If you think consent is natural law, I wanna ask you one thing: Do you consent when you agree on something because the alternatives are worse? If "no", is it even possible to consent? If "yes", is it possible to not consent?
Secrets Shared By Two - review by Captain Jack
Posted - Mar 28 2008 : 6:00PM
I'll have to search through that site.