Bestiality/Scenes with animals (page 13)

Author	Post
Sean Renaud Member 181 Posts 7/07	Posted - Jul 9 2008 : 4:06PM When the Supreme Court knocks down laws against this. Bwahahaha. You live in crazy fantasy land. Just humor me though, how/why would they strike it down? [Link]
budtugley Senior Member One man's trash can be the next man's treasure. 1187 Posts 1/04	Posted - Jul 9 2008 : 4:24PM Japan allows beastiality, scatology, and rape scenes, yet they censor pussies. Go figure. Here's a famous Japanese beast site. Click at your own risk. clickifyoudare [Link]
smallcock Deactivated User 131 Posts 8/07	Posted - Jul 9 2008 : 5:53PM mindee wrote: I agree totally. Beastiality & Kiddie Porn are not even remotely the same things. Pedophilia is no more about erotica than is rape. They are evil and come from an entirely different direction. While child porn should be banned world-wide, beastiality is no more extreme than series like Gag-Factor & anything made by Max Hardcore. Click to expand Um, it's way more extreme. Max Hardcore stuff is done between consenting adults. Bestiality is done between two seperate SPECIES, one which cannot give consent. Bestiality is wrong, and it's thought to be where humans have contracted many epidemic diseases throughout human history. You must be one of those pet lovers with a few screws loose that thinks your dog is really part of your family and is just like a human child. Edited by - smallcock on 7/9/2008 5:54:03 PM [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jul 9 2008 : 6:14PM smallcock wrote: Bestiality is done between two seperate SPECIES, one which cannot give consent. Bestiality is wrong You must be one of those pet lovers with a few screws loose that thinks your dog is really part of your family and is just like a human child. Click to expand I was with you until you insulted real pet lovers (and I don't mean people into bestiality). I've had dogs and cats all my life and you just don't understand the bond between a person and a pet if you are trying to look at it as though it's a form of bestiality. I may have a screw lose but it isn't because I consider my dog to be part of my family. I deeply care for my dog but I don't want to fuck her. Do you have a pet or have you ever? Because I don't see how someone who has ever had a pet for more than a year or so could say that. [Link]

Sean Renaud Member 181 Posts 7/07	Posted - Jul 9 2008 : 7:35PM I'd say a dog mounting a woman counts as consent. Not that I really care. Unless your a vegetarian who refuses to ride on horse back your opinion on animal consent doesn't mean shit. What diseases are speculated to have been transmitted from animals to humans via sex cus I've never read that, not saying it's not true but I would like to know specifics. On the off chance that bestiality becomes legal it will sell a fuck ton. Realistically this will never happen though. [Link]
MikeSouth Deactivated User 511 Posts 11/02	Posted - Jul 9 2008 : 8:13PM When laws against bestiality are struck down by the supreme court. A lot of porn stars will do it. Bestiality movies will be very popular. Women with dogs and horses will be off the charts Click to expand there are no federal laws against beastiality, only child pornography anything else is a go until a community determines it to be obscene. splitting hairs ...maybe but you people really should understand how our laws work. [Link]
Sean Renaud Member 181 Posts 7/07	Posted - Jul 9 2008 : 8:27PM There aren't? Considering that long list of stupid sex laws from around this country and oft ignored sodomy laws I'm shocked there is nothing that pertains (or could easily be twisted) to pertain to beasties. [Link]
MikeSouth Deactivated User 511 Posts 11/02	Posted - Jul 10 2008 : 12:38AM Sean Renaud wrote: There aren't? Considering that long list of stupid sex laws from around this country and oft ignored sodomy laws I'm shocked there is nothing that pertains (or could easily be twisted) to pertain to beasties. Click to expand I must be a glutton for punishment no there arent the sodomy laws you refer to and anything related to them like adulteery laws were all struck down by the US Supreme court in Lawrence V. TX, so on the books or not they are no longer enforceable. There are, I'm sure state laws against sex with animals. Will the supreme court strike these down as unconstitutional? Please tell me I don't have to answer that. Again as far as federal laws are concerned only child pornography is against federal law thats it, period end of story. NOW Should I sell in animal porn in New York City or San Francisco....I may well be within the community standards there and likely never be prosecuted however if I sell it it Lugnut, Utah thats a whole nuther story...but it is legal...untill a jury decides it to be obscene by that community's standards. funny how the obscenity laws work huh. [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Jul 10 2008 : 1:07AM smallcock wrote: Um, it's way more extreme. Max Hardcore stuff is done between consenting adults. Bestiality is done between two seperate SPECIES, one which cannot give consent. Click to expand I think Max and women are a seperate species actually. [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Jul 10 2008 : 1:08AM MikeSouth wrote: Should I sell in animal porn in New York City or San Francisco....I may well be within the community standards there and likely never be prosecuted however if I sell it it Lugnut, Utah thats a whole nuther story...but it is legal...untill a jury decides it to be obscene by that community's standards. Click to expand I think beastiality porn would get convicted even in NYC or San Fran...I guess we'll soon see with the Isaacs case. [Link]
smallcock Deactivated User 131 Posts 8/07	Posted - Jul 10 2008 : 2:52AM RandomPrecision wrote: I was with you until you insulted real pet lovers (and I don't mean people into bestiality). I've had dogs and cats all my life and you just don't understand the bond between a person and a pet if you are trying to look at it as though it's a form of bestiality. I may have a screw lose but it isn't because I consider my dog to be part of my family. I deeply care for my dog but I don't want to fuck her. Do you have a pet or have you ever? Because I don't see how someone who has ever had a pet for more than a year or so could say that. Click to expand I understand developing an attachment to animals, especially animals that appear to display some basic human-like personality characteristics (eg. dogs). However far too many people lose the distinction between animal and human life, and the value of each. Edited by - smallcock on 7/10/2008 3:32:44 AM [Link]
blowfish Member 874 Posts 1/08	Posted - Jul 10 2008 : 3:16AM MikeSouth wrote: I must be a glutton for punishment no there arent the sodomy laws you refer to and anything related to them like adulteery laws were all struck down by the US Supreme court in Lawrence V. TX, so on the books or not they are no longer enforceable. There are, I'm sure state laws against sex with animals. Will the supreme court strike these down as unconstitutional? Please tell me I don't have to answer that. Again as far as federal laws are concerned only child pornography is against federal law thats it, period end of story. NOW Should I sell in animal porn in New York City or San Francisco....I may well be within the community standards there and likely never be prosecuted however if I sell it it Lugnut, Utah thats a whole nuther story...but it is legal...untill a jury decides it to be obscene by that community's standards. funny how the obscenity laws work huh. Click to expand I think people are confusing animal sodomy and pornography/obscenity. The actual act can be prosecuted in various ways namely "animal cruelty". I doubt even the most liberal court would strike those laws down. Cross species porn can still be considered legal because you almost never locate the "victim". [Link]
pornnookie Member 58 Posts 2/01	Posted - Jul 10 2008 : 1:53PM Since the animal cannot give an approval to whether they want to perform a sex act or not it should be considered rape. [Link]
Sean Renaud Member 181 Posts 7/07	Posted - Jul 10 2008 : 2:12PM pornnookie wrote: Since the animal cannot give an approval to whether they want to perform a sex act or not it should be considered rape. Click to expand Why does the animals consent suddenly matter here and why does the animal not fighting not count as consent? Most animals are quite clear when you are doing something they don't like, try pulling your cats tail if you don't believe me. Is McDonald's mass murder? Are dog shows torture? Is horse riding slavery? *Denotes edited. Edited by - Sean Renaud on 7/10/2008 7:12:29 PM [Link]

MikeSouth Deactivated User 511 Posts 11/02	Posted - Jul 10 2008 : 2:18PM <----Pulls up a chair this is gonna get entertaining [Link]
Shagdog Member Houston 626 Posts 1/07	Posted - Jul 10 2008 : 6:25PM MikeSouth wrote:I must be a glutton for punishment Click to expand Me Too The only reasons for laws banning bestiality is religious reasons or the yuk factor neither passes a Supreme court test. Consent is a non-issue. It has long been the law animals are here to serve man. Abuse it a non-issue if you harm animal it's against the law whether you fucked it or kicked it across the room. There 41 pages in this thread for people on both sides to waste their lives on. Enjoy your reading. LOL and no one changed their minds. lol [Link]
blowfish Member 874 Posts 1/08	Posted - Jul 10 2008 : 7:06PM Shagdog wrote: The only reasons for laws banning bestiality is religious reasons or the yuk factor neither passes a Supreme court test. Click to expand How is bestiality protected by the constitution? [Link]
Shagdog Member Houston 626 Posts 1/07	Posted - Jul 10 2008 : 8:41PM blowfish wrote: Shagdog wrote: The only reasons for laws banning bestiality is religious reasons or the yuk factor neither passes a Supreme court test. Click to expand How is bestiality protected by the constitution? Click to expand It's all in those 41 pages. Look it up yourself. Edited by - Shagdog on 7/10/2008 8:42:20 PM [Link]
blowfish Member 874 Posts 1/08	Posted - Jul 10 2008 : 9:44PM ^^^Its not. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jul 10 2008 : 10:28PM I can, I guess, buy into the idea that a male dog that takes it upon himself to mount and fuck a woman is, in essence, consenting. However, you really have to think about this. Even if you think the porn industry would be able to get away with bestiality movies for a while (which I seriously doubt), the anti porners would have a field day with it. You can't even convince those idiots that grown women are consenting. Or even if they are, they're still victims. This is not a direction the porn industry needs to even think about going in. No moral or ethical judgments from me. Just from a common sense standpoint. If you think the anti porners are up in arms now, try bestiality if you want to see them go absolutely apeshit. Edited by - randomprecision on 7/10/2008 10:29:40 PM [Link]
smallcock Deactivated User 131 Posts 8/07	Posted - Jul 11 2008 : 2:42AM Sean Renaud wrote: pornnookie wrote: Since the animal cannot give an approval to whether they want to perform a sex act or not it should be considered rape. Click to expand Why does the animals consent suddenly matter here and why does the animal not fighting not count as consent? Most animals are quite clear when you are doing something they don't like, try pulling your cats tail if you don't believe me. Is McDonald's mass murder? Are dog shows torture? Is horse riding slavery? Denotes edited. Edited by - Sean Renaud on 7/10/2008 7:12:29 PM Click to expand The animal's consent doesn't "suddenly" matter. It always mattered. If one human has sex with another that doesn't consent, it's called rape. Why would it be anything less than that when forcing one's self onto an animal? An animal "not fighting" doesn't "count" as consent any more than a child that doesn't fight even when they're being sexually assaulted. Fact is, no animal can say to you orally "Hey bud, yes please fuck me, you have my full consent". Until they can do that or put their John Handcock on a contract that they're able to read, animals cannot give legal consent. Most* animals are not "clear" about anything. They're animals, not humans. Anything "clear" about their behavior is humans like you PROJECTING human qualities onto that which is not human. McDonald's is NOT mass murder. It is mass killing of animals. Yes, murder and killing are two different things, legally. The mass killing of animals is not comparable to mass killing or mass murder of humans. Do not equate human life with animal life. [Link]
sam46 Deactivated User 564 Posts 1/07	Posted - Jul 11 2008 : 2:44AM blowfish wrote: Click to expand Ebbets Field. [Link]
sam46 Deactivated User 564 Posts 1/07	Posted - Jul 11 2008 : 2:46AM stinkfist wrote: Click to expand More to the point! [Link]
Dean Wormer Senior Member Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son. 1048 Posts 7/04	Posted - Jul 11 2008 : 3:48AM I agree with smallpenis. Without consent it is rape. See for yourselves. [Link]

Shagdog Member Houston 626 Posts 1/07	Posted - Jul 11 2008 : 6:05AM smallcock wrote:The animal's consent doesn't "suddenly" matter. It always mattered. If one human has sex with another that doesn't consent, it's called rape. Why would it be anything less than that when forcing one's self onto an animal? Click to expand There have never any customs or common laws, or laws giving animals the right of consent. Unless your wearing wooden or cloth shoes, never eat meat, poultry, fish, or dairy produces,never take medicine, don't own a pet, never go to the zoo, don't wear wool clothes, and never use or own any leather produces then your arguments have no merit. If your going to bestow consent rights to animals, then it has to extend to all human contact with all animals. Does a dog or cat consent to sit on your lap to be petted, it didn't consent. Are you abusing it because it doesn't know any better. If your vegetarian, based on animals rights then what gives you the right to eat vegetables. Your way behind on this thread. Please read the previous 41 pages It's all been discussed before. Edited by - Shagdog on 7/11/2008 6:12:34 AM [Link]
blowfish Member 874 Posts 1/08	Posted - Jul 11 2008 : 6:06AM ^^^I agree. You can't rape an animal. Other laws and community standards do apply. The real reason animal fucking will not be accepted because the movement will never gain critical mass. Edited by - blowfish on 7/11/2008 6:12:35 AM [Link]
blowfish Member 874 Posts 1/08	Posted - Jul 11 2008 : 6:08AM Dean Wormer wrote: I agree with smallpenis. Without consent it is rape. See for yourselves. Click to expand Man that was fowl. They should get the peking duck for that. [Link]
Shagdog Member Houston 626 Posts 1/07	Posted - Jul 11 2008 : 6:23AM blowfish wrote: ^^^I agree. You can't rape an animal. Other laws and community standards do apply. The real reason animal fucking will not be accepted because the movement will never gain critical mass. Edited by - blowfish on 7/11/2008 6:12:35 AM Click to expand That is the job of the Supreme Court to keep the masses from enacting laws that violate peoples civil rights. There was a time when there were laws against blacks and whites from having sex. The masses would have never voted to change the law, so the Supreme Court told the masses they couldn't have that law. blowfish I think men can rape small animals. I think small animals will be damaged of even killed. This can be prosecuted under current animal abuse laws. But women are not going to to hurt male dogs or horses. Edited by - Shagdog on 7/11/2008 6:44:43 AM [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jul 11 2008 : 7:41PM Shagdog wrote: That is the job of the Supreme Court to keep the masses from enacting laws that violate peoples civil rights. There was a time when there were laws against blacks and whites from having sex. Click to expand Seriously man. Why are you so obsessed with this? While I would agree that there is a civil liberties crisis underway in this country, the least of our worries is whether or not bestiality is tolerated. Unless it's something you actually get into, I don't see the point of arguing about it. Indeed it isn't worth arguing about anyway because people are never going to tolerate it. Whether or not it's moral or ethical, you can argue until you're blue in the face. It is, quite simply, a lost cause. There are other issues that more people would agree with you on. Most people don't want to see people having sex with animals. The Supreme Court is not going to bother with it. And as others have said, I don't think it's specifically forbidden anyway. It's just one of those places you should know better than to go. [Link]
blowfish Member 874 Posts 1/08	Posted - Jul 11 2008 : 8:51PM Shagdog wrote: blowfish wrote: ^^^I agree. You can't rape an animal. Other laws and community standards do apply. The real reason animal fucking will not be accepted because the movement will never gain critical mass. Edited by - blowfish on 7/11/2008 6:12:35 AM Click to expand That is the job of the Supreme Court to keep the masses from enacting laws that violate peoples civil rights. There was a time when there were laws against blacks and whites from having sex. The masses would have never voted to change the law, so the Supreme Court told the masses they couldn't have that law. blowfish I think men can rape small animals. I think small animals will be damaged of even killed. This can be prosecuted under current animal abuse laws. But women are not going to to hurt male dogs or horses. Edited by - Shagdog on 7/11/2008 6:44:43 AM Click to expand How is law preventing sexual exploitation a violation of civil rights? First of all the vast majority of psychologist consider bestiality a form of mental illness or at least severe sexual deviancy. The Supreme Court will not fall on their sword for a cause such as this. The only right this could possible come under is the inferred "right to privacy" which is the same justification for Rowe v. Wade. People that practice bestiality actually have no protections. For example - you can be fired from your job or people can refuse to rent to you if it becomes known. Animal fuckers are not a protected class. Bestiality to interracial marriages is ridiculous. Interracial marriages became legal by California sanctioning them and the Supreme Court required states to honor other states contracts. [Link]
Tobin Deactivated User 450 Posts 11/07	Posted - Jul 11 2008 : 9:10PM Legal bestiality ( as in Iceland) normally takes several forms- Opportunistic or Safety-Valve sex: "I need a sexual release... they're available... there are no human partners around... I'll get it with an animal." Fixated Sex: Animals become love objects and are the exclusive sexual "partners" for a human. Domineering sex: When batterers, rapists and pornographers force sex between a human and an animal for purposes of humiliation, sexual exploitation, dominance and control. C.J.A. Safety-valve sex is often seen as a casual act of the curious young, as sexual exploration rather than deviancy. The notion of bestiality as a safety valve that operates until the (usually young) men are ready for women leads one to ask whether the women to whom these young men graduate are not safety valves, too. Moreover, this form of bestiality is not a harmless aberration. Animals are harmed in safety-valve bestiality, and humans learn that it is okay to treat others as safety valves. In the second kind of bestiality, fixated sex, an animal becomes the exclusive focus of a human's sexual desires. Although many medical terms have been applied to a fixation on sex with animals, those who engage in this kind of sex prefer to be known as "zoophiles," a word borrowed, ironically, from the animal protection community. The zoophile's worldview is similar to the rapist's and child sexual abuser's. They all view the sex they have with their victims as consensual, and they believe it benefits their sexual "partners" as well as themselves. Just as pedophiles differentiate between those who abuse children and those who love children—placing themselves, of course, in the latter group—zoophiles distinguish between animal sexual abusers (bestialists) and those who love animals (zoophiles). In each of these cases the distinctions are only self-justifications. Whatever the frequency of bestiality, it has its own newsgroup on the Internet (alt.sex.bestiality), which provides chilling examples of the bestialist's world. One person described having sex with stray dogs and then dropping them off at animal shelters. Another reported episodes of bestiality that occurred while dog sitting for a friend. A third described having sex with his half-Percheron horse. One cannot talk very long about sex with animals without noticing the gender issues: Men are more likely to do it. Women are more likely to be depicted—or to be forced into—doing it. This type of bestiality, domineering sex, has long been used by batterers to degrade their partners. Battered women's shelters around the country receive reports from women who were forced to have sex with animals. One woman reported that her husband would tie her up and force her to have intercourse with their family dog. Then he would try to have intercourse with the dog while he forced the dog inside his wife. Forced sex with trained dogs was a form of torturing Jewish women in Nazi Germany; it was recently used against female political prisoners in Chile. Bestiality involving women occupies an entire genre in pornography. Elephants, bears, snakes, dogs, and insects—to name just a few species of animals—have been photographed or videotaped in a variety of sexual and sexualized positions with women. sex "clubs" around the globe offer live scenes of sex between women and animals. Some towns along the U.S./Mexican border feature shows "starring" women and donkeys. Women of color are often depicted with animals as a way of enforcing the racist notion that women of color are insatiable. Through pornography, dogs, snakes, and other animals, help a man picture himself in the scene. What the pornography consumer claims to be fantasy, we must regard as documentation of harm: a real woman must have a real snake inside her for a photograph of a snake inside her to exist, a real woman must give oral sex to a real bear in order for a photograph of a woman giving oral sex to a bear to exist. In addition to being used as a means of degrading women, bestiality figures in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and of course, attitudes toward animals. The imputation of bestiality has been used to portray a specific group of people as "others," to distance them from those making the charges. Sometimes miscegenation (the mixing of races) is referred to as bestiality. One group of American white supremacists believes that Jews are descended from Cain, himself the offspring of Eve's coupling with the snake, while Christians are descended from Abel, the child of Eve and Adam. European colonizers and American slave owners believed that African women enjoyed intercourse with apes. European women charged with being witches were accused of sexual congress with animals, and they—and their animal companions—were killed. During the Middle Ages, Christians viewed intercourse with Jews as a form of bestiality. Earlier this year, an Israeli judicial official compared homosexuality to bestiality. This comparison occurred, most probably, because homosexuality and bestiality are listed together in Leviticus 18:23 and 20:15-16. Like masturbation, homosexuality and bestiality are forms of non-procreative sex. During a time when childbearing was central to a people's survival, all forms of non-procreative sex would be condemned. Bestiality also violated the order of creation by mixing categories—human and animal—that were meant to be separate and distinct. Recent views of bestiality as fairly benign have replaced these earlier reactions, but no matter what the prevailing view of bestiality, it does not consider the animals' perspectives at all. It is always animal abuse. Relationships of unequal power cannot be consensual. In human-animal relationships, the human being has control of many—if not all—of the aspects of an animals' well being. Sexual relationships should occur between peers where consent is possible. Consent is when one can say no, and that no is accepted. Clearly animals cannot do that. Bestiality is the model case of circumventing consent on the one hand, while confusing affection for consent on the other. Despite the omnipresence of animals in pornographic pictures and videos, the animal protection community has yet to identify bestiality as an animal abuse issue. Bestiality has been studiously avoided by those who should be discussing it—animal rights activists, veterinarians, anti-cruelty law enforcement agents, and feminists. Carol J. Adams Carol J. Adams, author of The sexual Politics of Meat , is the co-editor with Josephine Donovan of Beyond Animals Rights: A Feminist Caring Ethic for the Treatment of Animals (Continuum 1996) and Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations (Duke 1995). Copyright ©1995 by Carol J. Adams The Animals' Agenda INVESTIGATIVE Reporting Fund Related Links Pet-Abuse.Com Bestiality Cases [Link]
Shagdog Member Houston 626 Posts 1/07	Posted - Jul 11 2008 : 9:41PM RandomPrecision wrote:Seriously man. Why are you so obsessed with this? Click to expand I'm not the one that brought it up. I'm social libertarian that believes the government has no business in peoples lives. I believe laws based In Morality and religious beliefs are Unconstitutional. People need to know the government doesn't have a right to make these laws. It won't come striking down one sex law, but striking them down as a group. Seriously man. Why do care what I post? [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Jul 11 2008 : 10:58PM RandomPrecision wrote: Seriously man. Why are you so obsessed with this? Click to expand Why do you think? [Link]
licker Senior Member Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic 1141 Posts 8/03	Posted - Jul 12 2008 : 4:43AM Tobin wrote (or rather quoted): One cannot talk very long about sex with animals without noticing the gender issues: Men are more likely to do it. Women are more likely to be depicted—or to be forced into—doing it. Click to expand Here the author gives away her true agenda - the old femfascist "all men are rapists, all sex is rape" line. What a disgusting load of pompous pontification and propaganda. I particularly enjoyed the little hint that sex with people of the Jewish faith counts as bestiality. Joseph Goebbels would be proud. [Link]

smallcock Deactivated User 131 Posts 8/07	Posted - Jul 12 2008 : 5:31AM Shagdog wrote: smallcock wrote:The animal's consent doesn't "suddenly" matter. It always mattered. If one human has sex with another that doesn't consent, it's called rape. Why would it be anything less than that when forcing one's self onto an animal? Click to expand There have never any customs or common laws, or laws giving animals the right of consent. Unless your wearing wooden or cloth shoes, never eat meat, poultry, fish, or dairy produces,never take medicine, don't own a pet, never go to the zoo, don't wear wool clothes, and never use or own any leather produces then your arguments have no merit. If your going to bestow consent rights to animals, then it has to extend to all human contact with all animals. Does a dog or cat consent to sit on your lap to be petted, it didn't consent. Are you abusing it because it doesn't know any better. If your vegetarian, based on animals rights then what gives you the right to eat vegetables. Your way behind on this thread. Please read the previous 41 pages It's all been discussed before. Edited by - Shagdog on 7/11/2008 6:12:34 AM Click to expand I'll concede that it may be ok for somebody to have sex with animals although I don't think it will ever be sanctioned by government or community standards in most of the world. Look, theoretically I should be able to do what I want - drive at whatever speed I want so long as I'm prepared to pay the piper if I hit somebody while going 100mph on a 20mph road. Theoretically I should be able to masturbate on my front lawn and paint my house in feces on my own property without having government send me to jail for doing so. Theoretically, I should be able to walk down the street with biochemicals so long as I'm not using it on anybody and store them in my house freely. Theoretically I should be able to own an atomic bomb if I had the money to pay for it and be free to sell it to anybody who wants to buy it from me, "terrorist" groups included. But it's never going to work that way; it can't. Common sense is something that hardcore libertarians should consider; living communually in a society requires concessions, restraints, and limits on individual freedoms. What that limitation is will forever be debated and pondered. Many times government oversteps its bounds, but many times government passes laws with the full support of the community behind it with some semblance of reason and rationale. You may think that extra-species sex with an animal of your choice be it a frog, dog, or ostrich is less morally repugnant than the slaughtering of millions of chickens for human consumption and sustenance that's kept humanity going since, well, the dawn of humanity, but that's an uphill battle. Still, this isn't to say that laws should not, could not, and would not be passed that allow enough freedom for individuals to have sex with animals if they choose to. I think it was legal in the Netherlands until recently. I say get over it, or have sex with as many animals as you want in the privacy of your house. Just don't film it or get caught doing it. Edited by - smallcock on 7/12/2008 5:41:43 AM [Link]
Shagdog Member Houston 626 Posts 1/07	Posted - Jul 12 2008 : 6:40AM smallcock wrote:I should be able to do what I want - drive at whatever speed I want so long as I'm prepared to pay the piper if I hit somebody while going 100mph on a 20mph road. Theoretically I should be able to masturbate on my front lawn and paint my house in feces on my own property without having government send me to jail for doing so. Click to expand Nice rant. Heres is where your wrong. The government DOES have the right to have speed limits, because your endangering other people. The Constitution DOESN'T allow you to endanger or hurt, or kill other people or infringe on other peoples rights. Masturbating in your front yard is infringing on their civil rights. Masturbating in public restrooms also infringes on peoples rights. Masturbating in a adult book store among like minded people does not. Now the owner of the adult book store has a right to ban people from jacking off on his property. Another good example is smoking. I'm a smoker. Smoking in public places infringes on peoples rights, so I shouldn't have the right to smoke in public places. But smoking in my car or home is my right. But my family and friends also have rights. It's still my right to smoke in my house and car, but I chose to be considerate of my family and friends. So I built a smoke room behind my house. On your next rant please use some common sense. Read the previous 41 pages. You will see everything has been discussed. And you will see after 43 pages in this thread no one changed anyones mind. And please read the Constitution Edited by - Shagdog on 7/12/2008 9:11:29 AM Edited by - Shagdog on 7/12/2008 11:55:17 AM [Link]
Shagdog Member Houston 626 Posts 1/07	Posted - Jul 12 2008 : 8:15AM Edited by - Shagdog on 7/12/2008 8:31:03 AM [Link]
smallcock Deactivated User 131 Posts 8/07	Posted - Jul 12 2008 : 3:20PM Shagdog wrote: Nice rant. Heres is where your wrong. The government DOES have the right to have speed limits, because your endangering other people. The Constitution DOESN'T allow you to endanger or hurt, or kill other people or infringe on other peoples rights. Click to expand LOL, yes common sense would say that I'm potentially endangering lives. So what? Unless I hurt or kill somebody, I've done nothing wrong. The government does NOT have the right to create speed limits. Knives, guns, baseball bats are all potential tools for killing and endangering lives. Masturbating in your front yard is infringing on their civil rights. Masturbating in public restrooms also infringes on peoples rights. Click to expand What civil rights? I can do what I want on my property. You don't like it, don't watch. Or move someplace else. Masturbating in a adult book store among like minded people does not. Click to expand LOL! Are you serious? Another good example is smoking. I'm a smoker. Smoking in public places infringes on peoples rights, so I shouldn't have the right to smoke in public places. But smoking in my car or home is my right. But my family and friends also have rights. It's still my right to smoke in my house and car, but I chose to be considerate of my family and friends. So I built a smoke room behind my house. Click to expand Yeah, the exhaust fumes from cars pollutes the air and infringes on the rights of people who don't drive. Maybe we should ban all cars and people who drive them. Does neighbor spraying chemicals on their lawn to get rid of weeds infringe on my right? Having a dog barking in their yard infringes on my right to peace and tranquility. I could go on all day with you. We can get into minutae but it's pointless. Where human co-habitate there must always be some level of compromise. Humans will forever argue what those compromises should be and who and why limits should be set and when and how applied. Like I said, if shagging your dog gets you off, then go to it. The rest of us want no part in it. And quite frankly, many people would be fearful of living in the vicinity of somebody who engages in such behavior, so keep it under wraps or I'm sure you'll have the law knocking at your door. Inter-species sex is rare in all animals across the animal kingdom. It's a bizarre tendency of a select few. On your next rant please use some common sense. Read the previous 41 pages. You will see everything has been discussed. And you will see after 43 pages in this thread no one changed anyones mind. And please read the Constitution Click to expand It's all about interpretation. Like I said, your sense of the limitation of freedoms differs from others. I'd say we generally do a good job at putting common sense and sound community standards in enforcing freedoms and putting the appropriate boundaries around them. Libertarians really need to get a clue. For one thing, I want to have more freedoms in some areas and perhaps limit freedoms in others - just like you do. Yet I don't go around calling myself a Libertarian, because that label alone is stupid. Edited by - smallcock on 7/12/2008 11:46:46 PM [Link]
caroline-NL Member 543 Posts 3/07	Posted - Jul 12 2008 : 6:21PM Was on hiatus for weeks - and this thread is still alive. When the anti-animal-porn laws will be passed through the 2nd chamber ( here in the Netherlands ), I will print out this thread for my defense, if I will be in legal trouble someday. ;-) I cant understand, why people have problems with normal animal porn. I dont like brutal stuff, brutal stuff is already forbidden in almost all countries. But the new dutch laws are crazy. If I kill an animal, I will have to pay $$$$, if I give a horse a blowjob, I will be imprisoned for six months. We Europeans always laughed about the crazy laws in the US, now we get more and more of these US laws in Europe. ( Look at Germanys "Teen Porn laws" passed in the parliament a few weeks ago.....) [Link]
smallcock Deactivated User 131 Posts 8/07	Posted - Jul 12 2008 : 8:24PM caroline-NL wrote: Was on hiatus for weeks - and this thread is still alive. When the anti-animal-porn laws will be passed through the 2nd chamber ( here in the Netherlands ), I will print out this thread for my defense, if I will be in legal trouble someday. ;-) I cant understand, why people have problems with normal animal porn. I dont like brutal stuff, brutal stuff is already forbidden in almost all countries. But the new dutch laws are crazy. If I kill an animal, I will have to pay $$$$, if I give a horse a blowjob, I will be imprisoned for six months. We Europeans always laughed about the crazy laws in the US, now we get more and more of these US laws in Europe. ( Look at Germanys "Teen Porn laws" passed in the parliament a few weeks ago.....) Click to expand This thread won't act as a good defense. You'll be buried with or without it. What's your fascination in having sex with disease riddled animals? [Link]
Shagdog Member Houston 626 Posts 1/07	Posted - Jul 12 2008 : 8:51PM caroline-NL wrote: Was on hiatus for weeks - and this thread is still alive. When the anti-animal-porn laws will be passed through the 2nd chamber ( here in the Netherlands ), I will print out this thread for my defense, if I will be in legal trouble someday. ;-) I cant understand, why people have problems with normal animal porn. I dont like brutal stuff, brutal stuff is already forbidden in almost all countries. But the new dutch laws are crazy. If I kill an animal, I will have to pay $$$$, if I give a horse a blowjob, I will be imprisoned for six months. We Europeans always laughed about the crazy laws in the US, now we get more and more of these US laws in Europe. ( Look at Germanys "Teen Porn laws" passed in the parliament a few weeks ago.....) Click to expand Good too see you back. What happen in Germany [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jul 13 2008 : 8:27AM Shagdog wrote: I'm not the one that brought it up. Click to expand I never said you were. I'm social libertarian that believes the government has no business in peoples lives. I believe laws based In Morality and religious beliefs are Unconstitutional. Click to expand And that's perfectly fine and in general, I quite agree with you. I'm not exactly a libertarian but am probably more so than many people. But what you're not getting here is that it does not matter if I (or anyone else here) agree(s) with you or not. Sex with animals will never be tolerated in the US. Not with Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians. It just ain't gonna happen. If you do it in private and nobody knows about it, there's nothing anyone can do to stop you but expect to be treated like a criminal if anyone finds out. People view it in the same light as sex with children or with dead people. Maybe not quite as bad but in the same category. Now think about that. It's a losing proposition from the word go. Imagine a pedophile or a necrophile arguing that pedophilia necrophilia should be legal and accepted. It's insanity. It's just not going to happen. This is not just a fetish. It's beyond the pale. You can bring up ancient Rome or Greece or whatever. The fact is that it's 2008 and we're currently engaged in a perpetual debate over whether or not consenting adults should be allowed to do porn. If you want to get into a debate over constitutional rights, there's plenty of room for you there. And you'd be on much more solid ground. People need to know the government doesn't have a right to make these laws. Click to expand That doesn't matter. They make laws that the public will support. That's how Democracy works. You can't do anything in a Democracy without the will of the people behind you. The constitution is just a piece of paper unless people hold it's principles sacred. And the fact is most people actually don't. They draw lines. The second amendment doesn't give you the right to own a nuke. The first doesn't give you the right to make kiddie porn. Right or wrong, this is how the majority sees things. And you're just pissing in the breeze if you think otherwise. Seriously man. Why do (you) care what I post? Click to expand I don't. Have fun. But you're wasting your time. [Link]
Shagdog Member Houston 626 Posts 1/07	Posted - Jul 13 2008 : 10:09AM RandomPrecision wrote: But what you're not getting here is that it does not matter if I (or anyone else here) agree(s) with you or not. Sex with animals will never be tolerated in the US. Not with Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians. It just ain't gonna happen. If you do it in private and nobody knows about it, there's nothing anyone can do to stop you but expect to be treated like a criminal if anyone finds out. Click to expand The US government doesn't have any bestiality laws. This is bestiality laws in the 50 states last up date September 5, 1997. http://www.totse.com/en/law/justice_for_all/beastlaw.html As you can see a lot of states didn't have any laws banning bestiality. The one's that did were all over the map as to punishment. Bestiality is and has been tolerated and is and has been considered a non-issue in America. In Lawrence v. Texas stuck down morality based laws. Even Scalia also averred that, State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Question is not "can you fuck your dog" the question is can the government make laws based on morality. The decision Lawrence v. Texas said the government could not. Max Hardcore wasn't convicted for what did or for filming it, he was convicted of distributing a legal act. That is the next question to be answered by the court. As for "pissing in the breeze" I don't think so. Even if McCain is elected will trade his Supreme court picks for something he wants. I also think the era of conservatism is passing, people have seen it and heard it and don't want them in their lives. [Link]
Tobin Deactivated User 450 Posts 11/07	Posted - Jul 13 2008 : 1:54PM You better hope so, Bestiality boy. Keep your filler coming -- this will be big if the Republicans push it. Obama knows darn well this could draw the spotlight away from him. If the pretty boy liberal presidential is everything he says he is then he'll call for an investigation. My bet? No way, Jose! He's telling Reid and Pelosi at this very minute, "Don't you dare let this be investigated until after the election!" Count on it. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jul 13 2008 : 2:15PM Tobin wrote: You better hope so, Bestiality boy. Keep your filler coming -- this will be big if the Republicans push it. Obama knows darn well this could draw the spotlight away from him. If the pretty boy liberal presidential is everything he says he is then he'll call for an investigation. My bet? No way, Jose! He's telling Reid and Pelosi at this very minute, "Don't you dare let this be investigated until after the election!" Count on it. Click to expand What the hell are you talking about? [Link]
IWAdult Member 628 Posts 5/06	Posted - Jul 13 2008 : 2:36PM It is just unfathomable to me that this thread has reached 19 pages of opinions and hasn’t been lock yet. [Link]
caroline-NL Member 543 Posts 3/07	Posted - Jul 13 2008 : 2:36PM @Shagdog: Banning teenporn has nothing to do with animal porn - but I already have a german homepage about the so-called "stricter childporn laws in Germany", in fact, the topic isnt childporn, but teenporn. Its always the same, if you want to cut down rights and want to minimize protest, just call it "law against childporn" or "security laws, laws against terrorism". The law against animal porn in the NL, was also subsumized unter "laws against molesting animals". Animal porn CAN be brutal, but I am against brutal animal porn. Animal porn movies, that arent in compliance with animal rights, are already illegal in the NL. Connecting normal animal porn with "childporn" or "raping corpses" is idiotic. Its is so, as if I would connect the heavyweight boxing championship with crime. I am also fed up with the implementation of US laws in Europe. What will happen, if Europe would force the US to adapt strict european gun laws ? Every owner of a gun will change from a law abiding citizen to a criminal. US government would ask the Europeans: " Are you nuts ? ", but US government can force Europe to implement crazy US porn laws. I dont will write anything about animal porn anymore in this thread, because I dont want to repeat my old postings. Everything is said. [Link]
blowfish Member 874 Posts 1/08	Posted - Jul 13 2008 : 3:24PM caroline-NL wrote: I am also fed up with the implementation of US laws in Europe. What will happen, if Europe would force the US to adapt strict european gun laws ? Every owner of a gun will change from a law abiding citizen to a criminal. US government would ask the Europeans: " Are you nuts ? ", but US government can force Europe to implement crazy US porn laws. Click to expand What morality based law has America imposed on any European country? The rule is that if not legal in America you can't import it. Guns dealing is prohibited therefore the US does not ship arms to private Europeans. Nothing strange at all. If there is increased censorship, you have to look no farther than the government that enacted the law. Its not Americas fault if your country doesn't allow animal sex. America has pushed for anti-terrorism initiatives in the different European countries. Still nothing prevents them from ignoring/rebuking American requests. [Link]
caroline-NL Member 543 Posts 3/07	Posted - Jul 13 2008 : 3:42PM blowfish wrote: What morality based law has America imposed on any European country? (..)Still nothing prevents them from ignoring/rebuking American requests. Click to expand Blowfish, the US governments put enormous pressure on European countries to raise minimum age laws for porn. ( from 14/15/16 to 18 ). ( Legal papers are in german or dutch only, I think it is of no use setting a link here ) Just read my thread "danish teen porn controversy". Animal porn never had top priority for the US government, it still isnt illegal in the States, but the US authorities werent happy about the open market of animal porn in northern Europe. The new laws against animal porn are a result of conservative governments, but also the result of a "world porn law". It isnt a coincidence, that this "world porn law" is constitutionalized in the Cybercrime Convention, and this is almost identical to the US/CAN law, but not to the (former) more liberal european laws. Edited by - Caroline-NL on 7/13/2008 3:46:40 PM [Link]
Dither Persona non grata I love America 650 Posts 8/05	Posted - Jul 13 2008 : 5:08PM blowfish wrote: America has pushed for anti-terrorism initiatives in the different European countries. Still nothing prevents them from ignoring/rebuking American requests. Click to expand Sure it does, it entails loss of political goodwill and trade deals, at worst sanctions. Some 75 countries are under US sanctions. [Link]