Reviewers Recommend Dani Daniels: The Iconic Collection - review by Captain Jack Starring: Toni Ribas, Manuel Ferrara, Ramon Nomar, James Deen, Karlie Montana, Zoey Holloway, Skin Diamond, Dani Daniels, Maddy O'Reilly, Sovereign Syre. Read review
I am not so sure, that Cicciolina never made a real horse movie. I can remember seeing this video in Italy, yeeeeears ago, but it was so expensive, that I didnt bought it. In several discussions, she claimed, that she had sex with a dog and a horse once, because you cant judge it, if you havent done it. Bodils first movie, " A summers day ", also received a prize at a Tokyo movie festival. Its an art movie, very unusual. Very interesting. I bought it in Copenhagen, still on the old Videoformat "VCR". As far as I know, it was never released on VHS, Beta or V2000, only VCR and Super8. ( And a blown up 16mm version )
[Link]
sam46 Deactivated User
564 Posts 1/07
Posted - Sep 15 2007 : 3:17PM
Check out Breast Tube. Clips of Cicciolina rimming horses, yum.
It is fake she never did any horse Also I'd like to know where she said she did a horse and a dog she had a hard divorce from his husband Jeff Koons who kidnapped their son from Italy to the USA, she kidnap the child again from the US to Italy they go several time in some tribunal , if she really said a thing like that she would've lost his son because the judge would've given that child to his father instead of his mother alaso his father would've brought that video at the attention of the judge but he didn't, so I seriously doubt she said anything like that, she's not dumb. @wargamer thank you but I'm not that interested in that matter I only wanted to keep informed Edited by - Laurie Cameron Fan on 9/15/2007 6:25:48 PM
You all are quite the sophisticated authorities on the finer details of humans fucking animals. This thread is enlightening. What about bonobos and other apes, should we fuck them too?
Not really. I know very little about it. I was merely concerned to hear all the cries of "Abomination". All the tired old excuses that were once used to ban oral sex, gay rights etc., are still alive and well.It's entirely up to you and the ape. I simply defend your right to choose.
Actually, that isn't true Bob. I am defending everyone's right to choose. The choice that they make is up to them. If I choose to ride the bus to work, that does not mean I have lost the right to drive my car. See?
Spare me your glib and condescending analogies.That's your rhetorical strategy; I'm interested in your underlying motivation. The gallantry bit is a dodge. Be honest -- you're defending your legal and moral right to choose to engage in bestiality. Since I don't actually believe that you want to fuck dogs, I wonder why you're doing it? Why do you deem this issue to be worthy of your estimable energy, intellect, and attention? Assuming, for purposes of discussion, that informed consent is present in these kinds of sexual "relations" (which, by the way, I don't assume), do you feel that ALL consensual sexual relations are worthy, even equally worthy, of defense?If I were gay, I would feel that you had put me in very bad company. Beyond that, you seem unwilling to consider that there may be qualitative distinctions that differentiate seemingly (superficially?) similar situations. An analogy is not the same as an equivalence. Drawing qualitative distinctions isn't an exact science, but its imprecision and difficulty doesn't negate its importance. In fact, I think civilization depends on it.Is "Libertarians for Necrophilia" next? No niggling consent issues there! * * *
Monkey? no. But apes? In the case of Chimps probably yes if you try hard and long enough. There are far fewer(almost none) VDs that can be transmitted through bestiality and this is often a reason that some girls participate in it. But chimp-besitality forfeits that benefit so... And yeah the horrible consequence that the girl may also get pregnant.(with dogs the chances are 0) The chances are still very very very small but one cannot really rule them out. This form of bestiality can be more than just a freedom-of-choice issue. I don't think human females and male chimps are sexually very compatible though. Chimps' penises on av measure only 3 inches when erect. Orangs and Gorilla have even smaller ones. So much for the King Kong fantasies. And yeah if you are thinking of the other way around, don't mess up with female chimps. Chimps are very powerfull animals. Even female chimps are more powerful than most men save elite athletes.
[Link]
brewski Deactivated User
208 Posts 6/07
Posted - Sep 16 2007 : 5:24PM
Man, wargamer world authority on animal dick, impressive! Yo, war, which one do best cum shot?
But Barbie Cumming does. Maybe he is defending her right. This is just so hilarious, especially because Bob takes himself so seriously. So if a white man is not interested in women of other races he should never mind about banning interracial sex?
It always bothers me hell a lot when I know the answer to a taunt.(should I answer and look foolish or just ignore what I know so well? LOL) Blame the fine education I received at U of C****g*. Its 7 million books(more now I guess) are just for us demented psycopaths seeking all kinds of perverted interests.
The above piece of contemptible waffle is an example of something called "ad hominem argument". It is used by some people as a desperate measure when they are utterly incapable of offering any logic or facts to support a point they are trying to make. It amounts to a confession that their argument is so weak, they have no alternative but to distract attention by making comments about their opponent. Yawn. If you want to know what my personal attitude is Bob, try reading my posts, instead of inventing lies about me.
Okay. Why not read the balance of my post and answer my questions? * * * Since I don't actually believe that you want to fuck dogs, I wonder why you're [defending] it? Why do you deem this issue to be worthy of your estimable energy, intellect, and attention? Assuming, for purposes of discussion, that informed consent is present in these kinds of sexual "relations" . . . do you feel that ALL consensual sexual relations are worthy, even equally worthy, of defense? * * * That will tell me more about your personal attitude.
Very well Bob, since you ask so politely, I will try to answer your previous comments.Not quite a question, but I will answer it. My motivation is a desire to do my part to heal my community from the psychological wounds it has suffered over the course of at least 500 years of sexual repression by religious authorities.Because I have seen for myself the results of anti-sex bigotry inflicted on people I know, and I therefore feel that NOBODY has the right to force others to conform to their own sexual preferences.My criterion for the acceptability of consensual sexual practices is that they must do no harm to the participants.If you feel that you have the right to enforce your own particular sexual preferences on the rest of humanity, then you have put yourself in very bad company. I don't care if you're gay, straight or a eunuch. By supporting a point of view that wants to throw Caroline and Mindee in jail because of their desires, you are behaving in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as those people who want to throw gay men in jail for being gay. I find the attitude to be contemptible in both cases.I'm not quite sure you are getting at here, but it sounds like you are saying that what you like is right and anything you don't like is wrong. Clearly I would disagree with that.Off topic, if you'll pardon the pun.
If you don't mind, a couple of follow-up questions then: (1) If a person (whether oneself or one's sexual partner) consents to be harmed by a sexual activity, does such consent make the activity acceptable? (2) What constitutes "harm"? (3) Is necrophilia an acceptable sexual activity? How do the factors of consent and harmfulness figure into your position? Let's leave legal issues -- putting people in jail, etc. -- out of the discussion. I haven't gone there. The ethical/spiritual issues are what concern me.
I find that to be unacceptable.Physical or psychological damage. (With the proviso that the psychological damage is a direct result of the activity, not some post facto community brainwashing.)That's off topic, and I have not had the leisure to consider the problem. There are several issues I would need to think about. not least being that someone has to end up dead for it to happen, so the possibilities for harm are clear and obvious. Anyway, it's off topic.They are already in the discussion - see above. Are you saying you don't support legal sanctions to enforce your position? If not, why not?
I think the question is absolutely on topic, given the premises underlying your arguments. Let's assume that the living person in the scenario had nothing to do with the death of the corpse. Let's also assume that the decedent has no family or friends, no claimants for the body. Under those circumstances, is it "okay"?I would support legal sanctions in a situation where the animal was forced (raped); otherwise, I wouldn't. Why not in the second case? Because there's a difference for me between what people should not do and what they should be punished for doing. Or, as Loraine put it so well at the beginning of this thread, "Just because you can doesn't mean you should."
This just cracked me up. Bob's English is pretty good. I thought he might be a native speaker up until now. I am just curious, what is his native tongue? Is this a common mistake for the speakers of that language? Edited by - wargamer on 9/18/2007 11:46:31 AM
You crack me up even more!!! * * * From Merriam-Webster.com Main Entry: de•ce•dent Pronunciation: di-'sE-d&nt Function: noun Etymology: Latin decedent-, decedens, present participle of decedere : a deceased person -- used chiefly in law * * * I think your problem arises from the limited breadth of your vocabulary, wargamer.
licker, I guess I've been badgering you too much. I respect your intellect and your integrity, and I sincerely apologize for my rudeness to you in my second post in this thread. Your comment to Loraine got under my skin, but that's no excuse. My remark that the rights you were interested in safeguarding were your own was a badly stated way of getting to something else, which had to do with our existential choices about what “projects” to adopt in life. Why this project and not another? As for me, whereas I'm fully committed to gay rights, I wouldn't lift a finger to defend the rights of people to have sex with animals. However, it's clear to me that you have a profound and expansive commitment to tolerance and justice, and I retract any negative insinuations, both real and perceived. My own position is this: Your criteria of "consent" and "absence of harm" work for me in most cases, too. However, from my point of view, those criteria alone are insufficient in what I regard as “extreme cases”. They yield a bullet that I'm not willing to bite. As a consequence, I feel in some circumstances that I have to go with my gut, my intuition. This is how I get to the notion of "qualitative distinctions".
Let me say a bit more about my take: For consent to be meaningful, it has to be both "informed" and truly "free". The limits of our knowledge about ourselves and our circumstances can raise questions regarding the sufficiency of our "informed-ness". The presence of subtle forms of pressure and influence can throw doubt on the authenticity of our seemingly free choices. Then, there's the issue of "harm". It sounds like a simple standard in principle but, in connection with behavior at the extremes of sexual activity, its practical application is so fraught with controversy (legitimate in many cases, I think) that the usefulness of the concept breaks down. * * * [it's/its typo correction]
My apology to Licker. My moment of incircumspection gave this pretentious snob the luxury of feigning grace. All this ,especially the corny intellectual pretension, is pretty silly. There are certain moral precepts or principles that can be considered univerasal. But they are quite narrow in scope. Damning and condoning besitiality are entirely consistent with each of different sets of moral values around the globe. What are socially acceptable, morally tolerable, legally defendable are all different matters. I am sure that a "good" Victorian era gentleman of the 19th century England was ,when he railed against interracial sex, as sincere as and as committed to uphold and defend the sanctity of human dignity as any of you guys here who find besitality abhorrent. I am not a moral relativist but morality is far more relative than most of you think. Bob went off course to personally attack Licker and as he found himself with nothing to support his shallow "logical" path, he threw around various, entirley meaningless pseudo ethical "arguments" in order to give his "nothing" a gloss of intellectual sophistication with a pseudo-legalistic overtone. Bahhhh. I hope no one is foolish enough to be tricked by this kind of sophistry.
Priceless!
