fchan

well i dont see how adding ears to an otherwise 100% human is furry, but SOMEHOW that passes.

>>2
>>3

Then they should draw cat ears on all these humans so they're complying with the rules...

This was already *shortly* debated on the Felicia thread. Even though I remember one of the mods saying that she is a furry, there's still a large blurry line as far as how much percentage of a human figure being furry makes it a true furry... There are obvious cases, of course, but when transformations are considered, it's purely a matter of opinion.

>>7
Yeah, well you're a fag.

>>9 They aren't that sketchy. Live action is forbidden. Photomorphs are WAYYY forbidden because it's very easy to photomorph underage boys and girls. As long as it's not out of control, drawn humen/animal smut is allowed.

>>11
quit trolling asshole, go somewhere else if you don't like it. No mod decision = no ban.

A bit of clarification:

Real bestiality is not allowed, was never allowed and will never be allowed.

In regards to illutrated bestiality:

The moderator team of fchan does NOT regard that as "furry". We have decided to allow it to exist in the /ah/ board for one single reason.

We do not care about the hassle of deciding wether something is "anthro enough" nor do we want to deal with repeated requests to allow said materials.

Thus we are TOLERATING it, nothing else.

>>14 what's next, tolerating Shota? a fine line between reality anf fiction... too fine if you ask me.

don't get me wrong, i understand where you're coming from, best to avoid the hassle but sometimes putting your foot down on an issue is nessessary, no matter how many dog-rapers seem to disagre (i'll go on record to say i really fucking hate Zoo's, though that could just be that i've had to deal with the worst kinds ever)

>>16

Huh? Underage art is allowed on /ah/ also. Where have you been for the past...forever?

Just do what I do and avoid /ah/ simple as that. ;)

Is anything legal in Canada?

I'm pretty sure that in Kentucky at least having sex with a chicken is illegal. "Barn yard sodomy" I believe was the term. Apparently this is still a practice in some of the more isolated areas as a former aquantince of mine knew a guy imprisoned for it in a near by county. I agree that "real" porn and "fake" are differen't and find that the "real" porn is too "fake" for my taste and prefer the "fake" artwork that is "real" in its expression. Woot college make me thing 2 much?

Actually, in Canada, it's to refer to any sexual contact, not just sodomy.

Also, in Kentucky, it is legal.  However, insertion of a foreign object into an avian's cloaca IS extremely damaging, and often fatal.  Something the size of a human penis is invariably fatal.
As such, they were probably charged will animal cruelty.  There are no records specifically referring to sexual contact to animals.

I look at bestiality as being not quite as bad as, say, molesting retarded children, but in the same ballpark.  Seriously, they can't consent... they CAN'T.  If you think they are, you're an unstable monster who imposes his reality in place of anything that doesn't involve you getting your way.  People who think you're disgusting become persecutors, laws forbidding your practice become opressive, and the dog's confused, instinctive participation becomes lust.  It's a delusion!  Quit torturing the animals!  Jesus, they have enough to suffer through as sub-slaves and food, don't add molestation and rape.

...

Damnit!

Us human have left nature behind in many ways, and developed concepts of morality and such.  I mean, territorialism is rampant in nature, yet you're not allowed to attack someone who cuts across your lawn.  Rape is a natural instinct practiced by many animals, yet that too is a crime.  Nature kills the sick and the old, we humans have developed medicine and such to aid them.  We aren't like other animals... we're too aware, and appealing to the primal state of nature is just an excuse.

So, if plants are bombarding us with their pollen because they get off on it, yes, they'd be degenerate perverts, especially since pollen HURTS a lot of people.  Plants don't think at all, and with the arguable exception of a few, animals are governed almost entirely by instinct... so what they do never enters the real of right and wrong.  Morality is beyond them, but not us.  We CHOOSE to do these things; more often than not, we're aware of the consequences in part at least.  Sure, physically, we're just primates, but our minds have evolved.  We don't sit around in the forest scratching for fruit and bugs to eat; we do things like argue on computers with people around the world about morality and the like.

As for concepts of obscenity, personally I think it's a matter of thinking reasonably.  If your goat comes up to you, and somehow manages to learn to speak and says "Oh yes, stick it in me", then yeah, go ahead I guess, if you swing that way.  If you just take a goat and start screwing it however, I'm sorry, but that just isn't complicated enough to argue about: it's clearly wrong... along the same lines as cutting the goat just to see it bleed and suffer.  Indulging yourself for gratification alone, by torturing and raping?  Sheesh...

I am not part of the Bestiality scene and find no sexual attraction to real animals so don’t think im one of those guys trying to defend Bestiality to make it seem right but I have  to clear up some stupidity in this discussion.

So lets say a guy goes up to a mare and tries to fuck her. The mare according to you has no say in if she has sex. What a load of bull shit she will kick you in the face. And a dog will bite your dick off.
Another thing to add, when an animal is in heat it don’t give a fuck what screws it as long as its screwed.
How the fuck does a woman rape a male dog or a horse for that matter. Obviously they understand and react to sexual urges imprinted on them since birth. Male dog hump everything that moves especially your leg obviously they want and need sexual relief.
Rape is a word that was invented by the human culture and is neither understood nor relevant to an animal. The animal is either in the mood for sex or it isn’t end of story.

When im in the mood to have sex I don’t ask my girlfriend "Do you consent to have sex with me" every time I want to get laid. My girlfriend understands that I want sex by foreplay and my body language. Talking is not the only way to communicate and regarding sex is not the main way to communicate. I never see animals talking to each other either; they use this universal language of foreplay and body movement that symbolises that they want to have sex just like we do.
If the animal is willing and does not object (Bite your Dick Off) then I don’t think it can be called rape.

Having said all this I do not support Bestiality. Bestiality is usually the exploitation of animals in porno films for profit and they use methods such as drugs and bondage. This type of crap is not only illegal but just disgusting and evil.
Having sex with an animal because in your eyes you see it as a partner and lover and the animal sees you as the same is fine in mine books.

I think many of you may be missing the point. I never intended this to be a "right or wrong" conversation. My point was very simple.

Is a normal human being a furry? No. Is a normal animal a furry? No. Is a normal human and a normal animal furry? No.

IMO, bestiality between normal humans and normal animals doesn't belong on a *furry* board. But the mods have already spoken on the issue.

What is a furry anyway? Isn't it part animal and part Human? So what you're all saying is that it's ok to have sex with something that's not entirely human or animal but has most major features of an animal such as tails, muzzles, ears, etc. Somehow you've gotten it into your head that it's ok to fantisize about having sex with something that's half animal but deny entirely your attraction to one of the 2 extremes of what makes up a furry: the animal part. If you ask me; you're all boarderline zoophiles.

If you want to not allow animals to be in this image board then why allow humans. Humans have no tails, pointy ears or muzzles yet I see countless pictures with them "interacting" with furrys on any of the boards here. If you don't allow one extreme why allow the other?

I'd just like to point out that I don't condone beastiality in any way. Nor do I condone rape or murder, yet I also see it on this site. Is it not illegal to rape or kill someone? Are you all complaining about that? Maybe if it's not a real picture and it's only a drawing then it makes it ok. Or maybe it's because it's being done to something that doesn't really exist that makes you feel that it's ok to do these things to them and somehow it's not wrong.

I understand that this is a furry image board and I believe that the mods are doing their job in sifting through most of the garbage that gets posted here, but it doesn't make sense to me how you can all write that beastiality is illegal and shouldn't be allowed on the board yet you say nothing about humans on the furry board or the countless images of rape and murder on these boards. Tolerate it if you must but don't complain because one of your sexual fantasies doesn't involve animals or rape and murder. If you don't like it, scroll past it.

I really don't think the person who started this thread meant for it to evolve into a debate on whether fucking animals is wrong. They simple said that sex with "animals" doesn't belong on a furry board. All of you that are bitching about whether it's morally just or not to have sex with an animal are not going to take this anywhere. You can both have your opinions and can go on about the legality of beastiality but it's not going to get it off the boards.

All of you that don't like it: tough, you're gonna have to deal with it. All of you that do like it: Congrats, the mods choose to "tolerate" you and their opinion is all that matters when the topic of what should and shouldn't be on the boards is concerned. So post away!

It's already become uncivil, it's just bashing now.  Anyone can plainly see.

When there are no more insults and cursing, then it becomes a civil debate.

>>38
Like all threads it seems, quasi-points arise wit the "main" ones.  The issue of people being able to post bestiality or not has been resolved, and as a bit of trivial interest, someone posted information as to the legal status of bestiality in various places.  The reaction to THAT is what ignited the "is it right/ is it wrong" debate.

Personally, I find it a tad chilling that so many think it's alright in practice.  As you say, rape and murder are wrong, nd depicted on this board.  Nobody that I've seen has actually made a point of saying that rape is perfectly natural and understandable, or began advocating murder.  Some are, however, saying bestiality is fine, and it would appear that there is a bit of discontent about that... heh.  Still, I'd imagine if some guro fans started advocating the reality of guro, you'd see an ever greater outcry... or at least, I hope so.

>>40
In all fairness, you're talking about a civl debate regarding the morality of sex with animals.  Not as emotionally charged as abortion and such perhaps, but... well, if someone ever hopped the fence and started "loving" my dog, the only thing that might prevent me from calling the police is that my enraged desire for revenge would be giving me other, even less legal ideas of how to rectify the situation myself.  I love animals, and would see their suffering and abuse kept to a minimum.  I'm also a "vegan fag" though, so I would see a lot of things changed.

>>41
As long as a devout christian and an actual practicing, er, animal lover don't get on here at the same time, I think this is as bad as it's going to be.

>>42
What if your dog enjoyed it?  But it is understandable if you don't trust a stranger with your dog.  I wouldn't in the same situation.

It's sad to think of sheer number of people who always equate sexual acts with force and/or nonconsent.

>>43

Okay, serriously, silence is not consent, and philosophy doesn't define consent.  Common sense, or if that fails, the law defines consent.

And... animal pedophiles?  Uh... whatever.  Since an animal never reaches a level of intelligence that we recognize as consent, wouldn't any action done to that animal be, you know, without consent?  It's not just saying "no", it's the part where they don't say "yes"... which they can't, because they aren't sophisitacted enough to communicate.  I love dogs and cats and the like, but they aren't people, no matter how much I wish they were sometimes.

As for >>37, well, the point I imagine, is that an animal can no more consent than a child, because they have no more understanding of sex than a child... which is both right and wrong.  I'd say they have less understanding, but they also don't have a concept of right and wrong, so they don't care.

I do however, and in Canada at least, enough other people also agree that I don't need to worry about these kinds of things become legal any time soon.  Ah, it's nice to be with the majority for a change. ^_^

Having sex outside the species is......

LOL, only furries could require an argument on this, IT'S WRONG, horrendously wrong.

Sex + animals = WRONG

>>47
>>49

Again, I'm endlessly thrilled that such a mindset is so fabulously rare in Canada, because it literally scares the crap out of me that people project their desires and emotions into animals like this.  14 years... ah, how I envy the british.  A lifetime in proson seems like such a powerful deterent, crushing the argument entirely by simply forcing people to behave.

>>48
No no no no!  Not all furries!  Some of us are quite harmless and sane!  Furries deal with anthromorphs, with an emphasis on Anthro; ie, the HUMAN part of us, which thinks, talks, uses electricity and goes to work, etc; practically people in terms of psychology!  Furries don't practice bestiality anymore than any other demographic. O.O

>>51

here we go again, and people think we're zoophiles thanks to such talkin'

>>47
Like someone else said: simply because an animal doen't "say" no doesn't mean that it "says" yes. What if an animal is surprised or overpowered and cannot fully communicate its desire to not engage in the sexual act?

>>55
Okay seriously, it's almost as if the reasoning is that me, and others who think sex with animals is wrong are the bad guys here.  Like the /b/ guy said... why is THAT even being argued?  It's clearly wrong.  Animals can't reason, so they can't consent.  That doesn't mean they don't get scared, horny, angry, whatever... but they don't feel the same complicated emotions people do... except maybe chimps and such.  If you think your dog is "in love with you", that's your projected perception.  Seriously, talk to psychologists or something, they'll tell you there is a big jump between animal thoughts and human thoughts.

...

Crimney.

It is bashing now because everyone wants to make the "right" point. Considering there is no right point no one will win. They just want that good feeling of assurance they were right all along.

 Come on who has'nt seen some animal at the zoo or on a farm start to get horny. They just do it right there. Gets the curiosity flowing huh? That creature has a biological program in their head and nothing will stop it from working. What we try so hard to AVOID is all around us. We'll sell it to ourselves, make superfical and fanatise. Yet we avoid it because our children have to be innocent. Usally that experience at the zoo f***s them up anyways so what does it matter. This so called "image" an IDEA of what we "should" be not what we actually ARE is what us modern humans actually live upon.

Usally this experience will make the child wonder, this wonder will become curiosity and eventually experience. Because this child will want to attempt what he/she just saw. Touch it, smell it, see it, feel it. To know that it is real and not of this world. Why do you think we have the phrase "hung like a horse?" Obviously a large majority of people must of observed this same experience. What is so wrong? scary? OBSCENE about touching animal gentialia.. a little bit of curiosity never hurt. Considering curiosity is a natural brain function, we can't even think that anymore?! @!*#&@!*


 Here is something of fact. There are thousands of millions of cells in our body that control what WE do. We our a slave to our own bodies. These cells are struck with chemicals the hypothalimus makes depending on what your exactly doing at the moment. They set your body to do things such as that "uncontrollable urge" for sex. When these cells are satisfied only then can we make decisions for ourselves. It is this moment which makes everyone different.

 So what does this have to do with anything. Well it has to do with the thing why bestiality is around. It is a cell dominance factor. Because this happens on all levels, not just our celluar level. When a smaller cell can latch on to a larger cell and reproduce that smaller cell will splurge itself, producing alot more chemicals then normal.
 
 Now since we are just larger celluar structures. I don't see whats so hard to understand about this. Why some people can't just accept the rule of miosis. What does consent have to do with this anyways? If a carrier cell does not want to be screwed  around with. It will tell you if you try. Alot of carrier cells become droned to sex anyways. Don't think we are the only ones who think of sex too much.

 Because as long as miosis, sexual reproduction, is programed in  our biological code. It will do as it pleases and there is not a     damn thing you can do about it. Nothing at all.

 What is sick and wrong is considered okay. That is backwards celluar reproduction. Inbreeding. People collecting semen from males and implanting it into a related female of the same animal. This completely denies miosis and it loopholes the creature into all the negative genes. Now if that isn't cruel then your the real sicko. That is right.. all these dog breeds, horse breeds. Inbred. What beauty is to us on eye level is just down right horror on the celluar level.

 Yet these people can get away with it no problem. Why? Because people want more bulldogs and boxers. Geez, how nice is that to screw around with nature and get away with it. It doesn't matter though because eventually the "purity" will come back to haunt them.

So.. what is wrong with bestiality? It is non-harmful. No person is trying to intentionaly "hurt" an animal. Actually most animals seem to like it. Because it just happens to be we are all programed for miosis. So regardless of species barrier will take a chance and since a DNA count is different no offspring will be present.

Any furry who thinks bestiality( drawn or not ) is a strange an unorthodox method is a hypocrite. I don't need to explain myself on that one because the evidence is in artwork.

>>35
Lack of dissent does not equal consent.
>>58
As I said earlier, sex is a desire, not a need. There are millions of people who live entire lives without sex. You have also neglected to explain how, if sex is a necessity, why we would be programmed to have it with other species. If we're hardcoded to reproduce, how would that work with species we can't get pregnant?

I won't speak for or against the actual practice of bestiality, but it's not wrong to be turned on by thoughts and images of bestiality any more or less than other "hard" fetishes. No one can control what arouses/squicks them, one just feels it one way or the other. People will not deny themselves thoughts and images of what arouses them, nor can they seriously be expected to when asked.

Such fetishes used to be considerd very personal and secret, to be shared only very discreetly, if at all. Not anymore with the internet, all can be shared freely and anonymously if one chooses to... or not. The choice to share isn't always made wisely.

One benefit of learning that others entertain the same fetish as yourself is an understanding of it as a not-so-unusual psychological sexual response. Another is, nowadays, you can find arousing examples of it so easily, right in the comfort of your own home.

The whole thing can be answered so simply.

"Does it hurt anyone, physically or emotionally?"

We'll use a horse for example.  Let's say someone masturbates this horse.  The horse is not being physically harmed.  The horse does not display a lack of consent by shying, kicking, or avoiding contact, which a huge powerful creature like a horse can easily do.
(In fact, many horses will 'request' this by backing up to their owners.  Many people who work with artificial insemination encounter this behavior.)
The horse, having failed to display a lack of consent, or displayed a willing desire, does not experience emotional damage from being taken advantage of.
Finally, being unintelligent by human standards and lacking our social heirarchy and ethics, the horse is not ostracized or outcast by his/her peers for contact with humans.

The answer is ultimately 'No', provided all three criteria are filled.
To argue otherwise would be to argue that my having taken my fiance out last month to an expensive dinner, followed by a romantic evening, is rape.  Solely on the ground that she did not refuse the actions.

Animals do talk, and communicate.  Humans are just so damned narrow-minded that they beleive that if they can't understand it, it's not a language.  Humans even treat other humans the same way.
In a certain era of germany, rape and murder of a certain religion was fully permissible, solely because they were considered sub-human.  We are doing the same thing by assuming Dolphins aren't intelligent, despite their clear ability to display emotion and communicate in a manner even more complex than us.  We are doing the same thing by assuming gorilla's are just dumb animals to be killed and ashtrays made of their hands, just because they speak with grunts and noises and physical displays, not proper English.

So in closing, i'm sick of this conversation.  The people who are wrong, know they are.  Animals can display consent.  The rest speaks for itself.
Ignorance, the willing refusal of indisputeable facts, is a sin.

>>65
I would actually be more worried if they argued more convincingly.  As it is, they spend so much time condemning their condemners that they haven’t a hope in this lifetime of instigating even a slight change in the mind of the clear majority.  The laws that at least lessen the impact them make will remain in place.

>>64
I seriously don’t know how I can phrase this in a better way.  Animals can’t consent.  If you think they’re consenting, that’s you consenting for them.  Any and every student and professor of law and psychology has confirmed as much for me in the past, and no matter how belligerent you become in your wording, that won’t change.  Bestiality, no matter how “tender”, is a projection of one’s fantasy onto reality.

>>67
But that's just it; they're animals (or if you're going to get picky about language, non-humans).  They aren't capable of rational thought, so they can't weigh their actions in a reasonalbe manner, so they can't consent.  It's not that they don't react.  They don't consent.  Absolutely no law that I'm aware of considers an animal capable of consent, and absolutely nothing I've seen in your post or anyone else's has indicated that animals are capable of RATIONAL thought, which is required for LEGAL consent.

But sure, I'll take a crack at it.  The dog humping your leg... okay, yes, the dog is horny, and it's trying to hump a human because it doesn't know better.  Luckily, us human are capable of logical thought, and find the dog another dog so that nature can take its course, or, if that isn't the goal in mind, gently discourages the dog so that it doesn't get in trouble sometime.

Dogs also beg for food if you're eating chocolate by the way.  You wouldn't give a dog chocolate just because it begged for it would you... because that would make you a rather terrible person, or at best, ignorant.

By the way, this has turned into quite an interesting conversation on the nature of consent.  I am appreciative of all parties who have taken the time to respond and contribute, despite that the subject matter and various points of view may be disturbing.  Thank you.

>>69

I'm sorry to play the child molestation card here, but by this rational, it is perfectly fine to engage a child in sexual activities as long as they enjoy the sensation and aren't being harmed.  It isn't simply a matter of pleasurable stimulation, it's a matter of the intent behind it.  For animals, it's basic, primal, and innocent.  For humans, it's exploitive.

The kind of consent you are describing can be attributed to the cattle that go quietly to their slaughter every day.  Just because they aren't stampeding out of there doesn't mean they want to die.  The fact that they've been bred to be docile and compliant to humans doesn't mean they're asking for it.  Animals are constantly "willingly" doing things that are extremely terrible for them; from walking into traffic, to begging for food that is poisonous to them.  Animals aren't capable of making a rational judgment call, therefore, their autonomy isn't sophisticated enough to allow something like the KIND of consent that I'm talking about.

Consent: An agreement to do something or to allow something to happen, made with complete knowledge of all relevant facts, such as the risks involved or any available alternatives.

An animal is not capable of that, therefore, any actions done to them are done without consent.  Sex without consent is a form of rape.  Non-violent rape, but rape none the less.  If you brainwashed a human into a state of utter compliance with everything, you’ve robbed them of their reason, thus no matter what they say, it isn’t consent, and again, it is rape.  Reason is the key here.  Not reacting to stimulus or instinct.  Reason.  Reason is a requirement for consent.  Informed consent is the ONLY consent that matters in formal and legal terms, and that is the only consent that can change it from a form of rape to an act of acquiescence.

Reason!  For the love of all that is holy, if anyone responds to this, keep in mind that I’m talking about the kind of consent that requires Reason!  Rational Thought!  Reasonable, Rational, Logical Process Thought!  I’m starting to feel like a record on skip here!  Of course my arguments are blown out of the water when you Ignore What I Say!

>>73, see >>43.  Animal pedophilia is wrong, your child molestation card attack is parried.

Reason is a tool, not a god.  It can help us, but is not an end to itself.  Make no idol of it.

There is nothing wrong with being exploitative unless you are trying to kill or harm (inflict physical injury)  someone.  It is completely necessary to be at least slightly exploitative to survive.  Nature is exploited, your friends are exploited, *something* will be exploited.  Opportunism is the method by which we live.  Civilization has only switched it from violent to non-violent things we exploit and opportune for.

Consent: An agreement to do something or to *ALLOW SOMETHING TO HAPPEN*, made with complete knowledge of all relevant facts, such as the risks involved or any available alternatives.

Relevant facts can be different depending upon the individual.  What may be relevant to me may not be to a dog or cat, for example.  I'd like an enumeration of things that you think should be relevant for informed sexual consent.  I'm sure the dog or cat or animal in question knows what is relevant to him or her.  Most animals have enough reasoning ability to learn and know when things are going to hurt them.  If you hurt your dog trying to do something sexual with him, he will not want to do anything with you anymore.  If then you approach him sexually, most likely he will run and hide.  If you continue to impose yourself on him after that, you are being abusive and wrong.

Available alternatives.  Yes, the dog may wish to hump your leg instead.  I'm sure, bringing in a female dog, that the male dog would demonstrate good knowledge of his alternatives.

Many people give consent to many different actions without a complete knowledge of all relevant facts.  At some point you have to let "yes" and obvious indications thereof mean "yes" and not worry about why one says "yes."  Especially for something as non-harmful as gential stimulation.

changed the title in order to prevent regression.

>>77

Who said that small cages, medical testing, and killing was good?  Did anyone in this thread actually say that? Some of them are saying that it's all wrong, and some are saying that everything but sex is wrong.

My revision of your list.
small cages = bad
medical testing = bad
killing spike to the head = bad
any of thousands of atrocities = bad
befriend an animal = good
using an animal for sex = bad

78 indeed - i was referncing the way things are -  my bad should have said overall this is an impression given by culture.
sometimes things are not as plain as they seem. 

>>81 the exact same argument can be happily applied in the same manner towards what you are proposing. you are convinced therfore you must be right and will refuse to ponder that there could be any thing different, otherwise you could be wrong, cant have that.
ergo you are right and they are wrong and all logic shall be lost.

>>75
Lol... Self-indulgence rules.  You can only be one person in this lifetime, so you might as well enjoy it.  Morality, except where it tells entity A not to injure entity B, is generally useless.

>>78
I think >>77's point was that slaughter/injury to an animal is considered more legally acceptable than having sex with it.  You won't get years in jail for physically abusing an animal, you will if you have sex with it under some localites.  The law allows many things to be done to animals that it says are wrong to be done on humans.  Law and morality don't always go hand in hand.

>>81
So, is a horny person seeking sexual contact from another person in some form of "hypnosis" and therefore unable to give true consent?  Take the words "horny"/"sexual contact" and insert any other word that represents an instinct telling you to do something, such as "hungry"/"food", "scared"/"comfort", etc.

Lol, don't have sex with things that get fleas and eat there own poo.  It's not difficult.  They are inferior lifeforms that aren't even aware of there own existence.  Resorting to  having sex with them is the ultimate failure of life, when you're not good enough for you're own species and you have to go for one that you don't need to impress.

didn't Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ post definitions of consent in like great detail? didn't seem very complicated to me. has any court ever ruled that an animal can consent, or did they just rule that bestiality os gross but not criminal, cause those are two different things.

Animals don't have any concept of 'being used for sex'. Most animals have sex because of procreation, while there are a few species which use sex for other purposes, the majority of sex in the animal kingdom takes place for the sole purpose of reproduction.

That said, the animals typically 'used' in regards to beastiality are species which use sex for procreation. When a dog humps its owners leg, for example, it's eager to engage in sex for the purpose of reproducing. Because dogs see their owners as part of their 'pack', this behavior is perfectly naturally, especially in scenarios where the family is very small. Were the dog to have the knowledge that the sex with his owner would be in vain, because no pups would ever result, then he would seek out another sexual partner who COULD bear pups. This really applies to any species who has sex mostly for procreative purposes. Also, keep in mind that a male dog will attempt to have sex with any female dog that is in heat. If she allows it, she's receptive. If she disallows it, she is not. Were a female dog to allow a male to have sex with her, even out of heat, he would do so with the 'understanding' that she is receptive, and he would continue to do so until she disallowed it (no longer fertile).

Also, referring back to my statement regarding dogs and their seeing their owners as the pack, it's important to keep in mind that the submissive in a pack tolerates a lot of abuse from the alpha. A submissive wolf, for example, will tolerate an alpha snapping his teeth down around his muzzle, and yet he will continue to wag his tail and try to appease his alpha with licks to the muzzle and face. He tolerates this behavior because of his position in the pack...and because not tolerating it would cause an uproar in the pack, and possibly a fight (where more serious injury could occur).

So to say a dog humps your leg because he wants to engage in sex with you for the sole purpose of sexual gratification is not correct. The dog humps your leg because his biological urge, the driving force in his, and many animals' lives, is to reproduce. He sees you as a member of his pack, and as such, a potential carrier of his offspring...nothing more. He continues to hump your leg because you allow it (or rather, don't disallow it), and so he believes you to be fertile.

In regards to dogs being on 'bottom', this is something that is inexcusable. I've seen people argue that some dogs just 'like to be bottom'. Just because a dog does not growl, bite, or run away, does not mean he (or she) is willingly engaging in sex. Rather, the dog, the one lower in the pack hiearchy, is simply tolerating the behavior of his (or her) 'alpha'. Keep in mind that humping, in the canid world, is also a show of dominance. Essentially, the submissive is tolerating the alpha's display of dominance over him, and nothing more. To imply that the dog enjoys the act is ridiculous, since the dog cannot communicate such, and what communication does exsist during the act is unreliable, since, as mentioned, the submissive tolerates high levels of abuse in a pack setting without complaint, and sometimes even with eagerness or enthusiasm. By the logic being applied here (pro-beastiality), the submissive -enjoys- his muzzle being bitten and torn open by such, because he does not object, and eagerly laps at the alpha's muzzle.

Horses work in much the same way. Stallions engage in sex because they too are driven by the biological need to reproduce. They see you as members of their herd and again, as a potential partner. They continue their behavior because you allow it, whereas their real sexual partners (mares), dictate when there is sex based on their receptiveness. Also, as far as horses being bottom, horses are used to having things inserted into their genitalia...they lack the ability to understand that a penis, for example, is no different than an arm, which they are probably used to having inserted into their anus for medical purposes. To take advantage of the horse being trained to tolerate such things for medical purposes is just disturbing to me.

Now, that all said...note how I have not said whether it is moral or not. In my opinion, having sex with an animal whereupon the animal is made to be bottom, and it is not a female in season (receptive to sex), is rape...nothing more, nothing less, because of the reasons I've listed above.

Having a male animal hump you? Well, it's not rape so much as taking advantage of that animal's biological drive to reproduce, and also taking advantage of their inability to understand no offspring will result from the sexual encounter. Taking advantage of anything is wrong, but it's not rape. Is the animal emotionally scarred? No, but that certainly doesn't make it right since the animal can't consent for the reasons I've stated above. And trying to defend it is just silly. No matter how many different terms one uses, it's still utilizing an animal for your own personal gain, which is no different than, say, medical experiments on animals, or butchering animals for meat/fur. Just because the animal isn't traumatized in any way doesn't mean it's not being taken advantage of in the same way.

>>90
I'll ignore the relevent points and go to your first and only.  Male dogs frequently mate each other.  As do dolphins, horses, rodents, primates, apes, and elephants.
They do so out of season and incongruously with their instincts.
This indicates they are aware the act will not be procreative in nature.
Dolphins have been proven to be able to distinguish gender, and communicate it to humans, in laboratory tests.  Meaning they have understanding concept of male and female, procreation and recreation.
Dolphins in the wild are less prone to homosexual tendencies than those in captivity, due to boredom.  Furthermore, Dolphins have exhibited behavior in the wild of reduced procreational sex during times of reduces food or increased stress, indicating they are capable of contemplating the negative effects of increased population.  Or, in english, they abstain.

Nice attempt.  But arguing that animals are incapable of consent because they only perceive procreative sex, is false in many species.  Utterly false.
It is furthermore still incongruous with the definition of consent.  It still does not present facts to support that they cannot make a decision.
And most importantly, it presents no facts that harm is brought upon the animal in any way, thus making it immoral.


Please try to stay on topic with me if you're going to debate with me.  We're arguing the morality.  Whether it is harmful to the animal.  Not whether it's natural (which it is.  Google it, hundreds of pictures of inter-species mating) or whether it's ethical (because ethics vary and, intrinsically, are not to be considered in lawmaking.)

We also aren't arguing it's legality.  Because i've won that.  My state says it's morally and legally sound.
(As a mild supporting side note, the state outlaws purchase of alcohol on Sundays or during major holidays where DUI/DWI danger may increase due to higher traffic volumes.  A morally responsible law.)

Again.  I am arguing the morality, not the legality.  I have already won the legality without a debate being necessary.
It's legal.  Thus, it's legal.  Can't get much more cut and dry than facts.

So please save your insults, they only serve to further weaken your position.

Morality.  Not legality.  Not ethics.
Morality.  Whether it is right or wrong on the basis that it harms someone.
Morality.

>>95
Very, very well said.
In a debate of this nature, one can only validly look at logic, principles, and concepts.  Ethical impressions too often end up making the entirety of arguments, making the debate unproductive.  So I ignore them until another valid argument is made, one not made on assumptions, opinions, and fallacies.

My religion forbids me to own an animal, much less have sexual relationships with it.  (Owning another creature is to say you are above all other of God's creations, and is blasphemy.)  It also forbids eating insects and certain seafood (shrimp), to damage or alter my body (peircings, tattoos), work on Saturday, eat the meat of cloven hooved animals (Pigs), to eat food prepared in an unclean way (cruel treatment of animals), or raise a fist against another living thing except in defense of my life.
These are my beleifs.  But I do not beleive they have any place in a debate.  Because they are MY religion, MY beliefs.  They are not congruous with man's intrinsic sense of morality, or even necessarily with the majority.

>>97
Somewhat, I agree.

It would not fit my moral argument for a man to try to lay with, mm, say... a lion.  It would bring HIM harm.  Which, though his choice, would harm others in the sense that his friends and loved ones would be hurt emotionally.

>>94
Ah, so that’s how that works.  Well as ever, sex without consent is rape, and apparently, raping animals is legal where you come from.  Get to that then, and trouble yourself with my words no more, which don’t apply to you it would seem.

>>95
Whoa, I must admit this shocked me.  I heard of a similar situation locally once where a man had sex with a woman who had so much brain damage that she couldn’t speak properly.  He was charged with assault, and settled out of court for a lesser sentence, which included a restraining order.  He was hospitalized not long after by the victim’s brother who attacked him, and he dropped the charges for some reason before moving.  I never found out if he had harmed the woman or not, but it caused a bit of debate for a few weeks.

The laws where you are seem much more forgiving than they are here.  At best, if someone’s intelligence were so damaged as to be reduced to animal level, I can’t imagine anyone allowing them to be taken advantage of sexually.  On the other hand, I know a man with reduced IQ if you will.  He’s a nice enough sort, though he needs a bit of extra explaining.  He attends classes at the university and studies astronomy, though it is a special class that runs longer semesters with less students.  Nonetheless, he has a girlfriend, and indeed she has been looked upon as somewhat charitable, which I find a bit moving in a sorrowful way.

On the other hand, if you were to say he has no more intelligence than an animal, you would hurt his feelings greatly.  While it takes him longer to learn than the average measure, he does learn, and understands what is going on around him with sufficient clarity.

What I don’t understand is why I was considered to have failed for involving the delicate trouble of children when discussing consent, as it is largely on behalf of children that informed sexual consent needed to be developed for courts.  I suppose it involves some logical fallacy of course, or another large, important sounding word that carries lots of force... but I see little complication in linking, at least, your example of the mentally deficient with a young, mentally underdeveloped child...

>>101
1)   Agreed.
2)   Agreed.
3)   Agreed.

I think the argument speaks for itself at this point.  Noone can yet say how it hurts the animal if there is no force involved.

>>102
Lack of force=consent? Did I miss a memo?

>>105
Basically, yes.

See, cutting a cat's head off harms it.  Bestiality, non-forced, does not.

Making stark comparisons does not validate your argument.

I think i'm the only one who's still arguing.  Everyone else who isn't interested in actually proving it one way or the other have left.

I'm still waiting for someone to try to teach me how it's wrong.

>>109
Perhaps you missed my obvious previous statements.

Morality.  Not legality.


Still awaiting the answer.  'How is it wrong'?

>>110

Look mate, the morality is that sex without consent is rape.  Do I need to explain how rape is wrong, or can I at least have THAT as a given?

>>112
I can't believe I'm getting involved in this issue...

What if you were asleep nakid and a dog were to mount you in your sleep. Would you still be raping the misinformed dog?

>>113

You're creating your own definition of consent.  Can I at least have an instance... some example where anyone with any sort of academic credibility has ever defined animals as capable of the kind of consent that actually defines rape?  You like to discout the entire legal system as somehow being totally irrelevant, and you refuse to discuss that.  You haven't even remotely shown how the legal and moral systems are so completely exclusive that they have no possibility of baring on each other.  What I happen to be discussing is both a moral AND legal matter.

So it's legal where you are.  Again, it's legal to host a dog fight in thailand.  The point of that being that laws don't make it right.  Just because it's legal where you are doesn't mean you're somehow right to do it.  It does, rather, indicate that animals have absolutely no, or very little autonomy where you live.

Every time I mention that, your response is "Nope, that doesn't matter, everything you say therefore doesn't matter".  How does dismissing what I say without challenge constitute anything even kin to a valid argument?

(AntiB = Anti bestiality.  Pro B = Pro-bestiality.  Clar = Clarification needed for logical argument to continue.)

AntiB:  Bestiality is wrong.
Clar:  Define 'Wrong'.
Clar:  Wrong is defined as morally unacceptible actions.
Clar:  Define 'Morality'
Clar:  Morality is the basis of acceptible or unacceptible actions based on the sum of the effects of actions upon another living thing.
ProB:  What is immoral about it?
AntiB:  It is unethical/against my religion/against my beleifs.
Clar:  Subjective personal views.  Invalid response.
AntiB:  It is rape.
ProB:  How is it rape?
AntiB:  Animals cannot consent.
Clar:  Definition:
(n.
Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another; acquiescence. See Synonyms at permission.
Agreement as to opinion or a course of action: She was chosen by common consent to speak for the group.)
Clar:  Define 'Acquiescence'
Clar:  Definition:
(n.
Passive assent or agreement without protest.
The state of being acquiescent. )
ProB:  Animals can display lack of consent through hostility, violence, verbal or physical resistance.  Acquiescence is present when such behavior is not displayed.
AntiB:  Animals are not intelligent enough to consent.
ProB:  Animals are able to display sexual desires unprompted and unqueued.  Animals are able to display choice.  Animals are able to display acquiescence.
AntiB:  Consent is not possible with higher thought or intelligence.
Clar:  Define 'intelligence'
Clar:  Definition:
(n. 
The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.)
ProB:  Many animals are capable of learning and applying knowledge.  Primates and dolphins and apes can even communicate with humans on their level.  They are all able to display emotion.  They are capable of quantifying and abstract thought.  The requirements for intelligence have been met.
AntiB:  A child is too, but cannot consent.
Clar:  A child is capable of consent.  They are only legally restricted.  Argument invalid.
AntiB:  A retarded person is incapable of consent.
Clar:  Depending on degree of retardation, consent is capable.  They are only legally restricted.  Argument invalid.
ProB:  Additional suppositive reply:  A retarded man should still be able to choose for their own happyness if no harm occurs.
AntiB:  Neither the mentally handicapped nor animals are capable of making decisions informedly to prevent self-damage.
Clar:  Possibly true, situational.  AntiB is assuming all retardation results in loss of logic function.
ProB:  Guidance is necessary to prevent damage.  Agreed.  But Bestiality does not harm or damage them in any way.
AntiB:  Raping a child is wrong.  Raping a retard is wrong.
Clar:  Invalid statement.  Solely 'shock' value.  Rape is defined by consent and repurcussions.  Statements are not alligned with situation outlined in Bestiality of acquiescent consent without forceful or coercive methods or restraints.

(HERE is where all arguments on this board ended.  I go on to argue my own internal dissent to bestiality:)

AntiB:  It is socially/mentally damaging to underage humans to engage in sexual behavior.
ProB:  Underage humans are not animals.  Underage humans are harmed by social stigmas, ethical rejection and ostracization, and conflicting taught knowledge.  Animals lack social structures of this nature and cannot be mentally anguished or emotionally damaged, as animals do not ostracize or persecute for such acts.  Animals lack complex ethical structures.
Clar:  No further rebuttals conceived for either side.  End debate.  AntiB failed to prove how Bestiality is damaging.

Draw your own conclusions.


The best argument i've heard so far is from a friend that it may be immoral on the grounds that disease could transmit from animal to man, or vise versa, via the form of mutation.
The best and almost only morality argument thus far.  This is still invalid, however, because the transmission is often possible without physical contact, much less sexual.  It would be no different from a child sharing icecream with her dog.
Furthermore, human disease transmission is much more common.  Even with no known identified diseases, new diseases occur periodically which prevent prior knowledge to make such rational decisions even in humans.
Which further supports that ignorance does not invalidate consent.  Consent is situational in humans.  Thus it is in animals.

I am unable to convince myself it is wrong.
I am also unable to convince myself it is right.


The purpose of a debate is to inform others of ideas, and to convince one party of the others' views.
I still welcome any who would like to attempt this.

>>118

What?  Are you serious?  Well, I should like to meet this Clar fellow.  The most adept minds have spent thousands of years attempting to define morality, and here he did it in a neet little sentence that could have only taken a few seconds to write!  Awesome!

That, or, you know, it's a personal view, and thus invalid.

I've taken philosophy.  If you want to get existential, you can't even prove that I exist... or anything but yourself for that matter.  Assumption is required in order to function, and logical assumptions are those generated by observation and rational thought.  Whether animals have intelligence or not has never been disputed.  They aren't rocks or anything.  What my point is, and ever has been, is that they lack sufficient intelligence to be capable of informed consent, and informed consent is required for sex to not be rape.  Non-coessential  sex is legally defined as rape.

And why is it necessary to prove that it is damaging in order to prove that the motives are depraved?  All I would have to do for that is to show a thought process that disregards the autonomy of the second subject before making decisions to benifit the self.

"A child is capable of consent.  They are only legally restricted.  Argument invalid."

Okay seriously, your third little dude on the shoulder just said that the only thing that makes sex with children wrong is the law.  You've just, in a "logical" (to you) manner, decided that there's nothing morally reprehensible about sex with children.  Now, I'm sure Janglur isn't saying that, because that would be wrong, but this makes me reconsider what I've said about fictional character Clar.  Clar is an extremely terrible entity, and I'm glad he doesn't exist.

>>120
1)  Definitions were given.  Nothing more.
2)  Assuming true, your own definition is also invalid on the basis of personal view.
3)  Philosophy and existance are irrelevent.  The subject is the morality of bestiality.  Consent is displayed through acquiescence.  Informed and intelligent decision is displayed by decisional preference and experience-based abjectional preference.
4)  It is necessary to prove it is damaging because if it is not in some manner damaging, it does not harm them, and thus is not immoral.  Only ethical or religious morality can be argued afterwards.
5)  Selective ignorance does not enforce your stance.
"AntiB:  It is socially/mentally damaging to underage humans to engage in sexual behavior.
ProB:  Underage humans are not animals.  Underage humans are harmed by social stigmas, ethical rejection and ostracization, and conflicting taught knowledge.  Animals lack social structures of this nature and cannot be mentally anguished or emotionally damaged, as animals do not ostracize or persecute for such acts.  Animals lack complex ethical structures."

>>123
Yes yes yes, you're very mature.  You win a toaster. Well done.

>>125

In my defense, he does keep ignoring every point I make as "irrelevant". My fault for taking him seriously though I’m afraid. I think the point where he played the playwright was where annoyance became anger. He put words in the mouth of the opposition in order to make them look bad, and inserted his own voice as the voice of reason. It's like arguing with a magic eight ball. No matter what I say, there are only so many responces I can get. >.<

>>127
And skinning an animal, cutting it's head off, starving it, or otherwise harming it is completely different from subjecting it to sexual gratification.


As for the debate at hand, i'm about to turn in for the night.  I'd say the debate has come to a close without a conclusion.  Just as it began.

>>101

I'm sorry but as Psychology Major i have to address this by principle.

>>I was abused as a child.  I've survived it.  Bestiality does not bother me in the least.  My first sexual experince ever was with a horse, and if you wish to get technical, I've had more sex with animals than humans.

Isn't it entirely possible that you have sex with animals because you were abused as a child? Perhaps as you were progressing through you're socializing stage, and learning from your elders, you were abused by said elder, and now foster a fear of humans and sex with them. So instead of fighting your inate fear of humanity, you turn towards animals, and attempt to appease your instinctual habit of procreation with an animal, one who cannot hurt your feelings, or abuse you sexually, due to the fact that they DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU, NOR ARE THEY ABLE TO WITHOUT YOU GUIDING THEM.

Thank You for your time

It is wrong to do these things because lets take the situation, a human having sex with a non-human, and transpose it. A lion will not have sex with a tiger unless you totally force it to, and i'm pretty sure that lions and tigers are more closely related than humans and horses, that is why it's immoral.

Ban Janglur, goodnight

Wrong, and wrong again.

They do happen in the wild.  www.google.com  Ligers

I think most of you are missing the point...
The content on Fchan is illustrated; the scenes and character are not real, no real people (or animals) were involved in the act.  Therefore, despite what happens in these depictions, nobody is hurt (including any animals).  So where's the issue?  If you are on Fchan, you are not in a position to speak of morality; it's freaking PORN!  I could say I find homosexuality immoral, does that mean we should remove any depictions of such? No!  The Mods have done a good job at trying to sort content into specific categories so all of would stop complaining about "immoral content".

holy sh*t you people are talking about actually having sex with animals what the hell is wrong with you. don't get me wrong i'm a part of the fury fandom but this is sick on so many levels. non of you people own pets do you? Cause if you do then i feel sorry for them. Anthroporphic characters are just factional characters you know like werewolf’s but dog's or other animals are real breathing (and lets face it) diseased things. another thing when a dog is humping your leg its not thinking "ooooh baby i love you" its in heat and can't think clearly it just want’s to hump. i don't believe in god but i do believe that every thing is the way it is for a resign, which is why our
anatomy is different then that of an animals, because we were never meant to have sex with them

>>152
"But two animals of different Genuses(genii?) cannot and will not even try to breed with eachother, even in captivity."

Wrong.  Do some research before you make false assertions based on only your own unschooled opinions.  It's not that hard, libraries are a good start.  I'll even give you a hint:  Desmond Morris.  It'll be under anthropology or sociology most likely. 

>>92

Every aspect of my post was relevant. Just because you cannot defend against some points does not warrant dismissing them entirely.

You completely overlooked the fact that I said -MOST- animals have sex purely for reproductive purposes. I acknowledge there are some higher species (dolphins, humans, chimps, Bonobo...all species which are considered the smartest and most social) which have sex recreationally to strengthen their bonds within the group, hence, you know, why I didn't say -ALL-.

This really boils down to dogs and horses, the two most frequently used species when it comes to beastiality.

Dolphins, yes, they have sex outside of their breeding season to strengthen bonds within the pod, but how many people are actually having sex with a dolphin? It's dangerous for both parties. The person receiving from a male dolphin can easily be killed by the thrusting force. A person could struggle during the act, causing the dolphin difficulities in breathing, ect. So while dolphins may engage in non-reproductive sex, that's irrelevant, because of the reasons I mentioned.

Horses do NOT have sex outside of their breeding cycle. Mares dictate when there is sex. They allow sex when they are fertile, and disallow it when they are not. Mares, generally, are pregnant most of the time, and were they to engage in casual sex the foal would be aborted due to the length of the stallion's genitalia. Male horses do NOT have sex with each other...male horses are HIGHLY territorial and a lead stallion only tolerates his male offspring in his territory, and even then until they reach sexual maturity. As I mentioned in my previous post, just because a mare or stallion does not move away when you insert something into their genitalia does NOT mean they are OK with what you are doing. They have been trained to have objects inserted into their orifices for medical purposes (health checks), and having sex with a horse is taking advantage of such.

Rodents... Rodents do NOT have sex outside of breeding purposes. How do I know? I've raised just about every domestic rodent there is. Rodents have very fast breeding cycles. A female rodent may have sex the next day, or even just minutes after giving birth. That's the nature of the rodent breeding cycle. The female only allows sex while she is capable of producing babies. This applies to not only lagamorphs, but rodents as well. Male rodents do NOT have sex with each other. Just like with wolf packs, most rodents (with the exception of Syrian Hamsters) have a hiearchy among the males. Mounting is a display of dominance that even occurs among the females as well. It is not indicative of sex. Also, do I really need to argue how sex with a RODENT is dangerous and potentially harmful to the animal?

Primates are one of the higher species whereupon some sex does take place on a casual level similar to humans. Most PRIMATES, however, are small and having sex with them is potentially harmful because of that. Also, unless you're living with that primate for the rest of its life, it's all irrelevant, as primates only have sex with those in their close-knit family group or for reproductive purposes...they don't just go have sex with whatever other primate wanders through their territory. So if you want to argue that primates do it, therefore it's OK, you're still advantage of the primate's use of sex to strengthen family bonds, and so unless you're acting as it's family (ie: with it 24/7, 365 days for the course of its life), you're simply tricking the animal into a false sense of security and familiarity to take advantage of its means of family bonding.

Apes are less likely to engage in casual sex, but they do so for the same reasons as most primates, and so the same logic applies.

Elephants do NOT have sex outside of their breeding season. Male elephants undergo a surge of hormones during the breeding season that increases the testosterone in their body, therefore increasing sex drive. This is when the female elephants are receptive to breeding in order to reproduce. Male elephants do not have sex with one another and are, in fact, highly territorial.

In regards to male animals, they have sex with the understand that there are offspring resulting from it, as I've already stated. Female animals have sex for the same reason, except in certain cases (such as some primates (the Bonobo) are concerned).

Relying on captive animals to base assumptions is incorrect. Captive animals do many things that their wild counterparts do not do, due to boredom or other factors. Captive animals are not a reliable means of basing species behavior off of.

Also, yes, sometimes animals do have sex with the same gender within the species. This does NOT occur often and usually occurs between younger animals who are in their first breeding season and confused by the rush of testosterone in their bodies (which increases the sex drive, making them more competitive). I've not seen any concrete PROOF that male animals actually engage in the entire act of sex (ejaculating into another's anus)...the only things I have seen have been pictures of a male mounting another male, which, again, is a common display of dominance, whether there's an erection involved or not.

You're trying to defend having sex with an animal as natural, and part of their nature, when that is certainly not the case. With the exception of dolphins, humans, some apes, and the Bonobo primates, 'lesser' animals have sex for reproductive purposes and nothing more, and having sex with an animal is taking advantage of that biological drive, whichever way you decide to sweeten it up. Taking advantage of anything or anything is wrong, no matter how you look at it.

FYI, any of the facts I've presented are readily available for research. I would recommend watching the Discovery channel, for one, as well as reading some medical journals (especially regarding rodents and lagamorphs).

I was not able to find any evidence of horses, dogs, rodents, ect. having sex for recreational purposes. Nor was I able to find, aside from a few photos which showed mounting, documentation of male animals having anal sex with one another whereupon there was -actual sex- and not just mounting. Feel free to point me to the place where you found your information regarding such. I would especially love to read about horses, dogs, and rodents having recreational sex among themselves and outside their breeding season.

Animals do not mate for pleasure like humans do(with the exception of dolphins) so if you were to have sex with a dog and they don't resist it's only because it's instinct.

You may love your dog to the ends of the earth but there is no way for it to feel the same way as you do because they don't perceive the world the same way we do. They don't know that someday they will die or that hunk of metal they chase down the street isn't alive.

All of you know this. That is why you strive to break through this barrier that divides the human and animal world. By making something that is half-human and half-animal you have successfully developed something that is able to voice it's opinion yet still has the features of the animal which you find attractive.

You wouldn't dream about fucking a real skunk but suddenly that "Skunkette" is looking mighty fine. Stop trying to vindicate your perversion by denying what is too obvious not to see and LET THIS THREAD DIE with whatever is left of your humanity.

The 7 Rules of the Farm
1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol in excess.
6. No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.
7. All animals are equal.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Stop pretending your animals and then outright deny that you'd fuck them if given the chance.

"I just jerk off to pictures of animals having sex. That doesn't mean 'I' want to have sex with them or condone it."

Maybe you're just jealous because all these people are doing it but aren't because you don't have the guts or can't bear the fact that it might be true.

>>159
Totally agree to LET THIS THREAD DIE!

Holy Crap!  I didn't think anyone would continue this, let alone for so long.  I'll have some reading to do when I get back from work.  Excellent. ^_^

This thread is growing very quick.

First off no one is trying to twist anyone’s words around on purpose. They have an opinion and that is what the truly believe. Saying that they are just making excuses up is just ignorant of others feelings and beliefs and you should stop now before this becomes nasty.

Let me recap what each side thinks.

People Against Bestiality.
-Its immoral because an animal can’t give consent.
-Its illegal in most places in the world.

People For Bestiality.
-Its moral because an animal can give consent.
-Its legal in some parts of the world.

Does anyone have a problem with these stupid arguments that are going nowhere?

The legal matter is final, if it legal then go ahead if not don’t.
Regarding the Morality.
I look at it this way Pro-Bestiality groups seems to think that Animals are equal to humans and are smart intelligent creatures that are capable of making their own decisions and is able to communicate consent in their own way.
Anti-Bestiality groups seem to think that animals are a lower life form than humans and that they are stupid and can not make any decision on their own let alone give consent.

I think instead of arguing about this maybe we should try to figure out if an animal is smart enough to understand what Consent is. I believe that some animals are smart enough to make this decision.
So far no one has really answered this but some have come close.

There is only one argument that has made any sense to me and that is that having sex to not reproduce is unnatural. I agree with this but remember that this apply’s to Sex with Condoms and other Protection devices and also Homosexuals and Lesbians.

For those that are becoming uncivil get lost this is a friendly discussion, we don’t care to hear your prejudiced opinions and you bring the worst out in everyone.

===QUOTE===
There is only one argument that has made any sense to me and that is that having sex to not reproduce is unnatural. I agree with this but remember that this apply’s to Sex with Condoms and other Protection devices and also Homosexuals and Lesbians.
===END QUOTE===

1)  Ok, then explain why 100% of all animals masturbate.  Masturbation is sex without procreation.

2)  Explain why dolphins have casual sex?  Casual sex = sex without the intent of procreation. 

If it was unnatural, neither of these cases would exist.

Your argument is invalid.

I have just one thing to say:
 Fchan is a site for yiffy, right?
 This post will be number 154 - Why is it that bestiality/zoophilia whatever is so important to you people?
In my opinion it has ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with yiffy, so it has no relavence to Fchan.
The moderators have deemed it and other stuff (suicide? Jesus, get some therapy) acceptable so arguing about it for over 150 posts is pointless because if they wont ban it now and they never will so GET OVER IT!

PS. For clarification I don't agree with it at all.
    And what's with people writing a two-post argument and not      
    even bothering to give their name/ pseudonem?
    Dont forget to check out my art on the Equine Girls thread,
    rock on Fchan!

>>137
http://picpop.com/gallery/albums/userpics/FNPICS_funny/thumb_elrhino.jpg  40 seconds in google.
Next?
>>150
I agree completely.  While I don't practice bestiality, noone yet has explained how it hurts anyone.
Even if consent was the issue, noone asks an animal if they consent to:
Being held in captivity.
Being fed unnatural foods.
Being killed for their meat/skin.
Being dressed up for fashion shows.
Having their genitalia removed.
Being restrained by a choke collar, shock device, or noisemaker.
Being forced to breed and produce offspring to sell.
Having their yound taken and sold prematurely.
Having products and drugs tested on them.
Hauling people around on wagons.
Hauling people around on sleds.
Being made to fight for pleasure/profit.
Etc, etc, etc.

So frankly, if someone argues it's wrong because they can't consent, they have no right to protest unless they are a perfect vegan, wear and use no animal products, use nothing created via animal testing, and live someplace that allows any of the above and doesn't take an active stance against it.
Only someone who doesn't take advantage of animals could have the right to comdemn another for the same.


Morality is funny that way.

>>156


Okay, I fully agree that animals are treated in an cruel manner, but in all seriousness, we aren't talking about having sex with animals instead of killing them, we're talking about having sex with them as WELL as killing them, and so forth.  Just because they have the collective plagues of humanity's heartlessness to contend with doesn't mean adding one more is justified by not being as bad as some of them.  That's like saying it's okay to steal because it isn't murder.  Well... sure, murder is worse, but that hardly makes stealing right.  Also, by this reasoning, I have no right to protest is I see someone lighting a bag of puppies on fire because I drive a car which harms the environment, and thus, animals.  Even if that makes sense on a purely mechanical level, you;ll have to forgive me for dropping the idea as utterly impractical.

>>154
Oh the original idea of bestiality art has been resolved.  This is a tangent. ^_^

>>152
Why do people keep saying "your argument is invalid"?  Saying that doesn't make it true.  You can say anything you want and dismiss everything people say about it, but this doesn't make your argument stronger.  If I were standing on train tracks and you said "Move you stupid fuckwit!" I could respond by saying "You've lowered yourself to insults, thus you show your lack of intelligence, thus your words are invalid."  And then I'd get hit by a train.  Honestly, any time you say "Your words (or whatever) are invalid", that invariably applies to you as well unless you start involving provable scientific laws (which are few and number and tend not to define matters of debate).  This is supposed to be a discussion, so exploring different opinions IS the point... isn't it?

I mean, sheesh, go with the obvious spirit of the post anyway, not the syntax.  That would be like me saying: "You said that 100% of animals masturbate.  Pufferfish do not masturbate, thus 100% of animals do not maturbate, thus, the rest of your argument is invalid."  You worded this one point in a manner that, while not technically correct, is perfectly understandable.  It occurs outside of humans (representing unnatural), which means that it's natural.  Awesome.  You've defeated that point... but there are counter points to your position, and you act like you've already won.  Now, you have a right to do that and all, but it's kind of annoying, and makes it really difficult to make a point since the whole thing needs to be practically started over each time.

>>151

I understand this point, and I do see animals as being practically enslaved or worse.  Rape is just one of many problems I see happening to animals, and those who disagree with me are calling it love, or natural.  Well, the legality, one way or another, doesn't impact the morality of the issue.  The frighteningly liberal laws of thailand, or any nation's archaic (and current) laws show that.  My problem is that I see people having sex with animals, then calling it "fine and good".  Well, they aren't consenting in a manner that is recognized in court, so a new definition of consent would need to be applied to animals to make it 'not rape'.  Some are arguing that instictive responses are sufficient, where as I argue that it isn't.  Whatever the case, I hope I don't need to explain why making your own arbitrary definitions in order to justify something is frightening... but I can, though I doubt people would read it.

As for "if you don't like it, don't look"... I assume you're talking about the art?  Well, the morality of that wasn't what I was getting at anyway.  My philosophy on that matter is: If it isn't real, it isn't hurting anyone.  I don't like it when the art becomes reality though, and in most cases, people seem unanimous on that matter.  Looking at a picture of someone being raped and killed may say things about you, but you haven't raped and murdered just by looking at the picture.  The same applies to pictures of bestiality... but people are saying it's fine to engage in these activities in real life in this case; hense, the big long discussion on the matter.

>>150
Come on man, you're better than this.  Saying an animal isn't capable of consent isn't saying that it's a lower lifeform that is stupid.  Some may say that, but some of us are merely pointing out that animals lack that particular capacity.  I wouldn't say that children are lesser people who are stupid, but when a child decides they want to eat nothing but pudding, I, as the knowing adult, will intervene on behalf of the child.  If I ask a scientist a question, sure, he knows more than me, but that doesn't make me stupid and lowly, and if he lies to me and gives me a bogus answer "just for kicks", sure, I wouldn't know better, and would probably never be hurt for it in any way, but he's still a jerk for taking advantage of my trust like that.

It's all a matter of relative position.  I'm not saying that bestiality is unnatural, I'm saying it's selfish, and done utterly without regard for the animal's benefit, which, as far as I can tell, is being dictated by the owner of the animal, either because it makes them happy to believe that, or because they're not an evil person as such, and don't want to abuse an animal, yet they don't want to not have sex with the animal, hence, the excuse.  Sex IS natural... so is theft.  Indulging yourself without regard for others is a natural urge, but it's often wrong to give into that.  This may be clear cases, like hitting people for fun or stealing.  Then there are others, like saying mean things about people behind their backs.  Sure, they never find out, never know, and are never "hurt", but that doen't make you morally sound for doing it.  It's still a rotten thing to do.

Fringe cases are troubling to me.  I don't know enough about dolphins to know if all the things people say about them are true.  I've heard claims one way and another, but I will admit that if some of the more amazing stories are true, then yes, dolphins can consent, and it becomes a different argument.  Chimps and gorillas... maybe they can too, I don't know.  Again, I've seen reputable sources from both sides makes claims that seem feasible, though I would like to believe that it's true.  Still, this doesn't mean that dogs, horses, and sheep consent.  Humans aren't rational because we're humans, we're rational because we're rational (capable).  Maybe humans stand alone in this, or maybe we have a few others with the same capacity to share the planet with... heck, it's possible that some of them may be "superior" to us in terms of what they could amount to given the opportunity... but everything isn't rational.  There are living things that don't think at all, and an enormous quantity of those who fall inbetween.

I don't think dogs or goats are far enough along to form the kind of complicated thoughts required to love and consent as we humans understand it, so any sexual activities done to them are done without concent, just like the rest of the stuff that we do to animals.

>>140
There's all kinds of animals that can interbreed, with or without human interference.  Don't read too much into the purely reactive responses.  It's like when people were trying to decide if the world was round or not.  Some argued one side, some argued the other, and then there was a large amount of people who just said what was popular, and of course, those who said something because they were "rebels", and did just the opposite.

Still, you can expand his point and say that animals will often breed in ways that are unhealthy for them in the long run (with or without human consent).  Inbreeding being the biggest example that comes to mind.  Just because it happens and is natural doesn't mean it's good or bad... it just means it happens.

>>132
No, if you forbid a topic of conversation, it just gets pushed further underground, and people will just do it anyway because they think they're right.  Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but how will either side know if neither side will listen?

Though I got to admit it is nice being on the side with the most physical clout for a change.  Not very enlightened of me, or mature... but it does mean that if nothing is resolved and things stay the same it will favor me... on this matter at least. ^_^;;

Quick query. Why is it okay for a horny animal to hump another horny animal of the same species? Aren't we animals too? What gives? You or your intended partner have to be pretty darn slothful and dirty to be passing diseases around anyway, the zoos I know are very respectable about it, cleaning them and their partner thoroughly before any hankypanky.

Beastiality isn't all that bad. I bet if you tried it you might like it even. Sex is sex. We're all perverted and going to hell anyway so we might as well enjoy what we can while we're alive. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll ever want to do that to an animal.


One day I was walking to school on the sidewalk and my brother and I were attacked by a dog. My brother was sent to the hospital and almost died. 2 days later I went down the back alley of the street where we were attacked and I killed the dog and 3 more that were left outside during the night. A month later they got another dog and I poured anti-freeze in it's water. It died. I also set a farm on fire once while I was visiting out in the country. The owners weren't home and most of the animals died inside. One horse escaped and collapsed outised the barn. I split it's gut open and watched it trip over it's entestines when it tried to run away.

The moral of this story: There are worse things you can do to animals then fuck them.

>>162
Uh-huh, sure you did.

>>163
He didn't do any of this. Whatever else, arson is illegal in every country, and he just confessed in a public place.  If he were really an arsonist, he wouldn't have done something that foolish.

>>152
You sir are exactly like one of these people that I have been talking about. No where have I talked about Masturbation. Masturbation is a natural thing. You can Masturbate in your sleep and not know it. I am talking about sexual contact with an animal or human without the capability of reproduction. It is obviously possible for an animal to have sex with out the possibility to reproduce but this does not make it natural. Saying my argument is Invalid is rude and ignorant and there is only one thing to say to you “GET LOST”. See what you made me do, you have made me UnCivil. Next time read what people write very carefully before you post anything.

>>158
You seem like an intelligent person and I’m glad that you are involved in this discussion.
Sorry bout that I was just generalising what each side was arguing in this Tread, Not what each and every other person on each side believes. Now that I read it again I see how it can be taken the wrong way. I am sorry if I have offended anyone. I think of Bestiality as disgusting and I would never use an Animal for sex but at the same time I can not really find animals to be uncapable to give consent. This is just my opinion but that is what I truly believe.

I would just like to say:

Everyone, get the fuck over it.

This thread was about disallowing human/animal hentai. The admins said it was allowed in /ah/.

That's it. This thread should be over.

>>169
You make some strong arguments and I agree with most of them.
One thing that bothers me. You say that an Animal will do things that are dangerous for them. In what way is sex dangerous for the animal.

-Quote-
"Humans in cases where they have the capacity but don’t use it (emancipated adults), they are expected to “know better”, and thus when you do something stupid, you’re responsible for part of the burden"
-Quote-

Is it not possible that an Animal does know better but they just don’t care. If humans can why cant animals. All you have told us is the things that animals do that can harm them. Exactly what do you think the consequences of an animal having sex with a human would be. Other than it being Illegal or diseases which can happen in human to human contact or animal to animal contact.
Mostly I am talking about the consequences that the animal may have to live with.

I am not attacking you im just interested.

>>171

Exactly. If you want to get rid of zoophile stuff here, you should get rid of crap like cub and pedophilia first. Personally that bothers me a hell of a lot more than a girl fucking a dog.

the more perverted images the more people want to see them.

Everything in this thread is void. They are pictures, DRAWn pictures. Not real Zoo. Whats the diffrence in seeing a fox morph fuck something than a picture of a non morph fox fucking somthing? Animal is animal, and if you go anywhere but the fur fandom with it you well be harrased equally no matter which one you choose. This drama magnet is there for pointless and stupid and I waver and cast my vote that the person who started this thread needs to be burned at the cross. Or at least banned from the net.

That you all have to even argue whether an animal should be allowed to live it's life the way it sees fit and makes it happy, reflects horribly on the human race.  It suggests only humans can make decisions and they're the only good ones.

82% of the world's daily deaths because of bad decisions.  Venereal disease, smoking, obesity, drug abuse, pollution which leads to asthma diabetes anorexia anemia and more, suicide, war over dirt and physical placement, beliefs, and prejudice.  Starvation the result of self-inflicted ignorance and disasters heightened by global irresponsibility, and others ignoring their own kind in pain and suffering.  Murder and theft, riots over sports games, MURDERS OVER POKEMON CARDS AND WILLIAM SHATNER VS. SPOCK ARGUMENTS!

The human race is destroying the world and itself systematically and undeniably.
And you can honestly say humans are capable of rational and informed decisions?


All dogs go to heaven.  Humans' fate, is clear.

>>176

If it's all the same to you, I'm just going to keep discussing it anyway. ^_^ I mean, if I didn't, I'd probably just waste my free time watching sitcoms or playing video games.

>>179

Word. ^_^  And yes, the scenario is unnaccpetable to me, yet not others.  In a perfect world, there would be no bias and all discussions would be true due to our amazing minds.  Sadly, I lack this clarity, and must muddle along as best I can.  Who knows if I'll find an answer, but if I don't look, I'll never find anything.

>>178

Well, as much as life, and humans may suck, I don't see how surrendering to our depravity can offer any solution. I believe we can do more than sit around and feel depressed about any and all of the problems you outlined, but before we start pursuing a goal, it's usually best to define that goal yes?  Hence, the human tendency to discuss matters.  This is a discussion on bestiality.  I'm sure there are discussions on the other matters as well.

>>181  Because *obviously* the guy getting boned by his dog has more issues than the guy advocating hate and suicide. 

There should be a law aganst being a stupid asshole.  And it should have been in place long before anyone ever bothered to consider whether banging Bessie was a sin or not.

>>175
Primates do it. I've seen a few horses do it creatively. I bet dolphins would do it too if they had arms.
It's not natural for ALL animals to masturbate but those that are aware of such things, well, they'll find a way.

>>181 people who equate children with animals are most in need of mental help. and its actually considerd a aberation of mental stability to do so, while "most" shrinks that are up to the later teachings and studies find zoophiles and bestialists - so long as harm is avoided to be classed in the same zone as fetishists (ass lovers stocking lovers, etc) dont bitch at me i dident do the studies and such that led them to those conclusions. google and some calls are your best freinds - plus refernce from textual bases.

>>185 The point of law made was that an animal's consent is irrellevant. They're property.

>>187 try doing a subtle bit of research before jumping to conclusions and making yourself sound even less logical and reasoning than you already do.
as for nobody who f**ks dogs ...... umn yah right. you win by your display of immence logic reasoning and facts.

>>184
Animals masturbate. That doesn't necessarily make it natural.

>>186
So Bestiality is classified as a fetish. And?

>>191
So, you're arguing just because you don't like the manner in which he presents his argument?

>>193

You know, you'd have a point there if the world was just black and white, but there's a huge difference between screwing or molesting an animal, and petting it. Jesus, that's like saying if you give a kid candy you just molested him, or by shaking someone's hand you just raped him.

Did anyone read through this thing, and actually read the articles? Its like there's only 30 posts that actually say anything, with the rest bringing up points that have already been answered, or popping up with these hypotheticals that don't adress anything! Read it or don't comment!

Its like talking to /b/ I swear.

Congrats guys this has to be the longest thread that fchan has ever had. This thread has also been the most repetative that its just stupid. When I started reading I would never consider having sex with an Animal but I would just tolerate that people do it. Now my feeling havent changed. I followed this thread from the very start and I have now had enough. I may come back in a month and reply if this thread is still up and it looks like it will at this rate. This thread should have been shut down 150 posts ago. I wish you guys good luck and goodbye.

Doesn't a long discussion mean its something people want to discuss? How is a short discussion better than a long one?

Anyway, I served on a jury in an animal abuse case where a guy was having sex with animals in Alberta. The psychological profiling of the guy was pretty much that of a sexual predator. Speaking for victims and such, but since he was trying to hide what he was doing, he didn't strike me as out and out insane. He used that "I didn't hurt anything" argument too.

Yeah bull. I'm glad that guy's in prison. Maybe a few people are loving him in there the same way he loved his animals.

>>193  OH PLEASE

Petting =/= sexual intercourse

*rolls eyes*

>>200
Sexual intercourse is about as harmful as petting.  Rough sexual intercourse can injure, but so can rough petting.  (To clairfy, by "petting" I meant the normal standard affectionate non-sexual gesture, not any implied sexual meaning behind it)

So, if it's okay to pet an animal without consent (read the law, any contact without permission is considered assault)...

>>200
So, only sex is wrong?  Only a mutually enjoyed act is wrong, but forced captivity, murder, testing, etc. are all okay?

Hypocrasy at it's finest.

>>199

Blast... well, I'll try to think of a response to this when I get back from work, but for now, all I can say is that I have the same feelings for a similar situation when it involves children.  Sexual maturity is a cenvinient excuse, but really, it's arbitrary.  In theory, you can have someone who is more intelligent than us all, yet perhaps possessing some defect that prevents sexual maturity from ever occuring.  Innocence and taking advantage of trust is what concerns me, and...

And I'll have to get back to you on that. ^_^ It's nice to see someone who seems willing to discuss this at length and admit to the fact that an animal cannot grant informed consent.  Now if I could just see how an animal can provide sufficient, consent on the matter that is at least similar to informed consent, so that I can lay to rest my fears that those practicing bestiality are yet another group out to use animals toward a selfish ends.

>>204
Actually, I think all forms of animal cruelty are wrong, but bestiality is one that enough people seem to agree upon as being wrong that there's actually a chance of doing something about it.  For the most part, it's punished on discovery... but I've been wrong about things before, and I may be wrong about this.  I doubt that I'm wrong, but in order to find personal closure at least, I need to think this out... though I think I'm close now (for myself).

...

I don't recall seeing a post saying that murdering animals was okay...

I don't know how many religious people there are here but if you go by the Bible, there is a part that states if you have sex with an animal, you will be put to death. I listen to the radio in the mornings and have heard of many people who have been caught sneaking onto farms and fucking animals. They were arrested and sentenced to prison time.
So if you get caught you will be arrested and jailed. I won't get into the consent issue. Mainly because consent or not beastiality and underage sex will get you a handful of trouble.

>>209
some people cannot agree to disagree.

And sage for thousand+ year old topic that won't be settled any time soon, that's only brought up for the
sake of argueing/flaming.

>>209
>>210
So you contribute to a topic, complaining that it's too long?  Do you think?  I mean that... did a thought promote you to post that?  Frig.

>>207
I don't think the sentense and punishment of one crime has anything to do with another.  By that token, if killing the animal is legal, then there's nothing wrong with torturing it. Just because there's injustice doesn't mean it's solved with more injustice.

Yes, I think sex with animals is abuse.  Animals are innocent.  They don't think like we do, so with the exception of chimps, they can't commit a crime, so with them, it's just sex. Humans complicate things cause we choose to do it just for the fuck of it, and that makes it rape if you don't get consent. If there was a human so stupid that he thought he's making babies with animals, it wouldn't be rape, it'd be brain damage.

Kind of like how if a plant kills a plant, it's nature, but if a human kills a human, it's murder. With the ability to think about it, comes the responsability to THINK about it. :)

>>213 I'm sorry, but you've been tricked. There isn't a single animal on the planet with the same number of base DNA pairs. If you don't believe me, look for it in any medical or scientific journal (as in not a website).

>>214 Clarification to what I was saying... There isn't a single animal on the planet with the same number of base pairs as a human... There are quite a few animals with the same number base pairs amongst themselves... We humans are an island in the genetic soup...

>>213
Yes you have seen pictures in an age when computers can doctor any image to make it look real. Reality on the world wide web is much different than real "reality".

>>219

I did a typo in the post I just wrote.  In the third paragraph, it reads: "I am not saying that there are people who are not abusing animals."   It should read:

"I am not saying that there are not people who are abusing animals."

Sorry for making it confusing.  :)

 　∧＿∧　　　∧＿∧　　　∧＿∧　　 ∧＿∧　 　  　∧＿∧
　（　・∀・） 　 （　｀ー�）　　（　�∀｀）　 （　ﾟ ∀ﾟ ）　　　 （　＾∀＾）
　（　　　　つ┳∪━━∪━∪━━∪━∪━∪━┳⊂　 　 　つ
　｜ ｜　|　 ┃    We lied! It's still on!     ┃　｜ ｜ ｜
　（_＿）＿） ┻━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┻　（_＿）＿）　

>>202
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You're really using that as a rationalle for dog fucking?  DUDE, if you have to make such fantastic leaps of logic in order to attempt to justify to yourself what you're doing maybe you shouldn't be doing it hmm?

If petting is just as harmful as sexual intercourse why are there hundreds of thousands of women in therapy and support groups and recovering from the emotional and psychological trauma of being raped whereas NOBODY is in therapy to help them get over the psychological trauma of a non consensual pat on the back or somebody brushing up against their arm.  What you said is like pissing in the face of every rape victim out there.

>>204
*slaps forehead* Do you know what hypocrisy is?  Did i mention enslaving/murdering/testing on animals?  NO, so why on earth did you bring it up?  This thread is about fucking dogs, that's what i mentioned.  I'm saying fucking animals is wrong and a hair under %100 of the earths population agrees with this since it's so obvious a 226 post argument shouldn't even have been necessary.

As for mudering animals, theres people being murdered every day, who gives a shit about the animals.  Once we end all homicides, then we can worry about kids shooting pigeons with bb guns.  As for testing, a lot of it is wrong but without it, my brother would never have survived infanthood if it weren't for his artificial baby heart bypass being tested on pigs and goats.

Think it's ok to screw an animal?. Fine. Go ahead and do it. You'll have plenty of time to think about how wrong it is while sitting in your prison cell.

>>228

Not really.  How often do people actually get caught doing it?  That's the type of thing people don't really advertise.  They do it behind closed doors. You know it goes on CONSTANTLY in every community and how often do you ever hear about people gettin' caught?  NEVER. :P

Let em have their fun. It's no whoopity doo. :)

>>231 Some animals explicitly ask for sex, even from human partners. It's not rape if it's consensual.

>>231

Oh and one more thing.  If animals are so insignificant to you...then why does any of this matter?  Just think of the animal as a sock or a condom, a simple tool, if they're so insignificant. You should calm down and have some hot cocoa. Everything will be okay, guy. ^^ 

>>235

Whoa, dude.  Are you alright? ^^;

"And who's angry?  Are you?  Cuz i'm certainly not."

Obviously.

"THERE FUCKING ANIMALS THEY DONT HAVE SOULS THEY DONT MATER
THERE FUCKING USELESS
AND FUCKING ANIMALS IS FUCKING SICK
IT IS THE ULTMATE FAIL OF LIFE"

Because this is in every way a more healthy and balanced way of thinking than it is when someone sees no problem in giving physical pleasure to an animal that, whether you see it as sick or not, they see it as expressing affection and caring.

All the arguments FOR bestiality have been talking about loving an animal, feeling affection for them, showing them physical pleasure. Whether that is misguided or sick or whatever you choose to think, it is still better than the people who have been speaking against it. The guy who says he killed an alley full of dogs, burned a barn full of horses, the people who say animals aren't capable of thinking or reasoning on our level but can somehow be scarred emotionally by sex on levels they supposedly don't have, and now a guy who says they are soulless, useless, and don't matter. Yet he's about ready to pop a headgasket over this.

Why are people who think so little of animals so violently rabidly against people who do this?

>>238
Apparently hate is all they have left; all other arguments are exhausted.  *shrugs*

>>219
It is at this point that I must bow out as Dragon Flame did.  I have points to make Svansfall... you seem like you have actually though about this enough to address the issue rather than simply argue.  However, if taking you seriously and perhaps being convinced requires that I also take... some of these others seriously, I must refuse and end on a note that I still believe that those practicing bestiality are only marginally less reprehensible than pedophiles, for many of the same reasons... and if I were to so much as tolerate bestiality, I would also have to tolerate child molestation, which I assure you, will never happen.  As infantile and absurd as this sounds, that does, unfortunately, make us enemies, for if I ever learned the location of your farm, I would feel obligated to report you, and otherwise hamper your efforts from that moment on.

>>238
Wolfblade, dictating "the true meaning" of somebody's argument is not going to solve anything.  If you're going to ignore what people say and replace it with your own version that allows you to dismiss them more easily, you're no different than those who invoke religion.  I believe these people who are showing "love" for their animals are no more than sexual predators with an inherant guilt trip, and over the past week, all the reading and discussions that I've had on the matter have reinforced what I've thought with few exceptions.

I think very highly of animals.  They're our little brothers and sisters on this planet, and as a species, we abuse them in a manner that is nothing short of disgusting.  Taking advantage of animals for the purposes of sexual gratification may not be as bad as some of what happens, but that justifies nothing.  I would see animal cruelty evaporate in every measure, but that will probably never happen... but I will not concede that what these people are doing to their animals is out of love.  Lust, certainly, and perhaps a "need" to love, and maybe a complex emotion that is like love... the love shown towards any prized possession.  If nothing else, if it were truly love, the human would opt out in respect for the fact that the animal cannot consent because we canot understand them.  Whether their thoughts are too simple, or whether they just can'y convey their meaning, no consent is obtained.  I've seen many who have chosen to interpret consent from natural behavior, and I've seen people who attack the character of others rather than look at themselves to see if, perhaps, THEY were the ones who were wrong.

Anyway, I hope this discussion continues and that others find some sort of closure.  I think I have, and though it's the same as it was before, I now know the reason why I feel this way, and can justify myself for not merely basing my opinion on ignorance and one-upmanship. ^_^

>>Animals masturbate. That doesn't necessarily make it natural.

And this is why animalfuckers think they're in the right, because of absolutely moronic nonsense like this.

>>242

Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ, I am sad to see that you are leaving the debate, but I understand your reason for doing so.  This is one of the saddest debates on the topic I have ever witnessed, due to so much intolerance and name-calling from both sides.  I don't have much in common with most of those who defend bestiality in this particular debate.  I do not take some of those others seriously, so if you feel like taking me seriously or not, it is up to you.  But I do not represent these kinds of people, and I don't agree with them.  There was mentioning of sexual lust being one of the reason for why bestiality should be allowed.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  The humans own sexual lust must NEVER be allowed to be the main reason for having sexual interraction with an animal.  Any interraction with an animal must always be out of respect for the animal's own desires, needs and wants.

I,like you, think very highly of animals, as do many other zoophiles.  We are often among the first people to protest against animal abuse and cruelty to animals.  Animals are worthy of our respect, and should not be treated the way they are, in general in this world.  You are saying we cannot understand
what the animals mean?  So, you are saying that when dogs lean against your hand as you scritch their ear, we cannot understand wheter that means they enjoy it, or wheter they want you to stop?

A cow comes up to me, and pushes her rear up towards me, raising her tail to the side.  If I ignore it, and go away, she comes after me, and tries again, being persistent, until I have  sufficiently given stimulation to her genitals.   The fact that she will continue until I pleasure her... is this a sign to me, that she wanted to be pleasured, or is it a sign to me that she doesn't want it?

When spending a lot of time together with animals of various species, you do learn their body language, you do learn to communicate.  Someone who knows their animals well and are interracting with them on a daily basis, will definitely learn
to understand them.

And once again... animals are not children.  Young animals are children, without a sexuality.  Grown up animals have a sexuality, they masturbate, they enjoy sexual stimulation.  If animals were children they would not be able to procreate, and would die out after one generation.

Once again, Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ, I am sad to see you leave.  I liked reading your posts in this discussion, and I agree with a lot of what you think and say.  I would be happy if you wanted to contact me in private somehow.  I don't know how that works on this place, but you can look me up and send me a private message on Beastforum.com if you feel like?

If you don't, be well, and take care, and I wish you all the best in your striving to stop people from abusing animals.  It was good to communicate with you, and I will continue my own striving to stop people from abusing animals.

What I also don't see is why anti-zoophiles can't tell the difference between Bestiality and some other act.  They have this 'all or nothing' opposition in their views regarding pedophilia and bestiality.  Which are, truly, uncomparable.  One has sexual development and desires, the other does not.  They're apples and oranges, seperate cases that must be handled with seperate considerations.  As well, they both have completely different mental compositions and emotions, further making them incongruent.  They've provided their argument, but the argument always, even with the anonymous, requires that you consider animals incapable of consent and thought, making it wrong, yet also require that humans children be of the same mindset.  To even argue their point of view it requires severe double standards and incongruent views.
This leaves me to beleive that they are either grasping at straws for their argument (which I hope for), or their moral fiber is damaged in a way far worse than bestiality brings up as a topic.  That they actually equate animals and children as the same, and treat them as such.  A situation that restricts the rights of the animal, and horribly belittles and harms the child, by treating them both as property.

I also cannot understand why there is so much basis on hate and "I feel it is wrong, but cannot/will not defend my feeling" sentiment for anti-zoophiles.  If someone feels so strongly about it, why would they choose not to take action and explain why it is wrong, to try and let others 'see the light'?

I also cannot understand the incredibly overwhelming hatred and desire for anti-zoos to throw zoos into jail, despite the fact we've established that it's legal in some areas.  Many ignore this fact, beleiving that their hatred would be enough to jail them.  And further beleiving that their hatred justifies their damaging, hindering, or otherwise harming the zoophiles.  This rabid fanaticism is frightening, to say the least.

I cannot understand any of these sentiments or situations.  The only explanation I can gather, which I have yet to desire to resolve myself to, is that these are merely the result of anti-Zoophiles being wrong, knowing they are wrong, and knowing that they are guided solely on hatred and social programming, with no interest in the actual welfare of the animal, concentrated solely on the act, and how it offends them.

I would ask that someone, like >>242 continue the argument, to prove to me that this is not so.  And that anti-zoos exist for the welfare of the animal, and not as witch-burning inquisitors.
I have already exhausted my own argument, which noone has directly continued with new points or information.  But I do not want to see this thread die until I am convinced that whichever side gets the last word or 'wins', that both sides are truly concerned over the animal, it's rights, and it's freedom, without showing a disconcern for childrens'.

First off every single person that has posted a comment with no explanation of why they think that way is just wasting everyone’s time. I thank everyone that has at least attempted to explain their point of view instead of just saying things like “But animals can consent because I say so” and “But having sex with animals is disgusting and is just rape because they can’t consent”.

>>242
I haven’t quite left yet. I am sorry to see you go. But I understand why you feel you must.



A few people have been craping on about how having sex with an Animal is fine or not fine because it may physically hurt the animal or not. This is a shit argument. Having sex does not hurt you physically unless you are forcing your partner so why is everyone arguing about it.
The way humans are affected by rape is not really the physical harm but the mental harm that is caused by the rape incident. When a child is raped she may enjoy it but she is not at an age to understand her actions (Thus not considered rape at the time by the child) and when she gets older she will be traumatised by the event. She was not hurt physically but mentally. It really comes down to the fact that the Human does NOT want to have a sexual encounter with that person. This is where consent is brought in.

The real question is, is an animal having sex with a human mentally harmed by this encounter. If so that means that the Animal does not want to have sex with the human and when forced will be traumatised by the encounter. This obviously shows that the Animal knows how to consent to a situation.
Only the individual can decided if they feel they have been Raped or not and no one can make that decision for them.

Rape is sex and every one has sex, it is not the physical behaviour that defines Rape but the Mental behaviour.
If an Animal will never have enough intelligence (like many people think) to be mentally scared by the encounter when the Animal is older then it is possible to argue that Animals can not be Raped. My reason for this is that according to Anti-Beast groups Animals lack the knowledge to consent thus have no ability to be traumatised by the sexual event because they don’t have an opinion about wether or not they have sex.
This is crap off course.

To clarify.
Rape is a Human term for Human beings to use for a situation when someone is forced into having sex when they don’t want to. It is defined by the mental disagreement.
If rape is not understood then the Animal will have no opinion either way if it wants to have sex and will not be traumatised because it hasn’t got the Mental ability to understand and will never have that ability. – Not considered Rape by the Animal.
If an Animal thinks its being raped then they have the ability to consent and the animal will be traumatised by the event. – Considered Rape by the Animal.

I hope this all makes sense.
I’m just trying to get both sides think about the mental and not physical consequences of Rape. And why it may or may not apply to Animals.

>>232
What, do they put on teddies and light candles? Where are you getting this from?

>>233
">You're the one who's delusional if you think everyone is spotlessly clean. <
You turned his argument into a bizarre absolute.

>>240
You're taking one jackhole as representative of your entire opposition?

>>244
">And this is why animalfuckers think they're in the right, because of absolutely moronic nonsense like this.<
How is it nonsense? It's like saying that making a car, or infrastructure, or organized religion, is natural because humans do it.

>>248
">I cannot understand any of these sentiments or situations.  The only explanation I can gather, which I have yet to desire to resolve myself to, is that these are merely the result of anti-Zoophiles being wrong, knowing they are wrong, and knowing that they are guided solely on hatred and social programming, with no interest in the actual welfare of the animal, concentrated solely on the act, and how it offends them.<
I feel a strong desire to call "BULL" on that. I don't know how many times I've seen Zoos claim that their opponents are just conformists.

>>250
And what about the human opinion? What about to opinions of the people around the hypothetical child?

>>253
I just mentioned several species that did.
Acting like facts aren't presented doesn't make you right.>>253

>>255
But that's also a double-edged sword.
Humans have always thought sex with animals is wrong.  Just like they've always thought homosexuality is wrong.  And most of the world has always thought witchcraft was wrong.

Think about it.

>>253

Hello.  For some reason I could not see your name, so I am not sure of who I am talking to, which makes me feel a little weird, but whoever you are, thanks for your well explained thoughts on the matter.   Yes, I am well aware of the fact that the cows I take care of sees me as part of their herd, and also as a potential mate.  I should mention, that not all individuals in the herd enjoy the same thing.  Some of them enjoy stimulation to the genitals, while some of them prefer a good back-scritch instead.  I'll give them what they want.   Truth is that the ones that enjoy stimulation to their genitals will come to me wheter they are in heat or not, while those who prefers a back-scritch tends to want stimulation only when they are in heat.  I must admit that I do not take advantage of this situation, I give them a backscritch even if they are in heat, because I know it is just the fact that they're in heat that makes them come up to me, and it'd feel wrong to me to take advantage of that.

Humans are not the animal who get pleasure from having their genitals stimulated, humans are not the only ones who enjoy an orgasm, wheter the result will be for reproduction or not.  Animals does not have a stigmatised view of sex, I am quite sure that they don't get traumatized by the fact that it is not another bovine who is giving sex to them, but a human. They don't have a concept of guilt over their act, and they are not Catholics, so they won't feel bad for their orgasm not leading to reproduction.   If a cow would count the months and feel cheated for not being impregnated?  Sorry, no, I don't believe they have that concept either.  It's rather common that when inseminating a cow, or having her covered by a bull, that the impregnation did not succeed, so that the process has to be done again.  So, in comparison, this would be no different than a failed mating attempt.  But I am seriously sure that she does not make the connection between the pleasure of her orgasm and the potential impregnation.  I think she's happy for the pleasure, without caring about if she's pregnant or not.

Another point to make is that it is extremely rare for a cow to reach orgasm during mating.  Bulls tend to be very very quick about it, and the cows don't get much chance for stimulation.  So I seriously believe the cow will prefer the more gentle and slow pleasuring they can recieve from a human.

I should also mention that no animal has ever brought me to orgasm, since I have never have had my own genitals involved in interraction with animals.  My preferred method of pleasuring is to give oral, and to use my hands, and fingers.  In that way I can concentrate fully on her reaction, without being disturbed by my own arousal, and read by her body language which things she enjoys the most, and concentrate on those things.

Oh, and don't worry about me calling myself a furry, because I am not a furry.  Another zoophile pointed out this discussion to me, and I came here just to have a look at this discussion.  And the reason that I am vocal on the matter, is that I think it is sad that so many people think it is wrong to give pleasure to animals, when the animals don't get harmed by it.

There is sexual abuse of animals also, and I am strongly against that.  I am strongly against any form of abuse or cruelty to animals.  I just don't like to get dumped in the same category as those.  That is my reason for me speaking my view on the things - to try and explain that not everyone who enjoys sexual interaction with animals is an abuser of animals.   And if you think it is wrong to take advantage of an animal's instincts for the reason of giving her pleasure, feel free to think so.

Thanks for the good questions.  :)

>>242

Well well well.  Someone thinks rather highly of themselves, eh? "I'm completely immune to ignorance and one-upmanship.  I'm the perfect little angel! What I say and feel cannot possibly be wrong!"

I'm sorry, but you're doing the same thing that you are so quick to criticize others for.  You are over generalizing and oversimplifying the matter in all respects. Implying things like those who commit beastiality are no better than pedophiles and don't actually love the animals at all but are just lust incarnate, etc etc.

Now I'm not saying I'm for or against beastiality. I could really care less what people do behind closed doors.  I'm just pointing out some hypocrisy here, whether intentional or not.

>>256  The core purpose of sex is reproduction.  That's all.  It's a means to pass ones genetic traits to the next generation, and to keep the species alive.  Hopefully, it will also result in an improvement of the species, though such changes often take several generations.  By this logic, yes, homosexuality and bestiality are wrong, because they do not accomplish anything other than the release of sexual desires or tensions.  This is uniquely human.  If such activities had a true, definitive reason for occurring, if they absolutely served a purpose other than gratification or release, if they were necessary for the survival of the species, then they wouldn't be looked down upon.  You state that homosexuality used to be considered wrong; the difference these days is that most things previously considered "wrong" are now accepted by a wary and indifferent public.  There are a LOT of things in this world that are wrong, but no one cares any more; therefore, these things become an accepted evil.  Society's lackluster indifference to the state of things will certainly be the cause of its' downfall.  And I fear the act of bestiality may soon be added to that list.

>>259 Just for the record, humans have not always considered bestiality wrong. It was encouraged by the pre-Catholic Romans and practiced publicly by pretty much the whole Roman army. One might even make an argument that it was Catholicism that made bestiality wrong. 100 years is "forever" to a generation, after all.

Also, while it may not have been publicly accepted, there was bestiality a-plenty happening on ships crossing the Atlantic to settle the "new world." This has been traced back as the source of syphilus in America in medical studies. But the point is that enough sexual contact was happening with sheep to allow the disease to mutate to a human infecting one. Maybe not accepted by all, but certainly very frequently done anyways, and in the close quarter confines of a sailing ship...

>>264

The ancient Greeks were all about beastiality as well.  Their stories, history, and mythology are LOADED with the stuff.

>>267


I know, I know. ^^  I'm just saying that it wasn't that big a deal back then...before the new agey beatnik Catholicism came along and ruined everyone's good time. :P

>>269 Because you say so?

Because it's a crime, and just plain sick in the head. All this talk of consent is meaningless. The minute one screws an animal, they've committed a CRIME. Try explaining your twisted concepts regarding human/animal consent to a judge. See what you get.

>>269

>>272 >>275 One state's law says it's legal to have sex with an animal providing you own it or have the owner's permission. I won't name it to prevent people from freaking out, I'm just presenting it as an example of a law "for" bestiality.

Sorry, missed to add my name.  Post 277 was made by Svansfall.

>>279
It is most understandable to feel that it would be wrong because of your religious principles.  I respect your right to feel that it is wrong for you.  But I do not respect when some try to force their own religious principles upon someone else.  To each their own - as long as no one is harmed in any way, and everyone involved are enjoying it.

As for your question, Joan-Michele, it is true that most people who is turned by animals is also turned on by humans.  I believe  one study on it came up with the number of 8% who was only attracted to animals.

For me, I am only attracted to animals.  I enjoy human company, and I value my human friends greatly.  I form emotional relationships with humans, but I can not conjure up any kind of attraction for them.   This does not bother me, and it feels right to me, with one exception:  I would like to be able to make my friends happy, and I have had to turn down many sex-offers from friends who have wanted to have sex with me, and thus disappointing them.

Apart from this, I am happy for finding animals attractive, because I know that I am a caring being who would not harm someone I feel emotionally attached to.  And I would not be sexually intimate with an animal unless I felt emotionally attached to them.

So... what is it about animals that make me attracted to them?  Hard to say.  I have to like their personality, but that goes with humans I like also, and I am not attracted to those.  So what is the main difference?  I think it is the smell.  I don't find human scent to be very appealing, whereas the natural aroma of a cow, who is not in a stressful productive environment, is a very pleasant scent.   The natural scent of a cow is affected by their surroundings, and if they are being fed manufactured feed or silage, instead of fresh juicy grass or high quality hay.  Those who think that cows smell bad, has probably not been close to a cow in more calm and natural surroundings.

>>281
Thanks for the information, Xenofur.  It is appreciated.  :)

You people...

This whole discussion is POINTLESS.  Nothing is going to come of it so please just give up.  Nobody is going to convince anyone into changing their mind on either side of the issue.  Beastiality exists, it's always existed, it's never going to disappear.  If you don't like it, don't do it.  Just...somehow...get over it.  PLEASE.

>>287

Well by the looks of it, there's not a whole lot of any of that going on here anyway. So it might as well just be over. :P

>>280
Oh man that makes me nautious.  My grandfather had an enormous cattle ranch with only about a hundred cows on it, they defenitely had many acres to stretch there legs.  Even with the size of the place the smell was absolutely horrid.  And how when they shit it just kindof slops down there backside over there genitals, i couldn't imagine being turned on by that.  All they do is stand around, shit, eat, and shit some more, truly an animal that is destined to be killed and eaten.

My guess of what attracts you to animals is:

1.) They don't care about appearence
2.) They don't care if you're successful or well groomed
3.) They can't reject you.
4.) You don't need to put in any work with them
5.) They can be acquired merely by writing a check
6.) They can't tell anybody what you are doing to them

OK, for all those who hate beastiality and or zoophila, let me clarify this much. Animals do have the ability to consent, they just believe in oppurtunity a heck of alot more than we do. Let's take an example for some of you lust mongers out there. Say the sexiest thing you can think of comes up and asks you to have sex with her (or him) with no strings attached. Would you say yes or no? Most of you would say yes, some would say no, true. And believe me, canines can say no other ways than jus speaking. You see those one inch long teeth in their mouth? Imagine those around your dick. That's there way of saying no. When the urge to mate comes on, you'll screw anything, even someone you trust. Sometimes love can bond through it, even if it's not really there. I myself personally am in love with my dog, and she loves me as far as I can tell. Personally, I wish she could have my pups, but unfortunately she can't, so I gotta deal with it. And in fact, I find her more attractive than most furs, and if you find that to be disturbing, then fuck off, that's my opinion.

Alot of animals have a choice. Most just choose the choice that ends up with sex. You would too if offered it by someone you trust and care for, wouldn't you? And if you say no, then why the hell are you on a yiff image posting board?

>>293 Because it's F-chan and this is the only place it would be not only be taken seriously but have somewhat meaningful talk.
 

>>295 I suppose that somehow magicaly explains ones interactions with a couple of semi friendly timber wolves, and or anothers interactions with a house kept cougar.
domesticated into complacancy as the only reason an animal will mount a human -.............umn no.

>>284
-Quote-
Why do so many people then think that their opinions are right and people not following their rules must be evil and misguided.

Well, that's kinda the whole idea of an opinion. Sometimes, we can't all be right.
-Quote-

My point is that people seem to think that their opinions are some written law that everyone should follow.

-Quote-
Bestiality has been around thousands of years and has been depicted in art and literature.

...And?
-Quote-

Just pointing out fact. Don’t be an arse about it.

-Quote-
Bestiality unfortunately has been apart of human nature for so long that these attractions to creatures you call Furry are nothing but the watered down versions of bestiality.

Where are you getting this from? Almost all cultures try to associate animals with human virtues, and anthromorphize animals.
-Quote-

That is exactly my point.

-Quote-
The unfortunate truth is that Furry was started by Bestiality and the proof is right in front of your eyes every time you look at a furry creature in a sexual position.

Circular argument. Furry came from bestiality which started furry.
-Quote-

In what fucking universe is that considered a Circular Argument. Bestiality was started first then Bestiality Artwork after that and then Furry Artwork which is nothing but watered down bestiality artwork.

-Quote-
Another thing saying that having sex with an animal is a fail in life can be considered true but jacking off to led on paper really aint much better.

What? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that having sex with an animal is rape, then how is that barely better than masturbation?
-Quote-

You have totally missed my point. I don’t believe Animal sex is Rape. My point is that having sex with something other than the opposite sex of your species is a fail at life. Stop putting words in my mouth and twisting my words around.

-Quote-
What I have written is not supposed to sway your decision on the matter but to inform you of some point that people seem to keep missing when arguing their opinions.

Funny, I could've sworn it was just a bunch of unsupported statements.
-Quote-

Exactly what am I supposed to be supporting when I am neither for or against Bestiality. I am not trying to change peoples minds by giving them facts. I am only trying to make people think about things that they may have not thought of.


Let me repeat my word again.
I know that by posting this I’m going to get at least 20 or more people grabbing my words and twisting them around so remember this. I am a natural part in this convo. I am not for bestiality nor against it. What I have written is not supposed to sway your decision on the matter but to inform you of some point that people seem to keep missing when arguing their opinions.

You are exactly the type of person I’m talking about. You don’t care to open your mind and think about others opinions. Instead you grab the words of others and twist them around and add in things to benefit your own opinions.

women trainers are told to avoid being around big cats while they are in menstrating as teh large cat will attempt to rape the human .
this hardly seems like an isolated mental aberation - sources - big cat traners handbook and various other places ive read such .
oh btw 300 get

Oh, and just a general pondering to DragonFlame and Jubero:  Wheter someone is a failure in life or not, doesn't that depend on what their goals is to start with?

Since my goal is to spend my life giving pleasure and caring for cows, I would consider myself a failure if I did not.

For instance, if a lesbian woman's goal was to live in a happy relationship with the woman of her dreams, and she ends up actually doing this, would you consider her to be a "failure" since she wasn't married to a man, even though she never wanted to marry a man?

If people end up where they wanted, how are they "failures?"

>>303
People who fucks dogs are failures

FACT

>>304

Dude you're on fchan. You don't really have the right to call anyone else a 'failure'.  :P

>>307 wow your better at it as well, so I choose to believe you.
surprisingly a large amount of zoophiles make it much further and into much better paying jobs than non zoophiles.
gleaned from 3 databases cross corelating non individual targeting data mined from the apa and aza. if one cares to invest any anergy a small amount of digging can glean you hard statistical data as well.

>>269
Thank you, this seriously shouldn't be debated.  I mean you're fucking creatures that eat there own poo and aren't even aware they exist.  They run on instinct, which is eat, drink, fuck, period.
Oh right, LOL, you love them and they love you back the same way.  It's cruel, sick and jesus christ, think of the animal?  How confused do you this makes it?

Sick bastards

>>310

Yet again...refer to >>291

>>311

Okay, so his argument falls flat.  Why not respond to one of the well thought out ones instead?

>>315

Some of them are good, but yeah, for the most part...

>>317

Uh... when you mean "facts", do you mean scientifically proven facts?  Cause, you know, the entirety of civilization is built on assumption and opinion.

Besides, yes they have.  Both sides have presented facts, and lots of them.  Read the posts... even the long ones, or at least don't comment on them if you don't.

>>319
Oh well then, just ignore it and leave it alone so people who are interested can read it then. You aren't bringing anything at all to this discussion other than the sulky "it's pointless" remark.

>>318
 Besides, science lost it's ability to be an authority the moment the scientific community allowed psychology and other 'soft sciences' call themselves 'science' and demand the same respect as hard science, without adhering to basic scientific principles.  It's all been down hill from there. 

When science becomes as much a matter of faith as religion (IE: This is a fact, but only works *if* you accept common, unprovable assumptions like 'God' or unvaried 'probability' constructed on limited factors and ignoring everything that doesn't 'fit') then 'fact' and 'opinion' becomes much the same, and the only authority we have left is a pragmatic philosophy based simply on observation and logic (the same principles that spawn 'science' before it got all messed up). 

Several pragmatic philosophies have already been expressed regarding the so called 'morality of besitiality' and have been completely ignored or dismissed, either because they work (which is no fun, and leaves nothing to argue about) or because they conflict with various unpragmatic philosophies (Eww, it's icky, something must be done!) and/or the Cult of Science (well, you don't KNOW for a FACT) who seems to still believe there's such things as univeral absolutes in a subjective reality that can be found by means other than practical experiment and observation.

In short, people will argue because they like arguing, rather than accept any of the nurmerous *reasonable*  (albeit practical and unsatisfying in that ego-gratifying sort of 'I win' way) conclusions that have been presented. 

Such is life.  I just figure I can have some fun throwing their own nonesense back in their faces, ergo >>311 and >>307

Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery...  At least when it's not intended as mockery.  :)

>>323

I believe that this discussion was started with the sole purpose of causing strife.  Nothing good will come of it. Morality discussions don't even make sense on a site like this.  They only exist to cause problems.

To those of you who feels that the discussion is pointless, feel free to not read it.  I think the discussion is entertaining, and it will certainly make people on both sides have to excerice their brains a little.  So, if you don't enjoy it, stay out of it, and don't get in the way of those who actually enjoy the discussion.

I find it interesting to read other people's point of view, wheter they agree with me or not.  It's not pointless at all to find out what people on both sides of a debate are thinking and feeling.  Quite the opposite: It's constructive to learn of other people's opinions, wheter you agree with them or not.

>>327
Oh, there are quite a few good posts from both sides.  But they are difficult to spot among the posts that don't contribute with much substance.

btw, if you think a post is jut a flame, there's the star to the side with which you can report it to the mods. :)

>>299
I have already given an example. I am tired of talking to you. And you can think what ever that makes you happy.

>>302
The whole reason I brought it up was to point out the stupidity of the argument. I totally agree with you. My point was that the mentality of some of the people on this board was that you Fail at Life because you have sex with animals while they sit at home jacking off to Furry Porn. These are not a Fail at Life but if one is then the other is also.

>>309
Dude you must be incredibly bored to read through all my posts. I have not read every single one of his posts but I have read at least 90 % of them and I agree he has twisted some things around but he at least gives a bit of explanation into why he believes that way. Juberu on the other hand has not said anything to explain why he thinks my opinions are wrong except to say that I am wrong because he thing I am some type of confused individual that does not know what I am talking about.
I at least try to be natural but when attacked I attack back it in my nature.
It is funny if I actually knew him I would think it was a personal attack.
And one more thing how do I know this isn’t Juberu himself. You defiantly write like Juberu.

>>315
Short and to the point I like that. I wish I could get my point through with that many words.
I am not being sarcastic, I’m serious.

>>319
The reason that there are no solid facts is because it is so hard to find them and when you do there are almost always strings attached.

>>321
This already has gone out of hand. This thread has the Title of the longest discussion on fchan.

>>326
That has to be the most constructive comment on this board. Great work dude.
Now if only you could convince every one to think the same way this world would be a better place.

>>328
Quite true. I have heard some really good points and facts from both sides. The problem is that the next few post you will have some nub come along and twist their words and make them look like fools.
And don’t think I’m talking about what is happening with me and Juberu.

>>332
Thanks for the kind words, DragonFlame.

This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because...

So, do I get a medal or something for starting the longest thread in /dis/? ;)

>>339
>>337

Nobody really wants to repeat what's already been said and better, thus setting themselves up for various atacks on ther character for being "ignorant" and "closed minded". >>337 There's a lot to be said about your points, but I think  speak for a lot of the "not just bashing" types when I say Screw That!  I'm not discussing it here.  Sorry man, but every time someone makes a point about bestiality being wrong, like five people start picking apart every little thing they say, and then some jerks come in all jihad-like and lump everyone on this site as animal rapers, and then a bunch of people just post for the sake of posting, contributing nothing to the discussion.

It might be interesting to actually talk to you about this Svansfall, but not here. People can't seem to tolerate this discussion, and those that decide to post something constructive have only read the last few posts most of the time. Hell, I wasn't even going to reply, but something about DragonFlame's comment bugged me... that silence is somehow implied as agreement and awe. No. Just, no.

>>342
Silence.... What silence. You must be crazy its freaking loud.
LOL ;)

>>342
One more step to 400.  =)

>>347
Also relevent:  The book the guy you linked to reviews.  "Dearest Pet: On Bestiality" by Midas Dekkers. 

Though by this point it's probably rediculous to expect folks would be willing to read any take on the subject that wasn't at all heavily biased in either direction in favour of people's own ego-response.  God forbid anybody approach the subject in an enlightened, scholarly manner.

sex with animals! anybody ever jacked off their dog? i need tips. i can't make him cum.

>>349
I assume you are referring to this: "In the 1940s, Kinsey asked twenty thousand Americans about their sexual behavior, and found that 8 percent of males and 3.5 percent of females stated that they had, at some time, had a sexual encounter with an animal. Among men living in rural areas, the figure shot up to 50 percent. Dekkers suggests that for young male farm hands, animals provided an outlet for sexual desires that could not be satisfied when girls were less willing to have sex before marriage."

That's Midas Dekkers' suggestion, not Peter Singer's, just so we don't get mixed up. And I don't think Dekkers is "blaming" women at all, just trying to account for the 50% rate among rural men (brothels being less common in rural areas). That was in the 1940s, too, and attitudes about sex before marriage have changed a lot since then...

But young rural women can hardly be blamed for the backwards sexual ethics that were/are forced upon them under penalty of being outcast. Blame the people who push bronze age patriarchal sexual rules... Focus on the Family, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, etc.

This thread is still moving?

>>354  Yes, it is.  We're trying to get to 400, so thanks for the help.  :)

>>357
Actually now that I think of it, we're a society full of unwanted people that are obsessed with possessions and ownership.  In order to acquire more things you need to take them from people, and if you don't employ violence they're likely to take them back, and with so many people, we subconsciously don't want any more.  Hatred for sex and glorification of violence... witht he usual twist.  Sex for others is bad, but good for the self, and it's okay for others to die and so forth.  I mean, look at the basis of stability in our culture.  "Do what we say or goons with guns will come to your house and lock you up."  And we're all so accepting of it too.  For the powerless, it's cutting people off in traffic, or getting pissed off at people who don't trim the weeds in their lawn, or have a nicer lawn than you.  For the powerful, it's about making sur ethey stay where they are, and any means of doing so is justified because they basically control everything.

It's all very emo, and very old.  Human life means nothing, so all we have left is our dignity, which most of us waste.  I mean heck, I could start down the correct path right now and trash the gun I have in my garage and spend my extra cash on something good like feeding the hungry or restoring the environment, but I think the gun is cool and I prefer to spend my cash on cigarettes, cider, and movies.  The closest I'll ever come to being moral is pointing out how immoral I am on this fetish site.

Dude, this got depressing!  Ah well.

It's not so much that we need more fighting just for it's own sake.  What we need is honesty.  I have long felt that, if someone or something inspires righteous indignation in you, it is healthy for you to act on that feeling provided that you approach the situation with a sense of honor. That is a part of being honest with yourself.

Sexual honesty is equally important, and it is something that is significantly lacking in our society.  Yes, your girlfriend would be more attractive if she lost a few pounds.  You do feel an urge to try something different after sleeping with the same woman for years.  You're boyfriend would be better if he had a bigger penis.  It isn't wrong to feel that way when it's the truth.  You only hurt yourself when you try to tell yourself that it isn't.

As for bestiality, yeah it's freaky and just a little disturbing, but it's not like the animals involved are emotionally scarred by it, so have a ball!

>>361  Radical! 

>>363 Or "tubular"

>>365
  Wicked was my second choice, actually, as it was my fav term of affirmation back in the day.  I just thought 'radical' was more apropo, my bad. 

nope I'm waiting an apropriate amount of time before I post some deeply insightfull thinking regarding all of this and our own imersion within our perceptions of what we think right verses wrong really is and how we will try anything to keep those ideals even in the face of sound reasoning.
those thoughts will come much later.

Meditation is good for you.

                                                                          
                                 66O6O^                                   
                             6OQOQQO6666I                                 
                           !66OQQO6OO6II666                               
                          I666OI|6QO66O6OOQO`                             
                         I6QOO6|``OIIOQQQQQQQ^                            
                         OQQO6^.^^ `!.`!I6O6OO                            
                         OOOQ`. .`.`...`.QOOO6|                           
                         6IOQ^. `!`|`. .^QO666I                           
                         IOOQ6`.!|^!|!.`!QOO|6^                           
                          IOQQQ^`.....^|QQQ6OO                            
                         ^6OOQQO`.^^``^6QQ6O6OO^^                         
                       .!6QOOQQI``````!OOOOQO6OOI                         
                     66O6OO6OOO`  ..... .66QOQOO6O66                      
                   666666666666666I!!I6O666666OO66O66OI                   
                  O6666666666666I6I66I66666O66OO66O6O6O6                  
                 .O6OQ6O66I666666I66666666666O6O6QOO6666O                 
                 I66OOOQOQ66666666I66666O6666OOOQO6O6666O6                
                 666O6O6Q6O6666666I66666666O6O6OOO666O                    
                   QO66OOQO666666O66666666666OOQQQQQQOI                   
                   QQQOQQQO66O6O6O6O666666O6OOOQQQQOQOQ                   
                   QQOQOQQQOOO6OO6OO66O6O6OQOOQ^QQQQOQO                   
                   QQQQQQQQQQOOQO6O6OO66OO6OOQQ.IQQQOQO                   
                  ^QOQQQQQQOQQOOOOOOOOO6OOOOOQ``!QQQQQOQ                  
                  QOQOQQQOQQQOQOQOOQOOOOQQQ6QOOQOQQQQQOQ^|                
                ``. .QQQQOO6I6I6IIIII6I6II|I66O6O6OQQ`..`.^               
              ^``..`.`^QQQOOI666666666I666OO6O66O6O66^``.`.`^             
             ```.`.`^6OQOO6IIII|II|IIIIIII6II666OOOO6``|^^`.`.`           
          .`....`!! ^66IIIIIII|I||||IIIIIII6III66666O6O6O6!``.``^`... .   
   .^!. .`.`..^!666III|IIIIII6I6II6666I666I6I66I6666666666O6O^`   ..``    
      . ...^6I|I|IIII6IIIII6I6I6I666O66O66O6666666666I6I6I6I66O` `..` ` . 
  . 6 |.^`O6IIIIIIIII66II66I6666666OOQQO6O6O6O6O6O66O6O66|IIII666^`6`.``. 
      .6I|||||I||II666O66O6O66O6O!^. .66666I6I6III6IIIIII|I||||||||||     
       ||!|||||I|I||III|III66OI|!`6I6666IIIIII6III6III|III||||||||||      
       !|!||||||I|I|I|IIIIIII|IIIII666IIIII6IIII6IIIII6II|I||||||||       
         |||||||||IIIIIIII||IIIIIIIIIIIIII66OO66IIIII|I|I||IIIOOI         
             |||I||I|I|I|IIIIIII6II6666I666I^`^^!^^^^!!                   
                 |!I|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII6II|`.`..^``````^``^              
                 ^.|6I    ^!|I|II6I66O66Q6I! `||!!||!!!^!^^.``            
                                                           ^!.`           

We don't close threads unless absolutely necessary. :)

And now something completely different.

Instead of deciphering your own opinion come to question it. Come to realize that maybe your own opinion and situations really don't matter. No matter what, someone else will try to overcome your ideas because self indulgence is number one, the big cheese. Glorious piles of skank will be written up regardless of what you have to say.

Have no regards and an indifferent opinion. With that no one can possibly bother you and you won't bother them. Easy enough right? ...Too bad alot of people can't think my way.

Dammit, Anon. got 375 :( *emo*

>>375 there is a distinct difference between turning a blind eye to things that are plainly visable to all verses something that is at most times (at least hopefully so) rather private.
critical reasoning man .......

Can anyone who are against zoophilia please come up with any logical reasons to counter the points I made in my posts, mainly 199 246 258 and 277.

I would like to see if there are any logical points against it at all, that anyone can find.  In short: Why is it wrong to give pleasure to someone who clearly comes up and asks for the stimulation?

A simple question, I would be happy for an answer.  :)

>>380 And the answer is: it's not really wrong. It does, however, gross out a large majority of the human species, can lead to the mutation of STDs (syphilis was a sheep-only disease long ago), and is actually illegal in a lot of places.

There is a Biblical argument against it as well, but unless those people are willing to give up haircuts, seafood, cheeseburgers, equality between the sexes, cotton blend clothes, etc, IMO, it doesn't count.

>>382

Isn't that just a myth?  I am 99% certain modern research has showed that STD's cannot be transmitted between other species and humans.

>>382
That's a fallacy of composition; assuming the parts are the same as the whole. And something of a False Dilemna. I've heard that one used to "invalidate" the Bible's statutes on homosexuality, too.

I'm not actually back in the argument, or necessarily agree with the Bible, mind you, it just bugs me when I see that used.

>>386 It bugs me when I see anyone's dogma being used to support or deny anything, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. My argument is just as valid as any other argument made from Biblical or religious sources. I didn't include it because I thought it was a strong point, but just as a reason people say it's wrong.

As for assuming the parts are the same as the whole, isn't that whole section in Lev about "God's law?" Doing any one of the things mentioned there is a break of God's law, lest we forget that detail. What makes any one of these laws more or less important is individual perception and convenience of the moment.

>>380

That "someone" is an animal, and you're molesting it.  Read back man, these points have been made by like 5 different people.  The point isn't whether animals like it, it's whether they can consent sufficiently.  Right now, I'm convinced you've trained your cows to let you molest them.  But, what I think probably won't make a difference to you regardless of how much I explain myself.  You do it because you want to, you think whatever you want is fine, and you won't stop because you don't have to face consequences.  You'll go on molesting animals, and I'll go on thinking your sick for doing it, and you'll call my opinion closed-mindedness, and you'll call your opinion logic.

Isn't there a post count limit on certain threads?  And as to the post where they said it's impossible for STDs to go inter-species, AIDS was a disease that was carried by monkeys/chimps/apes at first.  The most likely reason it was spread, contrary to popular belief, wasn't bestiality.  Most likely a hunter gutted one of the animals, spread the blood on his body (for the purposes of hunting colors and masking scent) and went out hunting, then screwed his wife.  Sometime later, his wife slept with somebody else... etc.etc.etc.  This happens apparently.  Who knew?

>>390

The animals I take care of has not been trained.  And if it is to molest them when I stimulate their genitals, when they clearly enjoy it and come back for more, then isn't all artificial insemination also to molest the animals?  In artificial insemination the animals don't even get enjoyment from it, they just get their privates and anus invaded, without care of wheter the animal likes it or not.   Congratulations, because by buying dairy products or meat, you are actively supporting molesting of animals by your own definition.

As I mentioned before, I only stimulate the genitals of the individuals who enjoy this kind of stimulation.  Those that prefer to get a back-scritch, I give a back-scritch instead.  They all enjoy it.  Am I molesting them when scritching their backs also?

Pleasure is pleasure, and they enjoy the pleasure.  They do not have a stigmatised view of sex as we do, all they know is that they enjoy the stimulation.   It seems as if you think it is a bad thing to give pleasure.

prove to me that animals cannot consent in the same manner one can prove that rain is composed of water droplets.
so far im agreeing more and more with the animals can consent crowd. their logic seems better thoughtv out so far.

If you base your opinion on a statement that "nobody can prove that animals can't consent", then you are only fooling yourself.

For example: Apes and chimps can clearly think, and even communicate, as well as dolphins, but can a dog? Or a horse?

SOME animals can pontentially consent, but not necessarily all animals.

So why is it so extremely important that the animal must live up to the official definition of "consent", even when it is clear that the animals are enjoying something, and actively coming back for more?

Why is it suddenly not at all important if the animal lives up to the official definition of "consent" when they pull sleds, or ploughs or carts, or when dogs are helping with police work, or helping blind people.

Why is it not important wheter the animal officially "consents" to being slaughtered, or wheter the animal officially "consents" to having their newborn taken away from them?

But why is it so important that they must officially "consent" when someone stimulates them, and brings them to orgasm?

>>400

Cool, so now the opposition has gone from "animals are intelligent enough" to "animals are so dumb that they don't care".

This whole thing isn't about animals, but the person who fucks them. In essence, bestiality is an elaborate way to masturbate and other, regular people, don't want to see it, don't want to hear about it and don't want to think about it or know about it.

Why? Because it doesn't feel natural to them. People fuck people and that's it.

And the whole idea of consensus comes from the same people vid people theme: if the animal can think like a person, it's enough of a person to be considered one of us.

>>401

Training a dog to sit is a lot more simple than all the communication that goes on between people who actively work with their dogs.  Such as a sheep herder who works together with a sheep herding dog.  There's a lot of communication going on there.  If communication between human and animal was impossible you could not do this.

Unfortunately, this thread sits on this board for all eyes to see and I am very much aware of it every time I look at the list of threads.

I have to participate, so that possibly in the future, I would not have to see even a hint of bestiality whenever I visit this site.

>>408

I see your dilemma.   I honestly do not wish to expose anyone to anything they don't want to see.   But, the discussion happens to take place right here, right now.   I am personally happy for the discussion actually taking place, because when someone says that what I am doing is harmful, I feel I have the right to explain that it is not harmful.

The discussion at this point is not about what is allowed on this site, but more about wheter something is wrong or not.


>>409

So you seriously mean that you believe a dog to be as unintelligent as a computer?   I sincerely hope that you don't interract with animals very often.

>>410

Look man, you're talking about animals that have been bred for total domestication. The kind of consent you're talking about isn't good enough. By your definition, cows consent to being slaughtered. They aren't smart enough to consent. Maybe dolphins and apes are, but dogs and horses aren't, and cows definately aren't.

Anyhow, though you continuously reject it, it all comes down to being wrong for the same reason that pedophilia is wrong. Yes, the animal can consent, but they don't know any better, so their consent doesn't matter. The average child is vastly more intelligent than an animal, and boys and girls as young as 11 can technically be "mature" in a sexual sense. Yet, they can't give sexual consent, because they don't fully grasp the gravity of what they are agreeing to. No matter how harmless the "fun", it's molestation to engage a child in sexual acts. Same goes for animals, except they won't EVER attain the wit to properly consent. They can't talk, nor learn to talk, including sign language and the like. Sure, they get off on it, but the animal isn't the one doing anything wrong. You're the one who makes it about sex, and you choose to interpret a pavlovian response as consent and love. Animals don't feel romantic love. As you keep saying, they see it as a form of petting, so why don't you just pet them. Why did you start diddling them in the first place?

Anyhow, as for your comments in 400, no, animals don't consent to being slaughtered or pulling sleds, etc. It's not very nice that we make them do that is it? We constantly use animals for our own ends. You, just happen to add sexual usery on top of a big pile of shit that animals have to go through when dealing with us. You take advantage of their bred trust and compliance, and you use them as a living sex toy for your ends.

Again this can be linked to children though, if the morality becomes clouded. Children can't consent, yet things are done to them all the time. Adults choose what they wear, make them go to school, make them eat food they don't necessarily want, etc. The point is, the adult consents FOR them, and, because we're adults, we're expected to make decisions that are benign for the child, otherwise you're a bad parent. So if you make a kid eat vegetables and go to school, you're a good parent. If you let your kid eat nothing but candy and keep him home from school to play a few "private games", then you are a terrible parent and human being. This seems obvious to most.

Now, animals are a bit more complicated, but basically the same principals apply. A good owner will make decisions for the good of the animal, including the respect of the animals limitations. Exploitive owners will take the young, bugger them for insemination, etc. I think it's fitting that you compare yourself to them as a "lesser version" of what they do... but when they do it, they're trying to make a living, feed humanity, etc. When you do it, you're trying to get your rocks off, and apparently masturbation isn't enough for you, so you've got to involve your animals.

So you're using an animal for personal pleasure. That puts you in a category more along the lines of the abusive. No animal has given consent as we humans recognize it, because they can't, because in order to do so, they'd need to be at least intelligent enough to learn a language. Speech, sign language, whatever, they need to be able to somehow articulate their consent. Now, to reiterate before you pull the pleasure card again, children as young as 11 can become sexually mature, and according to my proffessor, even infants feel pleasure from genital stimulation (Freud's stages). Just because they like it, doesn't mean you're right to do it, nor does it make it "not wrong" to do it. You're still exploiting them, you're still molesting them, and that's wrong, especially since you pose as some sort of activist.

Okay so no one stepped up to prove animals cannot consent...
someone step up to prove humans can consent. the other side of the coin. (this should garner sonme interesting results)
as for the one who doesent want to see this ---then dont take the time to read through this thread again - the title seems clear enough.

>>397  "Prove to me that the animals CAN concent"  My in-laws have a pair of yappy dogs that like to consent all over people's legs.

My favorite story about an animal consenting to getting fucked by a human involves a stallion and some fool from Enumclaw (which quite appropriately happens to be in Butt-Fuck, Nowhere).  I put it to you that this horse was probably not the participant who felt victimized afterward.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002384648_farm16m.html

>>413  "Actually, I recall one psychologist who caused a huge fuss when he masturbated a baby. No joke."  Ewwww!!  Amazingly, that's the most disturbing anecdote in this thread.

I like dogs. 

OK, wait... Let's try this the other way. Not if animals can consent, but if animals can deny. If we can prove than an animal can deny something, doesn't that show the ability to make a choice? And if we prove that an animal can deny someone, then would the lack of denial represent acceptance on some level?

As far as children go, adults are generally bigger and stronger, so that if an adult were determined enough, they could make a child do anything they wanted...

What about a horse? One that's bigger and stronger than a human being who has the ability to kick hard enough to shatter bones... In a one on one situation, the horse would kick the ever-loving shit out of someone trying to do something to it that it didn't like. It would stand to reason that not kicking the shit out of someone represents the horse having chosen to let it happen, would it not?

All one has to do is live around dogs long enough with an eye towards their intelect and watch - no dont just sorta watch!! really watch - one will see all manners of both giving and denying consent. those who cannot see that are far better suited not liking the idea of zoophilia as they are the ones who are so blind to the subtle cues animals give they would be rapists due to not seeing what is really there.
those who "know" that various animals are capable of consent and reasong know this by experience. those who do not are either blind to animals or have been exposed to retarded animals all along - that is if they are basing their opinions on experience verses the I say so factor.

>>412

By my definition cows does not consent to being slaughtered.  If you've been in a slaughterhouse to see what happens there, you'd know what I mean.

And they are certainly smart enough to communicate what they want and what they don't want. Post 422 says it well, just learn to interract with some individual animals, and you will learn to read their body language, and you'll see they are communicating all the time.  Recieving signals from each other, giving signals to each other.  Giving signals to humans, and reading signals from humans also.

You think the animals are too stupid to show what they want, or what they don't want?  I know that they are not.  They express themselves clearly - read their body language.

And the only time bestiality can be compared to pedophilia, is when someone is molesting a young animal.  A fullgrown animal who has gone through a few heat cycles are sexually mature. Young animals and young humans are not sexually mature.   I am going to use the N-word now, it is natural for fullgrown developed animals to engage in sexual activity.  They don't care which species it is that gives the sexual pleasure to them, as long as they get the sexual pleasure.

I agree with you, that a good owner will make decisions for the good of the animal, including the respect of the animals limitations.  But I do not feel it is right to exploit an animal to make a living or to feed humanity, you can eat vegetables, you don't need to make the life miserable for a lot of animals to survive.

And I do prefer to not mention details here, but since you insinuate that "apparently masturbation isn't enough for me.", I can inform you that no animal has ever brought me to orgasm.  When I am giving sexual stimulation to an animal, I am focussing on reading their body language, and responding to their signals, to try and stimulate them in the way they enjoy the most, finding the right spots, etc.  Once I have brought them to orgasm, I can maybe care about my own lusts, by myself, but seriously, the entire thing I enjoy about being with animals is to make them feel good.

That's what I get off on.  I seriously get almost as much pleasure from giving non-sexual stimulation to those that don't enjoy the sexual stimulation.  But those that do enjoy the sexual stimulation, I am not going to deny them that pleasure when they ask for it.  We both enjoy it.

Feel free to think it is disgusting, but don't tell me that it is wrong to give pleasure to a fullgrown, sexual individual, when they actively seek it, and obviously enjoy it, and when they are clear to communicate what they want and don't want.

>>422

That was very well said.

>>423

If you feel it is so unclear to humans what animals like or do not like, please tell me how you can justify that we are sitting up on horses and making them run and perform all kinds of things for us?

>>429

Okay fine, he's molesting them then, does it make that much of a difference?

>>428

So if you came across a kid who matured quickly, it'd be okay then?  Or what if someone was sexually mature, but had a child-like mind, and you tricked them into having sex.  Is that a good and moral thing to do?  Why is it morally fine with animals, but not humans?  If you think animals are shit and you can do whatever you want with them, I can't argue with that... but if you say animals deserve to be treated well, and then you molest them, that's just disturbing.

And regarding the point that's likely to be brought up again, since when do you have to prove they Don't consent?  If someone says I signed a contract and I say I didn't, do I have to prove that I didn't or do they have to prove that I did?  Give your head a shake.  If you're saying there's consent, then you got to prove that.  No answer is "No", and training an animal to do nothing but comply is hardly a moral high ground.

>>431

They're being manipulated.  If you condition an animal they won't deny anything.  They "say" what their owners want them to say.

And that "logic" is just opinion. Logic doesn't now, nor has ever had anything to do with any issue of morality.

>>432 an animal says no with teeth and or hoves that is the big no
an animal says no with subtle behaviour.
of course this isnt provable but at least it has far more evidence
on its side than the argument of they cant consent has. one asks the they cant consent side for evidence and they really dont present anything solid. the argument of at least animals are capible and willing to bite and kick at least has the weight of something tangible as a means of backing up its own argument.

Hypothetical situation:
Let's say a person has a habit of sleeping in the nude. There they are, asleep, when their male dog hops up on the bed and mounts them.

Is the person raping/molesting their dog?

Dogs hump sofas and lampposts, because they're in heat. It's a biological instinct and not an act of consent.

>>438 Then why is the hypothetical dog humping it's master and not the chair in the corner?

>>437 It would prove you're oblivious to the obvious, for one...

>>427

So in this post animals are being compared to trees.  In an earlier post, dogs, cows and horses were compared to insects and computers, when it comes to intelligence.  Why do you think there are animal psychologists that work with mammals?  Because the mammals have a higher level of intelligence than bees have.

So the fact that I know that mammals have intelligence enough to communicate does not compare to people who "know" that trees have feelings.  Ask your local vet, ask your local animal psychologist, ask your closest horse trainer.  They will all tell you that animals are intelligent enough to communicate.  People who deal closely and regularly with animals, will all know that they can communicate well with their animals, know how they feel, what they want, what they don't want.

If you keep denying this, go ahead, but it is a fact.  I understand your belief that animals lack enough intelligence to communicate is the key reason for why you feel it is wrong to be sexual with animals.  If it was the way you claim it is, I would agree with you, but it isn't.  Animals are not mindless or incapable of communication.

You're claiming that cows cannot communicate, and cannot come up with a language... not even body language.  Well, feel free to "know" that... just like some people "know" that trees have feelings.  Anyone who's ever spent enough time to get to know a cow well, will know that they have a clear and expressive body language.

As for what would happen to cows if people quit exploiting them.  That is happening a lot in the country where I live, because it is extremely hard to gain enough income by farming, so a lot of farmers just give up and quit.  What usually happens is that someone who has a regular job on the side keeps cows just to graze and keep the pastures and meadows open.  And to keep the land from becoming overgrown with trees and weed, the government gives funding to everyone who does keep the landscape open, to make more people do it.   Most of those people do sell the cows to slaughter after a few years, but far from everyone.   There are also a lot of people who work without gain, because they have the genuine interest to keep the ecosystem running, preventing rare species of insects, plants and snakes from becoming extinct as monoculture takes over the previously open land.  Cows are an important part of this, so a lot of people keep cows, solely for the ecological aspect.

I am not a farmer, and would never dream of selling a cow to become meat.  But I care about keeping my pastures in a good shape for the sake of the eco-system.

But all this is a side note and not really relevant to the discussion at all.  The only main thing I can see we disagree on is the level of the animals' intelligence - that is your reason for comparing it to pedophilia.

>>435
This would hold true so long as the situation was as you described
there are far to many instances of agressive male dogs or (insert apropriate species) being the agressors - this line of argument fails due to one presuming that an animal is conditioned to this behaviour. which at least in numerous situations they are most decidely not. as for the domestication angle. there are enough
animals out there that the domestication has not taken well, for that to be a moot point.
so....... next try please.

>>138

This is supposed to be an intelligent debate not an incoherent rant fest.

Be quiet, for you do a disservice to your side's argument.

>>142

"I was not able to find any evidence of horses, dogs, rodents, etc. having sex for recreational purposes."

Of course you didn't because that topic isn't researched very much!  In fact, the scientific community is rather reluctant, if not resistant, to the idea that animals could behave in a homosexual manor.  Do you honestly think that, just because there sexuality is seasonal for some animals that sex does not feel like a pleasurable recreation to them?  For all we know, the very quest for pleasure is the one and only reason why they have sex in the first place.  You assume too much without proof. 

"Nor was I able to find, aside from a few photos which showed mounting, documentation of male animals having anal sex with one another whereupon there was -actual sex- and not just mounting. Feel free to point me to the place where you found your information regarding such. I would especially love to read about horses, dogs, and rodents having recreational sex among themselves and outside their breeding season."

My friend, you simply are not looking hard enough.  For research, academic and intellectual discussion on the subject, try these links:

http://www.subversions.com/french/pages/science/animals.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html
http//www.ama/...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

I’m sure that the citations in each will give you enough leads to examine hard research papers on the subject.

For photo documentation try these links:

http://www.beastforum.com/showtopic-61502.html
http://www.beastforum.com/showtopic-82126.html
http//www/...

perhaps the most important thing abought this whole discusion is that both sides are willing to continue discussing it thereby illistrating how signifigant of a role such trully plays within the furry community.

that explains your part - what abought all the rest?

>>453 very well thought out and well spoken *bows*

>>253
"Animals, especially herding or pack animals, easily adopt humans into their pack mentality, and as such, will see them as potential sexual partners---for the purpose of procreation. To imply that your dog, cow, ect., simply wants sexual gratification for the sake of being pleasured is delusional.  Animals don't have recreational sex with the exception of 'higher' species, such as dolphins, humans, and some primates."

You’re absolutely right.  Animals have enough mental capacity to understand that, if they do not have sex, there species will become extinct.  Therefore, they have sex, not because if feels good, but because it is a good idea.  In fact, just the other day, my dog asked me to find her a husband.  She said she felt her biological clock ticking and wanted pupies.  Specifically, she wants me to order her a mail order pit bull to be her stud because she's really into muscles these days.

Of course, you should realize I am being sarcastic at your expense in order to demonstrate the fallacy of your argument.  Animals are simple and what could be simpler than doing something because it feels so fucking good!  Just because they only get in the mood during certain seasons or times of the year does not mean it isn't recreation to them when the biological switch turns them on and makes them horny.  The difference between humans and seasonally sexual animals is that our switch is turned on all the time 24/7 until you remove our gonads.  Of course, that's more akin to taking the batteries out of a toy than flipping a switch.

>>397

Consent (intransitive verb) - to give permission or approval for something to happen; acceptance of or agreement to something proposed or desired by another

Acquiesce (intransitive verb) - to agree to or comply with something passively rather than expressing approval or support.

Synonyms: agree, comply accept, CONSENT, assent, give in, submit, go along with, yield, concede, concur.

Antonym: Resist
(Definitions and synonyms were taken from the Encarta English Dictionary.)

So, in other words, Animals can consent through "acquiescence".  Acquiescence has held up in court in cases of sexual harassment.  If you treat somebody sexually at the workplace, and the person you are treating sexually does not say no, but instead automatically silently files a suit, they have no case!  In order to win a sexual harassment case, you must make it clear that sexual advances are unwanted and unwelcome.  Only then does a sexual harassment victim have a case if the advances continue.  Legally, not saying “no” is the same as saying “yes”. 

Since animals lack a speech center in there brain, they are only able to communicate via body language.  Therefore, we can assume that “residence” which is negative also means “no” which is also negative.  “Acquiescence”, which is positive, can be equaled to “yes”, which is also positive.  Why is this so difficult to understand?

But what about this “informed consent” I keep hearing people talk about?  Let’s look at a definition of informed consent before I continue this discussion.

Informed Consent (noun) - agreement by a patient to undergo an operation or medical treatment or take part in a clinical trial after being informed of and having understood the risks involved. (Encarta English Dictionary)

Informed Consent n.  Agreement to do something or to allow something to happen only after all the relevant facts are known. In contracts, an agreement may be reached only if there has been full disclosure by both parties of everything each party knows which is significant to the agreement. A patient's consent to a medical procedure must be based on his/her having been told all the possible consequences, except in emergency cases when such consent cannot be obtained. A physician or dentist who does not tell all the possible bad news as well as the good, operates at his/her peril of a lawsuit if anything goes wrong. In criminal law, a person accused or even suspected of a crime cannot give up his/her legal rights such as remaining silent or having an attorney, unless he/she has been fully informed of his/her rights.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/informed+consent

From Wikipedia: Informed consent is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon an appreciation and understanding of the facts and implications of any actions. The individual needs to be in possession of all of his faculties, such as not mentally retarded or mentally ill, without an impairment of judgment at the time of consenting. Impairments include sleep, illness, intoxication, drunkenness, using drugs or other health problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent

Of these definitions, two of them pertain to medical procedures.  Sex is not a medical procedure, so it does not apply to the cases of rape or acts of bestiality.  But for the sake of the discussion, let’s toss out the medical connotations of informed consent for a moment.

Basically, informed consent is where all relevant parties are of sound mind and body, and understand the significant of the agreement being reached and all risks involved, if any.

Sex is a very basic function that even animals can understand.  It isn’t hard to figure out because it is so reflexive and automatic in many stages of its natural progression. 

Now, lets look at the two main halves of informed consent: physical condition and understanding and see if how well they apply to an animal’s perspective.

If one is to engage in sex with an animal one must first make sure that the animal is of sound mind and body.
1.    Does the animal have any mental handicaps or impairments?
2.    Has the animal been drugged (such as been given tranquilizers to make it more docile and compliant)?
3.    Does the animal suffer from a mental illness?
4.    Does the animal have any other health problems or issues that would impair its judgment?

If the answer to these questions is “no” then the first qualifying half of “informed consent” has been met.  Next, we need to look at the risk and significant of sexual relations with animals.

Risks
1.)    Injury could be incurred if the female’s vagina is too small to accommodate a male’s penis.  If the female is large enough, then this point is irrelevant.
2.)    If the human has a disease that could be transmitted to the animal, then the animal should know about that disease.  Since it is impossible to explain this to an animal, any human with such a disease should never have sex with an animal.  On the other hand, a human who is clean need not explain anything of this sort, which makes this point irrelevant.

Significance
1.)    Sex has the potential to create emotional bonds which may amplify separation anxiety.  (Actually, this may be more significant to the human than to the animal, since animals do not seem to exhibit the sentimentality that humans do.)
2.)    Sex with a human will never result in the production of offspring.  (To my knowledge, animals do not have any emotional ideals pertaining to the creation of offspring.  This is often pointed out by those who encourage spaying and neutering.  No need to inform the animal about this because the fact that sex is unproductive is not relevant to them.)
3.)    Sex has the potential to feel quite pleasurable.  (This point is both relevant and obvious to all parties involved.  No need to inform the animal because it is so obvious.)

Conclusion: Animals are capable of informed consent because sex is a very basic part of life, which means that it isn’t difficult to figure out.  Hell, even some bacteria can do it, and they don’t even have a cell nucleus! 

If sex is so hard and so difficult to understand, is it because we humans have complicated it so much.  We are the ones who have the hang-ups and the fetishes, not them.  Animals keep sex simple because it is simple.  Because sex is so simple, animals are informed by default.  So, as long as an animal remains receptive to a human’s advances, informed consent, not just regular consent is given through acquiescence.

This is ironically, very similar to what humans do with each other.  If the other party does not resist, is not under duress, and is a legal adult then the sex they have is not rape.  It does not become rape until one of the two people either resists or says “no”, or one of the individuals is under the age of 18 (legal minor).  This whole idea behind “informed consent” to qualify “animal rape” is really quite absurd because not even humans go through this ridiculous checklist to make sure that the sex they are having with each other isn’t rape.

>>409

Most of my post have been pretty long winded but well though out.  For you, I will make an exception because of the emotional response you have elicited within me.

Once again, an Anti-Zoo demonstrates just how stupid they think animals really are.  Clearly, the view themselves as the grand protectorates of animal kind because animals are incapable of making any choices on there own and because they must be protected from evil h00manz and there evil cocks!

How the animals survived in the wild for millions of years without the Anti-Zoos protecting them is beyond me.  Somebody please explain this because I won't be able to sleep until I have the answer!

>>412

"The kind of consent you're talking about isn't good enough. By your definition, cows consent to being slaughtered. They aren't smart enough to consent. Maybe dolphins and apes are, but dogs and horses aren't, and cows definitely aren't."

Do you mean to explain that we have bread animals to the point that they are complacent and compliant with us killing them?  Forgive me, but you speak from complete ignorance.  Cows very much fear death just like every other living creature does.  If they were not prone to fear, there wouldn't be such a thing as a stamped!  Why do you think that large scale slaughter houses funnel cattle into a "U" shaped corridor before they reach the killing room?  It's so that they can't see the other cattle in front of them getting killed, because when cows see other cows dying in front of them, they panic because there survival instincts tell them they are most likely to die next.  When cows panic en mass, you have a very dangerous situation on your hands.  Cows don't want to die, which is why I don't eat beef.

I'm beginning to thing that the Anti-Zoos have extremely limited contact and knowledge with and about animals.  Arguments based on false assumptions are a waist of time.

>>457
“So, if you had sex with a child who was also a sociopath, and thus, not capable of psychological harm, then it's fine?”

So, in order to shoot down my argument, you are going to resort to ridiculous hyperbole and straw man tactics?  Please!  Secondly, who says that having sex with a sociopathic minor does not bring them psychological harm?  I would argue that such an act would undoubtedly exacerbate there psychological derangement.    Can you explain to me how it would not bring harm or even give me any credible sources to back up your claim?  On second thought, don’t tell me because I don’t want to know which hole of your body you pulled it from.

“I can feed pork sausage to pigs, and it doesn't mess with their heads.  Does that mean I'm right to do it, or does that make me a twisted fuck who gets off on messing with animals that don't get it?  I'd go with the latter, but I guess the pig isn't traumatized or anything, so that makes me a good person for doing it.”

I don’t think you can logically conclude that it is morally wrong to feed pigs pork.  Yeah, it’s weird and unnatural, but it isn’t wrong per se.  As a matter of fact, the cattle industry feeds its cattle bovine bone meal, so this practice is going on as we speak. 

>>419  Um....no.  That's called a joke, an attempt to lighten the discussion a bit.  It's amazing how emotional people get about such an amusing topic.

>>453

Well, I don't know who you are, but it is easy to tell which posts are written by you.  All I can say is: I wish I was as good at expressing myself as you are.  In my defence I can say that English isn't my native tongue, but to be honest, even though I express myself better in my native language, I am still  far from being able to explain something as good as you can.

Hats off to you!   :)  Look me up and say hi?

Why are so many bringing up all the old posts from the start of the thread?

>>458

sex with animals is rape rather

>>470

"Why are so many bringing up all the old posts from the start of the thread?"  How is this question relevant to the discussion at hand?  If this is how you are going to begin discrediting me, you have little hope of winning.  Seriously, did you come up with this attack all on your own or did your mommy help you?  Step aside and let somebody else more capable of defending your position hold the line while you go bring them hot coffee and donuts.

First, you do not understand the logic because you do not comprehend that sex is genetically programmed into all of our genes through hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary conditioning.  This is a critical part of my argument, so pay attention.

Everything we need to know about sex in order to have sex is already inside our brains by the time we are fully mature.  The rest is a matter of experience and practice. 

Did you even read how I reached my conclusion?  It's all right there in black and white.  I quoted definitions so that I could define, in a clear and concise manor, things like informed consent.  From these definitions I then derived a list of criteria to be met in order to qualify something as "informed consent". 

In most intelligent discussions, you don't attack the conclusion but the logic that was used to reach said conclusion.  I pointed out, for the sake of argument, that animals can meet the criteria for legal informed consent (on the basis that sex is universally understood by all sexual creatures who mature and of sound mind and body).  Did you bother attacking this logic?  If you were smart, you would have attacked me here because my saying that animals have defacto informed consent pulls the rug out from under your "it's rape" argument. 

Are you so unwilling to engage this discussion with an open mind that you ignore the body of what I wrote?  Please don't be so little.

Now, just in case you are still having trouble understanding this, I'll spoon feed it for you.  You define the syntax of a conclusion as:

"[conclusion] is true because of [premise/facts], therefore [logic linking the two]". 

Now, let us go test my original conclusion against your defined criteria for a proper conclusion.

The original quote:
"Animals are capable of informed consent because sex is a very basic part of life, which means that it isn’t difficult to figure out."

The quote dissected via your criteria:
[conclusion]:Animals are capable of informed consent
[premise/facts]: because sex is a very basic part of life,
[logic linking the two]: which means that it isn't difficult [for an animal] to figure out.

To reiterate, because sex is so basic and so easy to understand animals are able to comprehend it enough to have informed consent without the need for sex ed. classes, instruction in the proper use of a condom, signed contracts, or a medical examination to evaluate for mental and physical soundness.

If I have to spell this out for you to this extent, it's obvious to me that you either lack the mental capacity for this discussion or you are so closed minded that you are more concerned with finding evidence and reasoning to prove your point rather than reaching a conclusion based on facts.  Frankly, I think most of the people on your side have use an inverted method of reasoning on this matter.

"And my side maintains that sex with an animal is rape, regardless of how the animal is treated outside of sex. Rape is "treating animals bad"."

You miss the point entirely.  If a zoophile's interest is for the good of the animal, then why would he or she do something that is harmful to the animal?  For that matter, your side has not once talked about how having sex with an animal universally causes harm to that animal?  It looks to me that your side has actively dodged the question "does it cause harm?"  Unlike you, the zoos have actually worked closely with animals, so they actually can speak with some authority on this matter.  When you work with animals closely enough, you can learn enough about them to draw certain conclusions without impressing upon them human motivations and emotions.  Through years of close contact, you learn how to read animals in order to figure out what is going on in there brain.  When an animal comes back for something again and again, it is a clear sign that they like something.  If they avoid something again and again, it is a clear sign that they do not like it.  When a zoophile says that they pleasure there animal because they like it, the anti-zoo side says things like “you obviously trained your animal to do that” or “they don’t resist because there ability to resist humans has been bread out of them”.  Both responses are pure conjecture, yet they are being used as proof that sex with an animal is rape.  You can’t use conjecture as evidence!

But again, let’s look at both conjectures for the sake of the discussion.  The first one, “You obviously trained your animals to do that” suggest that the writer has enough experience in training animals to perform sexually that he or she is able to profile another writer well enough to reach this conclusion.  This is complete non-sense.  If training be the case, it is the animal that trains and teaches the human what the clues and signs are that say “pleasure me”; it’s not the other way around.  As a matter of fact, the human must use at least some trial and error to figure out what an animal likes best when stimulated.  I don’t think there is a zoophile here who would disagree with this conclusion.  Of course, if you have never experimented with animals (even with a genuine banner of science) you wouldn’t know this, which explains why your side sounds so ignorant to use when you make this conjecture.

The second conjecture, “they don’t resist because there ability to resist humans has been bread out of them.”  Please tell me how this conclusion was reached?  Are there any sources that you can find to back up this claim?  Nobody who works with animals would ever reach this conclusion.  Animals can be quite unpredictable at times and don’t always do as they were told.  Sometimes, believe it or not, domesticated animals will disobey or even attack with or without provocation! 

Instead of explaining why sex with an animal causes universal harm to them all, you couch your argument in legalese by using words like "informed consent" yet you never define what informed consent is and how it is impossible for an animal to have informed consent.  This is another gaping hole in your side's logic that must be patched up.  If you can't, then you force my side to view your side as full of puritanical conditioning and "because we say so" thinking.

I challenge your side to define informed consent using independent sources and then explain how an animal is incapable or capable of meeting the criteria of informed consent.  I've already done this on my side.  It is time for your side to do the same.

>>475

Get...going?
Get...with it?
Get...a life?
Get...real?
Snine...Get?
Get...it on?
Get...moving?

I don't get it.

>>477

Apparently...

I guess with this heavy topic, everybody needs a break.  Just so we don't forget, this is about pro-zoo vs. anti-zoo.

Here are my thoughts on this subject.

I don’t think it is wrong to pleasure an animal manually, because if it were wrong, it would be wrong for vets to collect semen from animals. 

I do think it is wrong to have sex with an animal, but not because an animal is harmed by it.  I feel that animals lack the mental complexity necessary to sustain psychological injury due to non-forced sexual encounters.  I do, however, feel that the act of bestiality (having intercourse with another species), creates an emotional pair bond between the human and animal, with the sentimentality of the relationship burdened almost entirely on the human.  Since companion animals do not live as long as we do, we suffer because we must watch them grow old and die.  When we have emotionally bonded to them through orgasmic stimulation, the pain we feel from there death is greatly amplified.  This is the only truly “dark” side of zoophilia, which all zoophiles must deal with.

It isn’t the animal that gets hurt, it’s the human.  But as long as a human who engages in bestiality knows that they will suffer terrible grief when they loose there companion and takes full responsibility for that consequence, who am I to tell them they shouldn’t behave in such a manor?  They already know the consequence, so badgering them will do little good.

The other downside to zoophilia is the fact that animals cannot be as emotionally intimate with us as another human can.  You can’t sit and hold a conversation with a horse or dog, much less plan a life together.  I think this leaves zoophiles unfulfilled, especially if they are exclusively zoo.

I thought it might be a good idea to stray away from the animal element of this topic and explore human element for a moment.

>>474

I think his point was, go read the thread from post 1 through current, to see if the points you made may have already been addressed.  Is it really that offensive?

>>467

Uh... if you think animals are sexy, then it's a belief.  If you have sex with animals, that's an action.  Being villified for one's actions is kinda natural isn't it?  That's what villains are.  People who act on bad thoughts.  Think about stealing a bike = bad thought, steal a bike = bad person.  Think about giving to charity = good thought, give to charity = good person.  That kind of thing.

>>483

Well, that depends if it's rape or not.  I've never met an animal that can talk, so I don't know if they can consent.  Animals grunt and do things, but I don't know what they mean.  I suppose I could slap an interpretation on what I see, but I don't have anything to base that on.  If I want the animal to be ignorant, it's ignorant, and if I want it to be sophisticated, it's sophisticated.

Anyhow, you're all way better at word play than I am, so I'm sure I said something that someone can use to make me look stupid, so I'll just end it there.

>>484

To understand the body language of animals, you need to take the time to learn it.  It's very similar to learning a verbal language, but instead of learning syntax and grammar it involves learning subtle signals in eyes, ears, mouth, tail, general stance, which muscles are tense, etc.    I can say that because I don't understand what the Hungarians are saying, I don't know if they are ignorant or sophisticated.  But if I would learn Hungarian, I would know what they are saying.

If you learn the body language of a particular species, you will also know what they are saying.  Ask anyone who is working professionally with horses and dogs for instance.  They have a very varied and expressive body language.  Cows also have a big "vocabulary" in their body language, but since few people work with cows in that same way, a lot of people choose to not learn it.

Oh, and for those of you idiots who are going to argue that things like sheep and goats and horses have flat teeth and are not sharp; they make up for that with a powerful bite. Try getting bit by one ones. A horse will take a finger off easily, and smaller livestock such as goats, sheep, pigs, can break flesh. I was raised on a farm (long before I knew what furr was and long before I got corrupted by its darkness! Muahaha..), and have delt with plenty of livestock that didn't want to be moved into pens or on/off trailers. Now, again...

Stop flogging a dead horse for fucks sake. 488 posts on a stupid subject.

I don't think I can say anything else on the 490th post that hasn't already been said.
I'm not reading 489 posts to find out, but.....  Why would you even have sex with an animal? I think if you need to have sex outside of the species than you need to get out and find a girlfriend.

>>491 "Since both sides are effectively speaking for the animal, I gotta say that its a safer bet to just not have sex with animals in case they aren't consenting. To do otherwise just seems really selfish at the least."

This is the first argument I've seen against it in a while that has a simple and valid point not based on personal morals and prejudice.

"better safe than sorry" is a much better argument than just flat out "it is wrong because I KNOW it is wrong" or vice versa.

Yes, replacing bestiality with necrophilia is obviously the answer. :P

>>491 it has been pointed out that there is a reason that at the meat packing plants the animals are kept from seeing what is happening to them at teh end of the shute and also there is a valid reason for said shute being in place, taht is the same reason animals run from predators.  no it doesent mean consent it just means they cannot see nor have they previously experienced the fate awaiting them. for a large part your post made good logic but broke down badly by using that as example.

>>494
That's not necrophilia. Necrophilia requires a dead person. It's masturbating with meat.

>>498 Mmm! Meat! 500!

>>501 I started the thread, 500 is my birthright. ;)

They can do martial arts and beat up each other, too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmNrFO9xD2Q

>>503 This has got to be the longest thread in Fchan history!

>>487