fchan

Moderator's note:
The original question of this thread was answered here:>>14. It has since then gone into another direction and bestiality on fchan is NOT the topic any longer.
[End of notice]

Why is there bestiality on Fchan? I'm talking normal bestiality: a plain, ordinary human being and a plain, ordinary animal... That's not furry!

Certainly the mods know where I'm coming from on this... As near as I can tell, bestiality doesn't belong here, not even in /ah/, because it's not furry to begin with (unless there is an anthropomorphic animal involved).

*by ears i mean cat ears or some other shit

>>4
You're focusing on the wrong part of the image, FYI.

I'd say when more than half of the body is edited (body tatoo styled editing included) and a distorting of the face, that's when it becomes truly a furry edit.  But that's not the issue.

The issue is bestiality.  It SHOULD be removed.  #1, it's illegal.  #2, it's not in compliance with Fchan's rules.  unless it's illustrated (not photo-manipulated).

The only way to deal with people in these types of issues is to suggest alternatives (in addition to enforcing strict and direct rules). I'm sure most of us can relate, and I'm no exception by far. I would suggest some sites myself, but then I would be, for the second time TODAY (lol), treading on legal issues which I am not entirely familiar with.

If my idea makes any sense, this needs to be ok with the mods first because the fchan rules stated for bestiality are a bit sketchy...

>>10
But it's not FURRY smut. This is supposed to be a place for furry artwork, and a normal animal and a normal human isn't furry. That should be the end of the discussion right there.

Since when have there been any unillustrated images allowed on fchan. I have never seen any.
The only type of live furry porn that I can think of that is not illegal is either Plush sex or Fur suit sex and fchan doesn’t have a section for either.

Furry in a technical sense is the attraction to a different species thus Furry porn is widely ranged. Anthroporphic creatures are only a part of the Furry culture why do so many people think it’s the only part. If it were then it would be called Anthroporphic Porn not Furry Porn.
If bestiality was legal then it would also be considered Furry and last time I checked illustrations of bestiality is not illegal.

If you are complaining about Bestiality photography which is highly illegal I will support you there. After all I don’t want fchan going under.
If you are talking about Bestiality Illustrations there is nothing much you could do about it and what right would you have if you could.
Everyone seems to think that only there interests are what is considered Furry.
If it were up to me and I was in that state of mind fchan would not have a Male and Herm section but I understand that it is a part of the Furry Culture and they have every right just as we do to consider them selves Furries. This also applies to Illustrated Bestiality sections.

I realise that what I have written is going to create a bit of heat so let me finish by saying…….
Up yours to every fag out there that just can’t accept this. Just get over it or get lost.

Well said. I think that will clarify future complaints.

Like the mods said, there's no bestiality, or underage stuff here, in fact there's no porn here either, because all of which involve REAL things, everything here is a procuct of creative expression.

And there's no 'fine line' at all; art is fiction, all maner of porn is reality. so there's no clearer distinction between the two than this.

all that you see here is fictional artistic representations

>>7
Incorrect.  There is no federal law under the United States which prohibits bestiality, zoophilia, or other sexual contact with animals.
The closest law governing this is general:  It is illegal to transfer through the US mail photographs or similar media of acts deemed offensive.  Offensive is defined as considered morally unethical by the majority of population, and containing no social or educational redeeming value.
In other words, it's illegal to send smut in the mail.  While this is rarely enforced, it IS illegal and enforced.  Most recently in 2001, a DVD sales company producing amateur pornography (all vanilla material) was fined $6,000 for using the US postal service for transfer of their goods.  They were placed on a ban list, basically, and forced to use other couriers (UPS, Fedex, etc.)

However, many states do have laws prohibiting human-animal sexual contact.  A few are sketchy and as such have been mothballed.  In Georgia, it is defined as 'Any and all contact with animal genitalia'.  When someone attempted to prosecute a veterinarian for this, the law was mothballed.  For the record, it is still in existance and still enforceable, though it may not be upheld in court.  A law in this status is generally 'left open', ignored until a situation arises to allow clarification or a solid decision.

Most states classify it as a misdemeanor, and those with criminal offense classify it as sodomy.
The following are states in which Zoophilia has been legally ruled as nonconsequential:
Colorado
Alaska
The following are states which do not prohibit it, but have not established that it cannot be disallowed.  (meaning it's currently legal, but could change.):
Arizona
Florida
Hawaii
Iowa
Kentucky
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Ohio
Oregon
South Dakota
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
The following do not have a law specifically against bestiality, but have prosecuted the crime under other articles (such as prosecuting under Sodomy, or Child Molestation [with claims that the animal is only 7 years old, and thus a minor].  AKA, bullshittery, where the law was abused and manipulated to prosecute where no law is broking using vague technicalities.):
New Jersey
Texas
All other states, it is prohibited.  Some range from $1,000 fines (Washington DC), to lifetime imprisonment without parole(Georgia) as their maximum punishment.

As for other countries, there is no law in:
Denmark
Finland
Mexico
Switzerland
And it is illegal in:
Canada (10 year mandatory sentance)
New Zealand (7 year maximum)
United Kingdom (Life Imprisonment [Typically 30 years])

There.  Now you're all educated.

I beleive it's legal to leave Canada, provided you go through the proper immigration methods, revoke canadian citizenship, and do not attempt to hold corporate or political property in Canada after revoking citizenship.  Any of those would make it illegal.

omg! "Canada (10 year mandatory sentance)" AWESOME! I am amazed at america's "drug war" when compared to Canadians apparent animal sodomy war! Some how I support this Canadian legislation.... now as far as Art is concerned this wouldn't affect anything except "real" acts....

All Commonwealth laws are similar on this point. Hence Canada, NZ, AUS, UK, etc. willbe severe. All cooked up by the Church over a hundred years ago.

Punks. Considering 95% of all imagination of what furry is COMES from animals, how does someone defy that and put it aside. You wouldn't have canine looks, horse looks, or whatever else you can think of. Also putting to factor that a furry is mostly human being just with a different head + tail + animal sexual anatomy..

Hate to be querky but I have nothing again bestiality. Because nature is a whore. What do you think pollen is? Plants bombard us with their sexual orgies and we wave it out. The greeks had orgies screwing horses and whatever else was around. You know, alot of people think its because "an animal can't say no." But No, thats not the factor. It is because it IS that animal itself.

Guys especially. Being mortal means you have mortal urges. There is nothing you can do about it. When your horny, the only thing on their mind is.. "let 'er rip!" Screwin the pooch just might happen. It wasn't a mistake, nor a love issue.  It is the fact and it proves that this "love" and monogamy is BOGUS. Interspecies sex happens all the time. We are just another animal.. so what makes us any different. Nothing at all just alot of other people who think "were better then that."

Well I'll tell those bunch of people right now, Were god damn primates, were not going to get any better... bunch of whiney babies.

Sex is part of the miosis process and it is IMPOSSIBLE to stop. Unless that is.. you castrate and spay an animal. Which in my books is CRUEL. Because then you no longer have PURPOSE. Your just a dummy cell that will be born and die with no life purpose whatsoever. As long as we don't start asexually reproducing.. this issue of "obscenity" will always be debated because someone  can't FUCKING get a grip that

NATURE IS A WHORE

>>30 :If they can't or won't give consent, it's rape. That's all it boils down to.
>>29
">Guys especially. Being mortal means you have mortal urges. There is nothing you can do about it.
Urges=/=needs. Urges=desires.

Actually, according the the 1996 Criminal Code of Canada is a 14 year mandatory sentence, not 10...  Unless they've lowered the sentencing guidelines since then. 

As for the rest of it:  Enslave them, beat them, kill them and eat them, wear their skins and mount their heads as trophies, but God forbid you have *sex* with them...  that's just wrong. 

Stupidly dogmatic much? 

In Canada, if someone kills my dog, it's 'destruction of *property* not exceeding $1000' - They'd get a fine or 90 days in jail or some such BS.  But if they fuck my dog, it's a federal offense punishable by a minimum 14 (or maybe 10) years in prison. 

And to all you dogmatic 'moral highground' morons that probably makes sense.   No wonder our culture is so fucked up. 

>>28
>>30
Just a side note. 

It certainly is possible for animals to give consent.  Animals are quite capable of communicating very clearly (usually through violent means) when they do not want to be approached, touched, etc.  Now, the abusive pet owner who continues to do stuff to his animal or forcefully restrains the animal, after the animal has bitten/scratched/resisted, etc., IS committing abuse/rape/bestiality. 

Should the animal not resist, we can assume he/she wants it to happen.  Especially take the instance of a dog mounting a human female, for sake of argument.  If the dog mounts the female without force or under threat of punishment, we must assume the dog wants to.

I've read a bit about this online.  Many "zoophiles" really care for their animals greatly and are very sensitive to their needs and communication signals.  They love their partners.  So I prefer the term "zoophilia" when referring to sexual relationships between humans/animals, and the term "bestiality" when force/rape is involved.

I know this deviates from the subject, but this subject has come up before and always it is said, "well, animals can't consent," trying to place zoophiles in the same category as stautory rapists.   Bullshit.  They can.  Zoophilia isn't for everyone, but don't think that it implies forcing animals against their will or anything.

>>35
Okay, so then if you take a kid who doesn't know any better, and start jacking him off, and he enjoys the stimulation, it's not wrong, it's "love".  Minors consent all the time right?  I'm sorry, but animals lack the capacity to consent as we humans legally understand the term.  At best, they can consent in the same capacity as an especially trusting, very young child.  They react to their instincts which they can't rise above; we react to our urges which we consciously give in to.  If you see consent, that's YOU reading consent into it, not the animal.  The animal doesn't understand consent, just stimulation.  Sorta like how a dog will drink anti-freeze because it likes the taste.

Ugh... Zoophile?  Sex between animals and humans is bestiality.  Making up a new word doesn't change the definition of the first.  Get a dictionary.  Sexual relations between a human and an animal = bestiality, period.  If you advocate zoophiles, you're advocating bestiality.  This isn't as complicated as it seems.

as far as i'm concerned, feel free to discuss it. but please do stay civil. :)