Morality of bestiality (Was: End bestiality on Fchan!)

Pages:1 41 81 121 161 201 241 281 321 361 401 441 481 521 561 601 641 681 721 761 801 841 881 921 961 1001
at 25 Apr 2006: 19:55

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).

at 25 Apr 2006: 20:02

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

at 25 Apr 2006: 20:03

*by ears i mean cat ears or some other shit

at 25 Apr 2006: 20:04


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

at 25 Apr 2006: 20:44

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

Furvy at 25 Apr 2006: 23:23

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.

Fatal_glory_128 at 26 Apr 2006: 00:33

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).

at 26 Apr 2006: 01:47

Yeah, well you're a fag.

Furvy at 26 Apr 2006: 02:37

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...

Foxstar#3GqYIJ3Obs at 26 Apr 2006: 05:53

>>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.

at 26 Apr 2006: 05:55

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.

at 26 Apr 2006: 09:29

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

DragonFlame at 26 Apr 2006: 11:05

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.

Xenofur at 26 Apr 2006: 11:31

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.

DragonFlame at 26 Apr 2006: 11:49

Well said. I think that will clarify future complaints.

at 26 Apr 2006: 12:05

>>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)

Xenofur at 26 Apr 2006: 13:31

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

actually we are. that's exactly why we have a place like /ah/...

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)

that's why i won't put any foot down. hate does not matter to me. :)

at 26 Apr 2006: 13:32


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

at 26 Apr 2006: 14:05

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

Joan-Michele#R9F5WG6Bjw at 26 Apr 2006: 16:15

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

Janglur at 26 Apr 2006: 22:58

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:
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.):
New Hampshire
New Mexico
South Dakota
West Virginia
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
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:
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.

at 26 Apr 2006: 23:12

Is anything legal in Canada?

Janglur at 26 Apr 2006: 23:20

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.

MadShroomer at 26 Apr 2006: 23:33

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?

MadShroomer at 26 Apr 2006: 23:37

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....

Janglur at 27 Apr 2006: 01:21

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.

at 27 Apr 2006: 04:15

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.

at 27 Apr 2006: 06:16

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.



at 27 Apr 2006: 06:30

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


at 27 Apr 2006: 06:48

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...

Juberu at 27 Apr 2006: 11:13

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

DragonFlame at 27 Apr 2006: 11:32

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.

33Report (sage)
at 27 Apr 2006: 13:51

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. 

at 27 Apr 2006: 16:45

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.

at 27 Apr 2006: 17:34

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.

HooRU at 27 Apr 2006: 18:04

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.

at 27 Apr 2006: 19:37

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.

HooRU at 27 Apr 2006: 19:50

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!

Xenofur at 27 Apr 2006: 19:53

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

Janglur at 27 Apr 2006: 20:18

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.

1003Add Reply This thread is threadstopped. You can't reply anymore.

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.