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 4 May 2006: 00:04

That's about the size of it. We can yell and scream and call each other doodyfaces until we all turn blue. This issue can't be solved just by talking about it. I do find it funny when some users say "end of thread ban these people" when they think what they are saying is the final word.

Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 4 May 2006: 00:49

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.

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. ^_^

Skunkworks at 4 May 2006: 01:34

I don't usually partake in these kinds of discussions, but >>242, you have my utmost respect.  Well said, my friend, well said.

at 4 May 2006: 05:54

>>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.

at 4 May 2006: 06:02

Tripcoded anonymous, you have my undying elove and respect for your words on the matter. So much so I'll forgoe the typical "tripfag" comment and if it were possible, I'd buy you a beverage of your choice. Throughout this thread you have constantly provided your stance and reasoning only to have it ignored, twisted, or lambasted for reasons that boggle the rational mind.

Svansfall at 4 May 2006: 08:25


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.

Joan-Michele#R9F5WG6Bjw at 4 May 2006: 10:43


Very good point.

I'd like to point out as well that if bestiality is about loving the animal. WHY, of all ways to express your love of an animal, does it have to be sexual? Is that all you think about anymore?

Janglur at 4 May 2006: 10:43

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'.

Janglur at 4 May 2006: 10:55

Ah, a good argument!  Thank you.

The same reason human couples do.  Sex is extremely pleasureable, and as such most humans will engage in it to show passion, because there are few better ways.
With humans, there is also the option of poetry, fancy restaurants, and romantic sentiments.
But with animals, they would be unable to appreciate or enjoy many of these, leaving tender care, attention, and sexual acts the only remaining methods of displaying love to the animal.
Animals display the same behavior, even non-sexually.
Cats often will kill things and leave them for you.  In the wild, this is a form of gift-giving to display trust, submission, and affection.
Cats also engage in forplay by nuzzling, especially around the base of the tail, which triggers a reaction of the cat to lift it's hindquarters for mating.
Wolves will engage in homosexual behavior with other wolves (and in captivity, dogs with most anything) for the 'top' to display dominance, and the 'bottom' to allow them to display submission and trust.  It may also presumably be a desire for mutual enjoyment, or for the submitor to allow the top to gratify himself as a pleasantry to thank them for their support.
Female hyenas will lick each others' psuedopenis in greeting.  They lift their legs to their extremely sensitive and vital organs (and belly, too), as a sign of trust.  They further often engage in sexual relations with each other solely for pleasure.  (In Hyena societies, males are horribly abused and ostracized, due to genetic conditioning and their social heirarchy.  Matings with males only occur during season, and many males are extremely hesitant and afraid, as the females are extremely aggressive and have been known to hurt males who are 'not fun'.  It's a true lesbian society.)

Just a few examples.  Many animals in the world use sex as a form of gratification, trust, love, friendship, submission, and social act.  It's only natural that humans, closely related to apes and primates who display an almost rabid degree of lust as social and heirarchal confirmation, that humans would default to show affection via sex.  For many humans, psychologists determine that 'bottoms' are generally submissive to their partners, and less willing to function independantly from them, displaying great love and trust.  While 'tops' are often very protective, act as the providers, and take it upon themselves to provide for every need and want of their bottom.

DragonFlame at 4 May 2006: 11:21

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”.

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.

Janglur at 4 May 2006: 11:26

Thank you.  You have phrased, better than me, my entire argument all along.

Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 4 May 2006: 11:37

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

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

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

">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.

">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.

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

at 4 May 2006: 11:39


Has it occured to you that by the bovine, cared for by you, then sees you as part of her 'herd', and subsequently a mate whom will impregnate her and allow her to give birth to a new generation?

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.

I've yet to see anyone provide any actual proof that there are animals out there (with the exceptions I've listed above) having sex for recreational purposes, and not with intent to have offspring.

The problem is that zoophiles, beastiality furs, whatever they want to call themselves, are very passionate about the subject and are -vocal- on the matter. There's a reason why every person outside the fandom tends to think of all furries as 'dog fuckers'---because those are the furs who are trying to instill it into everyone's head that it's right, and it's all about love, ect. And most are under the assumption that since people like furries, they must like animals (in a sexual manner) IRL as well.

Also, and frankly, I think it's a delusional assumption to say 60-70% are practicing some form of beastiality behind closed doors. With what accuracy can you say that? Because I can assure you that for every person who may do it behind closed doors, there's probably 10 people who don't, and disagree with the practice in general.

Furthermore, you're defense for engaging in sexual trysts with animals is that you're doing the animal a favor? If the animal were seeking sexual gratification, and you declined to amuse it, it would move along, if he/she had access, to one of its own species. By seperating animals from the opposite genders of their species, we -force- them to view us as potential mates and as their ONLY potential mate because they've no access to anyone else. As someone else stated, if given the option, a male dog will forego having sex with a human if a female dog was equally as willing in the same room.

Everyone who's arguing that animals need sexual pleasure too because they're sexual creatures, ect., well then by all means, find them a partner of their own species to indulge their primal behavior, but don't try to pretend that by providing the sexual relief yourself, that you're somehow, doing the animal a favor, or that the animal, specifically, wants to have sex with you instead of with a member of its own species. Animals attempt to have sex with humans because they're driven by the need to reproduce, and we, as their caregivers, have cut off their ability to find a mate of the same species, and so they turn to us.

So yes, I think sex with animals is wrong. You're taking advantage of an animals' basic instincts to reproduce, and by not supplying it with an adequate mate to reproduce with, you force the animal to view you as its potential partner. The animal is none the wiser, and is generally not harmed, but that doesn't make the act acceptable...it's still taking advantage of a creature who is not as intelligent for personal gratification. I'm not saying people should be thrown in jail or the like, just accept the fact that you're taking advantage of an animal and stop trying to convince everyone what you're doing is some selfless service to the animal...because it isn't. People do lots of things that are wrong, but don't go trying to convince everyone what they do is right. Is it so hard to say: "I'm doing something that's wrong. I do it in private, because I don't want anyone to know. But no one's hurt by it and it doesn't, personally, affect anyone else, so it's ok that I'm doing it."?


Are you implying all animal species have recreational sex? There's a huge difference between mounting, and licking as signals of trust, and inserting one's genitalia into anothers. Animals don't engage in sex recreationally unless they're of a higher species, with more complex social standards (humans, Bonobos, ect.).

Janglur at 4 May 2006: 13:01

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

Just me! at 4 May 2006: 13:43

The way I see it, if different species were meant to mix it up and screw each other, their DNA would be a lot more compatible.  Different species have different numbers and types of chromosomes for a reason: because they're supposed to mate with others of their kind (or a closely similar species).  There's nothing wrong with loving an animal, but if your mind starts thinking about having sex with it, well, you probably need to get out more.
Animals mate when they enter their heat cycle, which occurs at a particular time of the year.  They do not "always want it".  I think some folks are mistaking affection for the desire to have sex, and therein lies the problem.  The human animal is interpreting the signals in a way which it will view as favorable, and then proceeds to apply logic to that interpretation in order to back it up and relieve any possible guilt.  The person then becomes absolutely convinced that it's okay, because it's what they want, and they convince themselves that it's exactly what is occurring.  Believe in something hard enough, and it becomes true, even if it really isn't.  Remember how everyone "knew" the Earth was flat?  Yeah, kinda like that.

Janglur at 4 May 2006: 14:00

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.

at 4 May 2006: 14:07


I would place dogfuckers about 2 notches below child molesters on the fail-at-life-O-meter.  It's just so sad these degenerates have latched onto furry for some reason.  That's how hard they have to look to find somebody to except them.

Svansfall at 4 May 2006: 14:08


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.  :)

Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 4 May 2006: 14:38

You're referring to some sort of retroactive reasoning?

q>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.<
I think it's strange that you're using the past tense. A good deal of people still think homosexuality and witchcraft wrong, and have complex, well-reasoned arguments to support them, if not prove them right. There are also people on the other side of said issues who do the same. By contrast, you're debating technique seems to consist of pointing out that the basic principle of what your opponent said can easily be reversed, whithout actually presenting much evidence to actively refute it.

q>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. <
Bizarre absolutes again?

at 4 May 2006: 14:48


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.

Janglur at 4 May 2006: 15:53

Are you seriously debating whether homosexuality and freedom or religion are crimes!?

People like this are beginning to traumatize me from thinking their side is correct.  And to think, i'm not on either side, just debating what I see.
The anti-zoo side, with a few individual exceptions, are becoming increasingly more condescending, as well as belligerant and, what most frightens me, delusional and malevolently specious.

In common words, i'm being frightened by the slash-and-burn mindset.  "You're evil and deserve to die.  And all other sins are unimportant in comparison to what you do, because we see it as a sin for paradoxal and disconsonant reasons.  Furthermore, you are wrong for the lack of respect you show, but we are less wrong for showing greater degrees of nonchalance to animal, and yes, even human rights and paramountly, lives."

It's just becoming clearer and clearer that, again, with certain individual exceptions.. you're monsters.

I am not going to engage in this debate anymore.  I feel that nothing good can come of it anymore, and that further argument will only further encourage the delusional to think that they have enough substantial evidence to continue an argument, when they in fact fail to produce any evidence that hasn't already been lucidly and manifestly proven a fallacy.

In closeing:

The animal is not physically harmed.
The animal shows the ability to decide.
The animal actively encourages behavior.
The animal display acquiescence when engaged.
The animal is not mentally, or emotionally harmed.
The act is not performed in a manner as to offend others, with reasonably exception. (Closed door rule)
It is not illegal where you live.

Then it is morally acceptible, and only ethical and religious argument remains, which is manifestly unproveable and conditional.

Anyone who wants to continue this conversation with me in a civil manner, with humane reasoning, knows how to contact me.

Me again! at 4 May 2006: 18:34

>>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.

at 4 May 2006: 18:45


Brought to you by Brainwash Shampoo! :P

at 4 May 2006: 18:52

>>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...

Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 4 May 2006: 18:53

Are you seriously debating whether homosexuality and freedom or religion are crimes!?

No, I'm just pointing out that people still think they're wrong. Where did you get "crimes" from?

It's just becoming clearer and clearer that, again, with certain individual exceptions.. you're monsters.

I've never advocated that any Zoo kill themselves, or anything of the sort. My focus has been on logical, civil debate, with a wee bit of snark. Yes, I have seen a few jerkwads on my side, but they're far from the majority.

The animal shows the ability to decide.

That's kinda the main point of contention here.

at 4 May 2006: 18:54


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

267Report (sage)
at 4 May 2006: 19:06

>>266 "All about" may be a little too strong in the wording... They did other things, too, after all. ;)

at 4 May 2006: 19:09


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

at 4 May 2006: 20:15

Forget the morality crap, or any of the other lame excuses. Anyone that fucks an animal deserves to have their dicks amputated.

270Report (sage)
at 4 May 2006: 20:39

>>269 Because you say so?

271Report (sage)
at 4 May 2006: 20:39

>>269  And you feel this way, because..? 

at 4 May 2006: 22:08

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.

Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 4 May 2006: 22:18

I've never advocated that any Zoo kill themselves, or anything of the sort. My focus has been on logical, civil debate, with a wee bit of snark. Yes, I have seen a few jerkwads on my side, but they're far from the majority.

Anyone that fucks an animal deserves to have their dicks amputated.


Ohboy#KrV755.GHU at 4 May 2006: 22:28



Okay.  Take your own advice and never stick your penis in your wife/lover again (if you have a wife/lover).

But apple pie is okay, we'll allow you that.

Ohboy#KrV755.GHU at 4 May 2006: 22:32

There is no federal law regarding the ACT of beastiality, though it is illegal to distribute materials showing such.

State laws vary from state to state; 21 US states have NO laws pertaining to beastiality.

276Report (sage)
at 4 May 2006: 22:44

>>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.

at 4 May 2006: 23:16

Thank You for the good and well-worded post, Janglur.

I apologize, Juberu.  I was typing too fast and missed a word in that sentence.  It was supposed to read:
"Humans are not the ONLY 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."

I forgot to add this:
To anyone who feel that it is wrong to give an orgasm to a cow, who will enjoy it and come back for more, for the reason that the cow views me as part of her herd, and a potential mate.

It is rare these days that a dairy cow will ever even see a bull.  They get inseminated.  Most often by an inseminator, who the cow does NOT see as part of their herd, and not as a potential mate.  The cow is restrained, and the inseminator will inseminate the cow, wheter she wants it at the time or not.  The insemination involves inserting metal objects into her sex, as well as an arm inside their anus.  Few cows enjoy those things, even though some might.

Now, why should it be allowed to restrain a cow and poke around with her genitals against her will?  If you think it is wrong to gently stimulate an unrestrained cow, and give her an orgasm that she will enjoy, how can you support the dairy industry by buying milk, butter, yoghurt or cheese?

Another note to make regarding it being wrong, because the sex will not lead to reproduction. As I mentioned in post 258, I am fairly certain that the cow will not make the connection between her orgasm, and the potential of becoming pregnant or not.  It does not traumatize a cow to get pleasure.  However, when a dairy cow is pregnant, and when they eventually give birth to a calf, the calf is always removed from their mother.  This is traumatic and stressful to the cow.  I'd rather have cows not giving birth at all, than cows having their newborn calves taken away from them.

The animal cruelty here does not lie in giving them sexual pleasure without the chance of reproduction.  The animal cruelty here lies in the reproduction, and in the separation of mother and child.

Svansfall at 4 May 2006: 23:17

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

Joan-Michele#R9F5WG6Bjw at 5 May 2006: 00:30

Interesting points, I guess it all boils down to intent on engaging in acts of sex with an animal. However, personally I feel it is wrong because it's against my Christian principles.

I have another point I'd like to add here, zoophillia is usually additive, meaning that it is added on top of them being turned on by fellow humans. So, I'd like to ask, why animals and not humans?

Svansfall at 5 May 2006: 00:59

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.

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.