fchan

*sigh*

it's 03:27 here, i've been working on shit for other people straight-forward from 17:00 on. i am NOT going to read through this now and filter stuff, so this is what i'll be doing:

the thread can stay up until i get out of my coma tomorrow, when i see people flaming -> lock.

>>37
First off all, I'm not a pedophile, nor do I support the lifestyle.  I'm not even into bestality.  Let the record show that >>37 veered the conversation this way first.

At what point does anyone really "consent" to anything and can be said to not be merely reacting to stimuli?  Does "will", "choice" even exist, or is it all reaction to stimuli?

Anyway, having sex with animals before puberty is wrong.  Enticing prepubescent animals to sexual acts is wrong too, as is jerking them off before puberty too.  Animal pedophilia is just as wrong as human pedophilia.  Once an animal is aware of their sexuality, maybe 6 mo./1 year after puberty, they are capable of sexual consent.

>>44

What if my... are you serious?  You can't be serious?  Ha ha, you almost had me!  I was about to get all ticked off and everything.  Well played. ^_^

>>46
You are wrong.  While animals may not communicate sophisticatively, they do communicate.  If a person is doing something to them that they do not want, they will growl, try to run, hiss, bite, claw, etc.  Animals whine and make sounds when they are unhappy or in pain.  It's not that hard to figure out.

Animals have plenty of understanding of sex.  They seem to do it just fine.  Sex is really very simple, i.e., can I put <this body part> in <this place>.  It's not rocket science.  They know where everything goes and what to do with it.  Furthermore, in so far as communication and consent are concerned with animals, observe when a horny male dog approaches a female not in heat or not in the mood.  You will witness some very clear communication take place. 

Consent is consent, no matter why the party doing the consenting so does consent.  If the person says "yes" or allows the action because he/she doesn't care, it's still consent.

Certainly early in our species history, we did not have the intricate understanding of sex that we do at this point in time.  Did our ancestors commit immorality by following their instincts and not worrying about what it was that they were doing?  Even now, many people consent to eating food without full knowledge of the food they eat.

Another example, someone gives you $10, you don't say anything (and you don't know all the scientific details that go into money, economy, the paper it's printed on, etc.), but you take the money.  And then you use and enjoy the money.  You've consented to accepting the money.  Spare me technical legal details, from a practical point (which is all that really matters since this is the real world and not an abstract idealistic one) you have consented.

Consent does not have to be verbal.  Various legal actions require verbal or even written consent in some cases, but sex is not one of those cases.

we are animals, cmon...
and anyone with low enough reasoning to honestly think animals are incapable of consent, or of showing disaproval, are those who most assuradly should not be allowed around animals.
lesee this has reached 49 posts it should get frozen any time now.

>>48


How is having sex with a horse wrong?

I mean, I don't do it, but I don't see what's wrong with it. They're more than big enough to accomodate a human penis(either anally or vaginally), same goes for most breeds of dog.

If you have sex with something that can't accomodate the penis, however, it's wrong.

>>50
You don't know the actual mindset of everyone Canada.  There's probably more zoophilies in Canada than you think.

I just wish I could convince you that zoophilies, when they choose to bring sexual pleasure to their pets, that this should not be equated with harming them.  It is much crueler to take a pet and to completely deny it any sort of sexuality whatsoever, that it is to indulge it in it's God-given right and instinct.

That's all I have to say.  I won't respond anymore.

>>54
Dammit.  I have to say JUST ONE MORE THING and I'll stop.

The same can be said of a husband with respect to his wife. 

Overpowered?  I believe the above posts covered that.  If overpowered, your animal will be showing obvious signs of distress.  (That is, if you are even able to overpower him or her.  You'd probably have to restrain him/her using chains or something and then it's obvious we aren't talking about consent.  THAT is wrong.)

Surprised?  The normal reaction of a dog or most other domestic animals when surprised is to run.  If you approach them and they run under the couch, ears folded, well hell, what more clear communication do you want?  No means no, and you should stop.  Conversely, if you are a female and you put your behind in the air and then the dog proceeds to mount you, again, that's some pretty clear communication to me. 

In developing a relationship with an animal, you should learn things like that, how it acts when it's doing something it doesn't like, when it's hungry, etc.  If you are not sensitive to your pet's feelings and signals you have no business being a pet owner, let alone trying anything sexual with it.

I've noticed within the zoophile communites there is a distaste for others who seem to want to just use animals for sex.  This is frowned upon by the majority of them, it seems.  They always say you should love and cherish your pet, if you choose to do this with them.

Finally, if animals are really as unintelligent and instinct bound as is said in this post, then we can count on them not to think "oh shit, i'm scared, what do I do" when they are under stress, but rather have those wonderful instincts to kick in.  You're forgetting that dogs and cats and other domestic animals 1) run fast and 2) have natural instinct-driven weapons at their disposal.

But it shouldn't get to that.  If you have to overpower or surprise an animal for any reason, unless it's trying to hurt you or an innocent person, you are wrong.

Ok, that's it.  That's really it.  I swear.  I'm unplugging my dsl modem now.  Goodnight.

>>50  you just failed by presuming i was promoting bestiality,
i was discusing the ability to consent and wheather we are or are not animals -
>>52 a extreemly large amount of furries **are** zoophiles.
70%  +/- by various poling - you can do the research yourself if so inclined. 

I really don’t think this has become uncivil. In fact a lot of people have good arguments from both sides. Unfortunately everyone is absolutely set on their beliefs and will not be convinced otherwise.
Those people that are becoming uncivil remember this. There is a difference between imagining / fantasising and actually doing. Calling some one a Dog raper because they enjoy looking at scribble on paper is just stupid and ignorant.

I agree lets keep this discussion on track. It is partly my fault it has gone off.
To answer your question I think a lot of people consider illustrated bestiality to be Furry art. It is hard to define the line where it starts and where it ends. Example a picture of a Horse having sex with a woman is considered Bestiality but lets say Nala from the Lion King is having sex, a lot of people would consider this to be furry even tho Nala is in fact an animal not a half human half animal creature. Where do you place the line?

Taken from Wikipedia.
Furry fandom is a subculture that originated from the science fiction and fantasy fandoms. Members of the furry fandom, known as furry fans or simply furries, particularly enjoy media that involves anthropomorphic animals: that is, fictional animals with human traits (such as walking on two feet, talking, wearing clothes, living in houses, etc.). Such media includes popular animated cartoons, comic books, and stories and novels.

Since the mid-1980s, furry fans have referred to any such anthropomorphic animal character as a furry. Other terms for these types of characters are funny animal and talking animal, or kemono in Japan. Furry characters are usually portrayed as humanoids wearing clothing, talking, and acting like humans rather than animals. However, some fans consider any talking animal, humanoid or not, to be a furry. Some fans also believe that non-animalistic fantasy creatures such as dragons, orcs, and elves should also be considered furry. [citation needed]

The furry fandom, as an umbrella subculture for various interests, has grown rapidly with the advent of the Internet. Content created by furry fans (visual art, stories, music, games, etc.) on the World Wide Web covers a wide range of interests including fantasies, philosophy, recipes, sex, politics, religion, and even personal lifestyle and identity.

According to the above explanation Mr Ed would be considered Furry.
Obviously Furry is very vague and can be interpreted many different ways.
No one person or even a group of people can decide what Furry actually is. There are too many variations of furry and too many differences of opinion. There is no right or wrong. Each person must decide for them selves if they consider them selves as furries and what they consider Furry art.

>>59
"...everyone is absolutely set on their beliefs and will not be convinced otherwise..."

It would be a better debate if the 'it's just wrong' folks had more reasoning behind their point than '*Everyone* knows...' or the very flimsy consent angle to go on (last I checked, people don't need their animals consent for *anything* else, so why is sex so 'special'?)

It becomes much easier when the 'it's wrong...' folks can just admit their operating from an indoctrinated cultural-norm, gut-reaction basis that has absolutely no intrinsic justification.  They've been conditioned to see it the way they do, ergo they see it that way, despite reality.  It's understandable that they get frustrated when they meet people who didn't take to the cultural coding so well, because those people ask them to think and reason *why* something is wrong, rather than just take it for granted. 

That's the inherent flaw of 'moral codes' as opposed to 'ethical thought' - Blind acceptance of a code leaves one floundering when they're required to explain or debate their position, and most codes don't stand up to the test of reason. 

The fact remains that sex with an non-human animal has no reasonable basis for being taboo, especially in a culture who otherwise treats all non-human animals as 'things', and even as essentially valueless things more often than not - The average car stereo being worth more than a dog or cat, 'sentimental value' aside. 

Unfortunately, reasonable or not, sex with an animal *is* taboo in our society, and will thus be seen as 'wrong' by the majority of folks whether they can adequately defend that point of view or not.  That is also a fact. 

>>60
"Lack of dissent does not equal consent."

Haha...  Tell that to the government, genius. :)

See how well they take that the next time they pass a useless bit of legislation just because nobody bothered to lobby against it.  "If you had a problem with it, you should have contacted your representative before the second reading..." 

Reality bites, eh? 

>>62
I totally agree.  I have no problem with the perverse thoughts that tumble around in our heads.  If art depicting something like bestiality, rape, torture, etc, makes you happy, than by all means, draw and look at it all you like... but I do have a problem when people act on these fantasies.  Rape between fictional characters on a page is art, someone going out and raping someone is a monster with no control.  Nobody argues about that one though, and archaic examples are uniformly described as barbaric.

>>59
Ha ha, dude, not your fault.  You pointed out some facts, and information is never wrong in and of itself.  You can't control how the opinionated masses react.  I would caution, though, on citing Wiki as a source.  One day when I'd had a bit too much to drink, I set about "editing" a few pages myself. ;)

>>53
>>55
>>58
Why are the "Just Wrong" folks on the defensive on this matter?  I was under the assumption that those who WANT to have sex with animals are annoyed because of the legal and cultural stigmas that go with it.  If you're looking for a logical explanation, I have to admit that I never thought it out enough to come up with one.  It seems wrong to me for the same reasons that other cardinal no-nos seem wrong.  I can't understand how anyone can seriously argue that an animal is capable of reasoning what is happening to them, and making a decision based on that reason in order to give consent.  This is a projection of one's own desires!  I could argue that cows are happy to be slaughtered because they walk oh-so-willingly toward it, but that doesn't make any sense.  I'll concede that there are worse things in the world to deal with, but having sex with animals is entirely selfish.  If you do this, YOU are dictating the desires of the animal.  It isn't communicating with you on a level above an infant, and taking advantage of their trust is horrific to me. 

What makes it so intolerable that I feel the need to argue about it, is that these selfish individuals have the gall to claim that what they're doing is somehow not only acceptable, but noble!  They act out of a need to "stick it in" and such, and they pretend that they're some sort of champion for personal freedoms... as if satisfying their lusts on an animal is an act of enlightenment.  My dog trusted me enough to let me take her to the vet and have her belly cut open so she could be fixed.  I did this as an act of responsibility because I understand things about my dog that she doesn't understand about herself.  She didn't appreciate the pain, but it was for her own good.  Similarly, she didn't like taking her deworming medicine, but there was a spell of it going around, so I made her take it anyway.  I pulled some quills from her side, and held her for her shots... she didn't like any of this, but she let me do it because she's a good dog and, I would hope, cares about me, or at least considers the good moments to outweigh the bad.

Now, you can have another owner who looks after their dog in a way more agreeable to the dog, but they are doing the dg no favors.  Feeding the dog human food in excess will lead to health problems for the animal... but the dog loves it.  Many dogs don't like being bathed or clipped, but they will be itchy all the time, not to mention the risks of becoming infested with parasites, but the dog will be happy that the owner didn't put them through the hated bathing and clipping.  Hell, you could feed a dog chocolate and they'd love you for it... before they died.

My point is that an animal's reaction to any sort of feeling is defined by what they like right now.  They have a few instincts to protect them from natural phenomena, but they don't have any way of coping with what people do to them.  You can do something, in other words, that an animal will not only "consent" to, but will adore, even if in the same action you are killing the animal.  It's called taking advantage of trust, and it's invariably reprehensible... doubly creepy when done in the name of “love”.

The kind of love involved in bestiality only goes one way.  Sure, the dog (or whatever animal) may love their owner, but they do NOT experience the sentimental romantic love that we humans have invented (with a few possible exceptions, but they rarely seem to be involved).  Also, bestiality can well be practiced without hurting the animal, whether it’s too big, or because the person involved is gentle... regardless, it’s the human taking advantage of the animal for the purposes of sexual gratification.  The animal doesn’t know better, the person either knows better, or is in an acute state of denial... or crazy; whatever the case, the animal is being used for selfish ends.

Now, as a vegan, I’ve grown very frustrated with wide scale animal treatment over the years.  Animals are killed and tortured, rarely with any sort of point in mind.  It’s disgusting, and we should know better, and while I don’t consider bestiality to be as bad as most of that, I do consider it to be bad; very bad.  That’s why I’m satisfied to a degree at the moment.  Right now, it is highly frowned upon at best, and brutally punished at worst, and to be quite frank, as long as the best arguments presented are: “they can so consent” and “it’s only natural to give into your urges”, there is no way this is going to change.

Just think about those arguments for a moment.  They’re ludicrous!  If giving into your primal nature was an excuse, theft, rape, and murder would all be perfectly acceptable, among other things.  As a human, it is your responsibility to control your urges lest they hurt someone.  Those who fail to do this are criminally deviant, and thankfully, there are sturdy, guarded facilities for them.  The other... consent... just, no.  Animals lack the capacity to reason, and their actions are instinct.  They don’t consent.  They aren’t consenting to be humiliated, they aren’t consenting to being slaughtered, and they aren’t consenting to rape either.  Sheesh, they can’t even understand consent!

...

Well, for what it’s worth, that’s my stance.  Again, if anyone ever hopped the fence and had sex with my dog, I can’t think of a word to properly illustrate the extent of my rage.  I’m not trying to be an insufferable conservative shit here... I’m trying to be open minded about this, but I haven’t heard anything that sounds like an even remotely feasible explanation on the matter, and until I hear such an explanation I’ll continue to be one of those in the crowd who, if on a jury, invariable vote guilty for the strictest punishments on the matter, and fully support any political figure who objects to such actions.  Why?  Because I love animals, and they have quite enough to suffer through without playing the part of someone’s sex toy.

>>61
Oh, just to point out that whether or not it happens has nothing to do with the morality involved.  The government does things things without consent, and that's wrong... though in that case, they often get voted back in anyway, so majority consent is an arguable given. :/ booo...

What scares me about Zoos is that you guys always seem to have a complex array of rationalizations and circular arguments to prevent any valid point made by the opposition from ever penetrating to your remarkably impregnable skull.

And yes, I did just call you close-minded in a manner that would make even Nathaniel Hawthorne declare it verbose.

>>66
Then an animal cannot say it is hungry, by that same regard.
Or say it is sad, or lonely.
Or say that it is in pain.

This is what you have said.  If you disagree, then explain the difference between an animal humping your leg not equating to desire for sex, compared to a dog begging for food IS expressing desire for food.

>>63
Sex between humans is nothing more than two individuals mutually exploiting one another for pleasure.  When exploitation is mututal between parties, it's no longer exploitation, but an exchange.  If one was to say sex should only be performed for procreative purposes (the logical conclusion as why humans have sex) and only when a couple can actually procreate (i.e., when the woman is fertile), only the most inhuman would say that it should be that way. 

And, if animals are such slave to instinct (as they probably are), they will only allow things done to them and do things that they like.  Masochism is a phenomenon unique to animals in unnatural states such as overrcrowding, etc.  Under natural conditions (humans included) no animal will choose to harm itself, or do nothing while something harms it.

>>63
You are right, in the way you put it, but you completely assume the animal gets no pleasure from it.  You are equating genital stimualtion with cutting open of one's belly, which is completely off base.  Touch someone's genitals and ask them how they thought it felt.  They will NOT react the same way as if you were to cut their stomach open. Animals probably like genital stimulation just as much as you, except they, because they don't have the curse of human reason and morality placed upon them, can enjoy such stimulation in and of itself. 

You do NOT need to possess rational thought to consent or not consent.  To show that you don't consent, you must resist the action in some way, either verbally, physically, whatever.  Your instincts should be given the same rights to make you consent/not consent as your reason.  Instinct is usually more valuable to rely on than reason in certain instances.

It is unfortunate that there are people from both sides still arguing about the moral justification of Bestiality. My god this was supposed to be about if Illustrated Bestiality is alright on Fchan. It’s a pity that so many people out there are so un-acceptant about other people’s feelings and beliefs and claim that they are wrong with stupid explanations such as “Its Just Wrong” and “Animals can consent”.
These people do not look at the situation from both sided and have not read what has been written on this board.
Quit with the Bestiality is Moral / Immoral crap and get back on to the topic which is Illustrated Bestiality is it alright on Fchan.

>>71

Oh that.  That's already been resolved.
Bestiality, the reality = not okay.
Bestiality, the artwork = /ah/.

It isn't strange for threads to branch out to other ideas.  The good Sage herself said as much a ways below here in that thread by Echoen. ^_^

>>74

...

Okay, whatever, I give up.  These arguments have absolutely never held up in a western court, and probably haven't held up in any others, but I'm tired of trying to explain my position only to have someone spin four or five words of my post against me.  I'm done trying to actually figure out what goes on in the heads of such people.  It's easier to classify you as self indulgent, immoral monsters, and that seems to work well, so I'll go back to that.  Well played my friend, I never had a prayer of convincing you of anything did I?

small cages = good
medical testing = good
killing spike to the head = good
any of thousands of atrocities = good
love an animal = bad
an animal using you for sex = bad
wtf is wrong with huimans?

>>75
don't feel too bad. you tried. if it makes you feel any better, I was kinda sitting on the fence about it before, and I think you made more sense then th other guys.