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 21 May 2006: 01:37

>>480 the pain of eventuall loss and ultimate willingness to face and accept the death of a loved one most often without the aid of a support group is a side that is seldomn touched upon nor seen.

at 21 May 2006: 04:19


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


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

Wolfblade at 21 May 2006: 05:39


Thank god someone can tell the difference between a bad thought and a bad action. Very awesome, you understand that someone can only be judged a bad person if they actually DO bad things.

The problem is, there's obviously a difference of opinion of whether or not screwing da pooch is a bad thing.

So, explain why it is bad, without referencing anything involving religion or simple personal tastes or opinions. If something is wrong, there is a good solid simple reason of why it is wrong. So give us the reason why consentual sex between a person and an animal is wrong. Nobody's managed it yet.

Hurts the animal - not physically

They lack the mental capacity to consent on any level - then even animal/animal sex is unconsenting, so how is animal/human worse?

Hurts them mentally - if they have the capacity to be mentally hurt, they have the capacity to give consent.

at 21 May 2006: 06:02


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

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

DragonFlame at 21 May 2006: 09:55

The other day we were near 400 now we are near 500 keep going.

This thread has been extremly repetative. We have been arguing about consent for so long that its just stupid.

One thing I must say. Having sex with a child is not wrong on the grounds of it hurts the child. It is wrong because when they eventualy grow to an age that they fully understand what has happened they will be affected by the ordeal. If you can agree with this then comparing a child to an animal is just stupid.

I think there would be a better reason for not having sex with an animal than they are stupid or they cant consent. I dont know what it is that is why I am here.

Svansfall at 21 May 2006: 11:00


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

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

at 21 May 2006: 11:06

Ok, my first viewing into /dis/ and I have to say the whole lot of you are fucking morons. Of course animals can conscent. If they don't conscent, they BITE with very large and sharp TEETH. Pull your heads out of your asses and figure this out. Good god.

If a bitch (that's a female dog or wolf) turns tail, playbows and hikes her tail to the side for your inspection and doesn't pull away when you touch, that's pretty much conscent right there.

If a dog (that's a male canine or wolf) pops a boner at what ever you're doing, I'd say that's conscent as well; males are horny, not much that needs conscent there.

Stop flogging a dead horse for fucks sake. 487 posts on a stupid subject.

at 21 May 2006: 11:11

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

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

at 21 May 2006: 11:59

that is called sadobesteonecrophila  k?
the other usefull thought is this... presume that animals cant meet our terms of concent - so bleeding what??, how does that make it wrong? so long as they can meet their own terms of consent that is all that matters. most of these posts have balanced around the angle of is it bad for the animal or not. so this one is leaning in that direction as well. to many people are trying to apply their own ideals of consent that should only be applied to themselves to an animal that has its own means of consent. so in many ways the most basic premise of all this is comparing apples to oarnges.
487 has a damn good point, the twits with the ""but they have been domesticated"" havent spent enough time with 4 leggers .
I notice that has been stated before and none of them stepped up with "yes I have spent time with honest to goodness farm animals and such" so yah, that kinda responds to that comment.  and 489 rolls on'

490Report (sage)
at 21 May 2006: 16:09

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

at 21 May 2006: 16:10


Domestic animals a pretty docile, or else and such.  Why bring up a "new and good point" that's already been discussed and disputed.

I thought you needed an advanced temporal lobe (or whatever it's called) to learn a language.  I know some monkeys have it, which was a big deal for years.  I also heard that dolphins have it, but the people who tell me that are crazy zealots, so I'm waiting on a more reasonable source.

And, you're saying a lot of "I know this" and "in my experience".  Well... in my experience, animals don't talk, and their body language is kinda random.  We'll never reach a consensus on anything as long as we appeal to personal experience.

If they can't consent and you have sex with them, it's rape.  That's the whole point right?  Rape is, on a technical level, sex.  To us humans though, it's a bad thing, and if you do it, you're a bad person.  Animals don't sweat things like morality (except a few that really haven't been up for discussion), so it isn't an issue for them, but it is for people.

This whole discussion seems to be one group of animals rights advocates saying "Raping animals is bad", and the other advocates saying "It isn't rape".  I'm pretty sure it is rape, because there are situations that don't cause physical and psycological harm that are still rape.  You need to obtain consent, and I'm not sure that what people are calling consent is really consent.  I drive pass the feed lot at a meat packing plant on the way to work.  Those cows don't seem to be worried that they're about to die. Does that mean they're consenting to it, or does that mean they just don't understand what's happening to them?

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

at 21 May 2006: 16:50

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

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

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

493Report (sage)
at 21 May 2006: 18:30

IN a futile attempt to cut this thing off before it hits the magic 500 posts and causes the net to implode, try this instead. Kill the animal before you have sex with it. Everyone's pretty much okay with killing animals and lots are worried that having sex with the critter might "damage it", so remove any possibility of phsical  or psychological harm to the beastie and snuff it before you get down to the nasty. As a bonus, you get to have a barbeque afterwards.

Make sense? Sound reasonable? It's more reasonable than 99% of the stuff I've read in this thread.

at 21 May 2006: 18:46

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

at 21 May 2006: 18:46

ah killing the animal then having sex with it was a right of passage that my great grandmother spoke of when i was roughly 11
'explains why im kinda odd now doesent it?'

at 21 May 2006: 18:51

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

at 21 May 2006: 19:19

>>495 You're from Jersey? ;)

498Report (sage)
at 21 May 2006: 19:39

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

at 21 May 2006: 19:52

>>498 Necro means dead. It doesn't mean "dead person."

at 21 May 2006: 19:53

>>498 Mmm! Meat! 500!

Kupok#BY.QtDIz06 at 21 May 2006: 20:00

Gah, I missed! Fail Get!


at 21 May 2006: 20:05

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

at 21 May 2006: 21:19

Who said Animals can't talk?


It's okay, you still have post 1000 to make, and it all likelyhood, we'll make it.

at 21 May 2006: 21:39

They can do martial arts and beat up each other, too!

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

at 21 May 2006: 22:24


Wait, so everything I said means nothing because you don't like my example?  That doesn't even make sense.

Why not just make a thread called 1000+ and post in it a thousand times?  That seems to mean a lot to you guys.

Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 21 May 2006: 22:39


If a dog (that's a male canine or wolf) pops a boner at what ever you're doing, I'd say that's conscent as well; males are horny, not much that needs conscent there.

Why would an erection(arousal) be consent for a dog, but not for a human?
"Why are so many bringing up all the old posts from the start of the thread?"  How is this question relevant to the discussion at hand?

It's not. I'm just wondering.
In most intelligent discussions, you don't attack the conclusion but the logic that was used to reach said conclusion.

My point was that I couldn't see the logic. I saw "[a] is true, therefore [b]."
Are you so unwilling to engage this discussion with an open mind that you ignore the body of what I wrote?  Please don't be so little.

Open mindedness refers to *listening* to something, not necessarily agreeing with it.

Also; conclusions are *supposed* to summarize the entire argument.

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

[conclusion]:Animals are capable of informed consent

[premise/facts]: because sex is a very basic part of life,

[logic linking the two]: which means that it isn't difficult [for an animal] to figure out.

Oh. I misunderstood you. I thought "it it isn't difficult to figure out" referred to the argument itself.

Of course, I still maintain that that means that the act of sex is not hard to figure out. The meaning is something else entirely.

>"And my side maintains that sex with an animal is rape, regardless of how the animal is treated outside of sex. Rape is "treating animals bad"."
>You miss the point entirely.
That was a summary of what I see of my side's main arguement. Not an arguement itself. No backup. For that argument to be true, animals have to be capable of informed consent, or communicating said consent. That is, largely, what's under dabate.
If a zoophile's interest is for the good of the animal, then why would he or she do something that is harmful to the animal? 

I hate to bring up the pedophilia comparison again, but many do think they's actually doing what's right for their victim. People harm others they're trying to help all the time. And people often help those whom they're trying to harm. There is a difference between intent and reality.

But again, let’s look at both conjectures for the sake of the discussion.  The first one, “You obviously trained your animals to do that” suggest that the writer has enough experience in training animals to perform sexually that he or she is able to profile another writer well enough to reach this conclusion.

No, it suggest that the accuser has experience, or knowledge, about training animals.

The second conjecture, “they don’t resist because there ability to resist humans has been bread out of them.”  Please tell me how this conclusion was reached?  Are there any sources that you can find to back up this claim?  Nobody who works with animals would ever reach this conclusion.

Um, you're ad populum-ing again. And ad verecundiam-ing. In fact, since you're asking for sources, what professionals are you quoting?

Wait, I didn't even make this point.
If you can't, then you force my side to view your side as full of puritanical conditioning and "because we say so" thinking.

Because we disagree? Gosh, that's open-minded of you.

at 22 May 2006: 00:27

>>506 Nice way of arguing absolutely nothing. You dumbass. So let me get this straight, when a human woman (or man, in this day in age) presents herself (or himself) on all fours, the male dog's cock gets harder than your thick skull, mounts her and and goes to town, that's not concent? ZOMG I want to be raped like that! Again, you're a fucking dumbass.

And who's the idiot who argued that dogs are domestic and docile? Doesn't stop them from sinking their teeth in to you if you hurt them or you do something wrong. I have a scar on my arm from being bit by the nicest, sweetest dog you could *ever* meet, because I accidently pulled his fur in the wrong place when I was younger.

Everyone needs to drop this subject and go stick their dicks in a horse or something; I've been told they've got amazing muscular control and can make it feel better than any nagging, preppy human bitch could even dream of.


at 22 May 2006: 02:30

Our point is We're amazed and in disbeleaf that this subject could be drawn out for THIS LONG. Plus by bringing these ultumatly meaningless numbers to attention, It slightly increases the likleyhood of a dedication flash animation.

Svansfall at 22 May 2006: 03:42


I wasn't saying anything about "I know this" and "in my experience" in the post you refer to.   I am saying that you can speak with anyone who works together with horses or dogs, as a team, like police with police dogs, horses with horse trainers, etc.  They will inform you that animals do communicate.  Also, ask any animal psychologist.

You say in your experience animals do not talk.  Then I have to ask you how much experience you have with working together with animals?   If you don't have much experience, maybe you haven't figured it out yet.  Learning a language takes a long time.

These are not opinions, they are facts.

at 22 May 2006: 06:52


They're not facts.  Facts are indisputably true.  The only thing I can find on google saying that animals can communicate are heavily opinionate pieces.  That says to me that it's under a lot of dispute.  People with PHDs don't agree, so I'm just going to assume that if people who study it don't agree, then it hasn't been proven yet.

Which means that it's an opinion.


A point isn't validly locked out just becuase you say it's locked out.  That'd be like me saying "animals don't feel lust because they can't say it, so anyone saying animals feel lust is bringing up a validly locked out point".  Nobod'y managed to really prove that the pedophile comparison doesn't hold water.  They've just refused to consider it, and so they completely discount it.

The problem is, it's important because if the "anti-zoos" are right, then zoophiles are sexual predators... like pedophiles.

Jeez, you're as bad as the 4Channers.

Svansfall at 22 May 2006: 09:37


There are a lot of things that well educated scientists never can agree on.   If the definition of a fact is that all scientists agree on it, then very few things we know as 'facts' are real facts in this world.

Most people with animal experience knows that animals are capable of interracting clearly by usage of their body language.  Isn't that good enough?

DragonFlame at 22 May 2006: 10:03

I hate to bring this up because I realy realy hate rapists but how do we know Rape is actually bad. How do we know that it isnt just some Religious ideal that has been forced on us for hundreds of years. If you look at animals in the wild they actively rape each other, that doesnt mean they always do it but they do it quite often. If this is supposed to be Natural Behaviour then how do we actually know what is right and wrong.

Like I said I realy hate rapists but it makes you think.

Also Juberu is back and he or she hasnt changed their tactics of trying to twist words and discredit others opinions instead of coming up with his own opinions on the subject. Maybe a little factual proof would work better than attacking people.

And yes I am attacking Juberu so dont bother pointing that out.

Svansfall at 22 May 2006: 12:24


I feel that rape is bad.  I must admit it is even revolting to me to hear someone even consider that rape would be anything but bad, even though you clearly point out that your opinion is also that rape is bad.   Doing things for your own sake, against someone else's will is bad by default, in my opinion.   I don't even want to do things if someone tolerates it, or shows indifference to it.   In order for me to feel okay with doing something, they have to actively show they enjoy it.

If I am stroking a cow's genitals, and she does not express either dislike or pleasure, I stop immediately.  They have to lean into me, raise their tail, give any of the other signs that they are truly enjoying it, otherwise I won't do it.  I give the same reaction to indifference as I do to active dislike.

What's the point of giving stimulation if they don't enjoy it?  No point at all.

Guan at 22 May 2006: 14:37

>>503 Did that cat just say Oh Long Johnson?  Jeez. and I thought that dogs were horny.  ;}

at 22 May 2006: 15:17

You'd have to be pretty desperate to go after a COW anyways. Ew. They're stinky and ugly. Go after a horse. A mare has muscles in her vigania that can litterally grab your little cock (lets face it, compared to a stallion, it IS little..) and give it a milking like you've never imagined.

Svansfall at 22 May 2006: 15:27


Thank You for the insult.  :)   And no, I am not desperate.  The cows I am with are not stinky, they smell great.  They are not ugly - they have a very beautiful shape.  Their fur is soft and pleasant to touch, and they are warm and nice to fall asleep beside in the green grass.

I have been with mares, and I find horses attractive also, but not nearly as attractive as cows are.  Just because YOU don't find cows attractive, don't assume you know what other people find attractive.  And FYI, I am not interested in having my cock inside.  I prefer having my tongue and my fingers.

I am thinking you must have met the wrong cows.

at 22 May 2006: 15:51

Well, the pedophile comparison seems to make sense to a lot of people.  Have you actually tried looking at it that way to see if we have a point that we may just not be articulating up to your standards?  I try looking at it from the "animals like it" side, but you can do things to an animal that they like that's bad for them, or at least degrading, so I don't think that's enough for consent.  As for "We do worse to animals".  Well, yeah... are you saying it's okay to do all that stuff then?  Just because there's other wrongs out there that are worse, doesn't make something right.  The last thing that the zoophiles refer to is personal experience, which I don't share.  That's basically like saying "Well, if you look at it MY way, it all makes sense".  Well, yeah, but I'm me.  If you looked at it my way, it's obviously wrong.  We kinda need to discount our personal experiences to meet any sort of consensus, and see if there's enough left over to come up with anything.  If those against are right, zoos are sexual predators, and their personal experiences are tainted as such.  If those for are right, then those against are closed minded and judgemental, so anything we say is tainted as such.  In other words, if I refer to personal experience, you're going to assume It's from a tainted perspective, thus false, and I do the same to you.

As far as I can tell, right now, it's all very confused at best.  There's facts, yes, but everyone's interpretting them differently, and there's nothing that PROVES that either side is right... which means, again, that those against are not having sex with animals, so either way they're doing nothing wrong, and zoos are going ahead anyway, which means they may well be doing something terrible, but refuse to consider that.

Hermie Hedgehog at 22 May 2006: 17:17

I once heard of a woman trying to get pregnant from her dog. O_O

I've heard of people doing cows... *looks up* We have one of those here. (Anyone hear the sone, "Mo, mo, mo, I'm so in love with you?" XD) Cowboys are infamous for sheep... Hell, this one guy did it with an ELEPHANT.

If the animal seems to be mutually enjoying it, I'm fine with it. Just be careful not to spread any STD's that can result from having sexual intercourse with other species.

(That doesn't mean I do that stuff... I'm engaged. There's only one girl that I'll do anything with... XD)

On anothr note... One time, I tried to give my rats a little pleasure with a finger... ^^; But that's it.

at 22 May 2006: 19:19


Maybe I'm just thick-headed, but could somebody please explain how zoophilia and pedophilia are analogous?  Please, step-by-step, show me how they parallel one another.  I can understand matching up pedophilia with sexually interacting with a sexually immature animal, but not sexually interacting with a sexually mature adult.

Pedophilia/Statutory Rape
Can a minor have informed consent?   A minor can verbally consent, however, verbal consent by a legal minor is non-binding because one of the requirements of informed consent is that the person giving the consent must be 18 years of age or older.  Some states allow parental consent if a minor over the age of 16 wishes to become married.

Can an animal have informed consent?  In all fairness, this is a false question because informed consent is a LEGAL term that applies only to humans because the law assumes that all parties in questing are human!  The law requires that, in order for a person to give informed consent, they must be past the age of consent, which is 18 years of age.  Most dogs never even make it past 14, yet they would be considered adults by the age of 2 by most veterinarians!  “Dog years” don’t equal “people years”.

First of all, this debate is about the morality of zoophilia, not its legality, so why are we using legal terms such as “informed consent” in a debate of morality?  The only purpose this question serves is to derail the pro-zoo argument by transplanting this debate from a moral arena to a legal one, but still forcing the pro-zoos to debate under moral arena rules.  It's bate-and-switch, pure and simple.

This should put to rest the entire "informed consent" debate, but I'm sure some will still hold on to it even though the pro-zoos who have read this are now wise to this fallacious tactic.

Pedophilia/Statutory Rape
Can sexual relations with minors cause them harm?  I'm sure that most child psychologists would agree (and common sense would also dictate) that in most all cases adult sexual encounters with legal minors causes the minor to either have immediate or, at the very lease, latent psychological harm.  The only exceptions would be minors who developed sexual maturity early and had relations with a legal adult close to there age (i.e. a 15 or 16 year old with an 18 year old).  The "Golden Rule" applies excellently here, because I'm sure if most adults honestly asked themselves the question, would they have liked it if they were sexually interacted with as a child by an adult?  Most average people thinking back to there own childhoods would probably say "NO!".  I know I certainly would have disliked it if I had been touched improperly as an child, thus, I assume that sexual interactions with children is a form of abuse.  Sexual molestation was, in fact, something I greatly feared as a boy, but by the time I was an adolescent in high school, I was so horny there were even a few teachers that looked good to me!  To bad I didn’t know about Van Halen’s “Hot For Teacher” song.  Oh, what I would have done for sex at the age of 17!

Can sexual relations with animals cause them harm?  This question is quite open for discussion because you have two angles to consider.  1.) Is it harmful for a sexually immature animal to be interacted with sexually?  I'm sure that most every pro-zoo and anti-zoo would agree that it probably is.  They have not yet psychologically or physically developed into sexual beings yet.  2.) Is it harmful to sexually interact with a sexually mature adult animal?  In order to answer this question, we need to consider the two main types of harm: physical and psychological.  I'm sure that most would argue that as long as the animal is not subject to prolonged or extreme physical stress (i.e. a penis too big for a small vagina) and experiences no pain, then no physical harm should come to them by a physical encounter.  But what about possible psychological harm caused by a sexual interaction?  This is the only real question left up for debate since “informed consent” does not apply to animals, nor has it ever in any moral or legal context.

at 22 May 2006: 20:10

"They're not facts.  Facts are indisputably true.  The only thing I can find on google [Sic.] saying that animals can communicate are heavily opinionate pieces.  That says to me that it's under a lot of dispute.  People with PHDs [Sic.] don't agree, so I'm just going to assume that if people who study it don't agree, then it hasn't been proven yet.  Which [sic.] means that it's an opinion."

Pull your head out of your ass for just five minutes and do some real research by using something other than Google.  Perhaps, maybe, an actually Mammalogy text book or even WikiFuckingPedia.  The very fact that you have to use Google for this subject shows just how little expertise you have. 

Taken from pages 349-352 in “Mammalogy: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology” Copyright 1999 George A. Felhamer, et al.  ISBN 0-697-16733-X

My mammalogy text book from my mammalogy class that I took in my fourth year in college lists the fallowing functions for communication: Spacing and coordination (i.e. “I’m lost, where is everybody”), Recognition (i.e. “I am-.”), Reproduction (i.e. “My reproductive state is-.” or “I’m a big strong male!”), Alarm (i.e. “Danger Will Robinson!”), Aggression and Social Status (i.e. “Please don’t hurt me.” or “Stand down, or I’ll beat the living shit out of you!”, Hunting for Food/Rallying (i.e. “Let’s all get together and find some prey!”), Giving and Soliciting Care (i.e. “I need help!”),  Soliciting Play (i.e. “Let’s Play!”, bowing of a dog). 

Animals do communicate, you dumb ass!  Yes, scientists don’t agree on everything, but this isn’t one of those instances.  The debate among scientists isn’t “Can animals communicate?” but in the fine details.  It is more than just an established fact; it is an entire field of study!  If ignorance were truly bliss, you would be high as a kite!

“A point isn't validly locked out just becuase [Sic.] you say it's locked out.”

No, it becomes “locked out” when discussing the subject further from your askew “perspective” constitutes intellectual suicide. 

“That'd be like me saying "animals don't feel lust because they can't say it, so anyone saying animals feel lust is bringing up a validly locked out point".  Nobod'y [Sic.] managed to really prove that the pedophile comparison doesn't hold water.  They've just refused to consider it, and so they completely discount it.”

You are bordering on incoherence in this paragraph, but I can at least tell you are talking about the comparison between zoophilia and pedophilia.  I’ve written my own take on this argument here:

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.