| 970Report |
Svansfall at 27 Jun 2006: 11:30
>>965 and >>966
Hello Juberu.
Um, what?
You've previously acknowledged that you've read the posts in which I spoke of how the animals react and interract in when they are actively seeking pleasure. In post >>646, you say: "I'll take your word for it. Seriously, dude, that sounds a little creepy, even within the context of this debate."
Several human women have been bought to orgasm by rape, and animals can't give a form of consent valid for a human. A human can, however, give animal consent.
The difference is that those human women would never dream of coming back for more, and in the unlikely case they would do, then they seriously need professional help. If you restrain an animal, and bring them to orgasm against their will, they will not approach you again. Any kind of doing anything against the animal's will is wrong, how many times must I emphasize that?
No, they're saying sex with animals is bad. We have catagorically stated that we believe the "pleasure" part has nothing to do with our argument. Pleasure is only *part* of bestiality. You keep seeing it as *central*. For that to be true, it would have to be the object of bestiality, and there are plenty of people sticking themselves into cows just because they're horny.
It is the worst examples of bestiality that becomes visible on the net. People who care about their animals don't tend to be interested in porn, and are highly unlikely to produce porn.
For zoophiles, the wellbeing and pleasure of the animal IS the central part. Of course there are really ugly sides of bestiality - there are ugly sides to any sexuality.
Give me one reason why it is okay to say that an entire sexual orientation is wrong, just because there are some irresponsible and disturbing people who don't understand the concept of respect, involved with this sexual orientation.
There are lots of heterosexual rapists and heterosexual porn that doesn't show a very nice view of sexuality. Should we therefor say that heterosexual acts are all wrong? No, you cannot judge one entire group for what some individuals in the group are doing.
Anything *sexual*. Funny how that part of it keeps being missed.
Juberu. Read post >>953 again. When you read it again, you will notice that the part you mention is not being missed. Then reply to post >>953, really reply to it. Reply to the entire post instead of replying to one paragraph out of context.
You asked why "The human half of consent" is dropped, I answered the question you asked, and replied with several clear points, and you didn't even bother to reply to the answer to your question.
|