| 975Report |
at 28 Jun 2006: 00:43
>>974
Yeah right. I'll belive you when I can get in your head. Until then, I'm just going to assume that it's about sex. Despite this, I'm sure you'll find a way to go on in life.
>>964
Yeah, person without a name here. You may call me anonymous, or anon if you're lazy.
Just for clarity, I said this.
Uh, Svansfall, you keep bringing up the same "What's wrong with giving pleasure" argument. I don't remember anyone saying that pleasuring animals was wrong. Nobody is saying that making animals feel good is wrong, or they'd be against treating animals well. What they're saying is that you're wrong DESPITE the pleasure. Maybe you should respond to what they say instead of some imaginary argument that nobody ever made.
The closest I can think of is the "Why does it have to be sex" post, which you responded to basically by saying "cause I want to". Nobody says making animals feel good is bad. But then, I read this pretty quick. If there's a post that says making animals feel good is bad, then point me to it. Until then, quit asking "Why is it wrong to make an animal feel good", because nobody asked.
So I was basically saying that nobody has said that making animals feel good is bad, because then they'd be against everything that makes animals feel good. And your response.
I have replied to this already. The genitals is a very sensitive area of the body. To the individuals who enjoy being stimulated there, the stimulation there is giving them a certain kind of pleasure that they enjoy more than the stimulation elsewhere.
Which isn't responding to what I said.
This is why mares and cows when feeling sexual tension will try to rub their genitals against anything suitable they can find, to relieve their sexual tension. Usually, they cannot stimulate themselves enough in that way, which makes them frustrated and restless. If I stimulate an animal in heat, who enjoys it, they will be noticably relaxed and calm afterwards, and they are no longer stressed and frustrated.
Which still isn't responding to what I said.
If they know that I can give them release in this way, they will come up to me, and ask me for it.
Uh... so what?
I have also asked the question: Why is it wrong for me to give pleasure to someone, when everyone involved enjoys it, and when none of us are coming to harm? If someone would answer this question, I could reply to it.
Nobody said it wasn't! Nobody said giving anyone or anything pleasure is bad! You're responding to a point that was never made! Who do you expect to answer that question when nobody here is disputing it? There are no posters here saying that it's bad when animals feel good! They just don't think sex is a good way to do it.
If they are saying that I am wrong despite the pleasure, then they should also state why I am wrong despite the pleasure.
How many posts are there where they say that it's wrong because it's rape? They've said it like 100 times!
OddlyEnough had a moral reason for why something could be wrong despite the pleasure, and I think he had an interesting view of what is moral and not, even though I don't subscribe to his view.
If they think it's rape, then they think it's wrong for a moral reason.
Some people have said in this discussion that "sex with animals is rape", period. Regardless of if the animal feels pleasure or not, regardless of wheter the animal is willing or not.
Because rape isn't defined by unpleasurable sex. It doen't make a difference if it feels good. They're disputing that willingness, not the pleasure. Quit making points about pleasure! Every single point you've made about pleasure is retarded, because nobody's arguing with you about that! They're saying things like "animals can't communicate" and "it's disgusting" and "it's selfish". They aren't saying "animals can't feel pleasure" or "you're inflicting pain on animals". Seriously, go back and read. Nobody has ever made the point you insist on responding to.
If someone is saying that sex with animals is always bad, they are automatically implying that it is wrong to make an animal feel good. That is why I am asking the question, and I am still awaiting an answer.
Are you dumb or something? That's like saying that if someone doesn't want to eat corn that they're against vegetables. Juberu beat me to it, but seriously, they're saying it's wrong to do sex stuff with animals. They're not saying it's wrong to make animals feel good, they're saying that it's wrong to have sex with them. So unless you're implying that it's impossible for an animal to feel pleasure unless you start rubbing their twats, then the whole pleasure argument falls on it's face, again, because nobody disagrees with you about that!
And as for those studies, yeah, bestiality might be a sexual orientation, by by that token, so's necrophilia, pedophilia, and every other fetish as long as the pervert takes it seriously enough. You can take every argument you've made, and insert "corpse" or "puke" or "kid" in place of "cow". I don't care if the only thing that turns you on is cows. That doesn't have anything to do with the right and wrong of it.
Here's what I would have said instead. How about "I like having sex with cows, and it's none of your business." I can handle something like that. That just makes you a pervert, like me, and most of the people here.
|