So, to ask the really important question:

If they did this in the U.S., would it get all those hot nympho teachers out of jail and back on the market?

Sex with an animal is tantamount to kicking it in the stomach just because, or feeding it only twinkies for a year to see what happens.

I forgot to add:

Horrible straw man. Both of those things are bad for the animal. Sex is not.

MyrnaMinkoff

According to the law, "consent" applies only to humans. In those places where there is not a specific prohibition, the legal issue is if it is cruelty. Period.

...and, well, if you want to take that court case, have a good time.

jst3p: /never farked an animal
//thinks this debate is interesting anyway


Jesus galloping Christ you guys must be REALLY bored.

savonola: Jesus galloping Christ you guys must be REALLY bored.

This is Fark. What do you expect?

/But seriously, yeah. Let's have someone make an actual case that farking a horse injures it.

jst3p

A horse plugging a woman is one side of bestiality. A guy farking a cat to death is another. Generally speaking, you have NO way to tell whether the animal is okay with it, is hurt by it, is in pain, etc. Even if the animal is "participating" you have no way to tell any of these things, especially with smaller animals.

Because animals do not have the power to alert us to any of these things, and because we probably do not prefer to have counsel present at every sexual encounter to ensure that the animal is not harmed and "enjoys" the encounter, we outlaw it across the board. It may not be outright abuse (if we're defining abuse as discernable harm) across the board, but it is abuse in a good number of cases.

Every once in a while you might run across a 12-year-old who seems fully sexually aware and able to consent to sex...but generally speaking sexing a 12-year-old is abuse because 12-year-olds do not have the mental capacity to fully understand the situation and consent (not to mention the farked-up adult/child power roles that come into play in adult/child sex).

Do you consider sex with a mentally retarded girl abuse if she participates and if no harm comes to her?

Let's have someone make an actual case that farking a horse injures it.

*Unzips pants* *thump* *ground trembles*

I rest my case.

"They make out as if they want more rights for children. But their position that children should be allowed sexual contact from age 12 is of course just in their own interest," anti-pedophile campaigner Ireen van Engelen told the daily.

This is disgusting. They are trying to take after pro-gay groups who have only the public interest at heart, but the guise is transparent.

Yeah, now thats the spirit. Get involved in your political system.

Thats not really what I had in mind, but, uhm, well, at least this makes it easier for the FBI to invade their offices for kiddie porn.

I think that I will start a political party based on my cult, er, religion. It is going to have to waite until I have had my second cup of coffee, though.

equusdc

I'm talking about my personal morality, not the law. I don't think animals can legally consent. Therefore I would not sex one and do not support the legalisation of bestiality.

MyrnaMinkoff: Do you consider sex with a mentally retarded girl abuse if she participates and if no harm comes to her?

Well, to be fair - we don't eat, experiment on, or kill retarded girls for sport. Animals are a different story.

/yumm, Tard-Foie-Gras!
\\backslashy!

A guy farking a cat to death is another.

That's why one should first wrap them duct tape.

we don't eat, experiment on, or kill retarded girls for sport.

Ha! You don't know what you're missing.

A horse plugging a woman is one side of bestiality. A guy farking a cat to death is another. Generally speaking, you have NO way to tell whether the animal is okay with it, is hurt by it, is in pain, etc.

So, uhm, it would seem that your point is that women getting farked BY animals is okay, but men farking animals is not? Either way, if Spot is wildly wagging his tail and licking your face, he's probably alright with it.

Curious. Do tell us more...

jst3p
Again, why do we need consent from animals for sex, but nothing else. Seems hypocritical to me.

Again, use vs. abuse.

You know what, if you wanted to make a case for bestiality that did not involve penetration of the animal, I might accept that because I can't imagine a situation where an animal could be harmed by sex that did not involve its penetration (aside from biting it or something, and great, now I'm imagining bestial S&M, thanks).

I'd still think that anyone who used animals for sexual gratification was a sick abusive fark, though.

MyrnaMinkoff
I'm talking about my personal morality, not the law.

Clearly. Back to this "it's okay for a woman to get schtupped by a horse" bit you mentioned earlier.

wrap them [ ] duct tape.

With or in or even within. Take your pick.

Look, these guys gotta get with the program. Over the last three hundred years the west has created a special period in everyones life -- it is called CHILDHOOD. Childhood only exists in the human condition, and it is not simply about growing up and learing your ABCs; it is about having a period in your life where you are cared for and need not worry about returning anything but love back to your parents. You do not need to work the factories for farm for a wage. You exists strictly for the reason of love and caring of your parents.

The parents will therefore view their children a lot different than parents in a culture where children are still considered workable assets, which is why you hear stories of children being sold into sex slavery in the third world and gasp. Well, guess what, read Dickens, that happened here as well.

This new parental philosophy has lead to two major changes in the western (and now the eastern) world. First, because you are having kids for love you have fewer kids, and some people are choosing to have none.

Next, touch a kid and you are directly farking with the heart of the parent. Don't be surprised if you end up dead, don't be shocked when you hear parents say things like "I want all child pervs dead." They are telling you the truth, they do want them dead because that is what you get when you fark around badly with a core emotion like love.

The days of being able to screw someones 10 year old daughter and get away with it are gone. And even if you don't love your kid there are enough parents who love theirs that they can have empathy for your child and will want your child to have the same love and caring that their kids have.

r

Theobold Holsopple

hebephilia

Does that mean somebody who wants to fark Sarah Silverman?

Cuz if that's wrong, I don't wanna be right.

Pxtl
Well, to be fair - we don't eat, experiment on, or kill retarded girls for sport. Animals are a different story.

Use, use, and "killing for sport" is bullshiat. Killing for a purpose is, again, use.

Since humans are subject to a lot of the same behavioral laws as animals, one might question how much more worth human consent has over that of an animal. Any salesman can tell you there are a 1001 ways to "convince" someone.

/doubts people are even capable of "rational decisions"

A horse plugging a woman is one side of bestiality. A guy farking a cat to death is another.

Which is animal cruelty. Which we already have laws in place to punish. I am talking about when no harm comes to the animal.

Generally speaking, you have NO way to tell whether the animal is okay with it, is hurt by it, is in pain, etc. Even if the animal is "participating" you have no way to tell any of these things, especially with smaller animals.

OK, I am talking about larger animals. Are you saying you think your boyfriend could harm a sheep? With smaller animals it is actually pretty easy to establish if they have been "harmed" as well. Ask a vet.


Because animals do not have the power to alert us to any of these things, and because we probably do not prefer to have counsel present at every sexual encounter to ensure that the animal is not harmed and "enjoys" the encounter, we outlaw it across the board. It may not be outright abuse (if we're defining abuse as discernable harm) across the board, but it is abuse in a good number of cases.

Prove it. I have heard stories from people who have grown up on farms. I doubt there was much "abuse" going on. And even where abuse does exist abuse is already illegal. Sex does not equal abuse. Go after the abusers.



Every once in a while you might run across a 12-year-old who seems fully sexually aware and able to consent to sex...but generally speaking sexing a 12-year-old is abuse because 12-year-olds do not have the mental capacity to fully understand the situation and consent (not to mention the farked-up adult/child power roles that come into play in adult/child sex).

People are different than farm animals.

Do you consider sex with a mentally retarded girl abuse if she participates and if no harm comes to her?


Yes, because she is a person. If it year old retarded cow we could kill it and eat it. But we cant do that to the girl, now can we?

Catherine the Great: unavailable for comment but available for bachelor parties.

You guys want to meet up at a Furry Con?

MyrnaMinkoff: Killing for a purpose is, again, use.

Never said it wasn't. Although I'm betting a sheepfarker considers his hobby "use" as well.

If I am ever reincarnated as an animal I would much rather have some chick let me hump her or let her lick my ding-dong instead of letting her kill me, cook me and eat me for dinner.

That being said, I wouldn't want to come back as a female animal.

Here's how I see it:

1) it's not paedophilia if they're sexually mature. I believe that's termed "paraphilia". That's an important distinction that most uninformed idiots spouting off on this subject refuse to make, as they stand to gain quite a bit by not making that distinction (it weakens the position for age of consent laws over, say, 13 or 14).

2) there is nothing wrong with starting a political party and advocating changing the law, no matter how repulsive the thing is that you want the law changed to. That's how the democratic process works. If the majority disagrees that the law should be changed, then you have nothing to worry about. I'd rather they go about it this way than openly flout the law.

3. Even with all that said, I'd never support this particular group. Lowering the age of consent to sexual maturity, around 13/14, I'm all for. Abandoning it altogether is just a transparent ploy to legalize predatory behavior towards those too young to consent. These guys are just jerks who have chosen a much more sensible way of trying to get their jerkiness legitimized than most. They'll fail and I'll not shed a tear.

/not a paedophile, just common farking sense.
//I follow the law, even when I don't agree with it, especially in this case.

equusdc

No, I'm saying that harm is much more likely to come to the animal in the case that it is penetrated. And large animals are much less likely to be hurt by bestiality than smaller animals.

However, there are plenty of animals who can be and are hurt by bestiality. Which is why I am against it.

Insertion in a cavity not meant to be invaded is quite another thing. There are internal organs that can be crushed.

As I made pointedly clear to this last person possessing something exceeding 12 inches wanting to go someplace God did not ostensibly design for that purpose (though, I'm beginning to highly suspect he did).

Is it more common for people involved in bestiality to love and have a relationship with the animal (like they have feelings for it and love it, etc, etc) or to rape and kill the animals at random and find another one for the next time?

Again, use vs. abuse.

Abuse is a loaded word. You have still not demonstrated how it is "abuse" if no harm comes to it. I can say I am a coffee cup over and over again, but that does not make it true.



I'd still think that anyone who used animals for sexual gratification was a sick abusive fark, though.


You are entitled to your opinion. I think anyone who gets satisfaction giving dollar bills to a woman who will get naked but not touch him is pretty farked in the head to. My opinion should not be law. Why should yours?

No, I'm saying that harm is much more likely to come to the animal in the case that it is penetrated. And large animals are much less likely to be hurt by bestiality than smaller animals.

However, there are plenty of animals who can be and are hurt by bestiality. Which is why I am against it.

Animals are hurt by automobiles every day, are you against them too?

However, there are plenty of animals who can be and are hurt by bestiality. Which is why I am against it.

There are plenty of humans who can be and are hurt in the act with other humans as there are animals who can be and are hurt in the act with members of their own species. Hell, in many cases, sex is necessarily lethal. So, since a midget can be severely damaged or killed having sex with a football linebacker, should we outlaw intraspecies sex with humans?

Strange arguments you make.

jst3p
I am talking about when no harm comes to the animal.

And I am saying that there is no way for the animal to say "hey, I was harmed." I'm pretty sure that Farmer Johnson or Lonely Basement Dweller with Large Himalayan Cat Jones isn't going to take his best girl into the vet for a once over after lovin'.

Strange arguments you make.

I have had this discussion here before. There are always one or two that "get it" but cant bring themselves to admit it.

Bottom line is this: It is illegal because it grosses people out and is prohibited by religion. And if that is the basis of the law, I say it is a bad law.

if the kids are doing it with each other at 12 and 13, why is it illegal for them to consent to having sex with a MILF or a DILF? (i hate the term DILF, btw)

God I would have loved to lose my virginity to my 6th grade social studies teacher... extra credit opportunity?!

/I'd still love to lose my virginity to her (loser 23 year-old)

pierce county, wa. had a sheriff, mark french---since retired---got caught with like 70,000 pics of 10 yo and younger boys on his computer. got 30 day home detention and is probably in holland as this is posted. or perhaps thailand.
ahhh washington state, where the high and mighty are above the law.

jst3p
My opinion should not be law. Why should yours?

Read carefully. In fact, I structured that post to mirror your "gays are gross but I don't think it should be illegal" post.

I think the best argument against bestiality is that it's impossible for an animal to consent.

And I am saying that there is no way for the animal to say "hey, I was harmed." I'm pretty sure that Farmer Johnson or Lonely Basement Dweller with Large Himalayan Cat Jones isn't going to take his best girl into the vet for a once over after lovin'.


It is pretty obvious when an animal is injured. You are being willfully ignorant.

But an animal can be injured plowing a field, providing milk or performing pony rides at the fair. Should these activities be illegal because the potential for harm exists?

MyrnaMinkoff

...what if said person IS a vet? Hmm?

I think the best argument against bestiality is that it's impossible for an animal to consent.


Since when do we need an animals consent for anything? You should read up some.

equusdc
There are plenty of humans who can be and are hurt in the act with other humans as there are animals who can be and are hurt in the act with members of their own species. Hell, in many cases, sex is necessarily lethal. So, since a midget can be severely damaged or killed having sex with a football linebacker, should we outlaw intraspecies sex with humans?

Strange arguments you make.

Humans know and understand what they're getting into when they start having sex. Animals who are approached by a human for sex do not. Because a large number of animals can be hurt by bestiality, I think that it should be illegal. If you want to break it down by species and decide which can handle insertion of the average length human penis, be my guest.