72
73

SANITY SUNDAY[Sanity/Analysis] Vice Publishes Pro-Bestiality Article On Their New Feminist Blog Broadly (blazingcatfur.ca)

metacanadian_420 が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 213
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]flerpssuey park raped me, sulkowicz posted the tape online 48ポイント49ポイント  (3子コメント)

People can reject you, tell you to fuck off; an animal can’t disappoint you the way a human being can. Your relationship to a dog can’t deteriorate over money problems or jealousy or sexual disinterest.

Did... did they just argue that a dog is a better partner than a man because it can't ever say no?

[–]Talisign 26ポイント27ポイント  (1子コメント)

It can’t fall “out of love” because it never was in what we define as love in the first place.

Seems like it. This is hardcore rape logic.

[–]flerpssuey park raped me, sulkowicz posted the tape online 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

That whole passage rang alarm bells in my head. Thank fuck they seem to only apply this logic to dogs, I guess they deemed humans a bit too difficult to coerce into sex and emotional attachment.

[–]I_Am_Really_TerribleAlcoholikin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

They clearly have never met an angry pit bull.

[–]BigBrownDownTown 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's a line here that both sides are jumping: we should be trying to understand zoophiles and pedophiles, not to normalize their behavior, but to stop it. His argument at the bottom that just because people are writing about pedophiles means the behavior is being destigmatized is completely wrong, just like Vice's article crossed the line when it jumped from journalism into advocacy.

[–]Diesel-66 16ポイント17ポイント  (2子コメント)

Til pig seman is a great facial cream

[–]SleepyCowieI thought "TumblrInAction" originally read "TumblrInaction" 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's weird to see some "News" (I use it extremely loosely) site encouraging beastiality. Just makes me think of the dog sex subreddit now... @_@

[–]SPARTAN_TOASTERTHE OPPRESSION LORD 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

I visit /d/ on 4chan and even I would call these people degenerate scum

[–]cakesphere[This comment requires a Patriarchy Gold account] 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

What blew my mind was the fact that they are able to justify fucking animals with no consent from the animal while shrieking "NO MEANS NOOOOOO DON'T RAPE WOMEN".

Saying "the animal enjoys it because they orgasm" is one word substitution away from saying "well he/she was aroused/came therefore they wanted it and it wasn't rape"

I can't even. Fuck humanity. Can we drop a nuke on Vice?

[–]RauvagolHadoukin: Down+Right+Triggering | Has a toucan named Teven 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yo what the fuck.

[–]Cleverly_ClearlyBugged Kintype Mechanics 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

Which anti-GG person had sex with dogs again? Wasn't it srhbutts? I thought of her when I read this.

[–]plaidjester 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nicholas "Sarah, SRHbutts" Nyberg.

[–]water_warriorTrigger-happy 14ポイント15ポイント  (8子コメント)

Started out fine, then it went full "PORN ACTRESSES ARE TERRIBLE PEOPLE."

[–]Nev2k 11ポイント12ポイント  (6子コメント)

More like "are not a moral guideline" which they definetely aren't.

[–]JhJTheFox 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

You mean, porn actresses tend to be mentally damaged individuals? Shock and awe!

Yeah.. that some stupid shit to say. Also he goes on bashes the idea that pedofilia might be a mental disorder.

[–]zgrove 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Why exactly?

[–]Nev2k 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

That is a good question, "muuh feelz" would be the simplest and propably most common answer.

But i'll try: The porn industry and involved in this porn actors present sex as something that is just a quick pleasure fix in often hilariously bad plots, often showing questionable practices that are evolved around straight up violence or at least "liking it rough".

My personal idea and likely quite acceptable as a moral guideline is that sex should primarily be an expression of love for each other and obviously for its biological purpose. "Normal sex" usually deviates from "porn sex" quite heavily in many aspects and assuming that normal sex is healthy for the individual and for society as a whole the substitution of normal sex with porn sex, due to influence porn sex has on teenagers and young adults, who likely have had no experience with sexuality prior and assume porn sex to be the supposed way, is overall unhealthy for society and thus it should be made clear that porn and including this porn actors are not to be seen as guidelines.

[–]zgrove 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I get that it's against societal norms, but if two people want to have casual sex, why is that bad though? As long as people are properly taught about safe sex practices, I don't see a downside.

It's not for everyone, but if you're okay with it, and you can make money from it through porn, then that's a good thing. People clearly commonly enjoy porn (even with the terrible writing). I don't see why the people providing that are demonized.

I think it's because we kind of demonize ourselves when we're enjoying porn, so we demonize everything associated with it.

[–]Nev2k 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Not considering something a moral guideline differs strongly from demonizing it.

Like i am okay with people deciding thats the way they want to go and everything, yet i wouldn't advise a child to become a pornstar.

[–]zgrove 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wouldn't advise a kid to aim to be a janitor either, but that doesn't make janitors bad people, or bad moral guidelines.

I understand why it's looked at negatively, I just think it's kind of arbitrary and illogical when you think about it

[–]Cybugger 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I didn't get that vibe (though I skimmed through rather quickly). I got the vibe of: Yeah, porn actresses do some fucked up things, and shouldn't be using them as a rolemodel.

Which I agree with. A huge amount of people in the porno industry have a hard past. Drug usage and abuse are common. Doesn't make them bad people, just not people to be looked up to.

[–]TheMightyBarbarianDun-kin Do/Nuts 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

Not a lawyer here, but since this is an American Company and therefore under American laws, which many states have e outlawed Bestiality or Zoophilia, in some manner. Would not this article, essentially stating that women should commit this crime be punishable, the same as if it was urging consumers to have sex with children?

[–]computeraddictPerson of alabaster 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Promoting the violation of a law is punishable, if the jurisdiction gives a damn. Debating the morality of a law is not.

I'm betting that most jurisdictions don't give enough of a damn, and beastiality charges are usually just brought when it's upsetting the neighbors or in the process of throwing a larger book at someone. Especially considering it's usually either with dogs, and hard to find out about, or with some type of farm animal, in which case it's usually out in an unincorporated part of a county and the Sheriff's Department really can't be assed when they have their hands full with crimes that involve human victims.

[–]Necrofamicom 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm surprised this article didn't get spread around more, it was pushed out by the dog fucking.

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/i-feel-bad-about-my-nose

Not the article itself, but how it opens up with "For colored girls".

"Colored people" is politically correct now, I guess.

[–]computeraddictPerson of alabaster 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I mean, those of us over here in rational land have been wondering how "person of color" is substantively different from "colored person" for a while now.

[–]shitlord_mustelidDisabled Ableist 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

The hug box rationale is that if you put the word "person" first, you are recognizing the individual as an individual rather than a trait. Which doesn't jive with the rest of the identity politics hivemind, but that should be recognized as par for the course. (Worth noting: both blind and deaf activist groups have roundly rejected "people-first terminology" pretty soundly.)

[–]ThunderLizardX 6ポイント7ポイント  (9子コメント)

I can't say whether attraction to animals is a choice or not, but acting on it is. It's bad enough trying to justify beastiality, but trying to make it some feminist issue? Come on.

[–]HeroicPopsicleTriggers: Trigger discussions and talking about triggers 13ポイント14ポイント  (7子コメント)

Quite offtopic, and a touchy subject, but awhile ago, there a post on i think it was askreddit asking "what did you wish people understood better", or something along those lines. One of the topics was about sexuality and it was quite a deep topic, how he/she didn't want to be seen as strange for having a fetish and the likes, because he/she couldn't choose what she was attracted to (which i think beasilaty is, they're not choosing to be attracted to it, they just, find it attractive)

Anyways, the thread went on for a bit and this throwaway account typed out the most heartbreaking thing ive ever read about the subject, He was an older guy, no family or thoughts about having one, he admitted at being attracted to.. em.. really young people, he was so extremely scared of acting out on these things, that people only saw him as a monster for his 'faults'. He had never done anything to harm a child but his mind couldn't find older women attractive. He was getting help from multiple therapists and psychologist, but at the end of it all, he still felt like a monster. Cause even though -we- as a collective (him too) knew it is wrong to see children like that, no one saw him as having an illness. They just saw him as a predator. some lowlife creep who stalked kids and filmed them ect. This guy was/is so scared that he didn't even phantom starting up a family and trying to "move on" from his illness cause he was so brainfolded and certain that "im just a monster, nothing else, im taught that i will one day do the unthinkable. And i could never live with myself if i did that"

As i said, really offtopic. But i feel that sexuality, in its wrongs, isn't really a choice. Something has short circuited in their minds. Yes, they are sick, yes they need help. No they shouldn't be automatically stoned to death (talking about none-act-upon their attraction people here, not the other -type-)

[–]flerpssuey park raped me, sulkowicz posted the tape online 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

I agree that it's a similar thing in that a paedophile nor a zoophile can help or choose their sexual attraction. It's something that must be incredibly hard to deal with when you recognise that it's wrong and acting on it would harm people/animals. Though personally I feel like acting on paedophilia is probably a lot worse morally than taking part in bestiality.

Romanticising and enabling it like this is fucked up obviously, but like you said it's no reason to hate people when they haven't even done anything yet.

[–]HeroicPopsicleTriggers: Trigger discussions and talking about triggers 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Though personally I feel like acting on paedophilia is probably a lot worse morally than taking part in bestiality.

Oh absolutely, and im in no way romanticising it. But it really gave me another look on it as an illness, they need help as much as someone else, people shouldn't be round up and shot at the spot for being ill. Hell there are some people with schizophrenia (fiance worked with one of them) that will lash out violently and hurt people badly and think they're in the right to do so, we dont castise these people cause we know they're sick, though one day they might push to far and end up killing someone. we try and help them, same goes for those with pedophilic instincts, they need treatment before they lash out, before its too late.

Anyways, as you said, we should never romanticise it. but treatment should be done where treatment is needed.

[–]flerpssuey park raped me, sulkowicz posted the tape online 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Absolutely! I think we're getting there with paedophilia, slowly. More awareness is being spread about it being an orientation and something people should receive help for, lest they do what people fear.

I feel like zoophilia is much more tied up with 'alternative sexualities'. Animals aren't humans, so I guess we find all that slightly less abhorrent and are more willing to pin it on people generally being complete perverts!

[–]HeroicPopsicleTriggers: Trigger discussions and talking about triggers 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I feel like zoophilia is much more tied up with 'alternative sexualities'. Animals aren't humans, so I guess we find all that slightly less abhorrent and are more willing to pin it on people generally being complete perverts!

Ha! this is kinda why i want aliens to invade, i want to see the first "jerry springer"-esque show about how an alien impregnated someone.. Oh god id never stop laughing... :P

[–]flerpssuey park raped me, sulkowicz posted the tape online 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Tagline: "MY BABY'S FATHER IS FROM MARS!"

and the whole episode goes unconcluded because they discover they can't DNA test aliens for paternity.

[–]HeroicPopsicleTriggers: Trigger discussions and talking about triggers 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Please tell me he has the worst scottish accent "IT AINT ME CHILD! NAH! CANT PROVE IT NOW CAN YA? YA FOOKIN WANKER!!"

oh lord in heaven... What would childsupport do? Cant really fly halfway across the galaxy when he runs x3

[–]ghostfox1_gfaqsexpert authority on what to put in someone's masturbation sock 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, the way I see it, the attraction might not be a choice. See, pedophiles. However, much like pedophiles, they can act on it or not.

[–]FortunatoFTW2demipanromantic greyasexual glitchboi 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

We are doomed as a species.

[–]PUBLIQclopAccountantcis-Schrodinger's Cat [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

True, but how is that relevant to the article at hand?

[–]10art1TiA's Official Russian Dictator 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

Just remember the harking test

[–]SleepyCowieI thought "TumblrInAction" originally read "TumblrInaction" 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

Whats the Harking test?

[–]10art1TiA's Official Russian Dictator 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

  1. Is the creature of comparable or greater intelligence to a human?
  2. Is the creature able to clearly communicate consent to a human?
  3. Is the creature of mature age to willingly consent to sex?

Once all 3 are met, you can fuck. That's why fucking dogs is not ok, but fucking colorful ponies is. I am totally not biased in any way in favor of fucking ponies.

[–]SleepyCowieI thought "TumblrInAction" originally read "TumblrInaction" 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

What if I pick like, the lowest possible intelligence for a human as my comparison?

[–]10art1TiA's Official Russian Dictator 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm talking about base cognitive ability, not "theists r dumb sheeple"

[–]I_Am_Really_TerribleAlcoholikin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I read that as peonies and was very confused.

[–]RJPennyweatherBatmankin 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

You were supposed to remember. One job! YOU HAD ONE JOB!!

[–]SleepyCowieI thought "TumblrInAction" originally read "TumblrInaction" -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I can't remember what I never knew! ;w; No one told me I'd be quizzed! Please dont hurt me!

[–]EjaculationStormTumblr can't oppress my Blue Eyes White Privilege -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah but it's your job to educate me, shitlord.

[–]AbbyTheWondercuntNatural Transblack Negrokin of Color 5ポイント6ポイント  (160子コメント)

I'll play devil's advocate. Why is it "wrong" if someone blows a dog twice a week? The dog would seem to be enjoying it. It's not hurting anyone.

[–]chaosattractortransoppressionkin of colour 8ポイント9ポイント  (9子コメント)

For the same reason it's wrong to blow a child, or a mentally handicapped person, or an unconscious person, or a patient in a hospital. It's unethical, because as their caretaker you've conditioned them to rely on you for everything and (in this particular case) take your word as law. You've trained it to be obedient. You've trained it to sit at a word and go at a gesture. Even if you don't intend it that way, you're using the same training methodology to get the dog to do what you want, and it likely doesn't occur to it to "say" no.

So it's an abuse of power, and conditioning the victim. In that situation, "consent" doesn't matter; neither does the fact that you brought the dog to orgasm.

[–]AbbyTheWondercuntNatural Transblack Negrokin of Color -4ポイント-3ポイント  (8子コメント)

it's wrong to blow a child, or a mentally handicapped person, or an unconscious person, or a patient in a hospital.

Bullshit, those are all human beings. We don't eat humans, have them as pets, use them for leather, or do fucking anything else we do with animals. This is a stupid argument that doesn't hold up.

you trained it

SO?

and it likely doesn't occur to it to "say" no

Yeah, because it's having just as much fun licking your butthole as fetching you a filthy tenisball.

It's a fucking DOG it has no concept of consent, it doesn't have rights, the hell are you smoking?

[–]chaosattractortransoppressionkin of colour 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

Ah, so basically in this hypothetical situation you're having sex with a dog because you want a fucktoy with no concept of consent and you don't mind having to train it to do your bidding.

And you wonder why people think bestiality is unethical...

[–]AbbyTheWondercuntNatural Transblack Negrokin of Color -4ポイント-3ポイント  (6子コメント)

I'm saying you've yet to come up with a single reason for it to be illegal for those who wish to try it. Other than you have girly stomach and can't handle the concept. In every other situation, a human's slightest pleasure comes before an animal's discomfort. Always. In every other situation but this one. You're not being intelligent or consistent about this. Just bigoted against people different from you.

[–]chaosattractortransoppressionkin of colour 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

I'd be pretty disturbed if I didn't have a "girly" stomach to be frank. :) But congratulations on your elaborate strawman building and projections though. :) Keep dog-fucking then :)

[–]tumblrina383#383 of ∞ 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

thank you for being the one flicker of light in this thread, holy shit

[–]chaosattractortransoppressionkin of colour 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well apparently I'm a bigoted virgin for thinking pet owners should not be having sex with their charges, so your thanks are all I have to keep me warm at night :'(

[–]AbbyTheWondercuntNatural Transblack Negrokin of Color -4ポイント-3ポイント  (2子コメント)

:) Hey, :) it's not my fault :) you can't debate :) a position you fully believe in :) better than I can debate :) one I've thought about for all of... :) ninety minutes, now :). Guess you're just a moron :) if even something this easy :) is too much for you to handle. :)

:) Sorry you're an angry little virgin. :)

[–]chaosattractortransoppressionkin of colour 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ah, the old downvotes as "debate" trick

Lol k.

[–]AbbyTheWondercuntNatural Transblack Negrokin of Color -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I give back the effort you put in. I'm not saying you're wrong on this debate, but you couldn't prove it to save your life.

[–]theJalden 11ポイント12ポイント  (126子コメント)

The same reason diddling children is wrong. The animals can't decide to have sex with you. There is no consent, so you are effectively raping the animal.

[–]dimnakorr 3ポイント4ポイント  (13子コメント)

Not arguing in favour of bestiality, but that argument doesn't hold water. We don't care about the consent of animals in any other situation, so his is just special pleading.

[–]MajinAsh 3ポイント4ポイント  (12子コメント)

Well children don't have a lot of rights either. Parents get to decide most aspects of their life and the law will enforce their will upon the child. That parent still doesn't have the right to do anything sexual with the child because of consent laws.

[–]AnvilofSpinning 3ポイント4ポイント  (11子コメント)

Because that child will grow up and integrate into society.

Parents are held responsible for their kids action because their minds are constantly changing. Kids are benign as fuck.

The majority of domesticated animals have no clue wtf is going on anyways. A child on the other hand will probably grow up messed up and is more likely to do the same to other minors.

Im not condoning beastiality. I just don't think your argument holds up

[–]chaosattractortransoppressionkin of colour 7ポイント8ポイント  (10子コメント)

You think pets are too stupid to feel the effects of abuse/unwanted contact? Dude wtf.

[–]zoozooz -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

You talk a lot about unwanted contact and abuse. What if it's not?

[–]chaosattractortransoppressionkin of colour 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

And how do you know it is?

It's the same principle behind why sexual contact with a mentally handicapped person is unethical at best and punishable by law in many places. You don't know, and arousal/orgasm are not signs of wanting [sexual] contact. You don't assume a positive in the absence of evidence, just like you don't assume for instance that you're allowed to raid my fridge even if I haven't explicitly told you that I don't want you to.

And that's besides the fact that human sexual activity with a pet in particular (and also with minors and others incapable of giving consent) is nothing short of coercion at best. You might not mean it that way but the fact is that you've trained it to obey you and depend on you for everything, sometimes literally from the day it was born. You're essentially grooming it to have sex with you. (This point also applies to parent-child incest).

On the other hand, animals are known to suffer stress/depression due to sexual coercion/harassment, even from members of their own species.

[–]zoozooz 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's the same principle behind why sexual contact with a mentally handicapped person is unethical at best

Have you ever googled stuff like "intellectual disability sexual autonomy" and read a few of the articles? There are some interesting points regarding this.

You don't know, and arousal/orgasm are not signs of wanting [sexual] contact. You don't assume a positive in the absence of evidence

But we know (at least to some degree) how adult animals communicate their desire to have sex to each other.

And that's besides the fact that human sexual activity with a pet in particular (and also with minors and others incapable of giving consent) is nothing short of coercion at best. You might not mean it that way but the fact is that you've trained it to obey you and depend on you for everything, sometimes literally from the day it was born. You're essentially grooming it to have sex with you.

And while that is a reasonable concern, I don't see how it follows necessarily. This is a quote from an interview:

So how exactly do you go about having intercourse with your dog? He's male, right?

He started it himself when he was younger. I was getting a DVD from the machine, and that was all he needed. That's when he took me the first time. He's since learned when it's OK and when it's not, judging by mine and my wife's body language. The sex is like this: I'm naked and on all fours. If he wants to go, he'll jump up and take me. If not, he'll go get a toy, I'll put my clothes back on and we'll go into the garden and play normally with each other.

I know, why do I even start with when the reply will only be "But child molesters claim that the children initiated it too"? The point is: An adult animal is not a child but an adult of its species. Adults that naturally decide for or against having sex with each other.

If the dog's sexuality is really your concern, how much activism do you participate in when it comes to breeding? When does it start to be unethical? When you simply arrange for two dogs to meet and breed on their own? When pheromones are used to get the animals more aroused? When there are people holding the dogs in place? When mares are tightly tied to a fence/post and have their hind legs tied to prevent them from saying "no" to a stallion? When dogs are strapped to breeding stands (or "rape racks")?

Do people care about that as much as they care about the next zoophile who makes an effort not to pressure any animal into sex? Is there any significant effort to make at least some of this stuff illegal?

On the other hand, animals are known to suffer stress/depression due to sexual coercion/harassment, even from members of their own species.

By whom exactly is this known and who exactly did they look at to come to this conclusion?

[–]AbbyTheWondercuntNatural Transblack Negrokin of Color 4ポイント5ポイント  (111子コメント)

Consent? We eat animals. We "kidnap" them. Use them for labor or raw materials or entertainment or whatever else we want. It's kinda silly to pretend they suddenly have human rights. Or that it's rape. I mean, if the dog mounts and starts humping, it's not being threatened into that, it's choosing an orgasm. If a horse didn't want you diddling it, you'd get no diddling done.

[–]multiplesarcasms31 2ポイント3ポイント  (109子コメント)

Well, it's like the author was stating, at least killing an animal for food serves a purpose, as does using them for labor, etc. Having sex with an animal does not, and is potential dangerous and even fatal to the animal or human.

It's the same principal behind necrophilia. Sure, that person's dead, they're going to give a fuck (no pun intended) and are just going to rot in the ground anyway so who cares if someone wants to diddle them? I think that one though has more to do about the dead person's family (as well as society's view of it just being plain fucking disgusting, which it is) and desecration laws.

All in all, it's more or less a societal thing. The overwhelming vast majority of us only want to have sex with living, consenting, adult humans who aren't related to us. Wanting to have sex with anything outside of that is an oddity, and thus, frowned upon for ethical reasons.

[–]Lowbacca1977 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

I don't see how riding a horse is a-okay but letting a horse ride you is somehow some grave abuse.

[–]computeraddictPerson of alabaster 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

Grave abuse is surprisingly an accurate descriptor for a horse riding a human. As in, grave abuse of the human. Because the human ends up in a grave. By way of severe internal hemorrhaging.

[–]flerpssuey park raped me, sulkowicz posted the tape online 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

RIP Mr. Hands

[–]computeraddictPerson of alabaster -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It had to fucking be Gig Harbor. It couldn't have been some place East of the water, noooo. Had to be a town I have to drive through all the bloody time...

[–]Lowbacca1977 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ok, well, grave abuse of the horse.

[–]AbbyTheWondercuntNatural Transblack Negrokin of Color 3ポイント4ポイント  (103子コメント)

It's annoying how easy it is to defend this topic.

It could be argued that using an animal for sexual pleasure serves just as much purpose as using an animal for food or labor. Because we humans can do the shit in other ways, we don't need to eat steak, we don't need to have leather, we don't need honey on our toast, but we want it that way, they're animals, so fuck em'. Well... yeah, fuck em! Or at least, there's no logic justifying forcing everyone not to fuck em'.

If we outlawed things because of danger to humans and animals, everything would be illegal. Because anything can be dangerous when done incorrectly or unsafely.

I don't see any logic behind banning necrophilia, either. Sure, it's gross and I don't want to do it, but it's not hurting anyone and it's none of my business. Why should I or you or anyone else have the authority to ban things we have no part in and isn't doing any damage?

It all comes down to the only argument being, "Eeeew! I don't like that, therefore no one else can enjoy it!"

[–]Nev2k 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Because all the uses of animal products have culturally grown out of a nessescity for humans to use these and enabled the progress of the human species to this point were we currently do not nessescarily rely on animal products, bit once fossil ressources especially oil are seriously depleted we will rely on these animal products again and hence it would be bad to loose touch with the experience we have on using these animals for ressources or labor. Also the not relying only happens in the 1. world while the majority of humans in the world still fully rely on animal labor and animal products.

Humanity as a whole needed, needs and will always need animals for work and ressources while it never needed or will need animals for sexual pleasure.

Also the arguement that the dogs choose to hump only works for females having sex with animals and not for males as those would be the one penetrating, thus it would likely be considered rape. That point is completely sexist and thus any law that would regulate what is animal rape and what isnt would fail or be sexist.

Both things a law is not supposed to be.

[–]AbbyTheWondercuntNatural Transblack Negrokin of Color -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Because all the uses of animal products have culturally grown out of a nessescity for humans to use these

Nope. It's not necessary, it's a luxury thing we do because we like it.

enabled the progress of the human species to this point were we

Blah blah blah

We have no problem with countless chickens being slaughtered every passing minute, but you're gonna seriously cry abuse over someone giving one a sore egghole?

If no animals are being hurt, and no humans are being hurt unwillingly, what's the problem? Why does it even matter if an animal is hurt? They don't have any rights, really, if you pick the right kind. Obviously don't go choke-fucking pandas.

And your last thing is just as stupid- it's illegal because of sexism? WHAT?!

[–]Nev2k 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

No the last part was that there is no possibillity to define a law around it that is not sexist.

If you wanna be a devils advocate you have to be more clever.

And the right to not be hurt is in regards to animals higher to not veing killed as you can kill them painlessly but not rape them painlessly.

[–]AbbyTheWondercuntNatural Transblack Negrokin of Color -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you wanna be a devils advocate you have to be more clever.

I'm not the one failing to argue their position without tripping over themself. Really, if this is your best, you lose.

If an animal's being hurt, that's animal abuse, so it's another subject of debate entirely. This isn't about pain, it's about sexual pleasure. And animal abuse is already illegal, that doesn't explain why beastiality should be.

You keep saying "rape" like it applies to animals. A farmer can stuff his entire arm into a cow's ass and that's not rape? Oh, yeah, he's only doing that because he had that cow forcibly fucked by a bull she's never met. If rubbing a horse cock is raping it, then we must stand in outrage over this arranged-marriage among bovines! And what about dogs and cats? We breed them for our pleasure, making new pets that might even have severe genetic defects because of our tampering, like pugs not being able to breathe well, or wiener dogs and their spine problems. Is that not some kind of rape?

You can't apply human social words and structures to animals like that. They don't exist within them because they are not human.

[–]zoozooz 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

and not for males as those would be the one penetrating

Not always...

[–]multiplesarcasms31 0ポイント1ポイント  (97子コメント)

Well, like I said about necrophilia, it's more about the person's family. Obviously when you're dead, you're not really going to care that the mortician had their way with you while you were lying on the slab, but finding out that some creep had sex with your dead grandmother's body is pretty fucking heart-wrenching. The only solid defense I can come up with is that it can fuck up an autopsy and damage evidence and what not.

It is kind of unnerving how easy it is to defend things like this, like you said. It's like when you see those gross ass NAMBLA people say "Interracial marriage used to be illegal! Homosexuality used to be considered a perversion!" However, child molestation is very easy to demonize because it lacks consent and has been shown to have life long psychologically traumatic effects on the victims.

This would be interesting to see explained more thoroughly, unfortunately, bestiality and necrophilia aren't subjects I exactly have expertise on, lol.

[–]theostrichsays 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

After reading about the Ned Flanders band a few days ago... That last line about diddling and no diddling a horse, should get its own song by those guys.

[–]Flyinjoe 2ポイント3ポイント  (22子コメント)

Its wrong because you just dont do it. There is no reason to suck a dogs dick. The only reason you would do it is to live out some fetish of yours.

[–]Lowbacca1977 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

The same thing could be argued of sodomy

[–]Flyinjoe 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

but sodomy isnt a taboo

[–]Lowbacca1977 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Tell that to Texas up to 2003

[–]Flyinjoe 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

In 2015 you have gays happily admit they are 'sodomising' each other now

[–]AbbyTheWondercuntNatural Transblack Negrokin of Color -2ポイント-1ポイント  (14子コメント)

So? There's no reason for any self-pleasure or indulgence, then. No more porn, no more masturbation, no more sexy commercial ladies, no more sex toys, no more gaming, no more movies, no more anything fun.

It's not hurting anyone. The only reason to force others not to do it is because it makes YOU feel icky. That isn't a good reason, THEY want to do it, YOU don't. So how about you let them do it and just don't watch? Everyone wins.

[–]Flyinjoe 0ポイント1ポイント  (13子コメント)

Porn is fine because its two consenting humans but with a animal it is completely different. Just because it wags it tail when you suck its dick doesnt mean its fine

[–]AbbyTheWondercuntNatural Transblack Negrokin of Color -1ポイント0ポイント  (12子コメント)

It might not make it okay with you, but it certainly isn't enough to make it illegal either.

[–]Flyinjoe 0ポイント1ポイント  (11子コメント)

I didnt say it should be illegal. I said you shouldn't do it. You can make your dog happy in so many more ways than red rocketing it.

[–]AbbyTheWondercuntNatural Transblack Negrokin of Color -1ポイント0ポイント  (10子コメント)

I think that's purposely missing the point. It's not about should or shouldn't, these people want to. You can firmly believe that skydiving is stupid and dangerous and you shouldn't do it because man wasn't meant to fly, that still wouldn't be justification to stop others from doing it.

[–]Flyinjoe 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

Guess your right nothing ill say will stop by them still tho I think its absolutely wrong and this piece doesnt justify it

[–]AbbyTheWondercuntNatural Transblack Negrokin of Color 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

nothing ill say will stop by them

Why do you even want to, though?

I think its absolutely wrong

Why??

doesnt justify it

Why does it need to be justified? In what way? To whom? Using what standard?

[–]Flyinjoe -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

Human society it isnt considered taboo for no reason your pretty much using a animal to play out your fantasy. Its common sense

[–]tumblrina383#383 of ∞ -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

you consent to skydiving. your dog cannot legally consent to sexual activity with you. because it is a dog.

[–]AbbyTheWondercuntNatural Transblack Negrokin of Color 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

People take their pets skydiving. They can't consent to that.

[–]fbt2lurkershell script (shell/shells/shellself) -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

That is a completely empty argument. There is a lot of things we do just because we want to. Should we outlaw doing anything that has no purpose, or at least shame people for doing those things as a society?

[–]Flyinjoe 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

There is a reason bestiality is seen as a taboo. Its not the same as playing video games. We play them for our own enjoyment and thats all good. But fucking a dog? The dog doesnt even see you like that til you suck their dick

[–]fbt2lurkershell script (shell/shells/shellself) 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is that supposed to be an argument against it?

[–]solbadguy0308 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ok, enough Internet for today.

[–]AKCheeseheadGender: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)queer 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What the fuck. Seriously.

[–]6Plus6Equals1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What the fuck?

Both the link and the thread are pissing me off.

[–]ttumblrbotsCheck your organic privilege. -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

SnapShots: 1, 2 [huh?]

doooooogs: 1, 2 (seizure warning); 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; if i miss a post please PM me