If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I'm not trying to say that at all, i just think they are 2 very different things! For intercourse to be trully moral there must be consent on both parts, whereas i dont think murder is ever morally right *shrugs*
I dont care what your fetish are, having sex with a cow is compleatly wrong.
If a horse didn't want it you'd bloody know about it. Same with a cow. Their kick can, and does, kill.
I don't think bestiality is good, but there is no argument for it being morally wrong.
Yeah they are strong animals but horses can still be restrained by humans. It'd be a difficult job but if the person is gagging for it I'm sure it can be done. At the moment we're only discussing large animals. Humans are known for inflicting cruelty on animals and this just seems to open up another opportunity for that.
Yes a Horse, cow, dog or what ever it is Can reject you by either walking off or trying to do something you dont like and kicking you?
Although some people do have sex with animals for a living - Porn
(i'm not saying go out and do it to make a living)
But its what rocks some peoples boats and its what we have been brought up to know Human - Human is how it has always been, Who knows
back in the very earlier stages of life people might of screwed there animals thinking this is the way it must of been?
Like i said, there are many sides to this subject and at the end of the day its down to what you think.
He turned his shed into a love shack and had a bed with rose petals sprinkled on it.
I remember the guy who was screwing a goat in a field and a train had to stop due to signals and the passengers were all agog at him. So he picked up the goat, still on his dick, and moved behind a hedge
Well I'm not assuming it is always going to be a violent act but the channel for exploitation seems massive compared with two humans having consentual sex.
Bonobos are another example.
Haha that made me laugh so much!
POTW for sure!! :thumb:
If someone is attracted to an animal then they need to seek help.
As to animals that do exhibit sexual pleasure and have sex for pleasure - take a look at Balcombe's Pleasurable Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good and Bruce Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
Certainly Bagemihl's work documents that Dolphins engage in several forms of recreational sex. Bonobos engage in open-mouthed kissing. Male giraffes mount each other. Mountain goats, wildebeest, rhesus macaques and proboscis monkeys devote a significant proportion of their sexual behavior to nonprocreative sex - amongst many other examples.
And back to the topic -
Don't quite see why people believe that eating an animal means they think they are allowed to do whatever they want to it, without any moral issue, when it is alive.
The idea that animals are without any reaction to abuse seems incredibly lacking in empathy from some posters here. I'd have to wonder whether many people here have ever visited or worked in rescue homes for abused animals.
Whether sexually abused or physically abused animals reactions to abuse is almost exactly the same as humans, whether it's emotional collapse, self-harming and self-starvation, inability to respond to other people or animals around them. To say that because you eat meat you can do anything to an animal is I'm sure the moral and ethical stance taken by just about every animal abuser in the world.
We eat animals because we live in a society that chooses to do that - every law about the treatment of animals recognises the inhierent problems in that ethical stance - that's why regulations on slaughter require the quickest killing of animals possible, with the least suffering. That's why battery farming is continually regulated. That's why veal calves are treated better in transport than they were.
The essentially religious attitude, that man dominates all animals because god made them for him or her and can do what they want to them isn't part of modern morality or law. We have laws against the abuse or animals, whether domestic or industrial (and that's what farm animals are - they are commodities for as long as we eat meat) exactly because there is a judgement between using something as a commodity and abusing something living as a toy for sadistic pleasure.
And what of human's that are going to be killed? If someone is on death row and is going to be killed do some of the posters here believe that guards should be able to rape the prisoners as much as they want before they are killed? After all they are going to die, so why should those men or women have any protection before the moment they are killed (in exactly the same way people are justifying the rape of animals here).
What about soliders fighting a war, if they are trying to kill the opposing forces against them should they be allowed to rape or torture those people - I'm sure in their eyes they see it the same way - that these people are just going to be killed anyway in the way, so they can do what they want.
And, pointing out the obvious, the torture, either sexually or physical (or both) of animals is a key behaviour that is seen in people who grow up to have the sociopathic (and empathy less) tendancies of serial rapists and killers.
You can't see why abusing an animal is wrong, I'd suggest it's only a small step to lose what makes you see abusing a human is wrong.
Those are really good points.
Common misconception that this was introduced in the 2003 Sexual Offences Act - it was always illegal. As detailed in the explantory notes ' This offence is related solely to penile penetration in relation to animals and does not replace existing legislation covering cruelty to animals.'
In the 1956 Sexual Offences Act beastiality carried a life sentence though it wasn't described as beastiality - I believe it was 'interfering with an animal' even in 2003 it's called 'Intercourse with an animal' - it's still illegal in both and under the 1963 Sexual Offences Act
Food for thought.
lol
:flirt: