This entire article is hilarious

[Rinnhart]

30 years ago most people said that about homosexuality.
[right][snapback]84694[/snapback][/right]

You keep bringing up that fact about homosexuality, so I must ask:

Do you #$%& ducks but abhor the thought of man-sex?

[Doc]

You keep bringing up that fact about homosexuality, so I must ask:

Do you #$%& ducks but abhor the thought of man-sex?
[right][snapback]86150[/snapback][/right]

#$%& #$%& #$%& a duck, screw a kangaroo. Finger bang an orangutan, your finger smells like poo.

[Ashock]

Foolish mortals!  You have made the ignorant and typicaly liberal mistake of disagreeing with Ashock's personal opinions!

Like, come on guys.  Seriously.  We all know that Ashock's opinions are always right, and having a contrary opinion means you are (or should be) on the list of sexual predators from the internet.  I mean, the answer is so obvious and not even worth discussing.

Ashock, you really need to either take some anger management classes or switch to decaf.  You've now actually threated other lurkers on several different issues.  And you're going to do the same to me I'm sure for what I'm about to say, but you're threatening lurkers because their opinions differ from your own.  Grow up. It is possible to disagree without becoming so angry and so damned threatening!

Tell you what.  I will admit the possibility that bestiality should be illegal if you will admit the possibility that sometimes your opinions are not the only valid opinions.

gekko
[right][snapback]86108[/snapback][/right]

Nah, I'll just ignore you.


-A

[Guest]

No, but I find the average lurkers position on this and homosexuality to be at odds.

Im not saying you cant reasonably be pro-gay rights and anti-beastiality.
But when I look at the current comments on beastiality and the past comments on those who condemed homosexuality I see a paradox.

[Occhidiangela]

No, but I find the average lurkers position on this and homosexuality to be at odds.

Im not saying you cant reasonably be pro-gay rights and anti-beastiality. 
But when I look at the current comments on beastiality and the past comments on those who condemed homosexuality I see a paradox.
[right][snapback]86284[/snapback][/right]

I don't think you can average polar opposites, regarding the alleged "average" lurker opinion on homosexuality, particularly as offering an opinion on homosexuality as "for" or "Against" is an idiotic simplification of complex human behavior in the first place.

/Devil's Advocate

As for sex with animals: how do we know the animals don't enjoy it? I imagine in some cases, such as the old abberations with gerbils in colons, a good assumption could be made for gerbil not being keen on that whole can't breath in the feces tunnel scenario -- see the Gerbill cartoon sequence by Joe Cartoon for elaboration -- but for animals closer to size with humans, do we really know how the animals feel about it? Or do all parties ASSUME certain emotions in an animal?

For all I know, when the hypothetical goat herder in the Sudan has a little afternoon delight with one of his flock it could be the highlight of her week. Or, she might be moved to think "get lost, pal." Has anyone in academia done a serious study of this, absent preconceived prejudices? I smell a government grant just waiting to be approved! :lol:

Why else would a goat or sheep, if asked, reply to the Masters and Johnson study on goatsex with:

"Naaaat, baaaaaaad"

/Devil's Advocate

Occhi

[Ashock]

I don't think you can average polar opposites, regarding the alleged "average" lurker opinion on homosexuality, particularly as offering an opinion on homosexuality as "for" or "Against" is an idiotic simplification of complex human behavior in the first place.

/Devil's Advocate

As for sex with animals: how do we know the animals don't enjoy it?  I imagine in some cases, such as the old abberations with gerbils in colons, a good assumption could be made for gerbil not being keen on that whole can't breath in the feces tunnel scenario --  see the Gerbill cartoon sequence by Joe Cartoon for elaboration -- but for animals closer to size with humans, do we really know how the animals feel about it?  Or do all parties ASSUME certain emotions in an animal?

For all I know, when the hypothetical goat herder in the Sudan has a little afternoon delight with one of his flock it could be the highlight of her week.  Or, she might be moved to think "get lost, pal."  Has anyone in academia done a serious study of this, absent preconceived prejudices?  I smell a government grant just waiting to be approved!  :lol:

Why else would a goat or sheep, if asked, reply to the Masters and Johnson study on goatsex with:

"Naaaat, baaaaaaad"

/Devil's Advocate

Occhi
[right][snapback]86655[/snapback][/right]

Yep, they all come back sooner or later. This used to apply to the DSF, now it applies to the LL :P


-A

[Guest]

"Median" - happy now?

[LemmingofGlory]

As for sex with animals: how do we know the animals don't enjoy it?  I imagine in some cases, such as the old abberations with gerbils in colons, a good assumption could be made for gerbil not being keen on that whole can't breath in the feces tunnel scenario --  see the Gerbill cartoon sequence by Joe Cartoon for elaboration -- but for animals closer to size with humans, do we really know how the animals feel about it?  Or do all parties ASSUME certain emotions in an animal?

You can leave out the gerbil scenario. There's no evidence that anyone actually does that, so while I applaud your continued interest in rectal foreign bodies I would ask that you be mindful of the facts.

For all I know, when the hypothetical goat herder in the Sudan has a little afternoon delight with one of his flock it could be the highlight of her week.  Or, she might be moved to think "get lost, pal."  Has anyone in academia done a serious study of this, absent preconceived prejudices?  I smell a government grant just waiting to be approved!

Hey, who knows? Plenty of the Ig Nobel Prize winners were working with government money.

-Lemmy

[Rinnhart]

My understanding of it is that animals don't do it "for fun." Intercourse is something that satisfies a basic instinctual need and is often extremely violent. The "homosexual" practices of some animals are used to establish dominance amongst the males, or as a way of easing reproduction amongst asexual animals.

[LemmingofGlory]

As for whether it should be legal and/or accepted by society like homosexuality... I personally think it should, just so I can protect myself. I would imagine that the late discovery of beastiality in a relationship could ruin it, much like the late discovery of homosexuality. If we force people to stay in the closet about beastiality, by law or shame, we're more likely to lack critical information until it's too late. Ultimately whether it's punished or not, people will still perform the acts. I'd at least like to have a better idea of who's into it and who isn't. :ph34r:

Now when you say "discovery of beastiality" in the relationship, do you mean discovering that your partner (1) has sex with animals or that your partner (2) has an interest in sex with animals?

If it's (1), then your analogy to homosexuality is on shaky ground. I wouldn't even call it homosexuality, precisely, unless the person is homosexual; I'd call it same-sex sex. Your partner discovering that s/he is homosexual would effectively end the relationship since said partner would be overwhelmingly likely to leave to pursue a same-sex relationship. Discovering that your partner has sex with animals and is not interested in leaving the relationship for a relationship with an animal would not be analogous to the "homosexual" situation because you alone would be interested in ending the relationship.

If it's (2), then it'd be analogous to discovering your partner has an interest in same-sex sex but is not homosexual; i.e. your partner is still interested in you. I don't think this is a good case to argue "Change society so I don't get surprised" because your partner is not dating you because it's the "in" thing to do. Your partner isn't dating you because s/he is really a closeted homosexual who hasn't admitted it yet. Your partner is dating you because your partner is interested in you. If discovering that your partner has a sexual interest which you find gross (scat, anyone?) is enough to leave 'em, that's just gonna happen sometimes.

In short, there's a difference between relationships that fail because one partner loses interest and relationships that fail because a closeted partner never had any real interest. Homosexuality needs to be accepted because it falls into the latter category. Coprophilia, beastiality, coulrophilia, et cetera are the former.

-Lemmy

[jahcs]

I don't care how the animal feels about it on a psychological or physical level - It is wrong, in my opinion.

*jahcs dons his Nomex suit and waits for the replies*

Oh, and I still stand by my statement that bringing homosexual conduct and a person's viewpoint on it into this discussion is a red herring. Beastiality doesn't even involve the same species.

[Guest]

I dont think you really understand the concept of "fun" nor "instinct".

[Guest]

I have met several dogs that desperatly wanted to do it with my leg.
I have seen a dog try to hump a cat.


If the "animals do it too" arguement is valid for homosexuality then its valid for beastiality. Personally I dont think we should ever use animal behavior to justify ourselves.

[Guest]

Wrong.

You are confusing sexuality with relationships.

It disgusts me that you even made that post. I would like to think that were all mature enough now here to not play the dirty semantics game where we redifine words with set definitions just so we can tell someone else they are wrong.

Another problem is that you think you can describe people based on dichotmous points. Sexuality(sexualities?) like almost all drives in people fall on a clines. The persons nature is the sum of these cline points with respect any given element.

[Occhidiangela]

You can leave out the gerbil scenario. There's no evidence that anyone actually does that, so while I applaud your continued interest in rectal foreign bodies I would ask that you be mindful of the facts.
Hey, who knows? Plenty of the Ig Nobel Prize winners were working with government money.

-Lemmy
[right][snapback]86686[/snapback][/right]

Oh Rodently one

While I thank you for your noble charge in the never ending Crusade for Correctness, I will point out that, in writing satire, one can throw in anything for comedic effect that seems to fit, no matter how tangentially. The effectiveness of the satire depends, of course, on the facility of the linkage in most readers' minds. Hence, references to the flat earth can be made, even if we know the World is Round. :D

"All the references that fit, I'll print!" (Sounds like the bibliography I did for a history paper.)

Occhi

PS: Sadly, one of the links you provided evoked a finger stumble, and I misclicked onto the page for felching. Yech. Serves me right for delurking. :wacko:

[LemmingofGlory]

EDIT:

Wrong.

You are confusing sexuality with relationships.

It disgusts me that you even made that post. I would like to think that were all mature enough now here to not play the dirty semantics game where we redifine words with set definitions just so we can tell someone else they are wrong.

Since this post has been up a day and you haven't clarified things yet, I've had a day to try and puzzle out what the blazes could lead you to make such an accusation. Franky, I think it comes from a magnificient failure to understand my post.

I don't believe I redefined anything. I didn't play any "dirty semantics" game just so I could tell Malakar he's wrong. (In fact, did I? I think I just disagreed with him.) Since your "immature ploy to be right" revolves around making accusations without spelling out your objections (i.e. you did not specify with which word/s I'm playing "the dirty semantics game") -- and for some reason this strikes me as typical of your posting style, which makes me consider you a rather useless Lurker, all things considered -- I'll have to play another game in order to reply to you: the elementary school guessing game.

Ghostiger: I know something you don't know. You're wrong.

Maybe if you spelled out your objections instead of drooling them out, you might realize half-way through what I was actually doing and my so-called "semantics game" might seem irritating, but not necessarily as vulgar as you would have everyone believe.

Now, my best guess is your object is to the line: "I wouldn't even call it homosexuality, precisely, unless the person is homosexual; I'd call it same-sex sex." My point was to avoid labeling something "homosexuality" so that the term and "homosexual" would not become mingled. Granted, any type of same-sex sex can be called "homosexual," from sex between two lesbians to prison sex between two heterosexuals. However, for the purpose of my post I wanted to avoid that indistinction (i.e. labeling by action) in favor of labeling by sexuality (what you might call a person's "nature").

You might now be wondering WHY BOTHER? Because I wasn't sure how Malakar was using the term "beastiality." He compared it to "discovering homosexuality" in a relationship, which to me means discovering something about a person's nature (i.e. that the person is homosexual). Does that, by extension, mean that he views beastiality in the same light? I don't know. I'm not well-read on the subject, so I assumed that beastiality is an activity instead of an orientation.

Of course, "discovering homosexuality" could also mean discovering a wealth of other things such as:
(1) Discovering that one's partner uses homosexual pornography
(2) Discovering that one's partner is interested in homosexual experiences
(3) Discovering that one's partner has had homosexual experiences
(4) Discovering that one's partner is being unfaithful with someone of the same sex
...but is not homosexual (which by Wikipedia's definition is exclusive). The partner could be bisexual, straight, "curious," or some label other than "homosexual."

And as I said in my previous post, if it's any of these things, the situation is just something that needs to be worked out with one's partner. Likewise, "discovering beastiality" could mean any of those things I listed above (but with respect to animals instead of the same sex), and it's just something that needs to be worked out. It's not something that I think would benefit from being "out in the open," unlike homosexuality.

Another problem is that you think you can describe people based on dichotmous points. Sexuality(sexualities?) like almost all drives in people fall on a clines. The persons nature is the sum of these cline points with respect any given element.

Go lecture someone else, Ghostliar.

-Lem

[Archon_Wing]

I don't care how the animal feels about it on a psychological or physical level - It is wrong, in my opinion.

*jahcs dons his Nomex suit and waits for the replies*

:D Well, at least we don't have to deal with human-animal soap opreas. "The moment I saw him..." ZZZZZZzzzzzz -_- I also don't want to be interrogated next time I kill a fly on how that fly felt.

Oh, and I still stand by my statement that bringing homosexual conduct and a person's viewpoint on it into this discussion is a red herring.  Beastiality doesn't even involve the same species.
[right][snapback]86695[/snapback][/right]

That's a good point. I think many people ignore that last part.

[bigeyedbug]

Oh Rodently one

While I thank you for your noble charge in the never ending Crusade for Correctness, I will point out that, in writing satire, one can throw in anything for comedic effect that seems to fit, no matter how tangentially.  The effectiveness of the satire depends, of course, on the facility of the linkage in most readers' minds.  Hence, references to the flat earth can be made, even if we know the World is Round.  :D   

"All the references that fit, I'll print!"  (Sounds like the bibliography I did for a history paper.)

Occhi

PS: Sadly, one of the links you provided evoked a finger stumble, and I misclicked onto the page for felching.  Yech.  Serves me right for delurking.  :wacko:
[right][snapback]86709[/snapback][/right]

Satire be damned! For the love of god, man, what about the wee lil' kittens???!!! :o

[Rinnhart]

I dont think you really understand the concept of "fun" nor "instinct".
[right][snapback]86699[/snapback][/right]

Oh, yeah, you've got me there.

Edit: No, I can do better.

Sure, I know what instinct is. #$%&in's instict. Fun is whips and chains, baby!

...unless it's your kind of fun... which is probably going down to the local pond and checkin' out the hot "chicks."

See, I called you a duck-#$%&er, again.

[Occhidiangela]

Satire be damned!  For the love of god, man, what about the wee lil' kittens???!!! :o
[right][snapback]86729[/snapback][/right]

Besides that link being sick and funny, I owe Gris no jokes about my nose and . . . er . . . um . . . kittens.

Occhi