LOL Beastforum.com

[baseline bum]

He's actually not lying, unlike Wild Cobra, since he's not an American.

[sabar]

At first I figured, "well if someones dog humps their leg and they like it, who cares", but those people go above and beyond. After looking around there,those people are nut jobs. They seem to get "pleasure" in all morally corrupt ways:

1. trick the animal into "mounting" a person with conditioning training
2. force the animal onto a person
3. force yourself onto the animal

There's no way this can be defended. They are abusing the simple mind of the dogs.

Its the same as child abuse. The animal/kid doesn't know better, it can't consent. It doesn't matter if the animal or child initiates it too. They all either train their dogs to rape them, or rape their dogs.

By the way some of those confession threads on there are hilarious. A kid's girlfriend walked in on him looking at zoophiliaic porn and asking for advice

This has nothing to do with sexual orientation by the way, but with sexual fetishes. As sad as it is, most of the disturbed individuals on that forum seem to be married to someone that shares their tastes.

[Bukefal]

Why should zoophilia be criminalized? As long as they own the animals and don't hurt or exercise cruelty over them, I don't think it should be illegal.

How can you say that! Isnt it sick to use poor animals for peoples own sick ed up minds, to fulfill their sick needs? Thats cruel my friend. If the animal could speak and tell, that he wants the same thing, is a different story. but they cant, at least i never saw a speaking animal before, maybe you did. Or maybe you did in one of your dreams

[CosmicCowboy]

PentHorse forums?

[Blake]

Ah, the slippery slope argument; the only form of argument where strawmen are the preferred logic. When a man s a man, there's consent. There's no such thing with animals and kids.

of course, when a man eats a cow, there's really no consent there either.......just sayin...

[ThomasGranger]

Back in the old days, when Puritans were calling all the shots, they executed the offender and the animals he violated.

[mogrovejo]

Ah, the slippery slope argument; the only form of argument where strawmen are the preferred logic. When a man s a man, there's consent. There's no such thing with animals and kids.

There's no way this can be defended. They are abusing the simple mind of the dogs.

Its the same as child abuse. The animal/kid doesn't know better, it can't consent. It doesn't matter if the animal or child initiates it too. They all either train their dogs to rape them, or rape their dogs.

How can you say that! Isnt it sick to use poor animals for peoples own sick ed up minds, to fulfill their sick needs? Thats cruel my friend. If the animal could speak and tell, that he wants the same thing, is a different story. but they cant, at least i never saw a speaking animal before, maybe you did. Or maybe you did in one of your dreams

First of all, one has to differentiate things: the law doesn't exist to promote particular morals per se. No matter how morally repugnant some act is to me - like, say, zoophilia - the law has no business imposing or protecting my views as long as that act doesn't affect my rights or those of another person. So, not everything that is immoral should be illegal - and what is immoral is frequently highly subjective. The liberty to make moral choices is, or ought to be, sacred and an essential part of human freedom.

So, the fact that you find zoophilia repugnant or sick is not an argument. We can't just start to make illegal what x or z consider "sick" and " ed up".

The consent argument isn't appropriate, I think.

First, it's obvious animals can't give their consent by speaking or writing, in a conventional way. However, one could argue that they are able to offer tacit consent on their own way, I suppose. For example, should we illegalize the use of artificial insemniation in the breeding of cattle, dogs, etc.? Many times the methods to collect semen are somewhat arcaic; the only difference is that the breeder doesn't take any kind of sexual satisfaction from the act. Do the animal give consent here? I think it's perfectly plausible that this kind of act can be neutral or even pleasurable to animals.

Second, there's a clearly double-standard. Do you go to the circus? Aren't the minds of circus animals "conditioned" as well? Aren't they trained by individuals who abuse "their simple minds"? And what about, say, castration? People castrate their pets all the time. Or perform scientific experiences. Do animals give consent in those cases? Is it okay to castrate an animal without consent but people should be arrested for sexually pleasuring them?

Third, consent it's simply a concept not applicable to animals. Do any of you own a pet? Do you keep it in your house? If so, has it consented? If not, should you be prosecuted for kidnapping? What about the hunters, should they be charged with 3rd degree murder? I mean, it's okay to kill an animal for our convenience or mere pleasure, but those that merelly jack them off should be arrested and tortured?

Again, I can think of plenty of arguments contra zoophilia. One can defend it's morally repugnant and a violation of our moral duty towards animals. However, as long as there is no pain or harm to the animal and the beast is not property of another person, there's no reason to make it an illegal activity.

Finanlly, it's truly amazing that people discredit the ssexualism/zoophilia slippery slope and simultaneously equate animals to children. Say it slowly: children are not animals. Quite disturbing, to say the least. Be assured that I don't defend you should be arrested though.

[LnGrrrR]

Why should zoophilia be criminalized? As long as they own the animals and don't hurt or exercise cruelty over them, I don't think it should be illegal.

Eh, I'm kinda against it due to the fact that the animals can't very well show consent. But it's VERY low on my list of cares. lol I mean, as long as they're not performing S&M with them, I don't care very much

[LnGrrrR]

of course, when a man eats a cow, there's really no consent there either.......just sayin...

Touche!

[LnGrrrR]

First of all, one has to differentiate things: the law doesn't exist to promote particular morals per se. No matter how morally repugnant some act is to me - like, say, zoophilia - the law has no business imposing or protecting my views as long as that act doesn't affect my rights or those of another person. So, not everything that is immoral should be illegal - and what is immoral is frequently highly subjective. The liberty to make moral choices is, or ought to be, sacred and an essential part of human freedom.

So, the fact that you find zoophilia repugnant or sick is not an argument. We can't just start to make illegal what x or z consider "sick" and " ed up".

The consent argument isn't appropriate, I think.

First, it's obvious animals can't give their consent by speaking or writing, in a conventional way. However, one could argue that they are able to offer tacit consent on their own way, I suppose. For example, should we illegalize the use of artificial insemniation in the breeding of cattle, dogs, etc.? Many times the methods to collect semen are somewhat arcaic; the only difference is that the breeder doesn't take any kind of sexual satisfaction from the act. Do the animal give consent here? I think it's perfectly plausible that this kind of act can be neutral or even pleasurable to animals.

Second, there's a clearly double-standard. Do you go to the circus? Aren't the minds of circus animals "conditioned" as well? Aren't they trained by individuals who abuse "their simple minds"? And what about, say, castration? People castrate their pets all the time. Or perform scientific experiences. Do animals give consent in those cases? Is it okay to castrate an animal without consent but people should be arrested for sexually pleasuring them?

Third, consent it's simply a concept not applicable to animals. Do any of you own a pet? Do you keep it in your house? If so, has it consented? If not, should you be prosecuted for kidnapping? What about the hunters, should they be charged with 3rd degree murder? I mean, it's okay to kill an animal for our convenience or mere pleasure, but those that merelly jack them off should be arrested and tortured?

Again, I can think of plenty of arguments contra zoophilia. One can defend it's morally repugnant and a violation of our moral duty towards animals. However, as long as there is no pain or harm to the animal and the beast is not property of another person, there's no reason to make it an illegal activity.

Finanlly, it's truly amazing that people discredit the ssexualism/zoophilia slippery slope and simultaneously equate animals to children. Say it slowly: children are not animals. Quite disturbing, to say the least. Be assured that I don't defend you should be arrested though.

All good points. I won't take the time to rebut them, because I don't really care

[mogrovejo]

I care. Individuals are being or under the threat of being arrested and deprived of their liberty for no good reason, as they don't commit any acts that violate the rights of their fellow citizens. People are empowering the government to pursuit and shut down individuals merely because they consider their private behaviour as morally repugnant.

I think it's a duty of every good man to care about such an issue.

[DarrinS]

PETA -- People for the Erotic Treatment of Animals

[jack sommerset]

PETA -- People for the Erotic Treatment of Animals

That does not surprise me.

[LockBeard]

It is kind of funny to think you can EAT something, but not screw it.

[Blake]

It is kind of funny to think you can EAT something, but not screw it.

shooting a deer and sticking it's head on your wall is ok.

sticking your in it is cruel.

[E20]

Damn I feel nasty after visiting that site. Sort of like from Chapelle show when he was making fun of the internet and Ron Jeremy showed him some animal porn. That's how I feel.

[Nbadan]

...some things can not be unseen...

[jack sommerset]

shooting a deer and sticking it's head on your wall is ok.

sticking your in it is cruel.

Its ing nasty!