Bullfighting - Yea or Nay?

starbelgrade

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Interesting. Which bit really gets you off? As in at what point in the bullfight do you find it to be the most fun?

Nothing "gets me off" about it. Your insinuation that it may imply sexual gratification is just purile.

As for the entertainment - it depends entirely on the circumstances. Sometimes it is the skill of the matador, sometimes the sheer thrill of the danger, sometimes it is the sheer bravery & fight of the bull. At best, it is all of those combined that make it a very interesting spectacle.

I would urge you, if you ever got the opportunity, to go & see one and to reserve your judgement until you have actually experienced an event that really cannot be given much justice by watching random clips on YouTube.

fonecrusher1

not bakunin wrote: »

Personally, I amn't going to say that it offends or disgusts me, just to make myself seem morally superior on a topic I know little enough about.
However, I do dislike the ways in which anti-bullfight groups seem to trivialise the whole history and context behind the bullfight. There's an art form to the way in which the cuadarillo operates, and anyone who doubts this should go and read Hemingway's Death in the Afternoon before arguing that the matadors are just like any regular angry scumbags.
True aficionados don't go to a fight to watch a bull get killed, they see him as an opponent to be respected and a skillful battle between two highly trained warriors. And that's not just my own opinion!

On the other hand, I do think that certain aspects of it have to be looked at closely. I think the use of horses in the ring is cruelty, as while the bull may have some chance against a man on foot, a matador on horseback has the obvious height advantage and the horses' sides are also extremely vulnerable to the bull.

"Bullfighting is the only art in which the artist is in danger of death and in which the degree of brilliance in the performance is left to the fighter's honour." - Hemingway

Fair enough. But why does it always seem that there are several people in the ring weakening the creature before the matador eventually stabs it to death? This is why a lot of people think its disgusting.

If it was just one human vs bull then yes i would have the utmost respect for the whole thing.

starbelgrade

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Fair enough. But why does it always seem that there are several people in the ring weakening the creature before the matador eventually stabs it to death? This is why a lot of people think its disgusting.

If it was just one human vs bull then yes i would have the utmost respect for the whole thing.

If the bull were not weakened by the banderilleros & picadores, the chances of the matador being injured or killed by the bull would be extremely high. As it stands, injuries to bullfighters are quite common and over 50 matadors have died in the ring in the last 200 years.

It is obvious that the odds are stacked in favour of the matador. If it were just him / her against the bull, it would probably throw the odds in favour of the bull.

Yet this is missing the point - people do not go to see bullfighting to watch the bull die, much less the matador. If they wanted to see animals or people die, a slaughterhouse or hospital would suffice.

It is the spectacle of the ritual that the audience pay to see.