Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What exactly is the problem with bestiality?

12357…12

Comments

  • #122
    Erik Shin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,721 ✭✭✭Erik Shin


    DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »
    Plus the fact that 99% of the human race are not sexually attracted to animals.

    This is not some sort of social construct it's a fact of nature.

    You never saw Jessica Rabbit in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit'... I'd tap her bunny ass !


  • #123
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    FFS, he was clearing not comaparing homosecuality to bestiality - did you guys misread the post intentionally or just not read it at all?

    He was highlighting the fallacy of claiming that an act is immoral purely on the basis of law, as AnGaelach claimed, by highlighting a completley different sexual act that once would have been seen as immoral and now seen as perfectly ok - the only thing being changed about it being the law.

    Precisely. You can't really make the argument that homosexuality has any relevance in a topic discussing bestiality. They are two completely different things. It's saying "why don't you like oranges? I know someone who disliked apples".


  • #124
    BBDBB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,899 ✭✭✭✭BBDBB


    thats Fruitist!


  • #125
    jmayo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,224 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Or maybe that's an Appleophobe.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • #126
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    AnGaelach wrote: »
    Precisely. You can't really make the argument that homosexuality has any relevance in a topic discussing bestiality.
    Nobody claimed homosexuality is the basis of the comparison.

    The point is that we can't reject an act as egregiously or morally reprehensible, simply because it nauseates us. I find scatalogica nauseating, but I have to be an adult and accept that I have no right to interfere in other people's sexual proclivities, so long as they're not hurting anybody.

    There are people on this thread saying "because it's disgusting...isnt that enough?"

    No. It is not. Tell us why it should be criminalized.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    AnGaelach wrote: »
    Precisely. You can't really make the argument that homosexuality has any relevance in a topic discussing bestiality. They are two completely different things. It's saying "why don't you like oranges? I know someone who disliked apples".

    So... you've misread his post twice now as well as mine once?

    You STILL think the point is about homsexuality/bestiality?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #128
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Nobody claimed homosexuality is the basis of the comparison.

    The point is that we can't reject an act as egregiously or morally reprehensible, simply because it nauseates us. I find scatalogica nauseating, but I have to be an adult and accept that I have no right to interfere in other people's sexual proclivities, so long as they're not hurting anybody.

    There are people on this thread saying "because it's disgusting...isnt that enough?"

    No. It is not. Tell us why it should be criminalized.

    I'm quite sure putting your pickle in a penguin is going to be causing harm, and there's a significant difference between homosexuality being between two people and putting your mickey in a monkey.


  • #129
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #130
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    AnGaelach wrote: »
    I'm quite sure putting your pickle in a penguin is going to be causing harm

    Ah but you're choosing small creatures like kittens and penguins.

    Most cases of bestiality appear to involve large domesticated animals... horses, cattle, sheep, etc.

    Speaking as someone whose arm has been inside a mare's rectum, I'm pretty sure my penis is unlikely to traumatise her, and I say this without prejudice to my penis.


  • #131
    loveisdivine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,462 ✭✭✭loveisdivine


    If you're happy to eat meat and animal products, you really shouldn't have a problem with beastiality.

    sk7dpnv7lt5z_zps1xezccft.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #133
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ....... wrote: »
    Until they start talking to us you simply dont know if having sex with an animal is hurting it, physically or emotionally.
    a bit like fisting them, artificially inseminating them, caging them, and slaughtering them, then.
    ....... wrote: »
    Itll traumatise her if you pass on a disease you picked up off another animal.
    That's why rectal gloves are worn , exactly lile condoms.


  • #134
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #135
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    loveisdivine wrote: »
    If you're happy to eat meat and animal products, you really shouldn't have a problem with beastiality.

    I'd rather not have some young man's tackle near my tuna during the course of its life, thanks.


  • #136
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ....... wrote: »
    Sure - I dont agree with any of those things.
    Ah, you're vegan, I see.


  • #137
    Tayschren
    Closed Accounts Posts: 186 ✭✭Tayschren


    Dont **** anything not human.


  • #138
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #139
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Ah, you're vegan, I see.

    I really can't see how you're conflating things that aren't sexual by nature (but could be considered cruel) with justifying something that is solely sexual in nature.

    Unless you've been shoving your arm up a mare's arse and using that same glove that night on yourself, comparing the two is pointless. The intention of artificial insemination isn't so the lad administering it has something to bate his meat rocket to that evening. It's to get the animal pregnant.


  • #140
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    Tayschren wrote: »
    Dont **** anything not human.

    Not even Protestants?

    Mod-Banned


  • #141
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    AnGaelach wrote: »
    I really can't see how you're conflating things that aren't sexual by nature (but could be considered cruel) with justifying something that is solely sexual in nature.

    Unless you've been shoving your arm up a mare's arse and using that same glove that night on yourself, comparing the two is pointless. The intention of artificial insemination isn't so the lad administering it has something to bate his meat rocket to that evening. It's to get the animal pregnant.
    What difference does it make to a mare, whether she is being 'fisted' for the purposes of artificial insemination, or for sexual pleasure?

    This is the problem. Your concern doesn't appear to relate to animal welfare, but instead is an attempt to police what you deem to be disgusting behaviour. I agree it is pretty grim stuff, but I have no legitimate role in criticising it.

    Were I to criticize it, I would be even worse, a hypocrite. And I would rather have sexual relations with a mare than be worthy of being called a hypocrite.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Tayschren
    Closed Accounts Posts: 186 ✭✭Tayschren


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:
    And I would rather have sexual relations with a mare than be worthy of being called a hypocrite.

    Thats a very strange moral compass you have there chief.


  • #143
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    What difference does it make to a mare, whether she is being 'fisted' for the purposes of artificial insemination, or for sexual pleasure?

    This is the problem. Your concern doesn't appear to relate to animal welfare, but instead is an attempt to police what you deem to be disgusting behaviour. I agree it is pretty grim stuff, but I have no legitimate role in criticising it.

    Were I to criticize it, I would be even worse, a hypocrite. And I would rather have sexual relations with a mare than be worthy of being called a hypocrite.

    It makes all the difference in the world. "What difference does it make to the women whether she's consenting to having sex or not? She's still having sex". Intention and nuance is everything.

    I don't pretend to be overly caring about animal welfare, I like a good steak and if artificial insemination is needed to do that then so be it. A man rubbing his willy on a walrus doesn't do anything to further the ends, it's just gratuitous self-indulgence of the most disgusting sort.


  • #144
    Arghus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,188 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Were I to criticize it, I would be even worse, a hypocrite. And I would rather have sexual relations with a mare than be worthy of being called a hypocrite.

    I don't know man...I think I'd take my chances being called a hypocrite.

    Easier to sit atop that high horse, than to mount her.


  • #145
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    Arghus wrote: »
    I don't know man...I think I'd take my chances being called a hypocrite.

    Easier to sit atop that high horse, then to mount her.

    :o


  • #146
    DEFTLEFTHAND
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,500 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Don't let it worry you too much. Man has been killing animals since the dawn of time. We are after all just another predator.


  • #147
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    AnGaelach wrote: »
    It makes all the difference in the world. "What difference does it make to the women whether she's consenting to having sex or not? She's still having sex". Intention and nuance is everything.
    A couple of things here.

    Human beings have human rights by virtue of our species, and most have human consciusness.

    A mare or a heifer, on the other hand, don't understand the purpose of rectal palpation for the purposes of artificial insemination. All they know is that it's painful. They grunt and grimace in pain as they are being impregnated, and given the choice, I'm sure most of them would prefer a relatively meaningless human penis over a human arm, to be frank.

    I'm glad you've accepted this isn't about animal welfare. But this part is confusing.
    AnGaelach wrote: »
    I like a good steak and if artificial insemination is needed to do that then so be it. A man rubbing his willy on a walrus doesn't do anything to further the ends, it's just gratuitous self-indulgence
    You do realise that your love of steak is nothing more than gratuitous self-indulgence right?

    You're no better, and arguably much worse, than some guy who gets his kick from jacking-off on a bullock. You're *eating* him, for pleasure


  • #148
    Hammer89
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,003 ✭✭✭Hammer89


    AnGaelach wrote: »
    A man rubbing his willy on a walrus doesn't do anything to further the ends, it's just gratuitous self-indulgence of the most disgusting sort.

    Well, that's what you get in Coppers.


  • #149
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Tayschren wrote: »
    Dont **** anything not human.

    Personally speaking, I'd love to say they were all models, but there are 1 or 2 lurking in my past who never mind their beauty, but their actual species is still somewhat in doubt.


  • #150
    pangbang
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 672 ✭✭✭pangbang


    As silly as the topic seems at first, there is a interesting element to it.

    If you were to go back to the 70's, for example, and drop the bomb that you were into X sexual behaviour, you might have been headhunted out of town.

    But a lot of those X behaviours are now as common as muck.

    So the question presents itself. Why was something universally wrong in the 70's, and now suddenly okay?

    And by extension, if bestiality is so universally disagreed with now, whats to stop it from being main stream in 20/30 years?

    The answer is "nothing" is stopping it.

    People get bored far too quickly, and we seem to need "causes of the day" to keep us occupied.

    Theres no point trying to list reasons why bestiality is wrong, because that attitude would have existed for LOTS of things in the past. They changed, and there is NOTHING to say that bestiality wont become normal/accepted.

    In for a penny, in for a pound.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Effects
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Effects


    DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »
    Don't let it worry you too much. Man has been killing animals since the dawn of time. We are after all just another predator.

    No they haven't. Man hasn't been around since the dawn of time, only about 200k years.


Advertisement