What exactly is the problem with bestiality?

sbsquarepants · 29-06-2017 01:45PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Not to mind idiopathic disease, we do know 75% of emerging diseases are zoonotic, and we have little idea of their epidemiology. Let's not invite more by allowing people to fcuk their chinchillas, whether he appears to like it or not.?

If disease is your concern - you would I assume be happy enough then to proceed with special lab bred animals, certified disease free?

No, well then that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny as the reason for outlawing the practice then, does it?

You're starting with the conclusion and working back to explain it. The disease risk could quite easily be nullified and is probably hugely exaggerated as it is. We are far more likely to catch diseases from intensive farming methods than donkey brothels, which lets face it - even if they were legal, are still going to be a fairly niche market!

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Shagging corpses, assuming ones takes appropriate protection, including battering back the sides of the grave, also is repulsive, and illegal. But If you're willing to ignore the very evident health risks from giving the dog a proverbial bone, surely you'd consider digging up granny and giving her a dart?

I don't really see the comparison to be honest. For a start - grannies dead, dobbins alive and kicking - which is apt actually, because I would imagine getting kicked is probably one of the bigger risks involved!

Professor Moriarty · 29-06-2017 01:48PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If disease is your concern - you would I assume be happy enough then to proceed with special lab bred animals, certified disease free?

No, well then that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny as the reason for outlawing the practice then, does it?

You're starting with the conclusion and working back to explain it. The disease risk could quite easily be nullified and is probably hugely exaggerated as it is. We are far more likely to catch diseases from intensive farming methods than donkey brothels, which lets face it - even if they were legal, are still going to be a fairly niche market!

I don't really see the comparison to be honest. For a start - grannies dead, dobbins alive and kicking - which is apt actually, because I would imagine getting kicked is probably one of the bigger risks involved!

Donkeys? Brings a whole new meaning to a piece of ass.

Roger Hassenforder · 29-06-2017 02:24PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If disease is your concern - you would I assume be happy enough then to proceed with special lab bred animals, certified disease free?

No, well then that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny as the reason for outlawing the practice then, does it?

You're starting with the conclusion and working back to explain it. The disease risk could quite easily be nullified and is probably hugely exaggerated as it is. We are far more likely to catch diseases from intensive farming methods than donkey brothels, which lets face it - even if they were legal, are still going to be a fairly niche market!

I don't really see the comparison to be honest. For a start - grannies dead, dobbins alive and kicking - which is apt actually, because I would imagine getting kicked is probably one of the bigger risks involved!

Best of luck breeding a disease free animal. Might survive all of a day outside the hermetically sealed laboratory you need it in, before you hit the chance to "ride" it. We've probably encountered the majority of diseases and have developed some resistance to a lot of them, from domesticated animals, after years of living together in hovels. Be like growing a nut that doesn't kill nut allergic people, you'll retire a wealthy man!

Speaking of riding poor Granny in her grave, isn't this the premis of the thread? why shouldn't we be allowed shag what(animals) we want if there's no harm, and sure (animals) they're not consenting to being eaten anyway.

So granny, God bless her cotton socks, is a ready receptacle for your gratification. Because that's what it's all about. Just mind the neurine.
It's a perfect comparison. Both are unable to give consent, no harm will be done to either, and both are morally repulsive and unlawful. And seeing as there no health implications (according to some) (actually riding granny might be safer - no kick or bite) Crack on!

Why would you not ride granny?
Because it's repulsive?
why is it repulsive?

sbsquarepants · 29-06-2017 02:49PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Best of luck breeding a disease free animal. Might survive all of a day outside the hermetically sealed laboratory you need it in, before you hit the chance to "ride" it. ?

Disease free animals are bred all the time, for research purposes more so than donkey brothels i'll grant you - but the technology already exists, it's just a different application.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Why would you not ride granny?
Because it's repulsive?
why is it repulsive?

I wouldn't.
I didn't really fancy her much when she was alive to be honest, and I don't imagine she's improved much in the 20 or so years since.:D

Roger Hassenforder · 29-06-2017 03:58PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Disease free animals are bred all the time, for research purposes more so than donkey brothels i'll grant you - but the technology already exists, it's just a different application.

I wouldn't.
I didn't really fancy her much when she was alive to be honest, and I don't imagine she's improved much in the 20 or so years since.:D

You can't breed a completely disease free organism, that has any realistic chance of survival. (You can breed organisms with genetic sequences removed)

Seriously though , why wouldn't you shag a corpse? People do it, esp recently deceased, so is it morally wrong? Legally it is unlawful, but why reject it. There's no need for consent? They don't be hurt by it.
It's gross, but sure isnt homosexual sex gross and morally wrong (to some)

The arguments being put forward in support of shagging retrievers applies to shagging dead old dears

sbsquarepants · 29-06-2017 04:28PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

You can't breed a completely disease free organism, that has any realistic chance of survival. (You can breed organisms with genetic sequences removed)

Seriously though , why wouldn't you shag a corpse? People do it, esp recently deceased, so is it morally wrong? Legally it is unlawful, but why reject it. There's no need for consent? They don't be hurt by it.
It's gross, but sure isnt homosexual sex gross and morally wrong (to some)

The arguments being put forward in support of shagging retrievers applies to shagging dead old dears

:eek::eek:
Right go on - but only if you do most of the digging!

I personally wouldn't shag either. Although I do like donkeys, I don't like them in that way:D

But it seems a bit of a no brainer to me that you are more likely to catch something nasty, or unleash some form of plague on an unsuspecting public, by digging up a decomposing octogenarian, than by shagging a healthy living animal.

There's a very good reason why we dispose of the dead, but leave the living free to wander!

Professor Moriarty · 29-06-2017 04:41PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

:eek::eek:
Right go on - but only if you do most of the digging!

I personally wouldn't shag either. Although I do like donkeys, I don't like them in that way:D

But it seems a bit of a no brainer to me that you are more likely to catch something nasty, or unleash some form of plague on an unsuspecting public, by digging up a decomposing octogenarian, than by shagging a healthy living animal.

There's a very good reason why we dispose of the dead, but leave the living free to wander!

It's time to go for a walk in the fresh air when you find yourself typing a sentence like this...

Murrisk · 29-06-2017 05:04PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't know if that really holds water to be honest. The disease risk surely is very easily negated these days.

How so? How you can plan for something you have not yet encountered? And how would you negate it? As trans-species sex isn't a right "fit", there is going to be more wear and tear involved in the act, breaching the first point of protection from pathogens more easily. And as someone else pointed out, do you really think companies are going to produce condoms that will suit sex with animals?

I'm trying to think this through rationally, rather than emotionally and those are the questions that come to me.

Or if my stance is still considered OTT, we can all go back to anthropmorphising and taking about morals and consent.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Not to mind idiopathic disease, we do know 75% of emerging diseases are zoonotic, and we have little idea of their epidemiology. Let's not invite more by allowing people to fcuk their chinchillas, whether he appears to like it or not.

Yes, exactly, how can we "negate" what we know little about?

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Best of luck breeding a disease free animal. Might survive all of a day outside the hermetically sealed laboratory you need it in, before you hit the chance to "ride" it.

A voice of reason in this thread.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 29-06-2017 05:08PM

There will have to be a size restriction put in place on the animals we can mount.

For instance a furry woodland creature such as stout may not survive taking a large smendrick up its jacksie.

Roger Hassenforder · 29-06-2017 05:11PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

:eek::eek:
Right go on - but only if you do most of the digging!

I personally wouldn't shag either. Although I do like donkeys, I don't like them in that way:D

But it seems a bit of a no brainer to me that you are more likely to catch something nasty, or unleash some form of plague on an unsuspecting public, by digging up a decomposing octogenarian, than by shagging a healthy living animal.

There's a very good reason why we dispose of the dead, but leave the living free to wander!

Funnily enough, the risks are less!
(Aside from aquifer contamination)

I'd sooner give the auld doll one myself, assuming it's the first Friday of the month, but the argument for riding retrievers are just as applicable to riding corpses. However , somethings are just f**king wrong! (For several reasons)

"Ooo, but why are they wrong? homosexuality was once wrong"

Jesus Wept · 30-06-2017 01:51AM

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

25 pages op...i don't know wether to be more impressed or saddened.!

Saddened at your posts per page setting.

30-06-2017 02:20AM

Samaris wrote: »

I am not sure that human liberty demands that which could risk the population. There is no such thing as absolute liberty.

Of course there is no such thing as absolute liberty. It is a fundamental axiom that there are no absolute rights.

Nevertheless, I do not see bestiality as being any more of an epidemiological threat to public health than homosexual encounters. I have gay friends who partake in sex parties involving opioids and unprotected sex; I have no more reason to condemn my friends than I have to condemn any putative individual seeking pleasure from some domesticated animal. Seriously.

Candie wrote: »

Neither your vet nor your gay friends were exposed to illness via sexual contact with animals, right? So not the same thing and its silly to pretend it is.

Wait, why are you suddenly distinguishing between zoonoses in general, and those which are sexually transmitted?

You said, and I quote:

Candie wrote: »

Exposing oneself to a zoonotic diseases rightly results in natural revulsion.

Now, my vet (unwittingly) exposed himself to brucellosis via aborted calves, and he contracted it. Nobody is repulsed by this, he is 70 years of age, and the most popular vet in a 15-mile radius.

You seem to be making an exceptional case of sexually-transmitted zoonoses; why is that?

Sam Kade wrote: »

Seeing that you are from a farming background (cough) you surely witnessed a cow holding onto the afterbirth, should the vet ask it to come out?

Of course, in any case where the afterbirth is retained, a vet should be called.

Did you even read the OP? I am utterly unconcerned about invasive veterinary procedures. I have ZERO qualms about rectal palpation, AI, and so on; and hence, I am fairly ambivalent about bestiality.

30-06-2017 02:26AM

elsa21 wrote: »

Yes a vet can save an animals life.

Yes, but rectal palpation is usually executed for the purposes of determining the presence or absence of a pregnancy, or to determine the stage of the reproductive cycle.

I can think of very few cases (and only involving horses) where animals are rectally palpated for life-saving procedures. It's highly uncommon.

Murrisk · 30-06-2017 06:15AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Of course there is no such thing as absolute liberty. It is a fundamental axiom that there are no absolute rights.

Nevertheless, I do not see bestiality as being any more of an epidemiological threat to public health than homosexual encounters.

But no less of an epidemiological threat. As Samaris said, why would you want to risk another epidemic such as AIDS? Another happening like that should be avoided at all costs. With AIDS more of a chronic illness these days (many and most sufferers will have a normal lifespan now) and with extra precautions now taken, anal sex is now very much a known quantity in terms of the illnesses that can arise from it and how they can be handled. A new or reemerging illness could cause another epidemic that could repeat all the misery of AIDS that happened in the '80s and '90s.

Also, remember that AIDs might have spread fast through the homosexual community but it was a zoonotic virus. It started with animals via food consumption of animals that shouldn't have been eaten. So if anything, the AIDs epdemic is a huge advert against messing with animals.

I have no idea why because one type of sexual activity caused a horrible epidemic, we should be fine with it potentially happening again. Why would anyone want that?

A lot was learned from the AIDS epidemic. It was a sad but informative chapter in the history of humanity.

Roger Hassenforder · 30-06-2017 08:23AM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

There will have to be a size restriction put in place on the animals we can mount.

For instance a furry woodland creature such as stout stoat ;)may not survive taking a large smendrick up its jacksie.

while a Grizzly might be able to accommodate said smendrick up the jacksie, there could be postcoital complications. We need to develop a minimum size threshold (similar to age of consent) and a list of species its not recommended to roger.

Roger Hassenforder · 30-06-2017 08:27AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

of course there is no such thing as absolute liberty. It is a fundamental axiom that there are no absolute rights.

I have no more reason to condemn my friends than I have to condemn any putative individual seeking pleasure from some domesticated animal. Seriously.

...I am fairly ambivalent about bestiality.

how would you feel is someone came to your house and fcuked your dog in front of you?

would you fcuk a corpse?
should it be legal?
After all, the undertake plugs a few holes, cleans the body, and there is no issue of consent...

Samaris · 30-06-2017 08:28AM

Argh, the AIDS as a homosexual virus is a red herring, by the way. I apologise if my using AIDS as an example is one of the things that keeps dragging the convo back to homosexuality, I was talking about it purely as a zoonosis and it took a while to make the connection as to if people were using it as a black mark against homosexuality.

AIDS was spreading in the heterosexual community as well at the time, and has been around since the 1920s in isolated spots. It had a sudden burst of activity around the 1970s or 80s, I don't know if that was due to a mutation or not though. But that it spread rapidly in the gay community was as much a matter of sheer mathematical probability, same as it was for the needle-sharing crowd that also rapidly contracted it.

You have a disease that is commonly spread by sex. You have two (we'll go with two for now) populations of differently sexually active people that (bisexuality aside) are more or less limited to their own groups for potential partners. One of these groups is a hell of a lot smaller than the other and its members are spread throughout the larger group with meeting and acceptance levels highest in the cities.

There is one particular factor that makes gay men specifically more likely to contract it - that the anus does not have the same protective defences as the vagina. Therefore, you have a very small group with relatively limited range of sexual contact, a factor that makes someone from this group -exposed- to the virus more likely to get it and a long-standing prejudice in terms of gay men seeking medical treatment. No **** it spread more rapidly in this community for a time. (Most of these factors work to some extent with people who were regularly sharing needles - extra risk factor, again the small, concentrated populations where one person having HIV can rapidly transmit it. Plus an added risk factor of drug-users at the stage of sharing needles around tend to be in relatively poor health and are more susceptible to infection. It was not, however, caused by the needles.)

It was not a disease that originated in homosexual men, nor is it a disease exclusively of homosexual men. It comes originally from chimpanzees (HIV-1) and a species of small monkey beginning with m (not macaque, but I can't recall the name now) for the rarer HIV-2. Both are mutations of SIV viruses, carried by the simian but not infecting them. There is no one single origin point, this disease has jumped the species barrier multiple times (at least seven proven times, and that is pretty certainly a low figure).

As far as I am aware, there are no diseases exclusively caught and spread by homosexuals of either gender. The use of HIV in -that- regard is disingenuous and ignores the actual disease epidemiology.

However, HIV -1 and -2 are absolutely zoonotic diseases that have mutated repeatedly to infect humans (and that mutation also made it lethal). It is spread by the transfer of bodily fluids, most generally blood, but, certainly once within the human population, transferrable by sex too. That is why I'm using HIV as an example of potentially nasty diseases that could reach the human population by encouraging the..well, transfer of bodily fluids between humans and animals. This is a risk we take for certain important reasons - food, animal welfare (vets), living with them. Is a rather unusual paraphilia a good enough reason to open up a new can of worms is my question.

This is just plain not relevant to homosexuality in any way.

sbsquarepants · 30-06-2017 09:56AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I can think of very few cases (and only involving horses) where animals are rectally palpated for life-saving procedures. It's highly uncommon.

I don't care how uncommon it is - I want it on my medical records that I am not to rectally palpated for any reason - just let me die goddamit.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

how would you feel is someone came to your house and fcuked your dog in front of you?
would you fcuk a corpse?
should it be legal?
After all, the undertake plugs a few holes, cleans the body, and there is no issue of consent...

I'm fairly certain that this is not exactly the kind of intellectual discourse Tim Berners Lee envisaged all those years back.:D:D

Murrisk · 30-06-2017 11:41AM

Samaris wrote: »

Argh, the AIDS as a homosexual virus is a red herring, by the way. I apologise if my using AIDS as an example is one of the things that keeps dragging the convo back to homosexuality, I was talking about it purely as a zoonosis and it took a while to make the connection as to if people were using it as a black mark against homosexuality.

AIDS was spreading in the heterosexual community as well at the time, and has been around since the 1920s in isolated spots. It had a sudden burst of activity around the 1970s or 80s, I don't know if that was due to a mutation or not though. But that it spread rapidly in the gay community was as much a matter of sheer mathematical probability, same as it was for the needle-sharing crowd that also rapidly contracted it.

You have a disease that is commonly spread by sex. You have two (we'll go with two for now) populations of differently sexually active people that (bisexuality aside) are more or less limited to their own groups for potential partners. One of these groups is a hell of a lot smaller than the other and its members are spread throughout the larger group with meeting and acceptance levels highest in the cities.

There is one particular factor that makes gay men specifically more likely to contract it - that the anus does not have the same protective defences as the vagina. Therefore, you have a very small group with relatively limited range of sexual contact, a factor that makes someone from this group -exposed- to the virus more likely to get it and a long-standing prejudice in terms of gay men seeking medical treatment. No **** it spread more rapidly in this community for a time. (Most of these factors work to some extent with people who were regularly sharing needles - extra risk factor, again the small, concentrated populations where one person having HIV can rapidly transmit it. Plus an added risk factor of drug-users at the stage of sharing needles around tend to be in relatively poor health and are more susceptible to infection. It was not, however, caused by the needles.)

It was not a disease that originated in homosexual men, nor is it a disease exclusively of homosexual men. It comes originally from chimpanzees (HIV-1) and a species of small monkey beginning with m (not macaque, but I can't recall the name now) for the rarer HIV-2. Both are mutations of SIV viruses, carried by the simian but not infecting them. There is no one single origin point, this disease has jumped the species barrier multiple times (at least seven proven times, and that is pretty certainly a low figure).

As far as I am aware, there are no diseases exclusively caught and spread by homosexuals of either gender. The use of HIV in -that- regard is disingenuous and ignores the actual disease epidemiology.

However, HIV -1 and -2 are absolutely zoonotic diseases that have mutated repeatedly to infect humans (and that mutation also made it lethal). It is spread by the transfer of bodily fluids, most generally blood, but, certainly once within the human population, transferrable by sex too. That is why I'm using HIV as an example of potentially nasty diseases that could reach the human population by encouraging the..well, transfer of bodily fluids between humans and animals. This is a risk we take for certain important reasons - food, animal welfare (vets), living with them. Is a rather unusual paraphilia a good enough reason to open up a new can of worms is my question.

This is just plain not relevant to homosexuality in any way.

Brilliant post, Samaris. Put it more eloquently than I ever could.

Day Lewin · 30-06-2017 02:04PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

while a Grizzly might be able to accommodate said smendrick up the jacksie, there could be postcoital complications. We need to develop a minimum size threshold (similar to age of consent) and a list of species its not recommended to roger.

Poor old Roger, why doesn't he get to indulge his orientations?

Mental Mickey · 03-07-2017 10:41PM

How is this thread still going????

Roger Hassenforder · 03-07-2017 11:19PM

Mental Mickey wrote: »

How is this thread still going????

It was dropping like the wet stool it is until someone bumped it.

I see what you did!

Samaris · 04-07-2017 01:25AM

With the thread necroed, I hope poor old granny isn't next.

Too soon?

04-07-2017 01:27AM

Samaris wrote: »

With the thread necroed, I hope poor old granny isn't next.

Too soon?

Stop planting new-thread ideas in my head.

Mental Mickey · 04-07-2017 05:30PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

It was dropping like the wet stool it is until someone bumped it.

I see what you did!

I did nothing!? It's a stupid thread lol

Roger Hassenforder · 04-07-2017 05:32PM

Mental Mickey wrote: »

I did nothing!? It's a stupid thread lol

Bumped the fcukin wretched thing!

sunny2004 · 04-07-2017 05:45PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

how would you feel is someone came to your house and fcuked your dog in front of you?

would you fcuk a corpse?
should it be legal?
After all, the undertake plugs a few holes, cleans the body, and there is no issue of consent...

I'm lost for words lol

somefeen · 04-07-2017 06:24PM

*drops frog*

Mental Mickey · 04-07-2017 06:43PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Bumped the fcukin wretched thing!

Didn't mean to lol!!!

Erik Shin · 05-07-2017 03:17PM

I have a solution!!!!
No animals need get bummed...just buy a blow up animal sex doll !!

What exactly is the problem with bestiality?

Comments