Re Fur and Loathing in the Bedroom: A Savage Look at Furry Sex
Lady_in_Waiting
Well, you know, if one is to try to hazard an explanation for this (scattershot response):
First, my remarks are stated fundamentally from a gay point of view. I really don't know about the straight Furry community.
I personally know of one fellow who wants to be trussed up and basted like a turkey. He is not furry at all, and doesn't identify as furry in the least. To the extent that an example of one indicates anything, one can say that vore is not necessarily linked to the Furry fandom. The absence of it more generally from cultural view may simply be a function of a lack of known outlets for non-Furre voreaphiles. I'm sure turkeyboy thought he was laboring away with his lone, odd fetish, never realizing there were whole herds of people in Taps who'd oblige him (if he'd pretend to be a cat first).
Aside from the obvious flamewars and spikes of intolerance here and there, my experiences of Furres (at least in the Pacific Northwest) is that they are simultaneously socially retarded, and therefore more prone to be tolerant of one another than most subcultures. We are, in a short, a goofy, socially awkward, blithely accepting group. This is not to say there isn't cliquishness, or haughtiness and all of that. Also, there's probably no point in trying to say that the snottiness and haughtiness derives from gay cliquishness, and that Furres are more generally tolerant, although there may be something to this hypothesis.
As such, the greater tolerance will naturally permit a broader expression of sexual fetishes than one might find elsewhere. One's fantasy of being swallowed by a snake, while more than enough to make people flee from you at the gay cocktail party, will simply raise eyebrows at most in the Furry community. Again, I think this is a function of the tolerance and social awkwardness that characterizes so many in the community.
There seem to be two main headwaters for the Furry community: the bear community and the zoo "community" (if one can call it that). I don't know how contributory these two tastes are, but it is certainly the case that the bear community gives us all kinds of BDSM tendencies and so forth and, once you're in that territory, once again, people's kinks tend to be accepted, rather than gaped at with horror. The zoo element, I think, functions more dominantly as a kind of "support group" for the particular fetish. In other words, zoos were able to find like-minded people through the internet, and congregated together as a result.
I have to add here, I find the idea of being mounted by a dog to be very pleasingly depraved. There's a kinky (and amusingly absurd) ego annihilation that goes along with it, in addition to just being physically exotic. I would never believe, however, in having a "relationship" with an animal. I reject that there can be any such thing (animals don't consent; they don't have the mental capacity to do so), and so any talk of a "relationship" with an animal is precisely the kind of irrespnosible, one-sided, fantasy/idealized "control freak" variety of "love" that I mention below. It's definitely emotionally regressive--and more power to the person into it. I've no objection to emotionally regressive sexual satisfaction; just don't ask me to call it mature.
Anyway.
I don't know to what extent it can be said that the Furry fandom is Internet driven, but I know that my experience of it is about 98% located on the Internet.
Since you don't want to start a flamewar, I'll add my own little controversial remark. It seems to me that the Furry community is dominated by emotional immaturity, whatever the ages of its participants. (I include myself in this classification, incidentally.) It goes paw-in-fist with the social retardation I mentioned earlier. The preference for idealized love (that is, fantasy love, that comes without responsibility, compromise or any of those other markers that indicate a genuine relationship) is absolutely epidemic online generally, and certainly no less in the Furre community. I think this is partly why a dominant impression one gets of the Furre community is that it is a sex-based thing; really, however, I find that there is a tremendous yearning for idealized love (expressed through cybersex); of an intimacy unclouded by disagreements, of perfect mindreading between lovers, of simultaneous orgasms that leave everyone sweating and gasping. All of this, in contrast, to the overweight, or pimply, or gangly, or bucktoothed, or disabled, or simply abysmally shy real person typing away at the keyboard.
Equally, one could say that the joy of the chase (as opposed to the establishment of a stable relationship) is something that can be pursued online to one's heart's content. Promiscuity is safe online (unless you encounter those neurotic jealous types), and the thrill of the new, of that galvanizing moment of meeting eyes across the bar ... all of that one can experience over and over and over in abundance. The sense of being "sexually savvy" and really "with it" in the bar, the ease (and success) with which we can pick one another up .... all of this is lots of fun, and totally contrary to real life in so many ways. In any case, I would say that this is as fundamental, if not more so, to the Furre community than the specific paraphilias involved.
These remarks really extend more to the whole online experience, than just the Furre community but, of course, the Furre community seems to be rooted fundamentally in the Internet.
It is easy to see how, if you are zoo (owing to the shortage of quality bestiality porn) that cartoons are going to become a source for porn, especially when people start drawing Simbas with raging hardons and so forth. Moreover, if you find the idea of animal people erotic, it necessarily means that one will have to, by and large, provide ones own pornography, whether through drawings or stories. From this shared interest, bulwarked by the internet and MUCKs devoted tot he fetish, it really wouldn't take long to develop a critical mass of picture/porn generation.
Again, by the way, I think that it has to do with a fundamental estrangement or alienation from people that leads one to have sexual fantasies about cartoon figures in the first place. Because one is socially inept, humans are ruled out as a locus for one's feelings of love and desire: therefore, they attach to animals (zoo) or cartoons (toonophilia) or anthrowolves etc (Furre). I know as a socially isolated, totally lonely homosexual growing up, I used to experience tremendous fits of empathy for inanimate objects and even food. My alienation from humans was so complete, that my feelings of sympathy and affection (which couldn't be expressed towards humans without being ignored or laughed at or worse) ended up being attached to inanimate objects--I think plushophiles probably have a similar etiology.
I should mention also that the paraphilias in the Furre community are not necessarily filled in with members who arrive, eager to be devoured, or to be castrated, or skinned alive. Sexuality is not set in stone, and tends to be opportunistic. A person might have no predisposition whatsoever to do a vore scene but, he's horny and someone he's found who is interested happens to like being swallowed. And so, he agrees to do the scene. If the scene doesn't totally put him off, he's likely to return to the same bar or room again, looking for his previous sex partner; finds someone else, and does another vore scene. Slowly but surely, his brain retrains to the point where he starts enjoying such scenes and/or even fantasising about it offline. This doesn't mean, of course, that he'll seek out the fetish in real life necessarily; it's just that his hormones have conditioned to respond to that kind of scene.
So, again, the prevalence of paraphilias indicates a range of potential activities, more than a distinct group of people who exclusively practice it.
Also, let's not ignore the susceptibility of most people to suggestion. Someone says xSephirothx, or some other anime figure is sexy as hell, posts a link, and pretty soon, a whole bevy of horny teens are masturbating to another cartoon picture. Being "sexually attracted" to said anime figure then becomes a badge of whatever clique or subculture you have identified with, whether you think it is true or not. It's just your membership card that gives you a place in a world, when you otherwise feel like you don't have one at all. Video games serve a similar function.
So, to summarize, if it's not crazy to, to focus on the paraphilias of the Furre community is to shine a light too intensely on a subset of the habit. One can say that the higher tolerance for kinks inherited from the bear, BDSM and zoo communities creates more of a space for expression of paraphilias, but it is equally clear that the bulk of the people in the fandom are hardly kinky. I mean, they're not in it for the kinks. It's just a place where, social retard that you are, you can fit in (as a superhero, or gorgeous cat, or studly wolf, etc) to compensate for, or simply to indulge in, fantasy versions of one's self.
For the younger crowd, the FUrre community opens up doors to pornography that they might not otherwise be able to gain access to, and that's always appealing to the fourteen year olds around the world. It's also appealing for the pedophiles, who can have cybersex with the underaged (or those pretending to be underaged) without actually getting in any trouble.
As a final note, "Fear and Loathing" is not original to Hunter S. Thompson. He borrowed the phrase from the title of a Kirkegaard work.
Hope this provides some food for thought.
Yours,
Cephalophage
--------------= Posted using GrabIt =----------------
------= Binary Usenet downloading made easy =---------
-= Get GrabIt for free from http://www.shemes.com/ =-
The Stavka Siberian Husky
until great Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against
him.
>Dear Colin Ritter:
>
>Well, you know, if one is to try to hazard an explanation for this (scattershot response):
>
>First, my remarks are stated fundamentally from a gay point of view. I really don't know about the straight Furry community.
Here is what you wrote properly formatted:
Dear Colin Ritter:
precisely the kind of irresponsible, one-sided, fantasy/idealized
Anyway.
Yours,
Cephalophage
I HATE BEARS!
I eagerly await the day that all members of the "ursus" species are
extincht.
---
We fired our cannons till the barrels melted down,
Then we grabbed an alligator and we fired another round.
We filled his head with cannonballs and powdered his behind,
And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind.
Dan Skunk
"Lady_in_Waiting" <home...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2Cdvd.229708$HA.132344@attbi_s01...
> I have to add here, I find the idea of being mounted by a dog to be very
pleasingly depraved. There's a kinky (and amusingly absurd) ego annihilation
that goes along with it, in addition to just being physically exotic. I
would never believe, however, in having a "relationship" with an animal. I
reject that there can be any such thing (animals don't consent; they don't
have the mental capacity to do so), and so any talk of a "relationship" with
an animal is precisely the kind of irrespnosible, one-sided,
fantasy/idealized "control freak" variety of "love" that I mention below.
It's definitely emotionally regressive--and more power to the person into
it. I've no objection to emotionally regressive sexual satisfaction; just
don't ask me to call it mature.
Animals most certainly do have the mental capacity to consent. If you know
anything about animal mating practices, they do not go about raping each
other to have sex. There's a lot of complex rituals and rules; lots of
communication; no different from humans than from one species to another.
It should be quite obvious if a dog does not want to mount you.
> So, to summarize, if it's not crazy to, to focus on the paraphilias of the
Furre community is to shine a light too intensely on a subset of the habit.
One can say that the higher tolerance for kinks inherited from the bear,
BDSM and zoo communities creates more of a space for expression of
paraphilias, but it is equally clear that the bulk of the people in the
fandom are hardly kinky. I mean, they're not in it for the kinks. It's just
a place where, social retard that you are, you can fit in (as a superhero,
or gorgeous cat, or studly wolf, etc) to compensate for, or simply to
indulge in, fantasy versions of one's self.
There is more to is than being socially retarded.
I was never the most socially adept person, but I was a fur long before I
knew there was any community. I could have clung desperately to any other,
more accessable, group of odd balls if my only motivation was to *belong*,
but I did not. Why, if I'm already socially deprived, should I choose an
interest that makes me only more so?
With your reasoning, it could be quite well argued that being gay is simply
the result of being too socially inept to attract a female and resorting to
mating with other equally inept males out of desparation, eventually
becomming conditioned to that lifestyle.
Colin Ritter
Basically your saying that the it doesn't lie in with "Furries" as much
as the Internet being an anonymous release for sexual fantasies.
Likewise that people are often brought into enjoying them by being
exposed to it enough to begin to desire it.
I was lost by your "bears" and "zoo" train of thought. Do you mean
hirsute men as "bears" as in a common meaning of the phrase and
beasiality as "zoo". I was lost.
You also raise another question I'd love to ask which is "Why Furries?"
in a similar fashion of asking a Trekker "Why Star Trek?".
--
Colin
ciaran_skye on VCL, Yahoo et. al.
ciaransky on AIM
pant...@hotmail.com on MSN
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
Cephalophage
> anything about animal mating practices, they do not go about raping each
> other to have sex. There's a lot of complex rituals and rules; lots of
> communication; no different from humans than from one species to another.
>
> It should be quite obvious if a dog does not want to mount you.
how you propose to open channels of valid communication so that you can
establish that the critter consents, and so forth.
In any case, show me the scientific data that animals (all animals?) have
the capacity to "consent". I'd be very interested to read it.
> There is more to is than being socially retarded.
Of course there's more to it than being socially retarded. You are focussing
in on a very small sliver of my remarks overall. It's not the only factor,
and there are too many people (some online, some only online) to make a
generalization stick for everyone.
> I was never the most socially adept person, but I was a fur long before I
> knew there was any community. I could have clung desperately to any other,
> more accessable, group of odd balls if my only motivation was to *belong*,
> but I did not.
This is not true. Not all groups of oddballs are as generally tolerant of
other foibles as Furres are. Terrorists are oddballs, but they don't
tolerate pluralism. Fundamentalists are oddballs, but don't tolerate
pluralism.
The bottom line is, correct me if I'm wrong, there's a greater degree of
social awkwardness among Furres than one generally finds in groups. We are
not jocks, were not soces, were not stoners, were not nerds ... even though
we DID play some sports, and DID go to the prom, and DID smoke some pot or
DID do well in school. And so forth. There is no official category from high
school to explain what we were socially, but I'd wager that by and large,
most of us came from that unclassifiable category.
Again, I'm hazarding a statistical generalization. I'm sure there are jocks,
soces, stoners, and nerds who did just fine in those cateogries; obviously,
sexual fetishes are not correllated to social class. The Furres I know are
Leftover Outsiders--no available group (not even a huge social subgroup like
"homosexuals" really fits the bill). That's all I'm saying. Well, it's all
of THIS part of what I'm saying.
>Why, if I'm already socially deprived, should I choose an
> interest that makes me only more so?
Because you hang out with a group of socially deprived people. You go
bowling together, or to 'cons together, etc., etc. etc. Social awkwardness
with other socially awkward people is no longer social awkwardness.
Again, this isn't the only issue involved, of course. It all depends on
whether or not you socialize with FUrres in person, or if only online.
Obviously, if one is only online, then the friendship element (the
socializing element) is nowhere near as pronounced.
>
> With your reasoning, it could be quite well argued that being gay is
simply
> the result of being too socially inept to attract a female and resorting
to
> mating with other equally inept males out of desparation, eventually
> becomming conditioned to that lifestyle.
Why is that theory objectionable? Since sexuality seems to be formed before
puberty, whatever awkwardness or rejection one feels from people of the
opposite sex wouldn't have a specific gay overtone to it. Most guys don't
fail at the straight bar, and then head over to the gay bar instead, but
they're already adults.
If sexual bonding, sexual cathexis (I think the term is) occurs at a young
age, it could attach to males (if you're male) because you don't hang out
with girls just in general, or because you feel you don't belong with girls,
or because you more identify with girls nad so ogle guys with them (although
that, of course, would generally be later).
I could easily make an argument that I'm gay because of pre-adolescent
rejection by women ... a sense of rejection, I should say. How that initial
discomfort turned my head toward guys instead, I don't recall any specific
mechanism. Maybe I was always gay? It's hard to tell, as always.
Cephalophage
> Basically your saying that the it doesn't lie in with "Furries" as much
> as the Internet being an anonymous release for sexual fantasies.
> Likewise that people are often brought into enjoying them by being
> exposed to it enough to begin to desire it.
sexual fantasies into areas I'd not otherwise have ventured into. I mean, I
like being chewed on (with or without furry growling), and so naturally CBT,
genital mutilation, hard vore (if genital) became a subset area of interest.
Plus, there's the fellow IRL who likes chewing too, so of course, we play
that way sometimes, but nothign like the crazy scenes on Taps.
It's not an exclusive fetish. My main online activity, as far as furry sex
goes, is wanting to write exquisite prose that makes the other IRL guy just
have to jack off cuz the scene is so hot. That's my favorite thing, and why
my character will do any scene with another male; preferably the other
male's favorite scene. Making other guys cum is my real fetish (if it can be
called a fetish).
Chewing, and wanting guys to come were preexisting habits of mine, but were
more in nucleus, really. Online, as channeled through Taps and the Furry
community (such as I've experienced it), there's been a definite
reinforcement and growth of these nascent habits.
>
> I was lost by your "bears" and "zoo" train of thought. Do you mean
> hirsute men as "bears" as in a common meaning of the phrase and
> beasiality as "zoo". I was lost.
Bears ... like the bear community amongst homosexuals. The big hairy guys,
who often are into BDSM and such.. And yes, "zoo" refers to animal-fuckers.
>
> You also raise another question I'd love to ask which is "Why Furries?"
> in a similar fashion of asking a Trekker "Why Star Trek?".
I'm not sure I understand the question. What do you mean why Furres? Furres
are people, Star Trek is a TV show. This is apples and oranges so far, so
some clarification would help.
iBuck
>the capacity to "consent". I'd be very interested to read it.
I'd point you at any mare, who kicks a frisky stallion..
If you want more, perhaps starting here
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=Animal+Mating+Ritual
Would be a good idea...
Animals can consent, however since their foreplay often includes body language,
and senses and scents that we're simply not equiped to participate with, much
less at a subconcious level, I don't put much stock in theoris of consent
between humans and animals, unless you want to descibe it as "takeing advantage
of instict" ..
However, there's a a far simpler ereason I tend to lean against human/animal
relationshis, I hold people to a standard of "Informed Consent", it's this
standard that rules out child molestation, and the abuse of the retarded, the
same way it rules out human/animal sex...
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Dan Skunk
"Cephalophage" <ya...@yawn.com> wrote in message
news:FDAvd.191664$V41.68303@attbi_s52...
> > Animals most certainly do have the mental capacity to consent. If you
know
> > anything about animal mating practices, they do not go about raping each
> > other to have sex. There's a lot of complex rituals and rules; lots of
> > communication; no different from humans than from one species to
another.
> >
> > It should be quite obvious if a dog does not want to mount you.
> There is obviously some definitional difficulties here. I don't know
exactly
> how you propose to open channels of valid communication so that you can
> establish that the critter consents, and so forth.
>
> In any case, show me the scientific data that animals (all animals?) have
> the capacity to "consent". I'd be very interested to read it.
I don't need scientific data. I go to pet a dog and it growls at me. I know
it does not consent to be petted.
Show me the scientific data that humans have the capacity to consent.
Anyway, humans are animals. What make you thing one species out of all of
them should be so greatly different?
> > There is more to is than being socially retarded.
> Of course there's more to it than being socially retarded. You are
focussing
> in on a very small sliver of my remarks overall. It's not the only factor,
> and there are too many people (some online, some only online) to make a
> generalization stick for everyone.
Ok. :)
> > I was never the most socially adept person, but I was a fur long before
I
> > knew there was any community. I could have clung desperately to any
other,
> > more accessable, group of odd balls if my only motivation was to
*belong*,
> > but I did not.
> This is not true. Not all groups of oddballs are as generally tolerant of
> other foibles as Furres are. Terrorists are oddballs, but they don't
> tolerate pluralism. Fundamentalists are oddballs, but don't tolerate
> pluralism.
It was not a searching for tolerance, either. It just happenend accross some
people that shared my ideas. Tolerance was just a happy coincidence--I don't
do anything that would be difficult to tolerate, anyway.
> The bottom line is, correct me if I'm wrong, there's a greater degree of
> social awkwardness among Furres than one generally finds in groups. We are
> not jocks, were not soces, were not stoners, were not nerds ... even
though
> we DID play some sports, and DID go to the prom, and DID smoke some pot or
> DID do well in school. And so forth. There is no official category from
high
> school to explain what we were socially, but I'd wager that by and large,
> most of us came from that unclassifiable category.
>
> Again, I'm hazarding a statistical generalization. I'm sure there are
jocks,
> soces, stoners, and nerds who did just fine in those cateogries;
obviously,
> sexual fetishes are not correllated to social class. The Furres I know
are
> Leftover Outsiders--no available group (not even a huge social subgroup
like
> "homosexuals" really fits the bill). That's all I'm saying. Well, it's all
> of THIS part of what I'm saying.
A lot of those groups, from my knowledge, seem to build their membership
from people looking for somewhere to belong.
Furries seem to be build from people with similar interests.
I don't see people joining furry because it's somewhere to belong, but
because they had furry interests to begin with.
> >Why, if I'm already socially deprived, should I choose an
> > interest that makes me only more so?
> Because you hang out with a group of socially deprived people. You go
> bowling together, or to 'cons together, etc., etc. etc. Social awkwardness
> with other socially awkward people is no longer social awkwardness.
>
> Again, this isn't the only issue involved, of course. It all depends on
> whether or not you socialize with FUrres in person, or if only online.
> Obviously, if one is only online, then the friendship element (the
> socializing element) is nowhere near as pronounced.
That's only in the last year, before that I was furry and did not hang out
with any furries and though I was the only one that existed. Your
explanation might fit the last year, but it does not explain why I had this
interest before that. If the purpose is to be social, why should I decide to
be so different? If anything, I supressed my furry ideas trying to be more
social.
> > With your reasoning, it could be quite well argued that being gay is
> simply
> > the result of being too socially inept to attract a female and resorting
> to
> > mating with other equally inept males out of desparation, eventually
> > becomming conditioned to that lifestyle.
> Why is that theory objectionable? Since sexuality seems to be formed
before
> puberty, whatever awkwardness or rejection one feels from people of the
> opposite sex wouldn't have a specific gay overtone to it. Most guys don't
> fail at the straight bar, and then head over to the gay bar instead, but
> they're already adults.
>
> If sexual bonding, sexual cathexis (I think the term is) occurs at a young
> age, it could attach to males (if you're male) because you don't hang out
> with girls just in general, or because you feel you don't belong with
girls,
> or because you more identify with girls nad so ogle guys with them
(although
> that, of course, would generally be later).
>
> I could easily make an argument that I'm gay because of pre-adolescent
> rejection by women ... a sense of rejection, I should say. How that
initial
> discomfort turned my head toward guys instead, I don't recall any specific
> mechanism. Maybe I was always gay? It's hard to tell, as always.
It's only objectionable because lots of gay people I know. Stories I've
heard talk about just not being interested in the opposite sex. No lack of
social skills or opportunity preventing them from courting females leading
them to that preference.
Cephalophage
> However, there's a a far simpler ereason I tend to lean against
human/animal
> relationshis, I hold people to a standard of "Informed Consent", it's
this
> standard that rules out child molestation, and the abuse of the retarded,
the
> same way it rules out human/animal sex...
This is precisely to the point. Consent is not consent if there is no clear
understanding between the parties involved. Someone makes doe eyes at you,
you eagerly mount them cuz you're horny, later, you're told, "I wasn't
hitting on you". It was your hormones that manufactured the consent. Same
thing with animals.
There is no yardstick by which to measure or judge consent between humans
and animals. Children are defined as incapable of consent, whether they can
or not, and THEY have language at their disposal. All the less so animals
therefore.
We appear to be agreeing.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>In any case, show me the scientific data that animals (all animals?) have
>the capacity to "consent". I'd be very interested to read it.
They can't because consent must be informed and animals, by their very
nature, cannot be informed. They cannot make decisions because they
cannot communicate and are not sentient.
As much as bestialists might want to believe it, animals cannot
legally consent to sexual activities any more than children can. Just
because the pedophiles might want them to, they simply cannot.
>The bottom line is, correct me if I'm wrong, there's a greater degree of
>social awkwardness among Furres than one generally finds in groups. We are
>not jocks, were not soces, were not stoners, were not nerds ... even though
>we DID play some sports, and DID go to the prom, and DID smoke some pot or
>DID do well in school. And so forth. There is no official category from high
>school to explain what we were socially, but I'd wager that by and large,
>most of us came from that unclassifiable category.
I don't think it's just furries, it seems to happen in a lot of
fannish groups. It's just more accepted in furrydom than elsewhere,
it seems.
>Again, I'm hazarding a statistical generalization. I'm sure there are jocks,
>soces, stoners, and nerds who did just fine in those cateogries; obviously,
>sexual fetishes are not correllated to social class. The Furres I know are
>Leftover Outsiders--no available group (not even a huge social subgroup like
>"homosexuals" really fits the bill). That's all I'm saying. Well, it's all
>of THIS part of what I'm saying.
If you look at other fandoms, you do find the socially-inept anime fan
and the socially-inept gamer and the socially-inept Star Trek fan, I
just don't see the same *TYPE* or *PERCENTAGE* of them as I see in
furry fandom. You don't see all that many gamers or Star Trek fans
who think the game or Trek is real. There are some, to be sure, but
they are largely seen as insane, even within those fandoms.
Furry fandom has a larger percentage of the insane who think they
really *ARE* animals or have animal souls, but there is a ridiculous
call for tolerance within the fandom in which anything and everything,
no matter how ridiculous, must be tolerated.
>Because you hang out with a group of socially deprived people. You go
>bowling together, or to 'cons together, etc., etc. etc. Social awkwardness
>with other socially awkward people is no longer social awkwardness.
Of course it is if it means you still can't handle society in general.
Four insane people who can share delusions don't make you a social
butterfly.
>Why is that theory objectionable? Since sexuality seems to be formed before
>puberty, whatever awkwardness or rejection one feels from people of the
>opposite sex wouldn't have a specific gay overtone to it. Most guys don't
>fail at the straight bar, and then head over to the gay bar instead, but
>they're already adults.
The problem, and this has been noted by quite a few people, is that
furry sexuality seems to stem from an overwhelming desire to get laid
in any way possible. There is such a ridiculous overemphasis on sex
within the fandom that once combined with the overwelming demand for
tolerance, you get people who stop seeing "taboos" as wrong so long as
they get laid. That applies to online as well as offline activities.
>I could easily make an argument that I'm gay because of pre-adolescent
>rejection by women ... a sense of rejection, I should say. How that initial
>discomfort turned my head toward guys instead, I don't recall any specific
>mechanism. Maybe I was always gay? It's hard to tell, as always.
There are certainly gay individuals who are that way because of
genetic, chemical and formational reasons. They were born predisposed
to homosexuality, just as there are those who are born predisposed to
heterosexuality. The problem is that you find people within the
fandom who never showed any interest or sign of homosexual behavior
before coming into contact with the fandom, but who suddenly developed
those interests because it's "expected" and "accepted" here. You get
people who have been unable to get sex at all, regardless of partner,
until they get into the fandom where there's a disproportionately high
emphasis on sex, no matter what you have to do to get it. That's not
to say there aren't a lot of legitimate gays in the fandom, but I'd
bet there are a lot of people who are gay or bi or whatever simply
because it gets them orgasms.
iBuck
>thing with animals.
Only with regards to humans...
On a animal to animal level, they certianly can -consent- as in a mare being
readdy and willing and lifting her tail for a stallion, even if haven't
scientificall documented the entire routine, there -are- courtship rituals in
the annmal world...
So animals can consent, but can't as far as I'm concerned give -informed-
consent, the two are not the same.
iBuck
>just don't see the same *TYPE* or *PERCENTAGE* of them as I see in
>furry fandom.
I do...
>You don't see all that many gamers or Star Trek fans
>who think the game or Trek is real. There are some, to be sure, but
>they are largely seen as insane, even within those fandoms.
Same goes here as far as I'm concerned..
>Furry fandom has a larger percentage of the insane who think they
>really *ARE* animals or have animal souls,
Which is a very didfrent thing than, thinking some peice of what is manifestly
fiction is real...
But then again, you've allready established your opinion that any type of
non-scienticically based spirtual belif is "irrational"
but there is a ridiculous
>call for tolerance within the fandom in which anything and everything,
>no matter how ridiculous, must be tolerated.
>but there is a ridiculous
>call for tolerance within the fandom in which anything and everything,
>no matter how ridiculous, must be tolerated.
Like Bugs Bunny cartoons, those are pretty ridiculous... but hey, I guess taht
tolerance when you put up withthe anatomically incorrect..
Now if your talking about sexual fetishes... get real...
>Of course it is if it means you still can't >handle society in general.
There's several levels of maginitude between being "awkward" and being "unable
to handle society in general" or "insane"
> There is such a ridiculous overemphasis on sex
>within the fandom that once combined with the overwelming demand for
>tolerance, you get people who stop seeing "taboos" as wrong so long as
>they get laid.
<cosby> riiiiiiggggghhhhht...</cosby>
>That applies to online as well as offline activities.
Cluecheck, fiction doesn't doesn't have the same set of laws, legislative, or
natural as reality. Otherwise we'd never get a good murder myster written
from throwing all the authors in jail..
>The problem is that you find people within the
>fandom who never showed any interest or sign of homosexual behavior
>before coming into contact with the fandom, but who suddenly developed
>those interests because it's "expected" and "accepted" here.
Prove it, especial that it was the furry fandom in particualar that triggerd
it...
Dan Skunk
"iBuck" <lncra...@aol.com.star> wrote in message
news:20041214105411...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> >In any case, show me the scientific data that animals (all animals?) have
> >the capacity to "consent". I'd be very interested to read it.
>
> I'd point you at any mare, who kicks a frisky stallion..
>
> If you want more, perhaps starting here
>
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=Animal+Mating+Ritual
>
> Would be a good idea...
>
> Animals can consent, however since their foreplay often includes body
language,
> and senses and scents that we're simply not equiped to participate with,
much
> less at a subconcious level, I don't put much stock in theoris of consent
> between humans and animals, unless you want to descibe it as "takeing
advantage
> of instict" ..
>
body language and senses and scents.
And it's not much "less" on a subconcious level, but much *more* on a
subconscious level. That body language, and even more so, scent, goes
usually unnoticed by the conscious mind which often is preoccupied with
verbal communication.
And I'm certain even the most dull witted of humans would get the point
after being kicked by a mare.
> However, there's a a far simpler ereason I tend to lean against
human/animal
> relationshis, I hold people to a standard of "Informed Consent", it's
this
> standard that rules out child molestation, and the abuse of the retarded,
the
> same way it rules out human/animal sex...
Such standards are highly subjective.
Animals don't formulate such complex moral and ethical ideologies as humans
have a tendancy towards, so their standard of being "informed" is not the
same as that of humans. Holding animals to human moral standards will not
produce any accurate assesment of them, the same as holding a human from one
culture to the values of another culture, only more so.
Children will not understand the conflicts they will encounter later with
the cultural values they will learn later; hence, "uninformed consent." Such
a situation does not exist with animals, especially with adult animals, so
it's not the same thing at all. Animals are not children.
iBuck
>body language and senses and scents.
but human body language and scents are not equine/canine/bovine/feline scents
and responses, therefore any understanding of the animal's actions and
responses would have to be intelectually lurned, and not be on the instinctual
level the animals are.
>Holding animals to human moral standards will not
>produce any accurate assesment of them, the same as holding a human from one
>culture to the values of another culture, only more so.
Ah, but I'm not holding the animal to a human standard, I'm holding the -human-
to the human standard. And frankly, I don't see any problem with it..
>Children will not understand the conflicts they will encounter later with
>the cultural values they will learn later; hence, "uninformed consent."
Conflicts? how about -concequences-?
>Such
>a situation does not exist with animals, especially with adult animals, so
>it's not the same thing at all. Animals are not children.
No, the child will someday be able to understand, and give informed consent,
the animal -never- will. This just makes the ethical problem worse as far as
I'm concened.
Which leads to the -second- example I mentioned.. the cass of an -adult- human
with intlegence signifigantly below the norm, they have all the human adult
sexual drives, and are certianly able to give as much "consent" as an animal,
if not much much more... but the realtionship is -still- proscribed because of
it's inhereant inequality.
And that's what it comes down to, a logical standard of ethics (at least mine)
demands a co-equal relationship or the relationship is inherantly coercive and
therefore ethically flawed..
Dan Skunk
"Brian Henderson" <BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:meiur09lj7riq78io...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:02:45 GMT, "Cephalophage" <ya...@yawn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In any case, show me the scientific data that animals (all animals?) have
> >the capacity to "consent". I'd be very interested to read it.
>
> They can't because consent must be informed and animals, by their very
> nature, cannot be informed. They cannot make decisions because they
> cannot communicate and are not sentient.
>
Animals are sentient. They are most certainly conscious and aware of their
surroundings.
They even have the ability to make independant decisions based on their
surroundings.
You can't teach them about all the complicated moral consequences, but the
don't care about that stuff anyway, so it doesn't make a difference.
> As much as bestialists might want to believe it, animals cannot
> legally consent to sexual activities any more than children can. Just
> because the pedophiles might want them to, they simply cannot.
>
Legality is subjective.
Animals are not children. They are adults.
What is with all this thinking that animals are so inferior to humans?
<snip>
> Furry fandom has a larger percentage of the insane who think they
> really *ARE* animals or have animal souls, but there is a ridiculous
> call for tolerance within the fandom in which anything and everything,
> no matter how ridiculous, must be tolerated.
*scoff*
No more insane than anyone else who believes the have an immortal soul that
will live on after they die, there's lots of those kind of people around
with all kinds of different ideas on what that soul is about.
What's so different about the idea of being reincarnated as a human?
Essentially, you are saying like 80% of the world's population is insane.
Actually, that *would* explain a lot. :P
<snip>
> There are certainly gay individuals who are that way because of
> genetic, chemical and formational reasons. They were born predisposed
> to homosexuality, just as there are those who are born predisposed to
> heterosexuality. The problem is that you find people within the
> fandom who never showed any interest or sign of homosexual behavior
> before coming into contact with the fandom, but who suddenly developed
> those interests because it's "expected" and "accepted" here. You get
> people who have been unable to get sex at all, regardless of partner,
> until they get into the fandom where there's a disproportionately high
> emphasis on sex, no matter what you have to do to get it. That's not
> to say there aren't a lot of legitimate gays in the fandom, but I'd
> bet there are a lot of people who are gay or bi or whatever simply
> because it gets them orgasms.
Hmm... Possibly. Or possibly they just found somewhere they can be free to
express those ideas.
I think most people probably don't have such well defined sexuality as what
society leads them to believe. This would explain such fluidity. It's hard
to see how someone with only and interest in the opposite sex should
suddenly develop and interest in the same sex.
Dan Skunk
"iBuck" <lncra...@aol.com.star> wrote in message
> >I wouldn't say humans are not equiped. Humans themselves communicate with
> >body language and senses and scents.
>
> but human body language and scents are not equine/canine/bovine/feline
scents
> and responses, therefore any understanding of the animal's actions and
> responses would have to be intelectually lurned, and not be on the
instinctual
> level the animals are.
Yeah, some gestures are easy to figure out, and are more or less universal,
but some might take some carful observation.
> >Holding animals to human moral standards will not
> >produce any accurate assesment of them, the same as holding a human from
one
> >culture to the values of another culture, only more so.
>
> Ah, but I'm not holding the animal to a human standard, I'm holding
the -human-
> to the human standard. And frankly, I don't see any problem with it..
Ok, but the idea I was disagreeing with is that animals are incapable of
informed consent, which I think they are.
Humans standards are a different subject. They are also very subjective with
a lot of things, including sexuality. I don't see any universal human
aversion to mating with other species--if that is what you are talking
about.
> >Children will not understand the conflicts they will encounter later with
> >the cultural values they will learn later; hence, "uninformed consent."
>
> Conflicts? how about -concequences-?
The conflicts are part of the consequences. :P
> >Such
> >a situation does not exist with animals, especially with adult animals,
so
> >it's not the same thing at all. Animals are not children.
>
> No, the child will someday be able to understand, and give informed
consent,
> the animal -never- will. This just makes the ethical problem worse as far
as
> I'm concened.
>
> Which leads to the -second- example I mentioned.. the cass of an -adult-
human
> with intlegence signifigantly below the norm, they have all the human
adult
> sexual drives, and are certianly able to give as much "consent" as an
animal,
> if not much much more... but the realtionship is -still- proscribed
because of
> it's inhereant inequality.
>
> And that's what it comes down to, a logical standard of ethics (at least
mine)
> demands a co-equal relationship or the relationship is inherantly coercive
and
> therefore ethically flawed..
So you are combining sexuality with intelligence.
I find that that mutual sexual interest makes both parties equal. The
partner with more intelligence does not necessarily need to be taking
advantage of the other. They could still be perfectly respectful of the
other party and concerned for their welfare. Intelligence does not
necessarily make you a bad person.
BR
> I don't see any universal human aversion to mating with other
> species--if that is what you are talking about.
Well that's one way to create furries. :>
"Mom, dad. Meet my fiance."
--
-- James Fenimore Cooper
The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes,
knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.
BR
> "Brian Henderson" <BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:meiur09lj7riq78io...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:02:45 GMT, "Cephalophage" <ya...@yawn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In any case, show me the scientific data that animals (all animals?)
>> >have the capacity to "consent". I'd be very interested to read it.
>>
>> They can't because consent must be informed and animals, by their very
>> nature, cannot be informed. They cannot make decisions because they
>> cannot communicate and are not sentient.
>>
> ?
>
> Animals are sentient. They are most certainly conscious and aware of
> their surroundings.
[conscious]
1. Possessing the faculty of knowing one's own thoughts or mental
operations.
I think, therefore I think.
> They even have the ability to make independant decisions based on their
> surroundings.
>
> You can't teach them about all the complicated moral consequences, but
> the don't care about that stuff anyway, so it doesn't make a difference.
>
>> As much as bestialists might want to believe it, animals cannot legally
>> consent to sexual activities any more than children can. Just because
>> the pedophiles might want them to, they simply cannot.
>>
> Legality is subjective.
A philosophy that has served our society well. It's that darn morality
that keeps getting in the way.
> Animals are not children. They are adults.
Some are, some aren't.
> What is with all this thinking that animals are so inferior to humans?
My cat doesn't think so.
> <snip>
>> Furry fandom has a larger percentage of the insane who think they
>> really *ARE* animals or have animal souls, but there is a ridiculous
>> call for tolerance within the fandom in which anything and everything,
>> no matter how ridiculous, must be tolerated.
>
> *scoff*
>
> No more insane than anyone else who believes the have an immortal soul
> that will live on after they die, there's lots of those kind of people
> around with all kinds of different ideas on what that soul is about.
Insanity and inconcievable seem to go hand in hand.
> I think most people probably don't have such well defined sexuality as
> what society leads them to believe.
That's what operations were made for.
Dan Skunk
"BR" <brodr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.12.15....@comcast.net...
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:32:12 -0500, Dan Skunk wrote:
>
> > I don't see any universal human aversion to mating with other
> > species--if that is what you are talking about.
>
> Well that's one way to create furries. :>
>
> "Mom, dad. Meet my fiance."
Heh. :P
Dan Skunk
<snip>
> > What is with all this thinking that animals are so inferior to humans?
>
> My cat doesn't think so.
:)
<snip>
> > I think most people probably don't have such well defined sexuality as
> > what society leads them to believe.
>
> That's what operations were made for.
O.o
iBuck
No, I'm combining -morality- with intelegence, sexual morality is only one part
of it...
RHJunior
Much is argued about how "zoophilia" does or does not harm the animal, and
how the animal can or cannot consent (setting aside the fact that the most
intelligent animal possesses less cognitive ability than a three-year-old
child....)
Little or no thought is given, I note with great sadness, as to how it
degrades and defiles the human.
Do you honestly believe a thirteen point dissertation is needed to convince
a bestialist that what they are doing is revolting, disgusting, and
irrevocably wrong? They KNOW this, without being told. **They just don't
care.** Do you understand? They. Don't. CARE. And they WON'T care, so long
as they have enough people standing around them, endlessly repeating the
false mantra about what wonderful loving liberated creatures they are.
Their depravity and their ability to numb themselves to the shame, the shame
that should be eating their insides out, will not cease until they are
universally and unequivocally shunned, penalized, ostracized, and openly and
vocally and unendingly rebuked from every direction, until they have NO
hiding place, metaphorical, psychological or literal, where they can indulge
their self-desecration without shame.
Brian Henderson
>Which is a very didfrent thing than, thinking some peice of what is manifestly
>fiction is real...
Animal souls are manifestly fiction, sorry.
>Like Bugs Bunny cartoons, those are pretty ridiculous... but hey, I guess taht
>tolerance when you put up withthe anatomically incorrect..
True, but you don't see Bugs trying to boink Elmer. Granted, Bugs
seems to have a crossdressing fetish sometimes, but...
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Animals are sentient. They are most certainly conscious and aware of their
>surroundings.
Animals are not sentient along the same lines as humans. There is no
evidence that they understand that they are separate individuals that
can act outside of their instincts.
>They even have the ability to make independant decisions based on their
>surroundings.
Decisions which are colored by their inbred instincts.
>You can't teach them about all the complicated moral consequences, but the
>don't care about that stuff anyway, so it doesn't make a difference.
Morals don't exist for animals since morals are a purely human
concept.
>Legality is subjective.
Go shoot someone and claim, as your defense, that legality is
subjective. Go ahead, we'll wait.
>Animals are not children. They are adults.
Not legally.
>What is with all this thinking that animals are so inferior to humans?
Legally they are. So long as you don't violate laws regarding
cruelty, you can pretty much do anything you want to an animal. You
can kill it, eat it, skin it, wear it... whatever you want.
Try that with a human.
>No more insane than anyone else who believes the have an immortal soul that
>will live on after they die, there's lots of those kind of people around
>with all kinds of different ideas on what that soul is about.
Well, they are insane as well, but that's beside the point.
>I think most people probably don't have such well defined sexuality as what
>society leads them to believe. This would explain such fluidity. It's hard
>to see how someone with only and interest in the opposite sex should
>suddenly develop and interest in the same sex.
You see it all the time. Jailhouse gays do develop an interest in
same-sex relationships in the absence of other-sex partners.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who put a supreme
emphasis on sex... ANY sex. Just getting into close, intimate contact
with another individual, there are people who will go to any person,
creature or object which lets them get their rocks off and then try to
justify their actions after the fact.
Brian Henderson
>So animals can consent, but can't as far as I'm concerned give -informed-
>consent, the two are not the same.
For animals, the sex act is almost solely for reproduction. That's
why they are mating rituals, that's why females seek out the most
physically healthy specimen to mate with. But in the wild. you don't
see horses trying to get it on with wolves or cougars humping
porcupines. Given a completely natural setting without any human
interference, you don't see animals crossing species lines to
consentually have sex with another type of animal. The idea that any
animal is going to "consent" to being raped by a human is just
ludicrous.
Dan Skunk
"iBuck" <lncra...@aol.com.star> wrote in message
> >So you are combining sexuality with intelligence.
>
> No, I'm combining -morality- with intelegence, sexual morality is only one
part
> of it...
Animals also have morality.
Morality is simply a system of right and wrong, good and evil.
Just as humans, animals have an instinctive sense of good and evil.
Zebra do not throw themselves to the lions--that would be a bad thing.
It seems clear to me that all our moral systems come from some attempt of
our intellect to understand our instinctive sense of good and evil--however
well, or not so well that theory might work out in practice.
Animals most certainly have that same ability to choose right from wrong as
humans do, their morality is really not that much different from ours, we
just think about ours a lot more rather than just going with our feelings.
Dan Skunk
"RHJunior" <blu...@ntelos.net> wrote in message
news:9LYvd.89$RD...@fe39.usenetserver.com...
Why is zoophilia wrong?
I see no inate wrongness to is other than people's opinions.
At the very most, I would say it's a deviation from normal human behaviour,
but behaviour has no predefined standard of normality. It varies from one
person to another accross a broad spectrum. Being near one end of the
spectrum does not make you wrong. It just makes you you.
Keeping animals as pets, caring for them as though they were children. This
could be interpreted as a perversion of normal human childrearing instincts,
applying what is meant for other humans to animals. Pet owners are not
considered deviants though. If the human capacity for love and companionship
is not limited by species, why should someone who sees an animal as an
equal, rather than a subordinate, be considered wrong?
Dan Skunk
Heh, but rape implies that no consent was given.
I've heard of examples of animals having interspecies sex. Even seen animals
trying to rape humans.
Dan Skunk
> On 14 Dec 2004 21:27:24 GMT, lncra...@aol.com.star (iBuck) wrote:
>
> >Which is a very didfrent thing than, thinking some peice of what is
manifestly
> >fiction is real...
>
> Animal souls are manifestly fiction, sorry.
>
Do you think humans have souls, and if so, why can't the same rules apply to
another species?
Dan Skunk
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:09:39 -0500, "Dan Skunk" <dans...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Animals are sentient. They are most certainly conscious and aware of
their
> >surroundings.
>
> Animals are not sentient along the same lines as humans. There is no
> evidence that they understand that they are separate individuals that
> can act outside of their instincts.
>
different from other species in their behaviour.
I have seen animals that have been taught to talk having the ability to
refer to themselves. This should not happen if they are incapable of self
awareness.
Any level of intelligence should require some concept of self. How can you
make decisions on what's best for you if you have no concept of you.
> >They even have the ability to make independant decisions based on their
> >surroundings.
>
> Decisions which are colored by their inbred instincts.
>
As do humans. Humans are not immune to such things as pain and pleasure,
fear and love.
> >You can't teach them about all the complicated moral consequences, but
the
> >don't care about that stuff anyway, so it doesn't make a difference.
>
> Morals don't exist for animals since morals are a purely human
> concept.
>
> >Legality is subjective.
>
> Go shoot someone and claim, as your defense, that legality is
> subjective. Go ahead, we'll wait.
>
Legality is subject to the opinions of the people who create the laws.
This does not mean laws do not still exist and will be applied to me by
society.
> >Animals are not children. They are adults.
>
> Not legally.
>
Legality does not make something true. Animals are not considered people
under the law--which makes sense since laws are made to regulate human
behaviour, not animal behaviour.
> >What is with all this thinking that animals are so inferior to humans?
>
> Legally they are. So long as you don't violate laws regarding
> cruelty, you can pretty much do anything you want to an animal. You
> can kill it, eat it, skin it, wear it... whatever you want.
>
> Try that with a human.
>
Like I said, that doesn't make it true. Opinions make laws. Opinions are not
necessarily true.
There's good reasons humans aren't allowed to prey on each other--that would
defeat the whole purpose of civilization--having many people work together
for mutual benefit and protection. Preying on animals does not contradict
that purpose, hence, no need for such a law.
> >No more insane than anyone else who believes the have an immortal soul
that
> >will live on after they die, there's lots of those kind of people around
> >with all kinds of different ideas on what that soul is about.
>
> Well, they are insane as well, but that's beside the point.
>
> >I think most people probably don't have such well defined sexuality as
what
> >society leads them to believe. This would explain such fluidity. It's
hard
> >to see how someone with only and interest in the opposite sex should
> >suddenly develop and interest in the same sex.
>
> You see it all the time. Jailhouse gays do develop an interest in
> same-sex relationships in the absence of other-sex partners.
> Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who put a supreme
> emphasis on sex... ANY sex. Just getting into close, intimate contact
> with another individual, there are people who will go to any person,
> creature or object which lets them get their rocks off and then try to
> justify their actions after the fact.
The justification is, get their rocks off. However they want to rationalize
that is a matter of opinion and is really beside the point.
Dan Skunk
"Darrel L. Exline" <dar...@polarden.org> wrote in message
news:1103130969.8...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dan Skunk wrote:
> >
> > Animals most certainly do have the mental capacity to consent. If you
> know
> > anything about animal mating practices, they do not go about raping
> each
> > other to have sex. There's a lot of complex rituals and rules; lots
> of
> > communication; no different from humans than from one species to
> another.
>
> capacity of consent several magnitudes greater than a pet dog) should
> be allowed to have sex with an adult, then.
> Bullshit! Fucking your pet is wrong. It is rape. It is sick.
>
That's not the same thing. The moral standard for a girl is different than
for a dog.
And the girl is not an adult, whereas the dog is. The girl is still immature
while the dog is not.
The dog knows all the moral consequences it will need to deal with.
Dale Farmer
Dan Skunk wrote:
When I was about eight years old, the neighbors dog made a fairly
energetic attempt to mount me. I was wearing a heavy coat and all it
managed to to was make a mess of my coat. And rather traumatized
me at the time, hence my ability to clearly remember it 30+ years
later. I had no idea what it wanted, but my parents were pretty upset
about it
--Dale
Dan Skunk
"Dale Farmer" <da...@cybercom.net> wrote in message
news:41C08D3C...@cybercom.net...
I had a dog try to mount me a few times when I was crouched down. I didn't
know what he wanted at the time either.
I was like 12 or 13.
I got kinda a clue the 3rd time when I looked behind me and saw that his
penis was partly unsheathed, didn't really register at the time though.
His owners weren't too happy about it. I thought is was kinda fun, but I
guess he was looking for more than a hug.
Samantha, the Electric Aardvark
Alright then, replace '8 year old girl' with 'Baptist Minister' or
some other person with severe mental retardation.
Samantha, the Electric Aardvark
Brian Henderson <BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote:
>On 14 Dec 2004 21:13:05 GMT, lncra...@aol.com.star (iBuck) wrote:
>
>>So animals can consent, but can't as far as I'm concerned give -informed-
>>consent, the two are not the same.
>
>For animals, the sex act is almost solely for reproduction. That's
>why they are mating rituals, that's why females seek out the most
>physically healthy specimen to mate with. But in the wild. you don't
B... While I really detest the beastiality freaks, you're off on a
wild hare here. Either that, or (prior to getting her fixed)
my cat's idea of a healthy specimen to mate with was a shoe. ...
Any shoe...
Darrel L. Exline
Juan F. Lara
RHJunior <blu...@ntelos.net> wrote:
> Little or no thought is given, I note with great sadness, as to how it
> degrades and defiles the human.
It's the human that's doing the degrading to him/herself. If that person
is messing up their own life it's their own fault. Let them take personal
responsibility for their actions.
> Do you honestly believe a thirteen point dissertation is needed to convince
> a bestialist that what they are doing is revolting, disgusting, and
> irrevocably wrong?
It's irrevocably wrong because it's hurting somebody else. It's the
"somebody else" part that's important.
- Juan F. Lara
Cephalophage
> So animals can consent, but can't as far as I'm concerned give -informed-
> consent, the two are not the same.
Informed consent is the only valid category of consent so far as a
discussion of consent is concerned.
So, we are agreeing here.
Cephalophage
> animal is going to "consent" to being raped by a human is just
> ludicrous.
Quite so. Any act of humans mounting an animal is, ipso facto, rape.
I'll add, though, if you're going to rape something, better an animal than a
human.
Cephalophage
> I've heard of examples of animals having interspecies sex. Even seen
animals
> trying to rape humans.
This muddlign of hte idea of will, cognition and consent is baffling.
Animals can't rape humans.
Cephalophage
>
> Morality is simply a system of right and wrong, good and evil.
>
> Just as humans, animals have an instinctive sense of good and evil.
<gapes>
This is simply off the wall. I can only imagine you have not studied zoology
and have derived your notions of animal behavior and intelligence from
Richard Adams' books.
Aristotle equated right with "beneficial actions" and wrong with
"non-beneficial actions" with regard to the subject acting. What's more, he
insisted that even in the case where apparently destructive results
resulted, the subject in question still believed that what she or he chose
to do was perceived as being the most beneficial thing at the time.
This kind of analysis is a sort of moral analysis, but Aristotle never ever
brings up any notions of good or evil, because they are useless, or
irrelevant terms.
Good and evil are entirely subjective terms. Saddam Hussein is evil to W,
and good to himself.
Moreover, since you say that mroality is a "system", animals are incapable
of having a system. All they do is react to any given stimulus. THe idea of
choice, which is necessary for any system of moralirty, simply doesn't exist
in animals. This is not mere speculation. The cognitive centers that humans
have which make abstract decisions based on data input simply do not exist
in animals. They don't do it. What looks to us like choices on the parts of
animals are really just biochemical mechanisms that we mistake for choices.
Dan Skunk
Dan Skunk
> >The idea that any
> > animal is going to "consent" to being raped by a human is just
> > ludicrous.
>
> Quite so. Any act of humans mounting an animal is, ipso facto, rape.
Unless the animal wants it.
> I'll add, though, if you're going to rape something, better an animal than
a
> human.
I think they're both equally wrong.
Dan Skunk
> > Animals also have morality.
> >
> > Morality is simply a system of right and wrong, good and evil.
> >
> > Just as humans, animals have an instinctive sense of good and evil.
>
> <gapes>
> This is simply off the wall. I can only imagine you have not studied
zoology
> and have derived your notions of animal behavior and intelligence from
> Richard Adams' books.
>
> Aristotle equated right with "beneficial actions" and wrong with
> "non-beneficial actions" with regard to the subject acting. What's more,
he
> insisted that even in the case where apparently destructive results
> resulted, the subject in question still believed that what she or he chose
> to do was perceived as being the most beneficial thing at the time.
>
themselves.
> This kind of analysis is a sort of moral analysis, but Aristotle never
ever
> brings up any notions of good or evil, because they are useless, or
> irrelevant terms.
>
> Good and evil are entirely subjective terms. Saddam Hussein is evil to W,
> and good to himself.
>
Good and evil are much closer to emotive responses to a situation, but
intrinsicly linked to right and wrong. When someone wrong us, it is natural
to think they are evile. And good and evil, just as right and wrong, are
very subjective.
What is good for one person might be bad for another.
It is from analysing these emotions that ideas of morality are created.
> Moreover, since you say that mroality is a "system", animals are incapable
> of having a system. All they do is react to any given stimulus. THe idea
of
> choice, which is necessary for any system of moralirty, simply doesn't
exist
> in animals. This is not mere speculation. The cognitive centers that
humans
> have which make abstract decisions based on data input simply do not exist
> in animals. They don't do it. What looks to us like choices on the parts
of
> animals are really just biochemical mechanisms that we mistake for
choices.
lol.
Human though is also no more than biochemical mechanism. Humans also do
nothing more than react to given stimuli. That they do it in a more complex
way, does not change the fact that the identical process is taking place.
The choice animals make involves right and wrong, it's just not as complex.
Being that it is not complex, the psychological dangers one trys to avoid by
making informed decisions is also negligable making the degree of being
informed that is needed to avoid such dangers for animals also negligable.
Animals have all the information they need to make such a decision about
what is right for themselves.
----------
An a related note:
In a way, all the psychological damage cause by uninformed consent with
children comes not from the act itself, but is inflicted upon the parties by
society; by the code of morality society imposes on the parties. Were such
acts socially acceptable, they would not be damaging.
Dan Skunk
"Juan F. Lara" <lj...@ces.clemson.edu> wrote in message
news:cpq476$62g$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu...
Raping animals is wrong becasue it hurts them, but having consentual sex
with them does not hurt them.
So it also depends on the circumstance.
Dan Skunk
"Samantha, the Electric Aardvark" <cir...@armory.com> wrote in message
news:41c09dfb$0$80348$c0de...@dsl.net...
Well, mental retardation could cause the person's maturity to be that of an
8 year old.
A mentally retarded dog would have the same problem.
BR
> Like I said, that doesn't make it true. Opinions make laws. Opinions are
> not necessarily true.
Opinions, and facts make laws.
> There's good reasons humans aren't allowed to prey on each other--that
> would defeat the whole purpose of civilization--having many people work
> together for mutual benefit and protection. Preying on animals does not
> contradict that purpose, hence, no need for such a law.
>
>
War.
--
-- James Fenimore Cooper
The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes,
knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.
BR
> At the very most, I would say it's a deviation from normal human
> behaviour, but behaviour has no predefined standard of normality. It
> varies from one person to another accross a broad spectrum. Being near
> one end of the spectrum does not make you wrong. It just makes you you.
Brain scans may disagree.
BR
> Do you think humans have souls, and if so, why can't the same rules
> apply to another species?
Yup. Got rhythm too.
Dan Skunk
"Dan Skunk" <dans...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xt2wd.91$sF...@fe51.usenetserver.com...
<snip>
> An a related note:
>
> In a way, all the psychological damage cause by uninformed consent with
> children comes not from the act itself, but is inflicted upon the parties
by
> society; by the code of morality society imposes on the parties. Were such
> acts socially acceptable, they would not be damaging.
Lemme retract that.
In regards to children, although the psychological damage may be attributed
to society to a great extent, it's also still wrong because a child is not
sexually mature, does not know what they're doing, and can't possibly
consent because they have no desire to participate.
This makes it an inheirently selfish act by the adult.
Cephalophage
Let me mention something in advance. I do not consider myself "zoo", so
don't think you can write me off on those grounds.
> Little or no thought is given, I note with great sadness, as to how it
> degrades and defiles the human.
Obviously, you've given little or no thought to how it elevates nad purifies
the human either, have you.
> Do you honestly believe a thirteen point dissertation is needed to
convince
> a bestialist that what they are doing is revolting, disgusting, and
> irrevocably wrong?
Will a thireteen point dissertion prove to you that it's right? Or are you
so close-minded that you feel it is your inalienable right to criticise
someone for what they do in the priacy of their own barnyard? I suppose you
have no clue that, in rural communities, using animals (particularly sheep)
as a sexual outlet was actually an actively encouraged habit, because it
prevented sons from getting local gals pregnant.
What exactly are you insisting on that makes you say that the person knows
it's wrong? Because they have to be secretive about it? Homosexuals had to
be secretive about their sexuality up until fairly recently. Did that mean
that they knew their behavior was revolting, disgusting and irrevocably
wrong? No, it means that they knew that they stood to be physically harmed
by bigots who took it upon themselves to label their harmless desires as
revolting, disgusting and irrevocably wrong.
>They KNOW this, without being told. **They just don't
> care.** Do you understand? They. Don't. CARE. And they WON'T care, so
long
> as they have enough people standing around them, endlessly repeating the
> false mantra about what wonderful loving liberated creatures they are.
Once again, it was a bunch of gay people standing around "endlessly
repeating the false mantra about what wonderful loving liberated creatures
they are" that formed the backbone of the gay liberation movement.
Your judgment of zoo people is based strictly on numbers, and the bigotry of
numbers. Because there are millions of homosexuals, you accept that as okay,
but because there are only 100,00 zoo, it's not okay. Ridiculous.
> Their depravity and their ability to numb themselves to the shame, the
shame
> that should be eating their insides out, will not cease until they are
> universally and unequivocally shunned, penalized, ostracized, and openly
and
> vocally and unendingly rebuked from every direction, until they have NO
> hiding place, metaphorical, psychological or literal, where they can
indulge
> their self-desecration without shame.
Of course, now you exhibit a complete misunderstanding of human psychology.
Ostracizing, criticizing and lambasting people will not cause them to stop.
It will drive the behavior further underground, to where YOU won't have to
see it, but it will NOT make it go away, no more than homosexuality ever
vanished.
Consider the converse. Do you think anything will be accomplished by me
declaring that your sexuality is depraved, revolting, loathesome, disgusting
and wrong? I don't care what you're into, the fact that millions of others
do it, or only 12, is EXACTLY the same so-called justification that you are
saying doesn't fly for those into zoo.
If you are gay, I will remind you that until 1973, it was considered a
mental disorder. It was "universally agreed" that such a depravity was a
paraphillia, in the clinical sense, and was to be treated with drugs,
lobotomies, electroshock, whatever would work. The idea that aversion
therapy "works" is still bandied about in some Fundamentalist circles. It
was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now.
If 500,000 people are into bestiality, that's plenty to make it obvious that
it's not merely some freakish sexual habit held by a few sick individuals.
If only 2 are, the situation is not changed in the least.
I will remind you also that, by analogy, just as homophobia is primarily a
disease that afflicts closeted homosexuals and (males) with sexual identity
issues (whether they turn out to be gay or straight), that the powerful
reaction against zoo that you are evincing suggests that you have a secret
desire for it, but are revolted and appalled by the idea, and consequently
have to "bash" it in public with intemperate and incongruous vehemence.
There are plenty of kinks that don't work for me, and plenty that I simply
don't get the appeal of. And I'm pretty open-minded about these things. But
just because something isn't my cup of tea sexually, I would NEVER take it
upon myself to bash someone for what they like sexually, so long as it
doesn't involve another nonconsenting human. If it's hurting no one
("hurting" in an unwilling sense, masochists want to be hurt), then it's not
my business at all to tell someone that their sexual desires are revolting,
disgusting and irrevocably wrong; to think I can is what is disgusting,
revolting and irrevocably wrong.
If I want to start waving that stupid stick around, then I'm going to end up
bashed by it myself, and I'll deserve it. In fact, I deserve it
threefold--once for being an asshole, once as karmic punishment against my
own kinks of sexuality (being "reverse bashed" by some imaginary critic of
my tastes), and once as an intolerant reaction to intolerance.
It's very simple. You don't like "zoo" don't do it, and keep your nose out
of it.
It doesn't strike me that you'd be particularly open to any kind of rational
discussion about the topic. There are certainly "criticisms" or questions
that one can raise about the psychology of "zoo", but that has nothing to do
with whether or not it should be indulged or not. There is a theory of
homosexuality that says it's a reaction against the inility to be sexually
successful with women; even if that is true, that doesn't mean the practice
is wrong. World-wide, a dominant view of homosexuality is that it's
something naturally practiced during one's youth, but with adulthood, you
are expected to put away that habit and marry, and beget a family. Failure
to do so is what causes social ire to be directed at you. In other words,
homosexuality is natural for a time, and then it's not. Whether or not a
husband is still permitted to indulge in homosexual behavior after marriage
is a muddier issue, which most cultures don't seem to address much. But
even if all of this is true, it doesn't mean that the practice of
homosexuality is revolting, disgusting or irrevocably wrong.
The only real issue is if the activity hurts someone. You, apparently, want
to say that the person humping the dog is hurting himself. You reference his
loss of dignity, his self-desecration.
Well, in the first place, there's a whole range of sexual experience in
which "ego annihilation" is precisely the object to be sought. As such, such
desecration or "dirtiness" is EXACTLY to the point. You have a very serious
misunderstanding of human sexuality if you think that ALL sexual activity
leaves its traces on the human psyche afterward. You are completely failing
to recall that fantasy in sex is a key element. And FANTASY ISN'T REAL. Let
me repeat that. Fantasy isn't real. It's something indulged in temporarily,
as precisely something that can't be normally experienced in daily life, and
after the experience is had, you go about with daily life. When you
masturbate, and imagine you have a fourteen inch cock you can suck on
yourself, afterward, you return to reality, and you are not some marked,
desecrated, besmirched being for it. On the contrary, you are precisely
enriched because your fantasy has satisfied you in a way you normally cannot
be.
So, if you see ego annihilation during sex (like people who are mummified
and then experience sensory deprivation), that doesn't mean they have no ego
normally, or that they are fundamentally self-destroying, submissive,
worm-like bastards who seeking nothing more than to be squashed under the
heel of the next available person to come along. It means they've indulged
in a satisfying fantasy of ego-annihilation, and are now cathartically
better prepared to deal with real life again in their own way.
Certainly there are addictive personalities who become so consumed in the
activity that they can no longer function without it. Even here, until it
begins to have legal consequences or begins to negatively affect their
social life, or (most importantly) until THEY begin to feel it is a problem,
it's NOT a problem. I'm sure you have your addictive elements in your life;
everyone does. Shall I label them self-desecrating, simply because you are a
slave to that desire?
That's nuts.
It seems to me that the idea of being in a "relationship" with an animal (a
sexual relationship that you construe as the equivalent of a human
relationship) is neurotic. Because there is no equivalence between the
"people" involved, the nature of the relationship is fundamentally not a
relationship. It is a thing that allows the person to have complete control;
it is a fantasy construct in which all desires by the human are fulfilled,
without having to be accountable for, or to take responsibility for, the
other party. This does not resemble a real relationship in any way, which
must be predicated on mutual responsibility, and all that, etc., etc.
Obviously, this kind of non-relationship is satisfying to some people. Who
am I to say that it is revolting, disgusting and irrevocably wrong? I would
say that if, on some level, such a person ALSO seeks an actual relationship
with a human being, that they are making things hard on themselves, because
they are cognitively retraining themselves to an idea of "relationship" that
is not applicable to the human sphere. People with online "relationships" do
the same thing, incidentally.
But if you have determined, for whatever reason, that you will never have a
human relationship, or perhaps you have decided that you like the control
element of a "relationship" with an animal, then who is to say that it's not
emotionally satisfying? It's not my cup of tea. I want a mutual relationship
with another human, and if I was in a "relationship" with a dog, or if I am
in a "relationship" with someone online, then I am working against my stated
aim or wanting a human relationship, because I am indulging in a practice
that precisely runs contrary to my aim.
Not that these things are always so cut and dried. Maybe I want to control,
and I also want mutuality. I could indulge in zoo as a fantasy, while also
having a boyfriend with mutuality. How in the world can this be harming
myself? It is entirely possible that by having the outlet with a dog for my
control neurosis, I defuse it in my relationship with my boyfriend, so that
I don't try to control him.
People practice things in their fantasy life to keep them from influencing
their living life. IF you want to have sex with kids, it's better to
fantasize about it than to indulge it in real life. If the fantasy defuses
the desire, so that you don't actually go out and seek sex with a child,
that's OBVIOUSLY a completely beneficial practice, and one which any
right-minded person would support. If the practice of fantasy merely
increases the desire to do it in reality, and creates more frustration than
it releases, then clearly, said person shouldn't be indulging in the
fantasy, since it is creating more danger for himself and children. How one
tells a difference is tricky and, frankly, involves a responsibility on the
par tof the one fantasizing to recognize the difference.
So, that's my long, considered response to your irresponsible, obnoxious
rant. Take a chill pill and get down from your soapbox, or else go hang out
with the crazies on the corner, with their hand-lettered cardboard signs
pronouncing the end of the world. Your intolerance is counterproductive, to
say nothing of obnoxious and suspicious.
Thank you.
Cephalophage
BR
> Unless the animal wants it.
Man: "Do you want it?"
Dog: "Woof, woof, woof."
Sounds like a yes to me.
BR
> Well, mental retardation could cause the person's maturity to be that of
> an 8 year old.
>
> A mentally retarded dog would have the same problem.
How would one know the difference? It stops being able to quote Plato?
Juan F. Lara
Dan Skunk <dans...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Raping animals is wrong becasue it hurts them, but having consentual sex
> with them does not hurt them.
I think there's already been countless posts that the notion of
"consential sex" with animals rivals the Flat Earth in ridiculousness...
- Juan F. Lara
Darrel L. Exline
Oh, you are so full of it!
What it comes down to is that you would rather screw your pet than try
to deal with a real relationship. All fido wants is some petting,
food, and a warm place to curl up, and that's a lot easier for you to
deal with than actually having a girl/boyfriend. No planning your
schedule so that you can go to the movies... no buying gifts on
holidays and anniversaries... no dealing with the relatives... no
figthing over the remote when Gilmore Girls is on vs. the big game on
ESPN... No trying to be what they want you to be for fear of losing
them... Nope, not for you. You'd rather just take the easy way and
fuck your pet instead. Fido doesn't like it, then Fido can go hungry,
or Fido can find the door and take off. You are a rapist, plain and
simple. You have control over that animal and it is NOT able to
express consent.
THEN, not wanting to admit that you are in the wrong (and you KNOW you
are in the wrong) you try to convince others that what you are doing is
somehow ok and should be accepted as normal.
Well it's not. Wanting to have sex with your pet is just wrong, plain
and simple. Actually commiting the act should mandate that society cut
your balls off.
You don't even have the decency to hide your kink in the closet.
That's two charges against you: animal rapist and capital stupdity.
Want to know why people think furry is weird? Look in the mirror; you
are the problem! For every idiot who flaunts their pet-screwing kink
like you do, a hundred or more others get unfairly tarred with the same
brush.
And no one, anywhere, has the right to tell me that I have to tolerate
it.
Caged_Horse
left a bad name. That, and post-modernism. (Perhaps we could attempt to
pass off goat-f*cking as an act of intertextual homage?)
Darrel L. Exline
living in the Ituri Forest who was accepted by a family of Gorillas.
She was grooming and being groomed, and suddenly found that she had to
submit to the Silverback.
What was she going to do? Resist and have her limbs torn from her
body? Her report of the event says it was over very quickly (just a
few seconds) but it was extremely traumatic. She left the Congo
immediately and came back to the states.
Having the roles reversed doesn't change the fact that it was rape...
but the Silverback obviously isn't going to be charged with any crime.
iBuck
I've seen at least -one- example with horses otherwise, and then there are the
bonbonos... so it's quite a bit more than "soley" for reproduction..
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
iBuck
Even then. Since the animal as pepole have said here is incapable of giving a
human level of consent.
iBuck
>left a bad name.
And assumining that all the "left" agrees, is what gives the right a bad
name...
Samantha, the Platinum Platypus
I like his claim that liberals are the ones who reduce things to
simplistic terms and are big on 'moral relativism'. Ya'know, like
acceptable torture and such.
Of course, it might also be good if he looked up big words like
'post-modern' before attempting to incorrectly use them in a sentence.
Finally. For shame on him trying to demonize those 3v!1 1!b3r41s
by claiming those people must be on the left. I'd bet you anything that,
given the number of rednecks humping livestock, that liberals are in the
severe minority when it comes to raping animals. Makes a lot more sense,
doesn't it? Evil liberals are so concerned with feelings and rights,
how could they rape a puppy when they can't know for sure it can consent.
On the other hand, what's to stop Billy-Bob, who thinks animals are souless
creatures with no feelings? Pretty easy for him to justify stuffing his
man-meat into it. Har! Just think! After that, he can send the animal to
slaughter and no one but him will know and dozens of people will eat an
animal he spoo'd in. That's gotta be a major power trip.
Of course, before I confuse Cumsby, I should note that, yes, I am better
than him. He mad ea blanket statement about liberals. I, by contrast, am
stating that justification for animal rape fits better with right-wing
ideals, not claiming all right-wingers fuck sheep. (Although a good half
of them are sheep and one assumes they have fugly sheep sex, so YMMV) :)
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
> "iBuck" <lncra...@aol.com.star> wrote in message
> news:20041214210413...@mb-m17.aol.com...
[...]
> > but human body language and scents are not equine/canine/bovine/feline
> scents
> > and responses, therefore any understanding of the animal's actions and
> > responses would have to be intelectually lurned, and not be on the
> instinctual
> > level the animals are.
>
> Yeah, some gestures are easy to figure out, and are more or less universal,
> but some might take some carful observation.
At least with dogs, there is everdence that suggests we have bred them
for easly understood body language. And they have been evolved an
understandinging of ours.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Brian Henderson
Aardvark) wrote:
>B... While I really detest the beastiality freaks, you're off on a
>wild hare here. Either that, or (prior to getting her fixed)
>my cat's idea of a healthy specimen to mate with was a shoe. ...
>Any shoe...
Your cat wasn't trying to breed with the shoe, I'm sure. And just
because you had an insane cat doesn't prove that all cats are insane
(although they are). ;)
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Humans also don't act outside of their instincts. They are not that
>different from other species in their behaviour.
Certainly they do. We have the ability to act against our best
interests and against our biological programming. We do it all the
time. Well, normal people do, furries on the other hand...
>I have seen animals that have been taught to talk having the ability to
>refer to themselves. This should not happen if they are incapable of self
>awareness.
You're taking human language and forcing it onto an animal. Until you
figure out how to speak to the animals in their own languages, using
their own concepts, the idea is inherently flawed.
>Any level of intelligence should require some concept of self. How can you
>make decisions on what's best for you if you have no concept of you.
Because they don't make decisions based on what's best for them, only
for what's best for the species, as programmed into their genes.
>As do humans. Humans are not immune to such things as pain and pleasure,
>fear and love.
But you don't see animals running into burning buildings to rescue
non-related animals. Humans do that. We have the ability to override
base biological imperatives. Animals do not.
>Legality is subject to the opinions of the people who create the laws.
Doesn't stop you from being bound by the laws.
>Legality does not make something true. Animals are not considered people
>under the law--which makes sense since laws are made to regulate human
>behaviour, not animal behaviour.
It also doesn't mean it's false. So far, you have totally failed to
back up your points through logic or any other method. You've just
made claims, claims that 99% of all humans disagree with.
Try again.
>The justification is, get their rocks off. However they want to rationalize
>that is a matter of opinion and is really beside the point.
That's true, but screwing animals is just a way to get your rocks off
as well, especially for people who can't handle human relationships.
Seems to me it's an example of evolution in action. Those too damn
stupid or pathetic to handle human relationships at least don't pass
on their damaged genes.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Heh, but rape implies that no consent was given.
Since, by definition, no consent is possible because animals have no
legal consent to give, you had a point?
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
[...]
> Furry fandom has a larger percentage of the insane who think they
> really *ARE* animals or have animal souls,
There is a boundery between having a bizzar belief and being
insane. The wondering homeless man who shouts out randomly that he is
god at the top of his voice is most likely insain. However the
theologian who claims that all people are aspects of the devine is
most likely sane. Both of them are claiming that they are god, both
of them have very simmler beleafs but only one of them is insain.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Do you think humans have souls, and if so, why can't the same rules apply to
>another species?
Nope, no such thing as souls, sorry. When you come up with some
objective evidence to support their existence, be sure to let us all
know.
Brian Henderson
>>For animals, the sex act is almost solely for reproduction.
>
>I've seen at least -one- example with horses otherwise, and then there are the
>bonbonos... so it's quite a bit more than "soley" for reproduction..
That's why I said almost. There are a few examples of sex being used
for social interaction and keeping family groups together, but those
cases are very few and far between.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>In regards to children, although the psychological damage may be attributed
>to society to a great extent, it's also still wrong because a child is not
>sexually mature, does not know what they're doing, and can't possibly
>consent because they have no desire to participate.
Even if you have a sexually mature individual who is retarded, knows
exactly what they are doing and wishes to participate, it's still rape
because the individual *IS NOT MENTALLY ABLE TO CONSENT*!
Same goes with *ALL* animals.
>This makes it an inheirently selfish act by the adult.
Which is exactly what bestiality is.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>I'll add, though, if you're going to rape something, better an animal than a
>human.
If you're going to rape something, just put a gun in your mouth and
pull the trigger.
Juan F. Lara
Darrel L. Exline <dar...@polarden.org> wrote:
> Actually, there is one case I know of involving a primate researcher living
> in the Ituri Forest who was accepted by a family of Gorillas. She was
> grooming and being groomed, and suddenly found that she had to submit to the
> Silverback.
Sounds like an urban legend for snopes.com to debunk.
If it was true, it doesn't seem any different from getting your leg humped
by a dog or a dolphin. Just more painful. So sometimes animals get confused.
- Juan F. Lara
artist
news:cpqcpt$2gi$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu:
Why?
In some European countries, animals are afforded the same rights and
priveleges as Human beings. If they can be held as our equals, why
can't they consent? (Not that I approve of bestiality mind you, I'm
just in the mood to argue. :)
--
AIM: GCCFurryBoy
mell...@yahoo.com
http://www.practialdesigns.com/blog/
M. Mitchell Marmel
See, they go around advocating animal rape on public newsgroups.
Using a pseudonym to avoid (justified) retribution.
-MMM-
who, for the record, is in the phone book.
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TaliVisions
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sawyercatunleashed
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/furry_city/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/losgatosafterdark/
Cephalophage
"Samantha, the Electric Aardvark" <cir...@armory.com> wrote in message
news:41c09d63$0$87767$c0de...@dsl.net...
> In article <5rs0s0hu6p7j57e1k...@4ax.com>,
> Brian Henderson <BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote:
> >On 14 Dec 2004 21:13:05 GMT, lncra...@aol.com.star (iBuck) wrote:
> >
> >>So animals can consent, but can't as far as I'm concerned
give -informed-
> >>consent, the two are not the same.
> >
> >For animals, the sex act is almost solely for reproduction. That's
> >why they are mating rituals, that's why females seek out the most
> >physically healthy specimen to mate with. But in the wild. you don't
>
> B... While I really detest the beastiality freaks, you're off on a
> wild hare here. Either that, or (prior to getting her fixed)
> my cat's idea of a healthy specimen to mate with was a shoe. ...
> Any shoe...
>
What a funny image.
Cephalophage
>
> "Cephalophage" <ya...@yawn.com> wrote in message
> news:xR1wd.198834$V41.140537@attbi_s52...
> > >The idea that any
> > > animal is going to "consent" to being raped by a human is just
> > > ludicrous.
> >
> > Quite so. Any act of humans mounting an animal is, ipso facto, rape.
>
> Unless the animal wants it.
>
Cephalophage
"Caged_Horse" <oaco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6514106a4ff1fb7f...@localhost.talkaboutpets.com...
> *Sigh* All this reductio-ad-absurdum moral relativism is what gives the
> left a bad name. That, and post-modernism. (Perhaps we could attempt to
> pass off goat-f*cking as an act of intertextual homage?)
And overbearing moralism, burdened by discredited notions of 19th century
absolute truth, is what give the right a bad name.
Cephalophage
"Samantha, the Platinum Platypus" <cir...@armory.com> wrote in message
news:41c0d342$0$87789$c0de...@dsl.net...
It's certainly true that one finds more child molesters amongst religious
types. As long ago as the Marquis de Sade, he noted that there was a
strange, oft ignored, correllation between child buggerers and priests.
There's nothing like sexual repression to create sexual perversion, and
liberals don't really go into sexual repression so much.
Now, in defense of right-wing paraphillias, it is the case that by making it
a stronger tabboo, they make it that much more elicit and therefore that
much more enjoyable and dirty. So, it's easy to see why they do it, and why
it's done.
Cephalophage
Cephalophage
"iBuck" <lncra...@aol.com.star> wrote in message
> >Unless the animal wants it.
>
> Even then. Since the animal as pepole have said here is incapable of
giving a
> human level of consent.
I fail to see how it is ever possible to deterimine that "the animal wants
it". The human thinks it perceives the animal as wanting it. That's the most
that can be said.
Phepalocage
Cephalophage
"iBuck" <lncra...@aol.com.star> wrote in message
> >For animals, the sex act is almost solely for reproduction.
>
> I've seen at least -one- example with horses otherwise, and then there are
the
> bonbonos... so it's quite a bit more than "soley" for reproduction..
>
Cephalophage
"Brian Henderson" <BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:f5m1s099sa6ecq3kp...@4ax.com...
You might want to reconsider that position, lest you ever accidentally find
yourself in a position of date rape.
People are always so willing to judge, confident that they'll never be in a
tight pickle themselves. May you never be confronted by a situation in which
an ambiguous situation requires you to make a best-case guess without being
in all possession of the facts. May you never choose poorly, and
inadvertently find yourslef staring down the barrel of a criminal charge.
May you never have to eat your own words in the form of a handgun and blow
your brains out. Chances are, in any case, you'd find an extenuating
circumstance to excuse yourself, just like other people do. ANd why would
your reasons be better than theirs?
Just curious.
Cephalophage
Cephalophage
These are, of course, human best case guesses for the behavior. In point of
fact, we really don't know what motivates these behaviors. Yes?
Cephalophage
"? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}" <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
news:m37jnjy...@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> "Dan Skunk" <dans...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > "iBuck" <lncra...@aol.com.star> wrote in message
> > news:20041214210413...@mb-m17.aol.com...
>
> [...]
>
> > > but human body language and scents are not equine/canine/bovine/feline
> > scents
> > > and responses, therefore any understanding of the animal's actions and
> > > responses would have to be intelectually lurned, and not be on the
> > instinctual
> > > level the animals are.
> >
> > Yeah, some gestures are easy to figure out, and are more or less
universal,
> > but some might take some carful observation.
>
> At least with dogs, there is everdence that suggests we have bred them
> for easly understood body language. And they have been evolved an
> understandinging of ours.
To the extent that dogs have been trained to recognize various signals, oneo
f these is not, "Mount me!" although they can also be trained to recognize
that. This does not make it consented to, etc.
Cephalophage
"artist" <mell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95C0CB0374C9C...@24.24.2.167...
> lj...@ces.clemson.edu (Juan F. Lara) wrote in
> news:cpqcpt$2gi$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu:
>
> > In article <zv2wd.92$sF...@fe51.usenetserver.com>,
> > Dan Skunk <dans...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Raping animals is wrong becasue it hurts them, but having
> >> consentual sex with them does not hurt them.
> >
> > I think there's already been countless posts that the notion
> > of
> > "consential sex" with animals rivals the Flat Earth in
> > ridiculousness...
>
> Why?
> In some European countries, animals are afforded the same rights and
> priveleges as Human beings. If they can be held as our equals, why
> can't they consent? (Not that I approve of bestiality mind you, I'm
> just in the mood to argue. :)
>
know where a sheep can marry a man, and so forth.
Cephalophage
> > > Animals also have morality.
> > >
> > > Morality is simply a system of right and wrong, good and evil.
> > >
> > > Just as humans, animals have an instinctive sense of good and evil.
> >
> > <gapes>
> > This is simply off the wall. I can only imagine you have not studied
> zoology
> > and have derived your notions of animal behavior and intelligence from
> > Richard Adams' books.
> >
> > Aristotle equated right with "beneficial actions" and wrong with
> > "non-beneficial actions" with regard to the subject acting. What's more,
> he
> > insisted that even in the case where apparently destructive results
> > resulted, the subject in question still believed that what she or he
chose
> > to do was perceived as being the most beneficial thing at the time.
> >
> Exactly, and animals also try to act in ways that are beneficial to
> themselves.
>
> > This kind of analysis is a sort of moral analysis, but Aristotle never
> ever
> > brings up any notions of good or evil, because they are useless, or
> > irrelevant terms.
> >
> > Good and evil are entirely subjective terms. Saddam Hussein is evil to
W,
> > and good to himself.
> >
> Good and evil are much closer to emotive responses to a situation, but
> intrinsicly linked to right and wrong. When someone wrong us, it is
natural
> to think they are evile. And good and evil, just as right and wrong, are
> very subjective.
>
> What is good for one person might be bad for another.
>
> It is from analysing these emotions that ideas of morality are created.
Dan, have you read the history of philosophy? Are you aware even of the
meaning of the terms you are bandying about here?
If good and evil are purely subjective, then they are pointless empty terms,
unfit for human use. Their only purpose is rhetorical appeal
>
> > Moreover, since you say that mroality is a "system", animals are
incapable
> > of having a system. All they do is react to any given stimulus. THe idea
> of
> > choice, which is necessary for any system of moralirty, simply doesn't
> exist
> > in animals. This is not mere speculation. The cognitive centers that
> humans
> > have which make abstract decisions based on data input simply do not
exist
> > in animals. They don't do it. What looks to us like choices on the
parts
> of
> > animals are really just biochemical mechanisms that we mistake for
> choices.
>
> lol.
>
> Human though is also no more than biochemical mechanism. Humans also do
> nothing more than react to given stimuli.
You are 100% wrong, and your very reply proves it. Raction to stimuli leaves
no option for the reaction. X leads to Y, automatically and without any
mediation whatsoever. You turn on the lightswitch, light floods the room.
You present the female pig with a boar pheromone, and the female pig drops
onto the ground, ready to be mounted. THere is a direct X leads to Y
paradigm that is nowhere found in human behavior.
The whole point of being human is that we are not 100% linked to our
instincts, like animals. Even if there was some pheromone that induced
sexual activity in humans, the fact that we sniffed it DOES NOT mean that we
must immediately start fucking. We might, we might not. Insteado f reacting,
we respond, and there's a whole universe of difference there.
The fact that many human "responses" are knee-jerk reactions does not change
the fact that we ever and always have a capacity to respond. If you sock me
in the fact, everything in me might scream out to sock you back. ANd I
might. However, the fact that this accords with some theoretical view of a
human instinct (to fight back), that doesn't mean I never had, or lost, my
capacity to choose my response, to respond instead of to react.
Animals cannot respond. They only react. Humans can ALWAYS respond, even
when they only react.
That's the whole difference, and the difference is decisive. That is why we
are not merely biochemical reactions to things.
Not even the hardest hardcore logical positivist insists any more that
humans are merely biological activity. There is still no known mechanism how
one gets from the physiological function of the human creature to the
consciousness-fucntion of the human being. There is ABOSLUTELY no
correlation whatsoever between biochemical functioning and mental cognition.
Want to know the proof of that?
If someone tells a joke, the biochemical system that detects the wave
lengths of the spoken words is mechanically identical. The same areas of the
brain are stimmulated by the same neural activity. However, one person
laughs, another glowers, and the third just stands there, because he doesn't
speak the language the joke was told in. If humans were ONLY biochemical
mechanisms, then the result should be the same for all the people involved.
In mathematics, y = f(x). There is a one to one correspondence between x and
y. You put x in, you get why. This is always true, and always happens,
without exception. With humans, each time you put the same x in, you get
different values. SOmetimes you get z, sometimes q, sometimes w, something
an elephant.
You don't believe me. IF humans were just biochemical reactions, then every
response to your pose would be identical. What's more, everyone int he group
would respond, because we'd all be biochemical.
Don't try to say there are biochemical variations. Physiologically, humans
are immensely similar; something on the order of 99%, and genetically all
but identical. IT is not biochemical variations that lead to variations in
personality or reaction. What leads to variations in reaction are those
aspects of human personality that have nothing to do witht he chemicals. The
chemicals present a state, to which we can respond in whatever way we
(theoretically) choose, including to forget that we have the ability to
choose, and to simply knee-jerk react.
That they do it in a more complex
> way, does not change the fact that the identical process is taking place.
Again,t his can't even be taken serious. The process is infinitely removed
from identical.
> The choice animals make involves right and wrong, it's just not as
complex.
> Being that it is not complex, the psychological dangers one trys to avoid
by
> making informed decisions is also negligable making the degree of being
> informed that is needed to avoid such dangers for animals also negligable.
> Animals have all the information they need to make such a decision about
> what is right for themselves.
Animals don't decide. Not ever. What basis do you have for even saying such
a thing?
Cephalophage
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:02:45 GMT, "Cephalophage" <ya...@yawn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In any case, show me the scientific data that animals (all animals?) have
> >the capacity to "consent". I'd be very interested to read it.
>
> They can't because consent must be informed and animals, by their very
> nature, cannot be informed. They cannot make decisions because they
> cannot communicate and are not sentient.
I agree with you completely.
>
> As much as bestialists might want to believe it, animals cannot
> legally consent to sexual activities any more than children can. Just
> because the pedophiles might want them to, they simply cannot.
CHildren are certainly more capable, all the more so the older the child
gets. I think it is probably worth suggesting that the whole idea of
"consent" and "rape" with respect to animals in any case is a non-sequitor.
We do not charge tigers with murder for eating gazelle, and if they do
happen to maul a human, they don't get the benefit of innocent before proven
guilty (which by definition they obviously are), they're just put to death.
To talk about consent in animals, I'm coming to realize, is to hash together
terms that have no place together.
> I don't think it's just furries, it seems to happen in a lot of
> fannish groups. It's just more accepted in furrydom than elsewhere,
> it seems.
What "it" are you talking about here.
> Furry fandom has a larger percentage of the insane who think they
> really *ARE* animals or have animal souls, but there is a ridiculous
> call for tolerance within the fandom in which anything and everything,
> no matter how ridiculous, must be tolerated.
You are unduly combining categories here. In the first place, where no one
else is being harmed by the behavior, then certainly to defend tolerance is
the morally right thing to do. If you are anti-tolerance, then you are
against a fundamental human right, and that's not good at all.
Second, I agree with you that thinking you *are* an animal or have an animal
soul is silly, because this is obviously and patently false. Now, mind you,
as a myth, it's true, and there's nothing wrong with believing in myths.
Even you, I am sure, have myths that you live by. (I'd bet you call them
"rational decisions", but that doesn't change the fact that they are
articles of faith, however well defended you believe they are. They are
still axioms and axioms, by deffinition, are unprovable. They're just
assumed a priori and those are, in common parlance, articles of faith. So,
don't be too rough on other people's articles of faith, unless you are
willing to mock your own.)
My objection to the "I'm really an animal" theory is that it is so
imaginatively poorly carried out. It's like when you hear about people's
past lives--everyone is Alexander the Great, Julias Caesar, Cleopatra. How
come no one was ever a slave in Egypt, a peasant in Ireland, all that. It is
quite apparent that past lives are just a way to express that vague sense of
"something grander" about one's self. Or, less charitably, perhaps they're
just blowing up their ego compensatorily to make up for being small and
pathetic (they think) in life. WHatever the case, who really cares? No harm,
no foul. IT doesn't take any energy to recognize that a person wants to feel
special, unique ... to find some metaphor to express what is a truth: that
they are special and unique, even if no one else can recognize that fact. We
are all, every one of us, absolutely incredibly unlikely statistical
miracles. The fact that any oneo f us exists at all is an utterly remarkable
thing, from a strictly numerical standpoint. The fact that this unique
status is difficult to recognize, and difficult to get recognized, is part
of what underlies the desire to identify with great heroes of yore; it's
just a way to express to someone else, "I am unique in THIS way."
Of course, it tends to look goofy from the outside, but it's still a
sustaining myth for the individual, and since it is understandable, you
should be able to tolerate it. The problem arises when someone expects met o
take it seriously, or when they trying to conquer the known-world of me with
their Alexandrian silliness.
Whatever core it is on which you rest your value and uniqueness is a myth,
just like the animal-souled ones, or the Alexander reincarnations. If you
say you are worthless,t hen that's just another meaning-construction and
myth as well, so I see no reason why you are allowed to attack their
neurosis, when you are not willing to attack your own (assuming you're not).
Therein lies the call for tolerance, and it's a justifiable call. I find the
myth of the animal-souled to be pathetically realized most of the time
(dragon unicorn tigeter hybrids ... for god's sake, come on!), but that's
just because I like intellectually coherent myths (not rational myths, just
intellectually coherent). It's why I love Hinduism (Shivaite philosophy.)
But, the horribly crass, low-browed, imaginatively pathetic versions of the
animal-souled people are, again, just myths. I don't have to worship the
mythology. WHat's more, I can deconstruct and dismantle and critique the
thing to death as an imaginatively pathetic construction, that ought to be
replaced by something better. Despite all that, however, I am still tolerant
of the tendency. I don't say it should be stamped out, and I don't label it
insane.
The only thing I'm genuinely intolerant about is intolerance. I'm not
entirely convinced this isn't a hypocrisy on my part, and I'm opposed to
hypocrisy. However, like I said, I believe that one can criticise something,
without being intolerant of it.
> Of course it is if it means you still can't handle society in general.
> Four insane people who can share delusions don't make you a social
> butterfly.
I'd like to offer a slight redefinition to my usag eof "social retard". I
think that what I am calling social retardation might better be called "an
inability to conform to the artificial rules of any given clique". Jocks
have a certain code they follow, that is fundamentally artificial; we can't
fake it. Soces are pleasant natural liars, for instance; we can't do that.
THe stoners tend to be a bit low brow and want to do drugs; we can't swing
that. Etc. So a congregation of those who have an inabiility to conform to
the rules of any given clique are able to socialize together without having
to artificially conform to artificial rules.
Christians with nutty ideas band together in isolationist buildings, and pat
themselves on the back and call themselves the chosen ones. I agree with you
that just because a bunch of confused people all agree doesn't necessarily
make them right. However, the issue isn't right or not. Again, christinaity
and animal-soul are both just myths; they are life-sustaining, they give a
sense of community, they give purpose in life, they add drama to the
mundanity of existence (existence is not at all mundane, but most people
tend to look at it that way), etc., etc. Mythologies are never right or
wrong, they just are. If it is not your religion, then don't go to that
church. MEanwhile, don't take up that ever so popular Protestant stick and
beat everyone else with it, all the while crying, "Nut case" "Heretic"
"Liar" "Wrong person!". Your myths are more life-supporting for others than
theirs are for yours.
If they're infringing on your freedom, or the freecom of others,t hen
there's a problem. Short of that, you're stance is the problem, because
you're doing exactly that: infringing.
Prove to me that animal-soul nutjobs are hurting anyone.
>
> The problem, and this has been noted by quite a few people, is that
> furry sexuality seems to stem from an overwhelming desire to get laid
> in any way possible. There is such a ridiculous overemphasis on sex
> within the fandom that once combined with the overwelming demand for
> tolerance, you get people who stop seeing "taboos" as wrong so long as
> they get laid. That applies to online as well as offline activities.
Are you a prude or something? I don't find that people are willing to have
sex in any way possible. Rather, there are many different varieties of
desire that wind up around here, and so those desires are quite visible, and
individuals seekign that fetish find one another.
What do you care if there's an emphasis on sex? Why is that a problem? Do
you feel that your desire for non-sexual interaction is being crowded out.
Isn't this very conversation we're having now non-sexual, so where's the
problem?
People will indulge in taboos whether you approve or not. What's more, the
very lifting of the veil on the taboo makes it lose it's itnerst, by
definition (and just creates new taboos). Why are you so interested in
fostering an atmosphere of anti-tolerance? Why do you care if I fuck myself
with a dildo shaped like a dog penis? How is that any of your business? Why
does it bother you?
Etc., etc.
>
> There are certainly gay individuals who are that way because of
> genetic, chemical and formational reasons. They were born predisposed
> to homosexuality, just as there are those who are born predisposed to
> heterosexuality.
This is not at all a settled issue. You cannot talk about people predisposed
to homosexuality at all. The mechainsm that "causes" homosexuality is not at
all understood, and for every study that "proves" it is genetic, there is
another that "proves" it is environmental.
Moreover, self-reporting is not necessarily accorate. Memory is a tricky
thing, and it does seem that sexuality is determined before puberty, so we
don't even have a sexual vocabulary to understand how our sexual preference
is being established.
The problem is that you find people within the
> fandom who never showed any interest or sign of homosexual behavior
> before coming into contact with the fandom, but who suddenly developed
> those interests because it's "expected" and "accepted" here. You get
> people who have been unable to get sex at all, regardless of partner,
> until they get into the fandom where there's a disproportionately high
> emphasis on sex, no matter what you have to do to get it. That's not
> to say there aren't a lot of legitimate gays in the fandom, but I'd
> bet there are a lot of people who are gay or bi or whatever simply
> because it gets them orgasms.
Once again, what's the problem with that? There are tonso f guys in prison
who aren't gay, but will let the tier-faggot suck their dick. So what? These
same guys might fuck the tier-faggot in the ass. Is such a guy gay? No, he's
just an opportunistic guy who recognizes that, face down, everyone's the
same.
Some socially retarded nerd can get his dick sucked in the fandom, more
power to him. Why should he remain a virgin? Guys anyway these days are
claiming bi all over the place; seems to me, it's partly to be cool, partly
because it's true, and partly for the reason that Woody Allen listed nearly
30 years ago, "If you're bi, you double your chances of a date on a Saturday
night."
It's a naive view of sexuality, anyway, to think that just because it is
"expected" or "accepted" here that that's going to "turn" anyone. Straight
guys go to gay bars all the time, and don't fall to their knees in the
bathroom after several visits. That's not how it works. And if he DOES, it's
a sure bet that there was some preexisting interest, or a curiosity
developed along the way. But even then, so what?
A guy who gets his dick sucked by a guy is not gay. A guy who sucks a dick
is not gay. A guy who fucks a guy is not gay. A guy who buys Judy Garland's
collected works ... well, you know. Gay does not devolve from behavior. The
Romans knew this. All of their Emperors fucked guys in the ass; they didn't
call themselves gay. They didn't even have a word for gay. Sexuality is far
more complicated than such labels. I often don't feel gay myself; sometimes
the realization sneaks up on me and I'm like, "Oh! I'm gay. Gosh, Imagine
that." I don't equate my sexual behavior with a sexuality label, and the
fact that society does doesn't mean it is right or valid.
In any case, I don't understand why you're so worked up about all of this.
So we tend to be a sexually liberal crowd that's not so hung up that we turn
into Miss Prim at the sight of a little promiscuity, and blush with horror
that people should enjoy sexual pleasure and intimacy.
I'd much rather put up with a bunch of promiscuity, than the tired Old Maid
rantings that stink to high Heaven of the boring crap we've been hearing
from churches ever since churches (with their sexual repression and
pedophilia) started trying to dictate the correct outlets for human desire.
Cephalophage
> On 14 Dec 2004 21:27:24 GMT, lncra...@aol.com.star (iBuck) wrote:
>
> >Which is a very didfrent thing than, thinking some peice of what is
manifestly
> >fiction is real...
>
> Animal souls are manifestly fiction, sorry.
>
> >Like Bugs Bunny cartoons, those are pretty ridiculous... but hey, I
guess taht
> >tolerance when you put up withthe anatomically incorrect..
>
> True, but you don't see Bugs trying to boink Elmer. Granted, Bugs
> seems to have a crossdressing fetish sometimes, but...
Now you've done it. The fanfic drawings will be coming out shortly
Cephalophage
>
> "Brian Henderson" <BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:k8s0s0pmf9lnp2hkk...@4ax.com...
> > On 14 Dec 2004 21:27:24 GMT, lncra...@aol.com.star (iBuck) wrote:
> >
> > >Which is a very didfrent thing than, thinking some peice of what is
> manifestly
> > >fiction is real...
> >
> > Animal souls are manifestly fiction, sorry.
> >
>
> Do you think humans have souls, and if so, why can't the same rules apply
to
> another species?
Humans don't have souls. Animals don't have souls. But humans can imagine
they have souls, and can imagine they have animals souls. The ability to
imagine does not require that they be true.
And, in any case, the argument that "Because humans do, animals do" is
silly.
Human eyesight is vsatly definicit to many animals. Human olfaction even
worse.
Because dogs have excellent senses of smell, so do humans?
Obvious poppycock.
Cephalophage
Cephalophage
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:09:39 -0500, "Dan Skunk" <dans...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Animals are sentient. They are most certainly conscious and aware of
their
> >surroundings.
>
> Animals are not sentient along the same lines as humans. There is no
> evidence that they understand that they are separate individuals that
> can act outside of their instincts.
>
> >They even have the ability to make independant decisions based on their
> >surroundings.
I think, Brian, we're going to have to write Dan off as a hopeless case.
> >Legality is subjective.
>
> Go shoot someone and claim, as your defense, that legality is
> subjective. Go ahead, we'll wait.
Since legality is subjective, will the "ignorance of the law" clause also
come to his defense here? You can see the lawyer startingt o work up the
case for an insanity defense.
> >No more insane than anyone else who believes the have an immortal soul
that
> >will live on after they die, there's lots of those kind of people around
> >with all kinds of different ideas on what that soul is about.
>
> Well, they are insane as well, but that's beside the point.
Don't be silly, Brian. It's not insane. It's just a belief-myth. You have
your own (one of which is that there ISN'T a soul). I happen to agree with
you whole-heartedly, but I still recognize that this is MY belief myth; I
even know why I believe it. So don't label as insane what you do yourself,
(unless you consider yourself insane).
> You see it all the time. Jailhouse gays do develop an interest in
> same-sex relationships in the absence of other-sex partners.
Hey now, I already made this point. Point stealer! Except that they are not
same-sex "relationships" usually. It's just one-way "Get my rocks off, handy
boy" kind of stuff. Masturbation, using another person.
> Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who put a supreme
> emphasis on sex... ANY sex. Just getting into close, intimate contact
> with another individual, there are people who will go to any person,
> creature or object which lets them get their rocks off and then try to
> justify their actions after the fact.
Once again, so what? You are characterizing a whole community based upon
what sounds to me like a very desperate person. That's just not how it is.
Sexual opportunism, sluttiness, promiscuity, a liberal attitude toward
physical sharing ... whatever you want to call it, don't be prejudicially
characterizing this as desperation on the part of people in the community.
Doubtless, there are emotional basketcases who will fuck anyone, just for
the attention. These people are rare, I'm sure.
Cephalophage
>
> There's good reasons humans aren't allowed to prey on each other--that
would
> defeat the whole purpose of civilization--having many people work together
> for mutual benefit and protection. Preying on animals does not contradict
> that purpose, hence, no need for such a law.
You must not be a hunter. There are LOTS of laws about pretying on animals.
Certain kinds you will be jailed for hunting at all. Others, you will be
fined for hunting at the wrong time of year. Others, you will be fined if
you hunt them without a license. Others, you will be jailed for being cruel
to them.
Cephalophage
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:28:49 -0500, "Dan Skunk" <dans...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Humans also don't act outside of their instincts. They are not that
> >different from other species in their behaviour.
>
> Certainly they do. We have the ability to act against our best
> interests and against our biological programming. We do it all the
> time. Well, normal people do, furries on the other hand...
Absolutely.
>
> >I have seen animals that have been taught to talk having the ability to
> >refer to themselves. This should not happen if they are incapable of self
> >awareness.
>
> You're taking human language and forcing it onto an animal. Until you
> figure out how to speak to the animals in their own languages, using
> their own concepts, the idea is inherently flawed.
Absolutely.
>
> >Any level of intelligence should require some concept of self. How can
you
> >make decisions on what's best for you if you have no concept of you.
>
> Because they don't make decisions based on what's best for them, only
> for what's best for the species, as programmed into their genes.
Absolutely.
>
> >As do humans. Humans are not immune to such things as pain and pleasure,
> >fear and love.
>
> But you don't see animals running into burning buildings to rescue
> non-related animals. Humans do that. We have the ability to override
> base biological imperatives. Animals do not.
His point is non-sequitor anyway, but absolutely.
>
> >Legality is subject to the opinions of the people who create the laws.
>
> Doesn't stop you from being bound by the laws.
>
> >Legality does not make something true. Animals are not considered people
> >under the law--which makes sense since laws are made to regulate human
> >behaviour, not animal behaviour.
>
> It also doesn't mean it's false. So far, you have totally failed to
> back up your points through logic or any other method. You've just
> made claims, claims that 99% of all humans disagree with.
Absoluetly.
> >The justification is, get their rocks off. However they want to
rationalize
> >that is a matter of opinion and is really beside the point.
>
> That's true, but screwing animals is just a way to get your rocks off
> as well, especially for people who can't handle human relationships.
You should read my long pose about the criticism of bestiality (it's in
response to RH Junior's rant; it begins "Whu-oh, here come the moralists"),
if you're interested.
There's more to it than not being able to handle human relationships.
>
> Seems to me it's an example of evolution in action. Those too damn
> stupid or pathetic to handle human relationships at least don't pass
> on their damaged genes.
There's no correlation between breeding and animal fucking, of course.
Cephalophage
> Brian Henderson <BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>
> > Furry fandom has a larger percentage of the insane who think they
> > really *ARE* animals or have animal souls,
>
> There is a boundery between having a bizzar belief and being
> insane. The wondering homeless man who shouts out randomly that he is
> god at the top of his voice is most likely insain. However the
> theologian who claims that all people are aspects of the devine is
> most likely sane. Both of them are claiming that they are god, both
> of them have very simmler beleafs but only one of them is insain.
In you parrticular example, the comparison is not accurate. It's apples and
oranges, and it is certainly possible to argue that bum and theologian alike
both are completely detached from reality, detachment from reality being a
sign of insanity.
Cephalophage
"Darrel L. Exline" <dar...@polarden.org> wrote in message
news:1103130969.8...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dan Skunk wrote:
> >
> > Animals most certainly do have the mental capacity to consent. If you
> know
> > anything about animal mating practices, they do not go about raping
> each
> > other to have sex. There's a lot of complex rituals and rules; lots
> of
> > communication; no different from humans than from one species to
> another.
>
> Following your misguided logic, an 8-year old girl (who has the mental
> capacity of consent several magnitudes greater than a pet dog) should
> be allowed to have sex with an adult, then.
> Bullshit! Fucking your pet is wrong. It is rape. It is sick.
>
Would fucking a tiger be okay then?
What do you like to fuck instead? Are you sure someone else wouldn't call it
sick and wrong too? Lighten up, let live.
Thanks.
Cephalophage, not a confirmed "zoo"
Cephalophage
>
> "Darrel L. Exline" <dar...@polarden.org> wrote in message
> news:1103130969.8...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Dan Skunk wrote:
>
immature
> while the dog is not.
The dog is an adult if he is 3 or older, cuz otherwise, he's still underage
:p
> The dog knows all the moral consequences it will need to deal with.
Dan, this is just dumb to say. I'm embarrassed for you.
Cephalophage
"Samantha, the Electric Aardvark" <cir...@armory.com> wrote in message
news:41c09dfb$0$80348$c0de...@dsl.net...
> In article <Lw%vd.69$sF...@fe51.usenetserver.com>,
> Dan Skunk <dans...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Darrel L. Exline" <dar...@polarden.org> wrote in message
> >news:1103130969.8...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> Dan Skunk wrote:
> >> >
> >> know
> >> > anything about animal mating practices, they do not go about raping
> >> each
> >> > other to have sex. There's a lot of complex rituals and rules; lots
> >> of
> >> > communication; no different from humans than from one species to
> >> another.
> >>
> >> Following your misguided logic, an 8-year old girl (who has the mental
> >> capacity of consent several magnitudes greater than a pet dog) should
> >> be allowed to have sex with an adult, then.
> >> Bullshit! Fucking your pet is wrong. It is rape. It is sick.
> >>
than
> >for a dog.
> >
> >And the girl is not an adult, whereas the dog is. The girl is still
immature
> >while the dog is not.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> some other person with severe mental retardation.
>
Whoo hoo!
By the way, it's morally dubious to use "Baptist Minister" and 8 year old
girl in the same pose.
Cephalophage
"BR" <brodr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.12.15....@comcast.net...
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:03:15 -0500, Dan Skunk wrote:
>
> > Well, mental retardation could cause the person's maturity to be that of
> > an 8 year old.
> >
> > A mentally retarded dog would have the same problem.
>
> How would one know the difference? It stops being able to quote Plato?
I thought quoting Plato was the first sign of mental retardation, actually.
>
> --
> -- James Fenimore Cooper
> The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the
tastes,
> knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.
Cephalophage
> Dan Skunk wrote:
> > "Darrel L. Exline" <dar...@polarden.org> wrote in message
> > news:1103130969.8...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> What it comes down to is that you would rather screw your pet than try
> to deal with a real relationship. All fido wants is some petting,
> food, and a warm place to curl up, and that's a lot easier for you to
> deal with than actually having a girl/boyfriend. No planning your
> schedule so that you can go to the movies... no buying gifts on
> holidays and anniversaries... no dealing with the relatives... no
> figthing over the remote when Gilmore Girls is on vs. the big game on
> ESPN... No trying to be what they want you to be for fear of losing
> them... Nope, not for you. You'd rather just take the easy way and
> fuck your pet instead. Fido doesn't like it, then Fido can go hungry,
> or Fido can find the door and take off. You are a rapist, plain and
> simple. You have control over that animal and it is NOT able to
> express consent.
You think you can't be told to tolerate it. Well, I'll tell you. What's
more, anyone who advocates castration in my book gets to line up to be first
on the chopping block. (Is that YOUR kink?)
Dan is obviously a knob head, but the problem is you. Dan is off the wall in
his opinions, but you are spouting stuff that is dangerous, harmful,
counterproductive and, actually, more ill-informed than he is.
Your characterization of the reasons for bestiality are, obviously, just
opinion. Unless you've practiced it, then you don't know what you are
talking about. You sound like one of those people in the 50s who advocated
castration for homosexuals too, or aversion therapy in the 90s.
Your intermperate attitude is suspicious on more than one front. What are
you hiding?
> You don't even have the decency to hide your kink in the closet.
> That's two charges against you: animal rapist and capital stupdity.
You sound like one of those so-called "straight-acting faggots" from the
early 90s, who were always going on and on who the drag queens nad leather
queens give "us" a bad name. Well, the truth is, "us of one", those drag
queens and leather queens were out risking their lives, being beaten up adn
killed, so you could practice your perverted kink of homosexuality under the
cloak of sevcrecy, cowardice and ignorant self-righteousness.
Are zoos in the same position re the furry community? We'll, apparently
they're a visible element; they're the ones being bashed by
"straight-acting" furries (you) who say they give you a bad name, so that
you can practice your kink under the cover of moral cowardice, ignorant
self-righteousness and misinformed bullshit.
>
> Want to know why people think furry is weird? Look in the mirror; you
> are the problem! For every idiot who flaunts their pet-screwing kink
> like you do, a hundred or more others get unfairly tarred with the same
> brush.
So far, unless I've missed it, Dan hasn't said he fucks animals. He's just
said that they can consent, and all that. Now, maybe he does screw the
pooch, but I've not heard him say he does. So, as far as unfair tarring
goes, the only bit of it I see for far is from you.
You're quite correct to advocate looking in the mirror. Moreover, if you
don't like what you see, then step away from the mirror.
Dan's not hurting anyone. You are.
Dan's not screwing animals. Neither are you (I'll assume).
So, between the two of you, you are the one who is morally in the wrong.
Stop hurting others, bully. And go donate your balls, if you have any, to
the first available chopping block.
<smooch>
Cephalophage
> And no one, anywhere, has the right to tell me that I have to tolerate
> it.
>
Samantha, the Indigo Goddess
Cephalophage <ya...@yawn.com> wrote:
>
>
>CHildren are certainly more capable, all the more so the older the child
>gets. I think it is probably worth suggesting that the whole idea of
>"consent" and "rape" with respect to animals in any case is a non-sequitor.
>We do not charge tigers with murder for eating gazelle, and if they do
>happen to maul a human, they don't get the benefit of innocent before proven
>guilty (which by definition they obviously are), they're just put to death.
>
>To talk about consent in animals, I'm coming to realize, is to hash together
>terms that have no place together.
>
Just to spin your comments here a slightly different way, I'd be curious
how many people who fantasize about sex with animals are vegetarians?
Did the cow consent to being shot in the head, ground up, and sold at
McDonalds for their pleasure? How'd that chicken feel about you taking
away her eggs, splitting them open and devouring her *unborn children?
Do animals, in general like being confined so close they can barely move
so that their flesh will be tender enough for the flat teeth of a human
to rend and devour it easily?
Now we'll hear defense of the special theory of prey animals. *yawn*
* Shsssssh. I know that most eggs sold for consumption in the US aren't
fertilized. Would a chicken necissarily know that though?
Samantha, the Indigo Goddess
news:cbs0s0tjelnvvi2c5...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:09:39 -0500, "Dan Skunk" <dans...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
> >Animals are sentient. They are most certainly conscious and aware of
their
> >surroundings.
>
> Animals are not sentient along the same lines as humans. There is no
> evidence that they understand that they are separate individuals that
> can act outside of their instincts.
>
Cephalophage
"Samantha, the Indigo Goddess" <cir...@armory.com> wrote in message
news:41c10733$0$80344$c0de...@dsl.net...
> In article <VO6wd.200190$V41.187792@attbi_s52>,
> Cephalophage <ya...@yawn.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >CHildren are certainly more capable, all the more so the older the child
> >gets. I think it is probably worth suggesting that the whole idea of
> >"consent" and "rape" with respect to animals in any case is a
non-sequitor.
> >We do not charge tigers with murder for eating gazelle, and if they do
> >happen to maul a human, they don't get the benefit of innocent before
proven
> >guilty (which by definition they obviously are), they're just put to
death.
> >
> >To talk about consent in animals, I'm coming to realize, is to hash
together
> >terms that have no place together.
> >
>
> Just to spin your comments here a slightly different way, I'd be curious
> how many people who fantasize about sex with animals are vegetarians?
Whaat about people who use vegetables as sex objects, or to penetrate cows?
> Did the cow consent to being shot in the head, ground up, and sold at
> McDonalds for their pleasure?
Of course they understoodt he moral consequences of their qctions.
>How'd that chicken feel about you taking
> away her eggs, splitting them open and devouring her *unborn children?
Chickens, as is well known, are extremely indifferent mothers. THe only
reason they have so many chicks is for the welfare; the father's are never
around. Since they're receiving a paycheck for producing hte eggs,t he money
they gain by churning out 50 eggs a day compensates for the welfare loss.
> Do animals, in general like being confined so close they can barely move
> so that their flesh will be tender enough for the flat teeth of a human
> to rend and devour it easily?
The one's into mummification do although, I must admit, this IS a small
percentage.
>
> Now we'll hear defense of the special theory of prey animals. *yawn*
>
> * Shsssssh. I know that most eggs sold for consumption in the US aren't
> fertilized. Would a chicken necissarily know that though?
Additionally, from the category of unbelievable stupidity, I know a Furre
who becomes ballistic if you mention hunters. He thinks they're crazed
psychopaths who ought to be castrated, ground up and used as fertilzer, and
such. He is very pro-animal, at least it seems that way.
Mind you, when you tell him that Native Americans had a respectful attitude
toward the animals they hunted, even asking their permission (this goes back
to cows consenting), he was still, "Crucify the animal killing fucks!" and
so forth.
So, one might simply consider him an animal nut. However, when you presented
him with the fact of the veritable bloodstorm of cows, pigs and such, when
you pointed out that the one single elk that a hunter kills and which feeds
him for a year practically, as opposed to McDonald's "beef" that results in
the deforestation of Brazil, he insisted that there were certain kinds of
animals that were SUPPOSED to be eaten: specifically, cows, pigs and
chickens. Nothing else should we eat. (To be "fair" to his position, he was
indifferent to seafood. HE didn't care if that was eaten or not. Lamb,
goose, any other fowl was forbidden to eat.)
But, the best part of it all, was that this supposed animal lover, who was
more than content to allow millions of animals to be slaughtered every year,
himself worked at KFC. And, as anyone who knows knows, chickens are the most
grotesuqely abused animals on the planet in order to keep KFC rolling.
Whacky.
Anyway, for your amusement.
Cephalophage
Cephalophage
capacity to do it, whether or not we indulge in that capacity or not.