Is sex with animals abnormal or not?
Pablo Rena
really like to have sex with sheep, this is really enjyoable for me,
and I'm very gentle and won't hurt the sheep, so the sheep also likes
it.
It even comes to me for sex and it's really soft and sex feels divine.
I don't think this is abnormal and I think people should accept this
kind of sex, too, when the animal loves you, too.
What do you think?
Anonymous Jack
Well, it's abnormal in that AFAIK, most people don't have sex with
animals. However, there is (again AFAIK) a number of people who enjoy
animals this way.
There is also a group of people who dress up as animals or cartoon
characters and have sex, known as "furries."
But basically, it doesn't matter what I think, because what I think
won't affect whether you are turned on by nude humans and affect your
being turned on by sheep - any more than what you think affects my
sexual activities. However, you should be aware that this is illegal
in most countries. So I hope Pablo is not your real name.
"Remus" is one poster, very intelligent and thought provoking, who has
eloquently expressed his own experiences with this sexual preference.
Basically, he lost a good job, had to move, and lost some "friends"
because of this.
Sam Murai
"Anonymous Jack" <alordo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cf889346.04060...@posting.google.com...
Umm... what's "AFAIK"?
--
~~~ SaM mUrAi
suzee
As far as I know....
sue
darklily
Looks like we have another troll. Search Pablo's list of posts. He
posted about 70 messages, of similar type (well...all sorts of
things...mostly meant to piss off paricualr NGs) just today. Looks
like he's making his way through tha alphabet and just got to the S's.
;)
darklily
Elisobella
How do you know that the sheep loves you? Has she said anything to you?
Sex with animals is sex with a non-consenting partner. Therefore wrong, in my view.
Bossdivb3
Maybe the sheep keeps coming back and keeps turning around! Would that
be consent in your view?
Bob (6/2)
Remus Shepherd
> "Anonymous Jack" <alordo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > kind of sex, too, when the animal loves you, too.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > Well, it's abnormal in that AFAIK, most people don't have sex with
> > animals. However, there is (again AFAIK) a number of people who enjoy
> > animals this way.
> > There is also a group of people who dress up as animals or cartoon
> > characters and have sex, known as "furries."
> >
> > eloquently expressed his own experiences with this sexual preference.
> > Basically, he lost a good job, had to move, and lost some "friends"
> > because of this.
Yep. Unfortunately I haven't been reading SSG lately. I have, well...
I kind of have a girlfriend. <:)
The original poster, as some have pointed out, may be a troll. And I'm
always hesitant to talk about bestiality here because it's a favorite topic
for trolls, and I don't want to encourage them on this fine newsgroup. So
let me sum up briefly, and if people want more details they can ask politely:
Furries have nothing to do with bestiality. Entirely different kink.
There's nothing wrong with consensual sex with animals -- that means no
restraints, no coercion, no harm to either partner. Animals can consent,
as anyone who's ever tried to trim a Great Dane's toenails will attest.
Studies have found that up to 1 in 8 rural teenagers have experimented
with animals. It's a fairly normal part of growing up in a rural area, and
is legal in 20 of the 50 United States.
If you continue to practice bestiality into adulthood it can cause various
social problems, so it's best if you at least try humans out. If you harm
or force animals, you need to seek treatment, as you're tilting into different
and more dangerous paraphilias.
Good luck, if you're genuine, in whatever you do.
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Coren
"Elisobella" <eli_...@yahoo.com.au> schreef in bericht
news:250a9482.04060...@posting.google.com...
I don't know if you were serious about this last sentence, Elisobella, but
it made me chuckle even more than the OP's message. Why is an animal
automatically a non-consenting partner? Because it can't talk?? There must
be some instinct that makes an animal run away or get mad if it's forced
into doing something it doesn't like, don't you think?
Has anyone ever seen Hable con Ella? (brilliant movie by Almodovar)
A male nurse has sex with a comatose young woman he's been taking care of
for years. He loves her deeply and truly believes she loves him back. But
she can't consent, she's in a coma. There's no way of knowing what she
feels or thinks. Would you place this on the same level as having sex with
animals? Why (not)?
I think it's a bigger crime than having sex with a sheep (I'm not even sure
I'd say sex with animals is a crime). Not because it's a crime against a
human being, let's just assume humans and animals are equal, but because the
woman really has no way of reacting, while the sheep could bite/kick/run/...
But if you think an animal can't consent, then you place a comatose patient
and a sheep on the same level, no? (I'm not attacking you, Elisobella, I'm
just curious. ;o)
And what about sex with PLANTS?!?
:oP
Coren
Anonymous Jack
> > I won't get aroused by nude human bodies, just won't get "hard".But I
> > really like to have sex with sheep, this is really enjyoable for me,
> > and I'm very gentle and won't hurt the sheep, so the sheep also likes
> > it.
> >
I think I got hooked by a troll.
Didn't click until I looked at the a couple of other groups I frequent
and saw recent trollish posts by Pablo...
Elisobella
> "Elisobella" <eli_...@yahoo.com.au> schreef in bericht
> news:250a9482.04060...@posting.google.com...
> > celt_...@yahoo.com.mx (Pablo Rena) wrote in message
> news:<50a97d4f.04052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > I won't get aroused by nude human bodies, just won't get "hard".But I
> > > really like to have sex with sheep, this is really enjyoable for me,
> > > and I'm very gentle and won't hurt the sheep, so the sheep also likes
> > > it.
> > >
> > > It even comes to me for sex and it's really soft and sex feels divine.
> > >
> > > I don't think this is abnormal and I think people should accept this
> > > kind of sex, too, when the animal loves you, too.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > How do you know that the sheep loves you? Has she said anything to you?
> >
> > Sex with animals is sex with a non-consenting partner. Therefore wrong, in
> my view.
>
> I don't know if you were serious about this last sentence, Elisobella, but
> it made me chuckle even more than the OP's message.
Why is an animal
> automatically a non-consenting partner? Because it can't talk?? There must
> be some instinct that makes an animal run away or get mad if it's forced
> into doing something it doesn't like, don't you think?
Not necessarily. A sheep is a domesticated animal and thus more
amenable to being used by human beings. To have sex with it, though,
and not to have it buck and run away doesn't mean that it has
consented; it merely means that the animal is used to being used this
way.
>
> Has anyone ever seen Hable con Ella? (brilliant movie by Almodovar)
> A male nurse has sex with a comatose young woman he's been taking care of
> for years. He loves her deeply and truly believes she loves him back. But
> she can't consent, she's in a coma. There's no way of knowing what she
> feels or thinks. Would you place this on the same level as having sex with
> animals? Why (not)?
This scenario is not the same as the one above, but sex with a woman
in a coma is still sex with a non-consenting person. The state of
non-consensuality is not identical for woman in coma, sheep, or plant
(venus fly-catcher?), even though to the naive it may look this way.
The intention of the abuser is different. The man in the film
supposedly loved the woman, and the woman - even though in a coma -
may be capable of a limited degree of physiological reciprocity, but
hasn't given her active consent/cannot give her consent, thus the act
of intercourse is wrong. The act is neither consensual nor reciprocal.
The original poster had sex with a sheep previously used for sexual
intercourse, thus the sheep is familiar with this act of bestiality.
The sheep cannot give its consent, even though it may apparently enjoy
the sexual encounter. The sexual act is thus also wrong - because
consent is not possible to obtain. You can stick your penis in the
venus fly-trap if you like, but the plant, obviously, cannot consent
to the act. If non-consensual sex with those who cannot give you a
full human response is what turns you on, then you really need
counselling. Why not stick with a blow up doll?
GoldenMan54
Sheriff's Road Camp, every night after work, several of the inmates
would walk a couple hundred yards to a horse ranch and have sexual
intercourse with the pony mares and yearling colts.
bassistlikeFlea
Flea
Emmit
> And what about sex with PLANTS?!?
> :oP
>
> Coren
Plants can't consent, but who cares?
Michael
Its just that the animal might not want to have sex with you.
You will for sure not be on any trial. Exept you injured the animal.
This sounds like a joke but it true. If you have sex with your
neighbours cow and you injure it you have to pay for it. I remind you.
A cow cost around 2500US$.
That would be a pretty expensive "ride"
But it is very common that animal have sex with other animals outside
their species.
However you should not tell relatives etc about your sex habits.
All the best to you
Michael
from AIDSGame
- The first virtual HIV Test -
celt_...@yahoo.com.mx (Pablo Rena) wrote in message news:<50a97d4f.04052...@posting.google.com>...
Elisobella
Well, you would. You'd have sex with a steak.
Coren
I agree with most of what you say, but I don't agree with the arguments you
bring forward.
"Elisobella" <eli_...@yahoo.com.au> schreef in bericht
news:250a9482.04060...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> A sheep is a domesticated animal and thus more
> amenable to being used by human beings. To have sex with it, though,
> and not to have it buck and run away doesn't mean that it has
> consented; it merely means that the animal is used to being used this
> way.
Used to it?
but for it to get used to it, it has to have been treated this way before,
right? But what if the sheep didn't run away the first time? What if it
actually liked it the first time a human tried to have sex with it? The
excuse of it "being used to it" no longer stands.
So why is it wrong to have sex with animals?
I'm not saying it's okay, I'm just wondering what exactly makes us say it's
immoral.
What if someone goes through the trouble of making a romantic
grass-dinner-for-two for his favorite sheep? What if the sheep grows very
fond of this person? Is it still wrong, then? I feel it is. But why? It
has nothing to do with consent anymore. And if you believe a sheep is too
stupid to give its consent to anything, you can imagine it's a dog or a
chimp. Doesn't matter.
If it's not about consent, maybe it's instinctive? In another post someone
wrote animals have sex with animals of other species all the time. Is this
really true? If it is, then it has nothing to do with instincts, either.
And about plants, you know I was only joking, right? To me, there isn't
much difference between a plant or a plastic doll. Some people might see
plants as being somehow conscious, but I'm not one of them.
Coren
GoldenMan54
accipt it. Soory to see you are a "nit-picker"
Beer Gogglers
vice-versa?
Jacques Michel
> There is nothing abnormal Pablo...
>
> Its just that the animal might not want to have sex with you.
>
> You will for sure not be on any trial.
In the US, maybe, but this is an international group and some
countries prohibit sex with animals. Germany, for example.
Coren
news:hog0c0pmar7vkhnb4...@4ax.com...
> Is it at all possible for a human to impregnate another species or
> vice-versa?
What they taught me at school (so it's by no means accurate) is that when
the species are sufficiently alike, it is possible, but the offspring will
not be fertile. So, theoretically, it would be possible to make a chimp
pregnant, but the child would not be fertile.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I'll be sure to tell my teachers)
Coren
suzee
I believe several of the states in the US do also.
sue
Tom Allen
news:6209-40C...@storefull-3315.bay.webtv.net
| Yeah I seen the word error after I wrote it ut figured most people
| would accipt it. Soory to see you are a "nit-picker"
Oh, I don't know... frankly, after the rather, ah, unusual stories that
you've posted I spent a few minutes trying to figure out what a "nagel"
was, myself. I finally settled on thinking it was something like a
bagel, only without the hole.
Tom
Soory? Isn't that a kind of English horse cart?
Tom Allen
Coren, this is what happens when they mate a horse with a donkey: the
offspring is a mule and is sterile. Similarly, lions and tigers have
been mated to produce "ligers".
About 15 or 20 years ago, there was a huge thing about using chimps or
gorillas to carry human embryos, and perhaps to breed a more intelligent
ape-man (man-ape, whatever). I remember some made-for-tv movie about
that and a lot of discussion in the scientific journals. I think it
turned oout to have been some urban legend kind of thing. I should
Google for it to see if I'm remembering correctly.
Tom
There was a young peasant named Gorse
Who fell madly in love with his horse
Said his wife, "You rapscallion
That horse is a stallion-
This constitutes grounds for divorce."
Elisobella
> Is it at all possible for a human to impregnate another species or
> vice-versa?
>
No. Time for you, my friend, to do a short reading of basic genetics.
The web's a good place to learn things. Go and read something in an
encyclopaedia. Do some research. It is impossible for a human to
impregnate another species. If it were possible the world would be
filled with griffins, centaurs, Pans, and other otherwise mythical
creatures. If it were possible we'd know about real examples of these
dreamt up critters.
Elisobella
> Thanks for replying, Elisobella.
>
> I agree with most of what you say, but I don't agree with the arguments you
> bring forward.
>
> "Elisobella" <eli_...@yahoo.com.au> schreef in bericht
> news:250a9482.04060...@posting.google.com...
> <snip>
> > A sheep is a domesticated animal and thus more
> > amenable to being used by human beings. To have sex with it, though,
> > and not to have it buck and run away doesn't mean that it has
> > consented; it merely means that the animal is used to being used this
> > way.
>
> Used to it?
> but for it to get used to it, it has to have been treated this way before,
> right? But what if the sheep didn't run away the first time? What if it
> actually liked it the first time a human tried to have sex with it? The
> excuse of it "being used to it" no longer stands.
What I am saying about domestic animals is that they have been
domesticated for hundreds of years (which also means selective
breeding for docility), and probably used for sex for that length of
time. Just because sheep (and I use this in a generic sense as well as
an individual one) might be used to being used sexually it doesn't
make it a moral act. The question of consent still remains an
argument against bestiality.
>
> So why is it wrong to have sex with animals?
> I'm not saying it's okay, I'm just wondering what exactly makes us say it's
> immoral.
> What if someone goes through the trouble of making a romantic
> grass-dinner-for-two for his favorite sheep? What if the sheep grows very
> fond of this person? Is it still wrong, then? I feel it is. But why? It
> has nothing to do with consent anymore. And if you believe a sheep is too
> stupid to give its consent to anything, you can imagine it's a dog or a
> chimp. Doesn't matter.
The intellect of the sheep or dog or chimp is irrelevant. The question
of consent still remains. Domestication does not provide an excuse for
using an animal for one's own sexual pleasure.
>
> If it's not about consent, maybe it's instinctive? In another post someone
> wrote animals have sex with animals of other species all the time. Is this
> really true? If it is, then it has nothing to do with instincts, either.
Animals only have interspecies sex when their own kind is not
available or their environment is non-conducive to normal species
interaction.
>
> And about plants, you know I was only joking, right? To me, there isn't
> much difference between a plant or a plastic doll. Some people might see
> plants as being somehow conscious, but I'm not one of them.
>
> Coren
Unlike you, I do see plants as living entities, but not conscious.
[Yes, I realized you were joking, as I was with my example af the
venus fly-trap.] Consciousness is not an argument for me in this
debate. My interest is in whether the participants of sexual encounter
are engaged in active reciprocal consent. If one partner cannot - for
whatever reason - agree to the sexual relationship, then the act is
wrong (in my view).
Coren
> domesticated for hundreds of years (which also means selective
> breeding for docility), and probably used for sex for that length of
> time. Just because sheep (and I use this in a generic sense as well as
> an individual one) might be used to being used sexually it doesn't
> make it a moral act. The question of consent still remains an
> argument against bestiality.
Okay, I see your point and I think it's valid.
I might not agree with you 100% but this discussion was interesting anyway.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Coren
Nathan Cox
"Pablo Rena" <celt_...@yahoo.com.mx> wrote in message
news:50a97d4f.04052...@posting.google.com...
> I won't get aroused by nude human bodies, just won't get "hard".But I
> really like to have sex with sheep, this is really enjyoable for me,
> and I'm very gentle and won't hurt the sheep, so the sheep also likes
> it.
>
> It even comes to me for sex and it's really soft and sex feels divine.
>
> I don't think this is abnormal and I think people should accept this
> kind of sex, too, when the animal loves you, too.
>
> What do you think?
>
Are you from New Zealand perhaps.
nathan
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 28/05/2004
Bob S.
> really like to have sex with sheep, this is really enjyoable for me,
> and I'm very gentle and won't hurt the sheep, so the sheep also likes
> it.
>
> It even comes to me for sex and it's really soft and sex feels divine.
>
> I don't think this is abnormal and I think people should accept this
> kind of sex, too, when the animal loves you, too.
>
> What do you think?
I think you have been reincarnated from a ram in your previous life.
~~carl~~
Time for a patted cell.. Time to take your meds. You need to omit
yourself to a psychiatric hospital for the mentally deranged. Who ever
has sex with animals..needs a serious psychotherapist.
Get help dude..get help!
Sam Murai
"Elisobella" <eli_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:250a9482.04060...@posting.google.com...
Yeh, especially if you don't call her back.
Sam Murai
Well hey, didn't they used to make condoms out of pig's intestines in the
past? Now that's having sex (or a threesome) with a dead animal - or rather,
a dead animal's guts! Ugh!
Sex with plants? Yeh sure. Just have trouble getting my semen on those bees
that's all...
--
~~~ SaM mUrAi
Sam Murai
Ok then, just to play the Devil's advocate: what if say an individual woman
was brought up as a slave and expected to please her master even though she
wasn't excited by what she had to do (or even despised it). Or a traditional
wife her tolerates her husband sexually and puts up with sex even though she
doesn't like it. Or a prostitute trying to reform but desperate for some
money being offered lots of cash by some repulsive guy in exchange for oral
sex. Is that consent?
Those individuals are also used to being used sexually. Is it moral then for
the master or the husband or the repulsive guy to take advantage of this
woman?
To take the grey area further into the black and white, what about the child
prostitutes who have been sold into sexual slavery and being taken advantage
of by sexual predators. Given the money and options, wouldn't that child
have preferred not to participate in such immorality? But like the sheep
bred for docility, the poor child doesn't believe he/she has any other
option except to submit. Would that equal consent?
(Not passing any judgement except for the "sexual predator" bit)
--
~~~ SaM mUrAi
Sam Murai
news:<FOhvc.141583$y36.7...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
....
> The sheep cannot give its consent, even though it may apparently enjoy
> the sexual encounter. The sexual act is thus also wrong - because
> consent is not possible to obtain. You can stick your penis in the
> venus fly-trap if you like, but the plant, obviously, cannot consent
> to the act. If non-consensual sex with those who cannot give you a
> full human response is what turns you on, then you really need
> counselling. Why not stick with a blow up doll?
....
> > Coren
Because the blow-up doll can't give consent?
-Sam
Sam Murai
Yes, Venus fly-traps are only for masochistic sexual vegetarians...
Elisobella
You've missed my point about both domestication and consent. The
domestication of animals, such as sheep, has taken place over hundreds
of years of mutual interaction with humans. The process of
domestication has been one of active selection of passive genes. Thus
a sheep is more likely to tolerate sexual intercourse with a human
than, say, a wolf. Because the sheep is domesticated, it may be used
to being used by humans sexually. This is not so much a tradition of
abuse (as slavery might be), but part of the consequences of
domestication. Whether you engage with a wether sexually is a
question of morals, which, in my view, is dependent upon the question
of consent.
Sex with an animal is non-consensual sex, which I believe is wrong.
Non-consensual sex between humans is wrong. Your examples of sexual
abuse are exactly this, wrong. Sexual intercourse that does not arise
out of an equal reciprocal relationship is wrong.
Beer Gogglers
quite a few people who frequent this group that may already have the
answer. I wasn't concerned enough about the topic to turn it into a
research project. Just curious, that's all.
On 4 Jun 2004 21:21:41 -0700, eli_...@yahoo.com.au (Elisobella)
wrote:
Enuf
> "Sam Murai" <sam_...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40c3b42d$1...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au>...
(snip)
> You've missed my point about both domestication and consent. The
> domestication of animals, such as sheep, has taken place over hundreds
> of years of mutual interaction with humans. The process of
> domestication has been one of active selection of passive genes. Thus
> a sheep is more likely to tolerate sexual intercourse with a human
> than, say, a wolf. Because the sheep is domesticated, it may be used
> to being used by humans sexually. This is not so much a tradition of
> abuse (as slavery might be), but part of the consequences of
> domestication. Whether you engage with a wether sexually is a
> question of morals, which, in my view, is dependent upon the question
> of consent.
>
> Sex with an animal is non-consensual sex, which I believe is wrong.
I assume this thread was primarily talking about PIV sex(or whatever
you would call it with animals). But what about receiving oral sex
from an animal? Or a male animal having sex with a woman? These
situations would infer that the animal is in fact consenting to the
act, even though it may have been trained to do so. It may be that the
animal is doing it for an expected reward, same as a prostitute, but
it is still consensual in that the animal is in the active role.
Looking at this from the animals view of no harm done, rather than
from a human moral view, do you still think it is wrong?
Enuf
Elisobella
My point still holds, whether PIV or oral or anything, sex with an
animal is morally wrong. Whether the animal enjoys it or not is
irrelevant. Domestication is a process of selective breeding for
passivity - but I'm not going repeat myself with this. That there is a
participation between a human and an animal shouldn't ever lessen the
moral position of the human being. Your words "looking at this from
the animals view of no harm done" is interesting; sex should never be
a case of just not suffering harm - this situation never suggests
equality - and sex should always be an act between equals (two human
beings). How can we judge an act except from our human point of view.
This is our sole responsibility, being human (not sheep, not goat,
not horse, not dog...).
Coren
Just look at Tom Allen's reply and you'll see it's not a dumb question at
all.
Elisobella, you too might want to read his reply, if you haven't already
done so.
I did some net-research myself, and came up with the following answer:
A human MIGHT be able to impregnate a chimpanzee, but since no one tried, we
just don't know.
http://www.boston.com/globe/search/stories/health/how_and_why/101298.htm
But it is by no means _impossible_.
Coren
"Beer Gogglers" <no...@fakeisp.com> schreef in bericht
news:4qf8c0l46s3jujjl6...@4ax.com...
Enuf
Two more questions for this discussion: (1) As I understand it,
primates are like humans in that they often have sex for the pure
enjoyment of it rather than just for procreation like other animals
do. Since they obviously enjoy sex for it's own pleasure, would having
sex with one of them still be wrong?
And the second question (I almost hate to even bring it up knowing the
response it will get) is the bible's Book of Genesis states that man
has dominion over the animals. I don't want to address the religious
issue, but rather point out that Genesis refers to the earliest
written accounts of man's activities and from the "beginning" man has
considered that animals are here for man's use. If we refer to "use"
as food, companionship, clothing, etc, why wouldn't sex be an option?
Enuf
Tom Allen
Enuf <en3...@hotmail.com> informed us:
| And the second question (I almost hate to even bring it up knowing the
| response it will get) is the bible's Book of Genesis states that man
| has dominion over the animals. I don't want to address the religious
| issue, but rather point out that Genesis refers to the earliest
| written accounts of man's activities and from the "beginning" man has
| considered that animals are here for man's use. If we refer to "use"
| as food, companionship, clothing, etc, why wouldn't sex be an option?
Because if you read Leviticus, 18:22 - 18:24 (KJV)
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an
abomination.
"Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith:
neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is
confusion.
"Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the
nations are defiled which I cast out before you."
Further up it goes on that anyone doing so must be put to death. Ouch!
Of course, if you keep reading it goes on to say that you shouldnt'
breed two different kinds of animals, plant fields with two kinds of
seed, or wear clothing woven of two different kinds of material, and you
have to wait until the 4th year before you can eat fruit from a tree.
Oh, and no tattoos or shaved sides. ANd make sure you use honest scales.
Kinda of makes you wonder, huh?
And while I don't want to turn this into another religious thread, as I
read this book, I'm struck with how it outlines all kinds of sin, and
how often the atonement is to give an animal to the priests for
sacrifice. I wonder if that's to make sure that the priests get lots of
steak during fallow times?
Tom
Sarah
>And the second question (I almost hate to even bring it up knowing the
>response it will get) is the bible's Book of Genesis states that man
>has dominion over the animals. I don't want to address the religious
>issue, but rather point out that Genesis refers to the earliest
>written accounts of man's activities and from the "beginning" man has
>considered that animals are here for man's use. If we refer to "use"
>as food, companionship, clothing, etc, why wouldn't sex be an option?
If you;re going to get biblical... *grin*
Yes,
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our
likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of
the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the
creatures that move along the ground."
and
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in
number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea
and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on
the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of
the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They
will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all
the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the
ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green
plant for food." And it was so.
support your idea, but
Leviticus 18:23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and
defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal
to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
answer the question
>If we refer to "use"
>as food, companionship, clothing, etc, why wouldn't sex be an option?
Cheers,
--
Sarah
Elisobella
> Don't worry about it. I don't think you were wrong to ask this question.
> Just look at Tom Allen's reply and you'll see it's not a dumb question at
> all.
> Elisobella, you too might want to read his reply, if you haven't already
> done so.
>
> I did some net-research myself, and came up with the following answer:
> A human MIGHT be able to impregnate a chimpanzee, but since no one tried, we
> just don't know.
> http://www.boston.com/globe/search/stories/health/how_and_why/101298.htm
> But it is by no means _impossible_.
>
> Coren
By the way, while it is true that animals with a similar genetic code,
like horses and donkeys, can successfully impregnate one another, the
offspring is infertile. My original response to the question, can
people impregnate other species, was to this question alone. Unlike
Tom, I didn't answer it generally, ie can other animal species
impregnate one another. Can people impregnate other species, well I
really think not (even though your quoted website says "maybe"). I
really doubt that nobody has tried impregnating a chimp. Humans, as
we're finding on ssg, will try anything.
suzee
>
> In news:3ffcdec7.04060...@posting.google.com,
> Enuf <en3...@hotmail.com> informed us:
>
> | And the second question (I almost hate to even bring it up knowing the
> | response it will get) is the bible's Book of Genesis states that man
> | has dominion over the animals. I don't want to address the religious
> | issue, but rather point out that Genesis refers to the earliest
> | written accounts of man's activities and from the "beginning" man has
> | considered that animals are here for man's use. If we refer to "use"
> | as food, companionship, clothing, etc, why wouldn't sex be an option?
>
> Because if you read Leviticus, 18:22 - 18:24 (KJV)
> "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an
> abomination.
> "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith:
> neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is
> confusion.
Confusion...? Who's confused?
> "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the
> nations are defiled which I cast out before you."
>
> Further up it goes on that anyone doing so must be put to death. Ouch!
>
> Of course, if you keep reading it goes on to say that you shouldnt'
> breed two different kinds of animals, plant fields with two kinds of
> seed, or wear clothing woven of two different kinds of material, and you
> have to wait until the 4th year before you can eat fruit from a tree.
> Oh, and no tattoos or shaved sides. ANd make sure you use honest scales.
> Kinda of makes you wonder, huh?
>
> And while I don't want to turn this into another religious thread, as I
> read this book, I'm struck with how it outlines all kinds of sin, and
> how often the atonement is to give an animal to the priests for
> sacrifice. I wonder if that's to make sure that the priests get lots of
> steak during fallow times?
More like lamb chops or goat stew.
sue
Tom Allen
news:40C62687...@imbris.com
| Tom Allen wrote:
| |
| | Because if you read Leviticus, 18:22 - 18:24 (KJV)
| | "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an
| | abomination.
| | "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself
| | therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie
| | down thereto: it is confusion.
|
| Confusion...? Who's confused?
That's the King James English. In the more modern "New International
Version" that line is "that is a perversion". I have a thingie for my
Palm that has the Bible in both versions so I can flip back and forth
in case I can't quite get the point in the KJV. It's pretty cool. Not
that I read it, but it's fun to look stuff up in a flash.
|| | And while I don't want to turn this into another religious
| | thread, as I read this book, I'm struck with how it outlines all
| | kinds of sin, and how often the atonement is to give an animal to
| | the priests for sacrifice. I wonder if that's to make sure that
| | the priests get lots of steak during fallow times?
|
| More like lamb chops or goat stew.
Whatever.
Tom
Enuf
> In news:3ffcdec7.04060...@posting.google.com,
> Enuf <en3...@hotmail.com> informed us:
>
> | And the second question (I almost hate to even bring it up knowing the
> | response it will get) is the bible's Book of Genesis states that man
> | has dominion over the animals. I don't want to address the religious
> | issue, but rather point out that Genesis refers to the earliest
> | written accounts of man's activities and from the "beginning" man has
> | considered that animals are here for man's use. If we refer to "use"
> | as food, companionship, clothing, etc, why wouldn't sex be an option?
>
> Because if you read Leviticus, 18:22 - 18:24 (KJV)
> "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an
> abomination.
> "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith:
> neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is
> confusion.
> "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the
> nations are defiled which I cast out before you."
>
> Further up it goes on that anyone doing so must be put to death. Ouch!
>
Damn, I knew I shouldn't have mentioned the Bible. Well, now that the
can of worms is open:
The Good News Bible is written in modern easy-to-understand language.
The above mentioned Leviticus passage states: No man or woman is to
have sexual relations with an animal; that perversion makes you
ritually unclean.
The term "clean" in the bible is usually interpreted as meaning
"legal", and term "unclean" is referring to being unfit for ceremonial
participation; both terms only loosely related to moral judgment since
having a disease or having a monthly period would also make you
unclean.
So the Good News Bible's interpretation is not making a moral judgment
about sex with animals as much as it is saying that if you do, you are
barred from religious ceremonies until you are "cleaned" again. And I
guess you are cleaned by bringing the priest a sacrificial animal.
(You suppose it could be the one you had sex with?) ;>)
Enuf
Laurent Bugnion
<snip>
Isn't it great to be in the only newsgroup (I guess) where this kind of
post actually triggers a sensitive and interesting conversation?
Laurent
--
Laurent Bugnion, GalaSoft
Software engineering: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch
Private/Malaysia: http://mypage.bluewin.ch/lbugnion
Support children in Calcutta: http://www.calcutta-espoir.ch
Anonymous Jack
Assuming it consents, of course :-)
Sex with a steak? Good one!
(insert joke about "eating out" or dinner before/after here - too
brain dead to think of one this Friday)
Herman R. Willett
> Now I am no nagel but when I was a guest of the Los Angeles County
> Sheriff's Road Camp, every night after work, several of the inmates
> would walk a couple hundred yards to a horse ranch and have sexual
> intercourse with the pony mares and yearling colts.
Is sex with animals normal, hmmm, well, am I an animal or a vegitable,
and is my wife an animal or a vegitable...., hmmmm, let me think about
this.
Sam Murai
....
>
> My point still holds, whether PIV or oral or anything, sex with an
> animal is morally wrong. Whether the animal enjoys it or not is
> irrelevant. Domestication is a process of selective breeding for
> passivity - but I'm not going repeat myself with this.
Repeat yourself with what?
Sam Murai
It's probably so the priests can leave the altar boys alone.
[ducking for cover and saying a hundred Hail Mary's]
suzee
Ahhh, that makes sense. Religious Jews are not to have sex with their
wives during their periods or until they've gone to a ritual bath to
`cleanse' themseleves; the same for after childbirth. Has to do with
avoiding the blood, similar to requirements kosher butchering of
animals.
sue
Enuf
> "Coren" <Guild.Di...@pandora.be> wrote in message
> news:FOhvc.141583$y36.7...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
>
> that's all...
What, you never heard of women doing pushups in a cucumber patch??
Or you never went out to the garden, got a melon that had been laying
in the sun all day and cut a nice round hole in it?? ;>)
Enuf
Bossdivb3
> "Coren" <Guild.Di...@pandora.be> wrote in message news:<Ql_vc.144037$Nn7.7...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
> > Thanks for replying, Elisobella.
> >
> > I agree with most of what you say, but I don't agree with the arguments you
> > bring forward.
> >
> > news:250a9482.04060...@posting.google.com...
> > > A sheep is a domesticated animal and thus more
> > > amenable to being used by human beings. To have sex with it, though,
> > > and not to have it buck and run away doesn't mean that it has
> > > consented; it merely means that the animal is used to being used this
> > > way.
> >
> > Used to it?
> > but for it to get used to it, it has to have been treated this way before,
> > right? But what if the sheep didn't run away the first time? What if it
> > actually liked it the first time a human tried to have sex with it? The
> > excuse of it "being used to it" no longer stands.
>
> domesticated for hundreds of years (which also means selective
> breeding for docility), and probably used for sex for that length of
> time. Just because sheep (and I use this in a generic sense as well as
> an individual one) might be used to being used sexually it doesn't
> make it a moral act. The question of consent still remains an
> argument against bestiality.
> >
I think you are beginning to beg the question on the issue of consent.
Does a pet consent to be petted or is the pet just used to it and use
it as a way to get fed? You can not know if an animal consents or not
to any act. Do you have a pet? Do you pet it? Does it return for more?
Do you have sex with it? Does it return for more? Really, it is the
same question in regard to consent.
Bob (6/6)
Nike
saw them expoused.
I didn't believe them. When I was at a cousins house afterwards I let it
all hang out in front of their dog, nothing happened. Another time at
another friends house same theing happened, nothing. When I visited the
couples house they were doing some serious basement remodeling that day.
At some point I went upstairs to use the bathroom and get some more
beers. When I came out of the bathroom the dogs ( they had two by this
time ) were laying on the couch. I made sure my friends were still
downstairs and took up a position so I could see the stairs if they came
up. Kneeling down, the dogs came over, curious as to what I was doing,
As I untied the string on my swaetpants both dogs were trying to nose
each other out so they could get in. I was shocked that they were doing
this. When I got it untied I pulled then & my underwear down at once
both dog charged forward across the tile floor and began licking my
penis. This went on for about 60 seconds. I did get hard and couldn't
believe what was happening. I walked over to the living room couch, the
dogs followed jumped up on the couch I turned my back toward them & they
licked my butt crack. That felt to wierd so I turned around and they
went back to licking my balls & penis.
I seem to think these dogs were trained to to this, seeing the other
peoples dogs didn't do it.
Nike
Kinkmaster
> I knew a couple that once told me their dog would lick genitals if he
> saw them expoused.
> I didn't believe them. When I was at a cousins house afterwards I let it
> all hang out in front of their dog, nothing happened. Another time at
> peoples dogs didn't do it.
>
> Nike
Just be carefull you don't do it in front of an 1) Hungry dog, 2)
Angry dog or 3)If the dog has chew toys that sqweek (he'll try to make
your panis sqweek)!!
Just keep in mind for safety.
Kinkmaster
> Hey Pablo dude..
> Time for a patted cell.. Time to take your meds. You need to omit
> yourself to a psychiatric hospital for the mentally deranged. Who ever
> has sex with animals..needs a serious psychotherapist.
>
> Get help dude..get help!
This Pablo guy has other problems than the animal loving alone. He
trolled most (if not all) the newsgroups on usenet. Some real funny
like the thread that said "God stole my testicles", others really
stupid. but if someone want's to see the mayhem he caused you can see
it at alt.io Some replies are really funny.
Ken Tough
>Yeah I seen the word error after I wrote it ut figured most people would
>accipt it. Soory to see you are a "nit-picker"
Beats being a pit-nicker, anyway.
--
Ken Tough
Ken Tough
>What they taught me at school (so it's by no means accurate) is that when
>the species are sufficiently alike, it is possible, but the offspring will
>not be fertile. So, theoretically, it would be possible to make a chimp
>pregnant, but the child would not be fertile.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong (I'll be sure to tell my teachers)
It's generally correct, but humans & chimps aren't the same species,
they're not even the same genus. There wouldn't be any way for the
two to breed (even 1% different DNA is a HUGE amount). It's a valid
question, though, and many have speculated whether for example
homo sapiens and neanderthalensis could have and would have
interbred and produced sterile offspring. Opinions differ..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/beasts/evidence/prog6/page5_2.shtml
http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/n/ne/neanderthal.html
http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_neand.htm
--
Ken Tough