beastiality. [Archive] - Virtual Teen Forums

Manjusri

December 23rd, 2012, 09:24 PM

In a land far away, a very, very long time ago, two men set out on a journey. One that would change the world - forever!

The names of these men? Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Although not known to many people, they have molded the way people live and work today.

What did these people do? They created google. This mysterious google will allow you to search the internet, far and wide!

Google is helpful for many reasons, one of which is to prevent forums from being clogged with threads asking for the definition of a word.

Wow, amazing! (https://www.google.com/search?q=who+invented+google&aq=f&oq=who+invented+google&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l2j5j62.2769&sugexp=chrome,mod=3&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=define:+bestiality&oq=define:+bestiality&gs_l=serp.3...147165.149992.0.150618.18.18.0.0.0.0.158.1705.11j6.17.0.les%3B..0. 0...1c.1.WMmvXNdpgEI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ&fp=40afe6cabb4988bd&bpcl=40096503&biw=1280&bih=963)

Human

December 23rd, 2012, 09:25 PM

When a human does sexual acts with an animal.

Don't see anything wrong with it if the human doesn't force it on them and the animal chooses to do it.
I mean, it's not like they can impregnate it.

Lost in the Echo

December 23rd, 2012, 09:50 PM

Yeah, basically beastiality means someone fucking animals. It's fucking gross, and just wrong.

InfinantSilence

December 23rd, 2012, 09:53 PM

Troy35216

December 23rd, 2012, 10:55 PM

Mortal Coil

December 23rd, 2012, 11:12 PM

Roses_Are_Yellow

December 23rd, 2012, 11:18 PM

Skyline

December 24th, 2012, 12:51 AM

Bath

December 24th, 2012, 03:06 PM

When a human does sexual acts with an animal.

Don't see anything wrong with it if the human doesn't force it on them and the animal chooses to do it.
I mean, it's not like they can impregnate it.

Yeah but the matter of how can we know if the animal gives consent then comes up. They can't say in spoken english "yes I want to have sex with this person." There's no way to tell that the animal wants to, so odds are that they don't.

Human

December 24th, 2012, 05:14 PM

Yeah but the matter of how can we know if the animal gives consent then comes up. They can't say in spoken english "yes I want to have sex with this person." There's no way to tell that the animal wants to, so odds are that they don't.

what about when the animal initiates it?

UnknownError

December 24th, 2012, 07:03 PM

It's when your dog licks ur butt while you sleep.

nick

December 24th, 2012, 09:00 PM

what about when the animal initiates it?
I don't think bestiality can ever be right. Sure a horny dog might try to hump your leg, it has no morals and doesn't know any better, but that's inappropriate behaviour and is not something that should be encouraged or reciprocated.

FreeFall

December 25th, 2012, 03:43 AM

what about when the animal initiates it?
...why are you arguing that a woman can have a gerbil in her vagina as long as the rodent initiated it?
And when most animals hump anything, dogs will hump tissues to rabbits to cats, how do you explain that? What if the human wasn't willing? If the animal can initiate then maybe they can rape? The new set of laws that would have to be made, oh boy.
No matter that humans and animals can pass infections to each other and sometimes those infections are fatal. *cough*also allergic reactions like the Irish woman that died of an allergic reaction to dog semen*cough*

Human

December 25th, 2012, 09:20 AM

...why are you arguing that a woman can have a gerbil in her vagina as long as the rodent initiated it?
And when most animals hump anything, dogs will hump tissues to rabbits to cats, how do you explain that? What if the human wasn't willing? If the animal can initiate then maybe they can rape? The new set of laws that would have to be made, oh boy.
No matter that humans and animals can pass infections to each other and sometimes those infections are fatal. *cough*also allergic reactions like the Irish woman that died of an allergic reaction to dog semen*cough*

people can get allergic reactions from anything, and humans have more chances of passing infections to each other.
and I'm not talking about gerbils etc. more 'intelligent' animals such as pigs and dogs which get enjoyment from sexual acts

StoppingTime

December 25th, 2012, 09:34 AM

people can get allergic reactions from anything, and humans have more chances of passing infections to each other.
and I'm not talking about gerbils etc. more 'intelligent' animals such as pigs and dogs which get enjoyment from sexual acts

The only animals who are known to get 'enjoyment' from sex are dolphins and gorillas, I believe, so that doesn't really leave you with too many options...

And regardless, what would initiating even mean? You would never know the difference between 'initiating' and well, not.

Human

December 25th, 2012, 10:10 AM

The only animals who are known to get 'enjoyment' from sex are dolphins and gorillas, I believe, so that doesn't really leave you with too many options...

And regardless, what would initiating even mean? You would never know the difference between 'initiating' and well, not.

You would know it was initiating when the animal came up to you and started trying to have sex with you, as well as that most animals have orgasms

Rayquaza

December 25th, 2012, 10:54 AM

You would know it was initiating when the animal came up to you and started trying to have sex with you, as well as that most animals have orgasms

I think the broader picture here isn't just about humans having sick fantasies over animals. It's more along the lines of that species should only have to reproduce with their own species. You wouldn't see a bear having sex with a cow would you? No matter who initiated it first, it doesn't happen and will not happen. And as above users have said, even if it seems that the animals may want to mate with a human it doesn't know better, regardless of weather it can or cannot orgasm.

Human

December 25th, 2012, 11:24 AM

I think the broader picture here isn't just about humans having sick fantasies over animals. It's more along the lines of that species should only have to reproduce with their own species. You wouldn't see a bear having sex with a cow would you? No matter who initiated it first, it doesn't happen and will not happen. And as above users have said, even if it seems that the animals may want to mate with a human it doesn't know better, regardless of weather it can or cannot orgasm.

there's a difference with reproduction and pleasure

Pipo

December 25th, 2012, 11:52 AM

Rayquaza

December 25th, 2012, 02:29 PM

I love how open minded people really are. "omg it's wrong", "you never shouldn't do that" bla bla. Look at yourself people say that being gay is wrong? now you're saying that humping a dog is wrong? I don't understand you at all. Honestly I don't even want to

there are ways to see if animal likes it or not. For example dog can whine if he/she is in pain etc. If he/she stays quiet and stuff obviously he/she likes it?

What I want to say is let the guy/girl have sex with a animal if he/she wants to? Is that going to ruin your world? make you feel sick? There are people who might as well feel sick of seeing man and woman having sex?

Besides all this stuff is basically off topic guy was obviously asking what it is and he got his answer now you're talking about how "wrong" it is and etc.

I don't care honestly if someone has sex with a animal as long as he isn't hurting the animal and not forcing it. I don't care.

Why can't you open up your minds and start thinking differently and in different views and ways? Some people I know here say that gay sex is okay? some say it isn't so why you do you come here and tell that animal sex isn't okay?

In same way some people might be allergic to your cum or pussy or w/e? so stop saying all that nonsense here about animals.

Well, firstly, no one in this debate mentioned anything about sexuality, the discussion was humans having sexual pleasure with an animal, regardless of gender, so you've completely missed the topic.

Secondly, because none of us are dogs we can not speak on behalf of an animal, we don't know what it's thinking, and to add on, it can't tell us verbally, and it's actions cannot necessarily either.

And to add on to what you said about people feeling sick, yes it is going to make people feel sick. Humans were made to reproduce with humans. You don't get a baby by having sex with a dog. And if you argue that this could be against gay/lesbian couples, it's not, considering that they do not have children, and if they choose to, it would be through another method which involves another human.

Pipo

December 25th, 2012, 03:28 PM

Well, firstly, no one in this debate mentioned anything about sexuality, the discussion was humans having sexual pleasure with an animal, regardless of gender, so you've completely missed the topic.

Secondly, because none of us are dogs we can not speak on behalf of an animal, we don't know what it's thinking, and to add on, it can't tell us verbally, and it's actions cannot necessarily either.

And to add on to what you said about people feeling sick, yes it is going to make people feel sick. Humans were made to reproduce with humans. You don't get a baby by having sex with a dog. And if you argue that this could be against gay/lesbian couples, it's not, considering that they do not have children, and if they choose to, it would be through another method which involves another human.

if you're not aware this topic is about sexuality. And those gay/lesbian stuff were example about how some people think it is wrong and it's not.

Like I already said some people say male/male having sex is sick?

you can "think" from his actions if you weren't aware of that either? that's how animals express them selves? growl? bark? etc? all those come from feelings. If someone tries to rape you what you do? stay quiet? scream?

Animals can whine and bark if they feel unconformable around you. In some cases if dog has seen a person who murders his owner he starts to bark at him or do something else?

Beastiality = raping a animal or forcing animal to sex.

zoophilia = wants to have sex with animal but doesn't force it.

so yes this is about sexuality -.-

FreeFall

December 25th, 2012, 03:32 PM

people can get allergic reactions from anything
That's cool, I'm aware of that. What's your point with stating this? If someone wants to find out they're allergic to gerbil semen or...?
and humans have more chances of passing infections to each other.
No actually they have equal chance with an animal the same as a human. It's just that the Zoonosis is more lethal to both animal and human. That's why we're told to cook our meat, to get rid of those parasite/bacteria/fungi. Transferring your known STD to your goat isn't the best way to say "I love you goat". And getting Crimean Fever from a bull's penis/secretions, or whatever animals carry it, isn't the best thing for your health.
and I'm not talking about gerbils etc. more 'intelligent' animals[QUOTE]
You don't get to do that though. Why are you trying to? Sex with animals is sex with animals. You don't get to discriminate and pick which animals a human may have sexual relations with. Nor can you actually be the voice of the animal in heat. If you're going to say a human's sexual relations to an animal are ok, you don't get to say only with a dog or dolphin. Anything from spiders to mice should be included or you're taking the right from both animal and human. [QUOTE]such as pigs and dogs which get enjoyment from sexual acts
So because there are studies reporting those animals enjoy mating, they're the only ones that are allowed to have relations with our species? How is that fair let alone justified? How can you prove, that because a species enjoys their mating, they've more right to be what a human can touch than a gerbil, hermit crab, or elephant?

Also, I honestly don't care what people do. Their sex life is their sex life and as long as everything's well between the two parties, no one can give a damn. But when you try to make it a right, that's when it gets odd and that's what bugs me. It's almost already a right, in a sense, and if they're proud of it there's PLENTY of underground support groups for them to run to.
We only jump because we picture people sneaking into farms at night to seduce horses, end up with their rectum torn, and a horse with some new infection thanks to the human. That's not fair to the horse or the farmer. Because we picture the cocker-spaniel whose human tore her vulva in his attempt of sex. Fuck the humans, the animals have no voice and it's almost hard to prove that a dog really wants the action and isn't just doing what most of them do.

Also in making it a right and lifting that illegality/ban, not only do we need to protect the animals, we'd have to make human protection. What happens if they catch something from the animal? What if the animal they had sex with isn't their own? Do they need consent of the owner or not? Do they have the right to marry the animal and call the animal their spouse? If the animals they wish to marry isn't their own, do they've right to "take" it from the owner? If they can have sex with it, why should they be denied that legal right? Dogs are known the be good nannies, why not good fathers and mothers? Let them play with the baby and be known legally as its mother? If the animal gets out and mates with their species and ends up pregnant, what of that litter? Will the owner of the offending animal need to pay litter support and the vet costs for the owner/spouse/mate of the impregnated animal? What if the human claims they were raped by the animal? What the hell can be done about that?

It's not as simple as "make sex with animals legal", there's a ton more to spin off of and branch from. As silly as it seems.

If the animal in question isn't a victim, just keep quiet about it and don't get caught. It's probably not the ideal way to live, but we can only take one battle at a time. For now and for a long time coming, inter-species sexual relations will be illegal/under fire from most countries until we can fully understand that there are relations that are...happy...and not a human taking advantage of an animal or being stupid and going to get themselves injured/killed from the animal's penis/excretions or injure/kill the animal [female].

Pipo

December 25th, 2012, 04:01 PM

That's cool, I'm aware of that. What's your point with stating this? If someone wants to find out they're allergic to gerbil semen or...?

No actually they have equal chance with an animal the same as a human. It's just that the Zoonosis is more lethal to both animal and human. That's why we're told to cook our meat, to get rid of those parasite/bacteria/fungi. Transferring your known STD to your goat isn't the best way to say "I love you goat". And getting Crimean Fever from a bull's penis/secretions, or whatever animals carry it, isn't the best thing for your health.
[QUOTE]and I'm not talking about gerbils etc. more 'intelligent' animals[QUOTE]
You don't get to do that though. Why are you trying to? Sex with animals is sex with animals. You don't get to discriminate and pick which animals a human may have sexual relations with. Nor can you actually be the voice of the animal in heat. If you're going to say a human's sexual relations to an animal are ok, you don't get to say only with a dog or dolphin. Anything from spiders to mice should be included or you're taking the right from both animal and human.
So because there are studies reporting those animals enjoy mating, they're the only ones that are allowed to have relations with our species? How is that fair let alone justified? How can you prove, that because a species enjoys their mating, they've more right to be what a human can touch than a gerbil, hermit crab, or elephant?

Also, I honestly don't care what people do. Their sex life is their sex life and as long as everything's well between the two parties, no one can give a damn. But when you try to make it a right, that's when it gets odd and that's what bugs me. It's almost already a right, in a sense, and if they're proud of it there's PLENTY of underground support groups for them to run to.
We only jump because we picture people sneaking into farms at night to seduce horses, end up with their rectum torn, and a horse with some new infection thanks to the human. That's not fair to the horse or the farmer. Because we picture the cocker-spaniel whose human tore her vulva in his attempt of sex. Fuck the humans, the animals have no voice and it's almost hard to prove that a dog really wants the action and isn't just doing what most of them do.

Also in making it a right and lifting that illegality/ban, not only do we need to protect the animals, we'd have to make human protection. What happens if they catch something from the animal? What if the animal they had sex with isn't their own? Do they need consent of the owner or not? Do they have the right to marry the animal and call the animal their spouse? If the animals they wish to marry isn't their own, do they've right to "take" it from the owner? If they can have sex with it, why should they be denied that legal right? Dogs are known the be good nannies, why not good fathers and mothers? Let them play with the baby and be known legally as its mother? If the animal gets out and mates with their species and ends up pregnant, what of that litter? Will the owner of the offending animal need to pay litter support and the vet costs for the owner/spouse/mate of the impregnated animal? What if the human claims they were raped by the animal? What the hell can be done about that?

It's not as simple as "make sex with animals legal", there's a ton more to spin off of and branch from. As silly as it seems.

If the animal in question isn't a victim, just keep quiet about it and don't get caught. It's probably not the ideal way to live, but we can only take one battle at a time. For now and for a long time coming, inter-species sexual relations will be illegal/under fire from most countries until we can fully understand that there are relations that are...happy...and not a human taking advantage of an animal or being stupid and going to get themselves injured/killed from the animal's penis/excretions or injure/kill the animal [female].

if beastiality would be legal that would mean raping a animal would be legal.

all those having sex with a animal you don't own etc you said I agree it's not right. But again it's a rape if it's against the animals will. And I know it's hard to tell does the animal want it or not. But I believe there simple ways to know that first would be he tries to get away, sounds, movement etc.

Then again people tend to mix zoophilia and beastiality.

If you're zoophilia you love the animal and want to have sex with him cus of that. It's like human love then.

beastiality is like going on street ah a good looking woman now I just decide to rape him. That's what this is about and all your topics around it like std and etc.

Now I don't see any reason to keep this thread to open cus this is all off topic guy was asking what beastiality it is. so please?

Mirage

December 25th, 2012, 04:23 PM

Turning into a debate.

TWPR :arrow: ROTW

Mortal Coil

December 25th, 2012, 05:56 PM

If someone tries to rape you what you do? stay quiet? scream?

What. The. Hell.
Everyone reacts to rape in their own way. Society has allowed rapists to define how the victim has to react in order for it to be considered rape. Some do stay quiet. Some comply without fighting out of fear. It's pretty rare that you get the stereotypical reaction. Similarly, you can't judge what an animal is thinking.

Rayquaza

December 25th, 2012, 06:23 PM

and I'm not talking about gerbils etc. more 'intelligent' animals

Regardless of "intelligence"; they still haven't given consent. Also, small animals can feel pleasure too, and your argument is based off the fact that both parties receive pleasure from the experience.

if beastiality would be legal that would mean raping a animal would be legal.

Any sex with an animal is raping an animal, once again, the animal has not given consent.

all those having sex with a animal you don't own etc you said I agree it's not right. But again it's a rape if it's against the animals will. And I know it's hard to tell does the animal want it or not. But I believe there simple ways to know that first would be he tries to get away, sounds, movement etc.

The animal doesn't know what's good for it and what isn't, and it's not up to us humans to take advantage of it.

Then again people tend to mix zoophilia and beastiality.

Err, no. They mean the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia
Zoophilia, from the Greek ζῷον (zṓion, "animal") and φιλία (philia, "friendship" or "love") is the practice of sexual activity between humans and non-human animals (bestiality), or a preference for or fixation on such practice.

If you're zoophilia you love the animal and want to have sex with him cus of that. It's like human love then.

beastiality is like going on street ah a good looking woman now I just decide to rape him. That's what this is about and all your topics around it like std and etc.

See above answer. They mean the same thing. And also, we aren't talking about rape here, considering that zoophilia is the practice of ANY sexual activity with an animal.

TheBigUnit

December 25th, 2012, 07:38 PM

Listen to answer the OP, Beastiality is basically having sex with a species other than your own,
Does it happen? Yes it does
Should it happen? Personally no
Would I stop you? No, do what you please, but there should be a line between beastiality and gay couples, there's laws against beastiality but one law should be humans can only marry other humans (unless we meet aliens :p ) because I will not stand to see the day where humans marry animals, that will be a sign that our world is really f*cked up
I personally think beastiality is animal abuse until dogs can get a lawyer

Technically beastiality happens throughout the animal king but it isn't successful, the point of sex is to reproduce, pleasure is to encourage sex, the happier you get from f*cking the more kids you get

hybrid animals can't even reproduce, all hybrid animals are all sterile like mules/donkeys ( forgot which one is the result of it and a horse)

Guillermo

December 25th, 2012, 09:53 PM

Technically beastiality happens throughout the animal king but it isn't successful,

That's not called bestiality. Bestiality involves humans and animals - not one species of animal breeding with another species of animal. That's called interbreeding or cross-breeding. And it actually is successful within dogs. But interbreeding is almost always because of human interference.

the happier you get from f*cking the more kids you get

Where has this been proven? I mean, sexual pleasure has been seen in species other than humans, but how does that make more kids?

like mules/donkeys ( forgot which one is the result of it and a horse)

A mule is the result of a male donkey and a female horse.

TheBigUnit

December 25th, 2012, 10:31 PM

That's not called bestiality. Bestiality involves humans and animals - not one species of animal breeding with another species of animal. That's called interbreeding or cross-breeding. And it actually is successful within dogs. But interbreeding is almost always because of human interference.

Where has this been proven? I mean, sexual pleasure has been seen in species other than humans, but how does that make more kids?

Guess I simplified it to mean something else,

Well evolution still is technically a theory and this could be a part in a species evolution, the more pleasure you get from sex, the more time you have sex, the more chances of making zygotes, the more potential offspring

Guillermo

December 25th, 2012, 11:51 PM

Well evolution still is technically a theory

Oh god. There was a thread on this a while back. Here, I found it (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=105976&highlight=Evolution).

Here, let Korashk summarize what a theory actually is:

- A theory in science does not mean the same thing as it does in a colloquial sense. When your average person says "I have a theory", what they usually mean is "I have a hypothesis". A theory in science is serves to explain OBSERVABLE phenomena. We see it happen, draw up a hypothesis to explain how it happens, and when that hypothesis is proven true it's a theory. Also, as far as science is concerned, theory is as high as it gets. Theories aren't "upgraded" to laws once more and more evidence is gained. Scientific laws and scientific theories aren't really related at all.

and this could be a part in a species evolution, the more pleasure you get from sex,

Scratch this. This really hasn't been proven. Pleasure from sex has only been identified in very few species so far like chimpanzees - and they're very much so endangered which is not a good status to have in terms of evolution.

the more time you have sex, the more chances of making zygotes, the more potential offspring

Keep this, because you're right about this part. To simplify it even more: the more times a species breeds the more potential offspring. But that's common knowledge, pretty much.

beastiality is like going on street ah a good looking woman now I just decide to rape him. That's what this is about and all your topics around it like std and etc.

1) You mixed the genders.
2) I'd like to reiterate that there are two definitions of bestiality; one is basically the act of raping as you've stated and the other definition is about humans having sexual relations with animals. As you can see, this thread is about the human-animal relationship definition.
3) You keep spelling 'bestiality' wrong.

Steve Hala

December 26th, 2012, 12:38 AM

people can get allergic reactions from anything, and humans have more chances of passing infections to each other.
and I'm not talking about gerbils etc. more 'intelligent' animals such as pigs and dogs which get enjoyment from sexual acts

Sorry there is only one animal on the earth that has sex for fun other than humans and that would be the dolphin

Sir Suomi

December 26th, 2012, 12:47 AM

Did I seriously just see people saying that it was alright for a animal to have sex with a human?
0.o
I'm just going to close this tab, and try to get the horrible images of a man doing horrible things to a pig.

Pipo

December 26th, 2012, 03:31 AM

Regardless of "intelligence"; they still haven't given consent. Also, small animals can feel pleasure too, and your argument is based off the fact that both parties receive pleasure from the experience.

Any sex with an animal is raping an animal, once again, the animal has not given consent.

The animal doesn't know what's good for it and what isn't, and it's not up to us humans to take advantage of it.

Err, no. They mean the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia

See above answer. They mean the same thing. And also, we aren't talking about rape here, considering that zoophilia is the practice of ANY sexual activity with an animal.

no it's not lol...

just went to wikipedia and read the first thing?

Masters (1962) uses the term "bestialist" specifically in his discussion of zoosadism, which refers to deriving sexual pleasure from cruelty to animals. Stephanie LaFarge, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the New Jersey Medical School, and Director of Counseling at the ASPCA, writes that two groups can be distinguished: bestialists, who rape or abuse animals, and zoophiles, who form an emotional and sexual attachment to animals.[13] Colin J. Williams and Martin Weinberg studied self-defined zoophiles via the internet and found they saw the term as involving concern for the animal's welfare and pleasure, and an emphasis on believing they obtained consent, as opposed to the zoophile's concept of bestialists, who zoophiles defined as a group who focused only on their own gratification. Williams and Weinberg also quoted a British newspaper as saying that zoophilia is the term used by "apologists" of bestiality.

The word zoophilia comes from the combination of zoo-, which means living being, and -philia (from philos) which means a strong love or affinity for something. The dictionary definition of bestiality is sexual activity, usually intercourse, with a non-human animal.

in short terms again Beastiality means that you just go and hump a dog you don't love the dog or anything.

so NO it's not a same thing!

PS: before you put negative rep please go learn your stuff.

Lost in the Echo

December 26th, 2012, 03:58 AM

I don't really feel like reading all the shit posted above, but i'll give my opinion on the subject:

I think beastiality is wrong and IS rape, because the animal is not fully aware of the situation occurring, and therefore cannot give consent to it.
And sex without the consent of one of the people or in this case,: animals, is considered rape.
Humans have way more intellect than animals do, so having sex with an animal, would be "taking advantage" of that animal, which is rape.

I think we all can agree rape is wrong, well beastiality is a form of rape, so it's wrong too.

It really shouldn't be hard to see how beastiality is wrong.
I'm questioning the sanity of anyone who can't see how beastiality is wrong.

nutjob

December 26th, 2012, 04:29 AM

Bestiality is definitely wrong. There's really nothing else to it, it's wrong and zoosexuality is not a sexuality but a mental illness that should be further looked into to help those who have to deal with it.

Rayquaza

December 26th, 2012, 06:34 AM

no it's not lol...

just went to wikipedia and read the first thing?

Masters (1962) uses the term "bestialist" specifically in his discussion of zoosadism, which refers to deriving sexual pleasure from cruelty to animals. Stephanie LaFarge, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the New Jersey Medical School, and Director of Counseling at the ASPCA, writes that two groups can be distinguished: bestialists, who rape or abuse animals, and zoophiles, who form an emotional and sexual attachment to animals.[13] Colin J. Williams and Martin Weinberg studied self-defined zoophiles via the internet and found they saw the term as involving concern for the animal's welfare and pleasure, and an emphasis on believing they obtained consent, as opposed to the zoophile's concept of bestialists, who zoophiles defined as a group who focused only on their own gratification. Williams and Weinberg also quoted a British newspaper as saying that zoophilia is the term used by "apologists" of bestiality.

The word zoophilia comes from the combination of zoo-, which means living being, and -philia (from philos) which means a strong love or affinity for something. The dictionary definition of bestiality is sexual activity, usually intercourse, with a non-human animal.

in short terms again Beastiality means that you just go and hump a dog you don't love the dog or anything.

so NO it's not a same thing!

PS: before you put negative rep please go learn your stuff.

source?

TheBigUnit

December 26th, 2012, 09:11 AM

Scratch this. This really hasn't been proven. Pleasure from sex has only been identified in very few species so far like chimpanzees - and they're very much so endangered which is not a good status to have in terms of evolution

My physics teacher defined a theory to be still in question like it happens but there ar some discrepancies in the theory, a law is a refined theory, fully proven and happens everytime and there is nothing questioning it

That's also true, but it explains why many 3rd world countries have high populations, they did sex for pleasure not for the intent of offspring (there are exceptions)

Also I see the pleasure maybe being a trait as the reason because we have varying diffrent levels of pleasure from sex, I see this as like people and fatty food being possibly a trait, as early ancestors needed food and fatty foods were a luxury

Pipo

December 26th, 2012, 09:57 AM

source?

look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia)

look here (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110710162250AAjhbo4)

plus I actually know people who are into zoophilia and know a lot more about this than I do.

Rayquaza

December 26th, 2012, 10:11 AM

look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia)

look here (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110710162250AAjhbo4)

plus I actually know people who are into zoophilia and know a lot more about this than I do.

Some holes in your logic here.

Firstly, I have already quoted Wikipedia, they mean the same thing, which isn't seem to be getting through to you. Wikipedia is made with many contributors, with a higher rate of accuracy.

Yahoo Answers- You used an answer provided by one person backed up with no sources. What this person says could be true or untrue.

Secondly, if you know people that are into this sort of stuff, it doesn't make them an expert at it. But if they have something to contribute, feel free to direct them to this thread.

Now, when you say love and compassion and all that yada ya, well, love and sex are completely two different things. I love my cat and my gerbils so much, they're part of our family. But that doesn't mean I'm going to have sex with them- it's sick and downright wrong.

The discussion here is on bestiality- having sex with animals- regardless of "love" or not. If we were meant to have sex with animals, they would reproduce, but they do not.

And what was said above- hybrid animals are sterile, such as the mule. They undergo genetic mutation which changes their internal DNA, making it dysfunctional.

Here's another way of putting it- Would you have sex with an infant? That's ultimately what bestiality is. An infant will love you and you will love it back with reciprocal relations, but you don't have sex with it. Why? Because, once again, it doesn't know what's good for it, and can't give consent to something it doesn't know.

There is a reason why we call human intercourse "sex" and animal intercourse "mating"- because they are two different things.

TigerBoy

December 26th, 2012, 10:18 AM

My physics teacher defined a theory to be still in question like it happens but there ar some discrepancies in the theory, a law is a refined theory, fully proven and happens everytime and there is nothing questioning it

That is not a complete or accurate description of how the terms apply.

It is not true to state that laws are a refined theory. Laws describe what we see in the real world, theories describe how what we see might come about.

A law of gravity might describes the phenomenon mathematically and allow us to predict its affects but of itself doesn't tell us about how the force comes about.

A theory is a model that attempts to explain a real world phenomenon and is open to correction and refinement. Thus it took Einstein's theory of General Relativity to produce an explanation of the gravitational laws that Newton had studied, and also gave science a theory that consistently explained a variety of other Laws. It also correctly predicted phenomena that had yet to be measured and observed and thus weren't part of any existing documentation of physical laws at that time.

The difference in approach is that a law is typically arrived at inductively from observing facts, whereas a theoretical model is conceived and then scientists test it by looking for phenomena that don't fit or disprove the current state of the model.

There are mature and refined laws and theories. Laws can and do change, but much less frequently than theories, for the simple reason that it is a lot easier to observe and measure than it is to understand and explain.

Well evolution still is technically a theory
This is not correct. Evolution is an observable phenomenon just like gravity. The theory you are thinking of is probably "natural selection" which is what Mr Darwin published. Evolution as a concept was not his invention.

Pipo

December 26th, 2012, 10:48 AM

Some holes in your logic here.

Firstly, I have already quoted Wikipedia, they mean the same thing, which isn't seem to be getting through to you. Wikipedia is made with many contributors, with a higher rate of accuracy.

Yahoo Answers- You used an answer provided by one person backed up with no sources. What this person says could be true or untrue.

Secondly, if you know people that are into this sort of stuff, it doesn't make them an expert at it. But if they have something to contribute, feel free to direct them to this thread.

Now, when you say love and compassion and all that yada ya, well, love and sex are completely two different things. I love my cat and my gerbils so much, they're part of our family. But that doesn't mean I'm going to have sex with them- it's sick and downright wrong.

The discussion here is on bestiality- having sex with animals- regardless of "love" or not. If we were meant to have sex with animals, they would reproduce, but they do not.

And what was said above- hybrid animals are sterile, such as the mule. They undergo genetic mutation which changes their internal DNA, making it dysfunctional.

Here's another way of putting it- Would you have sex with an infant? That's ultimately what bestiality is. An infant will love you and you will love it back with reciprocal relations, but you don't have sex with it. Why? Because, once again, it doesn't know what's good for it, and can't give consent to something it doesn't know.

There is a reason why we call human intercourse "sex" and animal intercourse "mating"- because they are two different things.

....

I don't want to waste my energy to this thread anymore.

FreeFall

December 26th, 2012, 12:29 PM

if beastiality would be legal that would mean raping a animal would be legal.
Correct, if I'm understanding it right. And we can all agree, pretty much, that rape is an awful thing no matter the age/race/gender or species.
As far as I know, humans are pretty much the only mammal that can go into heat/is always in heat of free will. That means we can mate whenever we please. I don't know about male dogs/males of other species, but I do know the vast majority of females have a period of heat. That means, when they're ready for sex, aka when they want it.
Even then though, it's not a guarantee. They will snap, bite, turn around, pretty much do anything to tell the male courting them that they do not want him and he needs to either leave or wait. And when the females in heat, it's usually for those of her own species. A male penis/dildo isn't something she will understand. Male dogs/canines aren't even erect when they're mounting, it's after when they are. Humans can try to mimic a male dog going to mount, but the scents, movements and body language will not be the same she's wired to notice. So she'll only be confused more. Unless the female/male's willing and ready, any other action will be rape of them.

all those having sex with a animal you don't own etc you said I agree it's not right. But again it's a rape if it's against the animals will. And I know it's hard to tell does the animal want it or not. But I believe there simple ways to know that first would be he tries to get away, sounds, movement etc.
Not so. Just now I thought, animal dominatrix. If the human's into being dominated and attacked, they could possibly make the claim that it's all in sexual fun.

Then again people tend to mix zoophilia and beastiality.

If you're zoophilia you love the animal and want to have sex with him cus of that. It's like human love then.

beastiality is like going on street ah a good looking woman now I just decide to rape him. That's what this is about and all your topics around it like std and etc.
They're synonyms. Bestiality is sexual relations/actions with an animal, not a term for animal rapists picking up strays.

Now I don't see any reason to keep this thread to open cus this is all off topic guy was asking what beastiality it is. so please?
Ironically, looking at these posts before me, seems we got back on track.

Guillermo

December 27th, 2012, 01:02 AM

My physics teacher defined a theory to be still in question like it happens but there ar some discrepancies in the theory, a law is a refined theory, fully proven and happens everytime and there is nothing questioning it

A high school physics teacher, just like any other high school teacher, must say that evolution is "still in questioning" or "hasn't been proven yet". They would get fired if they said otherwise.

That's also true, but it explains why many 3rd world countries have high populations, they did sex for pleasure not for the intent of offspring (there are exceptions)

You mean a higher birthrate? I mean, the USA and Japan have way more people than a lot of developing countries. Developing nations like many countries in Africa have higher birthrates simply because the general population isn't educated about sex. Plus women aren't as in power, so really they have no authority over their bodies as they do in developed nations. It's not because of pleasure.

Also I see the pleasure maybe being a trait as the reason because we have varying diffrent levels of pleasure from sex, I see this as like people and fatty food being possibly a trait, as early ancestors needed food and fatty foods were a luxury

Well it somewhat is. A trait for humans in general though. The ability to have pleasure while having sex is one trait that separates humans from most other animals. Yet, the thing is, pleasure is hard to measure in other animals because 1) pleasure is a feeling which is experienced by an individual 2) humans cannot talk with other animals, so really we would never know if and how pleasurable sexual acts for them is. And there begins a whole other debate about which animals can experience pleasure.

Jen Jones

December 27th, 2012, 01:03 AM

fucking animals

TheBigUnit

December 27th, 2012, 09:05 AM

You mean a higher birthrate? I mean, the USA and Japan have way more people than a lot of developing countries. Developing nations like many countries in Africa have higher birthrates simply because the general population isn't educated about sex. Plus women aren't as in power, so really they have no authority over their bodies as they do in developed nations. It's not because of pleasure.

Well it somewhat is. A trait for humans in general though. The ability to have pleasure while having sex is one trait that separates humans from most other animals. Yet, the thing is, pleasure is hard to measure in other animals because 1) pleasure is a feeling which is experienced by an individual 2) humans cannot talk with other animals, so really we would never know if and how pleasurable sexual acts for them is. And there begins a whole other debate about which animals can experience pleasure.

Birthrate and population are not the same thing, I appreciate how you used japan here because japan is a great example of birthrates, though japan and usa may have more people than a country like afghanistan, both usa and japans birthrates are on a decline especially japan whose birthrates are decreasing so much that it is becoming a national problem, afghanistan on the other hand birthrates are on a boom even through all the atrocities that happen there, the reason why some third world countries may not show large populations is because the life expectancy is low, also your right women unfortunatly in many countries still have little say over their bodies, many women in africa are raped or play hookers to support their familes, india right now is facing major rape cases, men don't rape women for pro-creation it is because they are bored the fuck out of rtheir minds and have nothing better to do in a land with many unenforced laws, a large percentage os the worlds population is from unintenional means, let's leave this here as it will get even more offtopic any more we talk about this

You could check an animals mammal in particular endorphines release to see if it correlates pleasure as it may with its own species, anyway this talk about beastiality is so unethical and immoral I'm done

Guillermo

December 27th, 2012, 03:02 PM

Birthrate and population are not the same thing,

Yet, hmmm higher birthrates correlate with population growth which would then in turn means a growing population. Yeah?

men don't rape women for pro-creation it is because they are bored the fuck out of rtheir minds and have nothing better to do in a land with many unenforced laws, a large percentage os the worlds population is from unintenional means,

I'm sorry, but this is such an uneducated statement that I just had to say something. Yes, sure there are a lot of "should-be-rape" cases in lesser developed countries. But that's not always the reason why lesser developed countries tend to have more children. Families in developing countries tend to think that they need more children, so that when the parents get older, they will have people to take care of them. In other words, children are treasured in developing countries, because they can help work for their parents and take care of them and other children in the family. In developed countries, on the other hand, children are seen more of a liability because families have realized that they're so expensive to take care of and would rather not invest in having 6 children. I'd recommend brushing up on more human geography rather than going off your own thoughts, because that's when we get ignorant statements about a subject.

beastiality is so unethical and immoral I'm done

Glad we can agree on one thing, then.

MrDaniel2K13

December 27th, 2012, 03:59 PM

I think its totally wrong to be honest,

TheBigUnit

December 27th, 2012, 04:34 PM

Yet, hmmm higher birthrates correlate with population growth which would then in turn means a growing population. Yeah?

I'm sorry, but this is such an uneducated statement that I just had to say something. Yes, sure there are a lot of "should-be-rape" cases in lesser developed countries. But that's not always the reason why lesser developed countries tend to have more children. Families in developing countries tend to think that they need more children, so that when the parents get older, they will have people to take care of them. In other words, children are treasured in developing countries, because they can help work for their parents and take care of them and other children in the family. In developed countries, on the other hand, children are seen more of a liability because families have realized that they're so expensive to take care of and would rather not invest in having 6 children. I'd recommend brushing up on more human geography rather than going off your own thoughts, because that's when we get ignorant statements about a subject.

Glad we can agree on one thing, then.

Not necessarilly, birthrates and population are two differrent things, birthrates are the rate of the births occuring and a population tells how many people there are, they don't have a relation because as I have said earlier though japan may have more people than afghanistan, afghanistan has a larger birth rate as you said yourself children are seen as being more of a liability

I would say my example on rapes as being ignorant than uneducated because it is true as their are millions of orphaned children and unintended children in africa and india, you are right in your fact too but that I would say several factors yours and mine play a part in why 3rd world countries have high birth rates

Human

December 27th, 2012, 08:03 PM

That's cool, I'm aware of that. What's your point with stating this? If someone wants to find out they're allergic to gerbil semen or...?

No actually they have equal chance with an animal the same as a human. It's just that the Zoonosis is more lethal to both animal and human. That's why we're told to cook our meat, to get rid of those parasite/bacteria/fungi. Transferring your known STD to your goat isn't the best way to say "I love you goat". And getting Crimean Fever from a bull's penis/secretions, or whatever animals carry it, isn't the best thing for your health.
[QUOTE]and I'm not talking about gerbils etc. more 'intelligent' animals[QUOTE]
You don't get to do that though. Why are you trying to? Sex with animals is sex with animals. You don't get to discriminate and pick which animals a human may have sexual relations with. Nor can you actually be the voice of the animal in heat. If you're going to say a human's sexual relations to an animal are ok, you don't get to say only with a dog or dolphin. Anything from spiders to mice should be included or you're taking the right from both animal and human.
So because there are studies reporting those animals enjoy mating, they're the only ones that are allowed to have relations with our species? How is that fair let alone justified? How can you prove, that because a species enjoys their mating, they've more right to be what a human can touch than a gerbil, hermit crab, or elephant?

Also, I honestly don't care what people do. Their sex life is their sex life and as long as everything's well between the two parties, no one can give a damn. But when you try to make it a right, that's when it gets odd and that's what bugs me. It's almost already a right, in a sense, and if they're proud of it there's PLENTY of underground support groups for them to run to.
We only jump because we picture people sneaking into farms at night to seduce horses, end up with their rectum torn, and a horse with some new infection thanks to the human. That's not fair to the horse or the farmer. Because we picture the cocker-spaniel whose human tore her vulva in his attempt of sex. Fuck the humans, the animals have no voice and it's almost hard to prove that a dog really wants the action and isn't just doing what most of them do.

Also in making it a right and lifting that illegality/ban, not only do we need to protect the animals, we'd have to make human protection. What happens if they catch something from the animal? What if the animal they had sex with isn't their own? Do they need consent of the owner or not? Do they have the right to marry the animal and call the animal their spouse? If the animals they wish to marry isn't their own, do they've right to "take" it from the owner? If they can have sex with it, why should they be denied that legal right? Dogs are known the be good nannies, why not good fathers and mothers? Let them play with the baby and be known legally as its mother? If the animal gets out and mates with their species and ends up pregnant, what of that litter? Will the owner of the offending animal need to pay litter support and the vet costs for the owner/spouse/mate of the impregnated animal? What if the human claims they were raped by the animal? What the hell can be done about that?

It's not as simple as "make sex with animals legal", there's a ton more to spin off of and branch from. As silly as it seems.

If the animal in question isn't a victim, just keep quiet about it and don't get caught. It's probably not the ideal way to live, but we can only take one battle at a time. For now and for a long time coming, inter-species sexual relations will be illegal/under fire from most countries until we can fully understand that there are relations that are...happy...and not a human taking advantage of an animal or being stupid and going to get themselves injured/killed from the animal's penis/excretions or injure/kill the animal [female].

there are lots of 'happy' relations going on between humans and animals which are perfectly safe... and yes they're illegal
You don't get to do that though. Why are you trying to? Sex with animals is sex with animals. You don't get to discriminate and pick which animals a human may have sexual relations with. Nor can you actually be the voice of the animal in heat. If you're going to say a human's sexual relations to an animal are ok, you don't get to say only with a dog or dolphin. Anything from spiders to mice should be included or you're taking the right from both animal and human.
I don't understand what point you're trying to raise here, am I being speciesist or something by saying we can't fuck spiders? that would obviously bring harm to the spider.

Guillermo

December 27th, 2012, 10:19 PM

Not necessarilly, birthrates and population are two differrent things, birthrates are the rate of the births occuring and a population tells how many people there are, they don't have a relation because as I have said earlier though japan may have more people than afghanistan, afghanistan has a larger birth rate as you said yourself children are seen as being more of a liability

Yes, but birth rates do affect population. Population growth (or lack of) is how much the population is growing. Japan is having less babies - they're not growing exponentially. Afghanistan is having more babies- they are growing exponentially. Actually, no wait. Here's a better example: China and India. The two most populous countries in the world. China has more people than India (but not by too much). China has a one-child policy which requires that all families must have one child. Now this is the law for the most part, but more rural communities in China aren't as pressured to follow it, but let's not go into that. Most people in China are having one child, right? Their average fertility rate is 1.55 which is well below the replaceable fertility rate of 2 and the birth rate is 12.31/1,000. India has a fertility rate of 2.58, which is well above the replaceable rate, and a birth rate of 20.6/1,000. China is having less babies which means their population will actually decrease overtime. India is having more babies than the replaceable fertility rate, so they will be projected to grow - a lot. It's been foreshadowed that India will surpass China's population by 20 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/world/asia/16census.html?_r=0)25 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0e-Jbinp84). So by having less births a countries population will generally decrease*. By having more birth rates, a countries population will significantly grow. So birthrates do affect population, because overall, India is rapidly growing while China - not as much.

*Population is also affected by death rates, as well as immigration and emigration.

but that I would say several factors yours and mine play a part in why 3rd world countries have high birth rates

Exactly.

FreeFall

December 28th, 2012, 03:13 AM

there are lots of 'happy' relations going on between humans and animals which are perfectly safe... and yes they're illegal
We're just having some wonderful miscommunication between us, because whatever point you tried to make with this went right over my head. Clarify this please in regards to what I originally posted? I'm lost, need a map.
I don't understand what point you're trying to raise here, am I being speciesist or something by saying we can't fuck spiders? that would obviously bring harm to the spider.
Yes, you are. You do not get to say "sex with dogs is fine, sex with gerbils is not". An animal is an animal. Why can't the spider have sex? Why deny the spider? The spider may or may not be harmed, but to cut off half the animal kingdom because one is more vulnerable over the other species is special treatment undeserved. Spiders are a fetish in the porno world, a creepy and scary one (I've a phobia of spiders) but they're used in sexual pleasure and most, save for like 1 or 2, are unharmed at the end of scuttling around.

TheBigUnit

December 28th, 2012, 07:48 AM

So by having less births a countries population will generally decrease*. By having more birth rates, a countries population will significantly grow. So birthrates do affect population, because overall, India is rapidly growing while China - not as much.

*Population is also affected by death rates, as well as immigration and emigration.

Well of course birth rates affect a population, but does a population affect birth rate? No, you are looking only at one side, italy has a low BR would their Pop. Go down? Yes, Japan has a low BR would their Pop. Go down? Yes, India has a high BR would their Pop. Go up? Yes, Afghanistan and Angola have very high BR would their Pop. Go up? Not necessarily, sure it is growing but like u said they have large death rates too and their life expectancy is very low and has very large infant mortality rates. BR can't always dictate whether or not a country has a large population, other factors are also in play,

Human

December 28th, 2012, 11:24 AM

We're just having some wonderful miscommunication between us, because whatever point you tried to make with this went right over my head. Clarify this please in regards to what I originally posted? I'm lost, need a map.

Yes, you are. You do not get to say "sex with dogs is fine, sex with gerbils is not". An animal is an animal. Why can't the spider have sex? Why deny the spider? The spider may or may not be harmed, but to cut off half the animal kingdom because one is more vulnerable over the other species is special treatment undeserved. Spiders are a fetish in the porno world, a creepy and scary one (I've a phobia of spiders) but they're used in sexual pleasure and most, save for like 1 or 2, are unharmed at the end of scuttling around.
Why do I not get to say that? We already 'cut off' the whole animal kingdom, in fact, I don't even want to continue, because to me your point is just invalid, I don't even understand how your train of thought is currently working. Why could a law not be made preventing sex with animals like gerbils?

FreeFall

December 29th, 2012, 02:33 AM

Why do I not get to say that? We already 'cut off' the whole animal kingdom, in fact, I don't even want to continue, because to me your point is just invalid, I don't even understand how your train of thought is currently working. Why could a law not be made preventing sex with animals like gerbils?
Your point to me is invalid and such, but at least I'm trying to see how you're thinking.
How have we already cut it off? Disregarding the reality of bestiality and the laws regarding it, how is the entire animal kingdom not open to us? If we were to have it be legal and all that goes with it, why are we cut off from half of it? Do you mean people getting to those animals? Because somehow people still manage to get themselves near goblin sharks, so destination's no issue. And why can a law be made?

CharlieFinley

December 29th, 2012, 03:06 AM

I find it utterly disgusting. I also find homosexual intercourse disgusting.

If you want to do either, that's your business, as long as the animal in question is not harmed in any way.

My physics teacher defined a theory to be still in question like it happens but there ar some discrepancies in the theory, a law is a refined theory, fully proven and happens everytime and there is nothing questioning it

That's also true, but it explains why many 3rd world countries have high populations, they did sex for pleasure not for the intent of offspring (there are exceptions)

Also I see the pleasure maybe being a trait as the reason because we have varying diffrent levels of pleasure from sex, I see this as like people and fatty food being possibly a trait, as early ancestors needed food and fatty foods were a luxury
Your physics teacher is incorrect, and should be required to have better knowledge of her field. Your explanation for 3rd world population structures is wrong. Your final paragraph makes no sense.

TheBigUnit

December 29th, 2012, 06:54 AM

Your physics teacher is incorrect, and should be required to have better knowledge of her field. Your explanation for 3rd world population structures is wrong. Your final paragraph makes no sense.

I don't think you should be dissing on a physics teacher like that considering that he perfectly knows what he s saying, I believe theories have diffrent contexts in diffrent branches of science

Also I think all this was resolved amongst me and guillermo

Human

December 29th, 2012, 12:23 PM

Your point to me is invalid and such, but at least I'm trying to see how you're thinking.
How have we already cut it off? Disregarding the reality of bestiality and the laws regarding it, how is the entire animal kingdom not open to us? If we were to have it be legal and all that goes with it, why are we cut off from half of it? Do you mean people getting to those animals? Because somehow people still manage to get themselves near goblin sharks, so destination's no issue. And why can a law be made?

Why can a law not be made? We have laws saying we can have sex with anyone over the age of 18, is that being ageist? No, it's protecting those generally more vulnerable, and a gerbil is much more vulnerable than a horse or a dog or dolphin.

Rayquaza

December 29th, 2012, 12:29 PM

Why can a law not be made? We have laws saying we can have sex with anyone over the age of 18, is that being ageist? No, it's protecting those generally more vulnerable, and a gerbil is much more vulnerable than a horse or a dog or dolphin.

However, animals are more vulnerable than humans anyway. Therefore the law of having sex with animals is there.

FreeFall

December 29th, 2012, 02:19 PM

Why can a law not be made? We have laws saying we can have sex with anyone over the age of 18, is that being ageist? No, it's protecting those generally more vulnerable, and a gerbil is much more vulnerable than a horse or a dog or dolphin.
The human stability, maturity and psychology at differing ages is not relevant to the psychical condition of a matured animal, more so when in my state the age of consent is 16 with a 3 year gap.
A gerbil is more vulnerable, yes, but there's no reason to deny it the right to have sexual relations with a human if there can be safety ensured. A man trying to have sex with a chihuahua or yorkie, for example, could potentially injure the animal enough it may die because it's so small. But in comparison to, some big dog, Irish Wolfhound I guess, the dog's chances of being harmed is much more slim.

If you legalized it you'd have to have restrictions on the dogs. A dog of a certain height and width cannot be in sexual relations, male or female, gender rights you know. Age as well as taking in account medical conditions. A dog with Pyometra certainly doesn't need to be fooled around with.
So ironically, in legalizing sex with animals, you'd have to outlaw a whole bunch of them to ensure their safety.

I see how your logic's working now and you and I will only rotate in circles. Soon I'll be out of thinking and get stuck in circular logic, a useless task. I'm still curious, but I'm running out of being useful.

CharlieFinley

December 29th, 2012, 04:07 PM

I don't think you should be dissing on a physics teacher like that considering that he perfectly knows what he s saying, I believe theories have diffrent contexts in diffrent branches of science

Also I think all this was resolved amongst me and guillermo

Then you are incorrect, as is your physics teacher.

Human

December 29th, 2012, 08:52 PM

The human stability, maturity and psychology at differing ages is not relevant to the psychical condition of a matured animal, more so when in my state the age of consent is 16 with a 3 year gap.
A gerbil is more vulnerable, yes, but there's no reason to deny it the right to have sexual relations with a human if there can be safety ensured. A man trying to have sex with a chihuahua or yorkie, for example, could potentially injure the animal enough it may die because it's so small. But in comparison to, some big dog, Irish Wolfhound I guess, the dog's chances of being harmed is much more slim.

If you legalized it you'd have to have restrictions on the dogs. A dog of a certain height and width cannot be in sexual relations, male or female, gender rights you know. Age as well as taking in account medical conditions. A dog with Pyometra certainly doesn't need to be fooled around with.
So ironically, in legalizing sex with animals, you'd have to outlaw a whole bunch of them to ensure their safety.

I see how your logic's working now and you and I will only rotate in circles. Soon I'll be out of thinking and get stuck in circular logic, a useless task. I'm still curious, but I'm running out of being useful.

I still don't see how your logic is working. I don't see why we couldn't restrict certain animals. If the animals individual characteristics make it vulnerable, then they say it isn't allowed to happen. Give me a valid reason, why they can't say that?

pink316

December 29th, 2012, 08:55 PM

It's disgusting

FreeFall

December 29th, 2012, 09:31 PM

I still don't see how your logic is working. I don't see why we couldn't restrict certain animals. If the animals individual characteristics make it vulnerable, then they say it isn't allowed to happen. Give me a valid reason, why they can't say that?
The spider porn.
Spiders are squishy, easy to crush, easily can lose a leg. More vulnerable than Gerbils. And yet there is a district of porn involving them for sexual fantasies and sexual pleasure. Maybe the world sees a spider as a bug/insect/not an animal despite the fact that it is still a part of the animal kingdom, and maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps sex with the arachnids class isn't outlawed/seen as bestiality.

And it's easy to say all animals are vulnerable in their own right and it's equally dangerous for them. More so when a human can overpower them, and the animal's forced into an action against their will.

Human

December 30th, 2012, 05:53 PM

The spider porn.
Spiders are squishy, easy to crush, easily can lose a leg. More vulnerable than Gerbils. And yet there is a district of porn involving them for sexual fantasies and sexual pleasure. Maybe the world sees a spider as a bug/insect/not an animal despite the fact that it is still a part of the animal kingdom, and maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps sex with the arachnids class isn't outlawed/seen as bestiality.

And it's easy to say all animals are vulnerable in their own right and it's equally dangerous for them. More so when a human can overpower them, and the animal's forced into an action against their will.

The porn isn't exactly legal though is it? And you can't 'have sex' with a spider, only put them up holes etc. so that doesn't exactly count, they can't do anything sexual. And this is why we need laws, like you said, for their size etc.

Rayquaza

December 30th, 2012, 06:00 PM

The porn isn't exactly legal though is it? And you can't 'have sex' with a spider, only put them up holes etc. so that doesn't exactly count, they can't do anything sexual. And this is why we need laws, like you said, for their size etc.

I have to say, your argument is entirely flawed. The debate is about bestiality. It doesn't matter whether it's tiny or large, only one law applies here, and that is having sex with any animal is against the law. Animals have their own rights, regardless of intelligence. Laws don't need to be made up just to support your own view. All animals are incapable of giving consent. Imagine being a spider and someone shoving you up their rear end.

You're argument has turned from "Why it shouldn't be illegal" into "Stopping small animals getting crushed". We aren't interested in the actual act of what you will do with the animal, it's the fact that it cannot speak for itself. I've been reading over all of your posts and they seem to be looping back around. You've gone off-track the topic of debate and lead it onto why it's not possible as opposed to why it's illegal.

Jose

December 30th, 2012, 06:36 PM

Well i think its disgusting and a big taboo and in most states its a crime

FreeFall

December 30th, 2012, 07:34 PM

The porn isn't exactly legal though is it?
Under the definition of bestiality and depending on the country and laws regarding it, no. A spider's still a part of the animal kingdom and is not a part of the human species. But...what was your point with this? Again, I am lost. Doesn't it help your argument if the porn's not legal? As far as I know, no animal is legal to have sex with/use in porn for the pornstar's pleasure.
And you can't 'have sex' with a spider, only put them up holes etc. so that doesn't exactly count, they can't do anything sexual.
No, no, no. People interact with each other in many sexual ways that do not include penetration. This is the same with their interactions with some animals. A spider may not get pleasure from running around on a person or just chilling on one spot of the person, but the human can get aroused from the creature being on their body and find pleasure from it. You're trying to protect the spider on a technicality, when the sexual world is incredibly expansive and vast, therefore if it's lucky, the spider will never be touched by the human's secretions and you're correct, they cannot have sex, but they can be used for it/pleasure.
And this is why we need laws, like you said, for their size etc.
And that's where you and I can agree. But you need to be more specific if you're legalizing it. Close all loopholes. Size of the animal, gender of the animal, mental state of the animal (the easily stressed and anxious), just not the logical "don't do it, you can kill it in seconds" because there will be those who could easily lift that reply and chuck it out the window.

Human

December 30th, 2012, 08:15 PM

Okay guys. I guess I just couldn't see your viewpoints on the matter. I don't see anything wrong with some forms of it still.

Horizon

December 31st, 2012, 06:33 AM

When a human does sexual acts with an animal.

Don't see anything wrong with it if the human doesn't force it on them and the animal chooses to do it.
I mean, it's not like they can impregnate it.

um wow, where do I begin... It's just plain wrong. You can't say if the animal chose to do it or not. And I don't know if you can impregnate an animal or not, but I am pretty sure you can't get an animal pregnant... But yeah, it's just wrong to do sexual acts with an animal. They don't have a voice, they can't say they want it or not, and it's just gross to think that people could think it's okay.

lyriclover

January 1st, 2013, 07:45 AM

My opinion on the subject matter. Whatever floats your boat and don't let other people drowned it. Im not going to state my side in the discussion but no one should ever feel weird or unnatural. Honestly if nothing is hurt why should it matter? If there is no physical/ emotional pain and nothing is suffering why should anyone care what you do in your personal time. I'm not saying I think it's right but it's defiantly not right to judge someone.

Zenos

January 2nd, 2013, 06:43 PM

Condor
Awesome Poster

Name: Connor
Join Date: January 14, 2012
Location: England
Age: 14
Gender:
Posts: 1,221
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 62

Re: beastiality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When a human does sexual acts with an animal.

Don't see anything wrong with it if the human doesn't force it on them and the animal chooses to do it.
I mean, it's not like they can impregnate it.

Bocefus98 :

Yeah, basically beastiality means someone fucking animals. It's fucking gross, and just wrong.

Guys you are both right and wrong theres more to it then that.
The definition of Beastiality:

1: the condition or status of a lower animal
2: display or gratification of bestial traits or impulses
3: sexual relations between a human being and a lower animal

Examples:

1)I was shocked by the bestiality of their behavior.
2)by the end of hostilities the populace had been reduced to a level of bestiality that would have been unthinkable before the war>.

Related to BESTIALITY
Synonyms: animalism, animality, beastliness, brutality, brutishness, swinishness

I just wanted to throw this out there that the word also means more then a human having sex with an animal.