Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Should zoophilia be legalized?

POST REPLY

So,should zoophilia be legalized?

No!
17
65%
Yes!
6
23%
Other...
3
12%
 
Total votes : 26
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 15 Mar 2012, 02:07
I'm not saying meat is the most efficient food but that claiming it is unnecessary, in our hungry world, is plain ridiculous.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 15 Mar 2012, 02:18
If you think I want to take the meat off the shelves and bin it when people are hungry then you misunderstand me.

I think feeding everyone is higher priority than giving carnivores what they like, so in the long term land used to raise livestock could be better used growing plant-based foods.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 15 Mar 2012, 02:28
We're getting away from what you said:
Shigalyov wrote:
It is interesting to see people who think eating these creatures is cool, but that fragging them is cruel and unusual.
I think both are unnecessary.

Seems a bit ridiculous no?
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 15 Mar 2012, 02:30
Quote:
It is interesting to see people who think eating these creatures is cool, but that randomly chopping their heads off just for fun is cruel and unusual.

Fix'd.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 15 Mar 2012, 02:37
lol

I just thought it seemed like a funny sort of double standard.

Do I think bestiality is necessary? Nope
Do I think eating meat is necessary? Again nope. (There are better ways to feed people)
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 15 Mar 2012, 02:46
It's the equating part that's ridiculous.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 15 Mar 2012, 03:05
True... I suppose some animals might enjoy the sexual activities, but they are most unlikely to get anything out of being killed and eaten.


Seriously though... there are plenty of people who would object to bestiality (on the basis that it is cruel to animals), yet are quite ready to have those same animals killed for their eating pleasure.
To my mind, certain forms of bestiality sound considerably less cruel.

I'm still puzzled as to the nature of your criticism Dags.
Maybe I'll have another coffee and re-read what you wrote.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 260
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Oct 2011, 08:59
Ideology: Other
Komsomol
Post 15 Mar 2012, 03:28
I'm glad I got the definitions out correctly...I made some logical sense then?

>_>
<_<

And Shig, I can understand your view, and I can agree. Oh drat, you got me hungry for fish now. I hope your happy. (For the record, I hate to eat pork very much, Bacon is an exception. Otherwise, I eat meat in varying portions, but I try as much as possible to eat a balanced meal with Protein, Starch, Vegetables, et cetera.)
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 363
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2011, 08:20
Komsomol
Post 15 Mar 2012, 03:48
I voted 'other.' I don't think of it as an issue. Not that I would condone bestiality but how would animals consent? We humans have a different definition of consent while other animals might not even have a system of consent.
Soviet cogitations: 2408
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17
Ideology: Other
Forum Commissar
Post 15 Mar 2012, 05:20
Quote:
Voted no because of the consent issue, though Dagoth and Mabool have made that issue significantly more difficult. Human interaction with animals is so radically different than when humans interact with each other. But consent can have a grey area of course. Still voted no.


Man, do you really need a logical or rational answer to see that this zoophilia is absolutely horrendous? Is there not something you feel in your stomach which forbids you to accept it? Why do you need a rational reason such as the denial of consent to oppose it? Shouldn't it in itself be something to throw away forever?

Quote:
You know that it's not the purpose of sex with animals to produce children, right? As soon as one of both partners has an orgasm, it has succeeded.


Mate, how can it even work? Mathematically it is not compatible. To be blunt about it, a dog's tool does not fit nor was it designed to be in the place of a woman. You see? They are two different species, biologically it is absolute bat insane madness. There was even a case recently of a woman who tried this with a dog and she died from allergic infection. Why was this? Because she and the animal were not meant to go together. You get no such cases between man and woman. If the pleasure of the sex is the only important object then what limits do we set? I guarantee you Mabool, once people accept zoophilia then something even more debauched and sinister will start being debated and already is.

Quote:
(Actually I've heard of Muslims who had sex with animals because they couldn't have sex with women.)


And so what? This means nothing. Muslims do everything which people should not do, like all people. It says nothing about whether what they do is justified.

Quote:
I voted yes, because of the lack of definition. Are we just talking of Zoophilia as in sharing a considerable emotional connection to an animal that they become a companion and not just a 'pet'? Or are we talking about the inclusion of sexual relations with any animal (Bestiality). Zoophilia in it's name however isn't too promising, being the obsession of being with an animal, but then you have people that work at wildlife parks, reserves, or even zoos that could have an obsession with animals. I'm sure people that do work there must have some affinity for animals in order to work there.


There is a fine line between loving an animal which is normal and natural and wanting to have sex with it which is out of this world and seems like something from a science fiction novel.

Quote:
There is also a stigma of being charged and serving jail time for being a zoophile. These instances stemming from people performing Bestiality (which is bad). And while a person that practices Bestiality could be a Zoophile, not all zoophiles practice bestiality. Do I support it? Not quite, the definitions of anything coming close to this topic are in a murky grey area. While I do support people that build a companionship with their animals, I strongly oppose sexual contact with an animal for the purpose of companionship or just for the feeling of it. In either way, legal or illegal, people that are lonely and have no significant other to share their feeling and desires with or to relieve their raging hormones will more than likely practice Bestiality and Zoophilia.


People have always kept their animals as companions. Farmers also often would bring them inside the house. The love you have for animals is different to the one you would have for your wife, its more like the love you have for a child but of course not the same either.

Quote:
It is interesting to see people who think eating these creatures is cool, but that fragging them is cruel and unusual.
I think both are unnecessary.


It is far more humiliating for the animal to be involved in sex. Once you kill them and eat them their suffering is finished. There is also no indignity for them to endure.

Quote:
I voted 'other.' I don't think of it as an issue. Not that I would condone bestiality but how would animals consent? We humans have a different definition of consent while other animals might not even have a system of consent.


Consent is a side issue. The fact is that humans and animals are not made for each other for sex.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 15 Mar 2012, 05:25
Quote:
Mate, how can it even work?


There is an abundance of zoo porn on the internet to educate you about this, if you're interested.

Quote:
To be blunt about it, a dog's tool does not fit nor was it designed to be in the place of a woman. You see? They are two different species, biologically it is absolute bat insane madness. There was even a case recently of a woman who tried this with a dog and she died from allergic infection.


She could have done it with a human and died from an STD. People have sex with dogs all the time, it seems to work well enough.

Quote:
Why was this? Because she and the animal were not meant to go together. You get no such cases between man and woman.


Again, STDs

Quote:
If the pleasure of the sex is the only important object then what limits do we set? I guarantee you Mabool, once people accept zoophilia then something even more debauched and sinister will start being debated and already is.


Why not?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 2408
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17
Ideology: Other
Forum Commissar
Post 15 Mar 2012, 05:40
Quote:
There is an abundance of zoo porn on the internet to educate you about this, if you're interested.


There are other more interesting and valuable subjects to pursue.

Quote:
She could have done it with a human and died from an STD. People have sex with dogs all the time, it seems to work well enough.


Not every person has an STD. You might say not every person will react in this way to having sex with a dog but in general a woman will not die from having sex with a man providing he has no prior STDs. The dog did not have an STD, this happened because it was not something they should have been doing. It was not natural and the two were not compatible. It is something like a socket and a plug, if the two are compatible they will fit well. If they are not, one might go into the other but it will not go in so easily and can cause damage or malfunction.

Quote:
Again, STDs


Read above.

Quote:
Why not?


Because the sexual impulse is destructive if it is not moderated. If you let loose it can lead to hedonism and promiscuity. I live in a country where these things are massive issues, maybe it is even similar in Germany but I do not know. So in your thinking basically, if it is pleasurable, then what is the problem? The problem is that is debauched and perverted.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 15 Mar 2012, 05:44
Quote:
There are other more interesting and valuable subjects to pursue.


Well, you asked.

Quote:
Not every person has an STD. You might say not every person will react in this way to having sex with a dog but in general a woman will not die from having sex with a man providing he has no prior STDs. The dog did not have an STD, this happened because it was not something they should have been doing. It was not natural and the two were not compatible. It is something like a socket and a plug, if the two are compatible they will fit well. If they are not, one might go into the other but it will not go in so easily and can cause damage or malfunction.


Nothing would have happened if she'd given the dog a condom, and therefore I think the case is actually very much comparable to an STD.

Quote:
Because the sexual impulse is destructive if it is not moderated.


Why?

Quote:
If you let loose it can lead to hedonism and promiscuity.


Why is that destructive?

Quote:
I live in a country where these things are massive issues, maybe it is even similar in Germany but I do not know.


How is promiscuity an issue there? Please explain.

Quote:
The problem is that is debauched and perverted.


Why is that a problem?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 260
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Oct 2011, 08:59
Ideology: Other
Komsomol
Post 15 Mar 2012, 08:29
I would just like to add, there are people that have a deadly allergy to semen, of any form. Rare, yes, but, there have been cases of partners dying due to ejaculate fluids.

Anyway, back to debate.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2294
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 15 Mar 2012, 23:36
I voted yes, as long as they don't hurt the animal. Of course it doesn't mean that this is not an illness, but there is no more reasons to oppose bestiality than to oppose homosexuality.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 242
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2011, 15:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 16 Mar 2012, 00:21
In my assessment, it is as wrong, if not more, to commit bestiality as it is to commit statutory rape, because of lack of both glegal consent, and/or cognitive function. Also sex as it pertains to animals, is different in scope to that of people. Like for instance, all sex between cats is rape. It doesn't matter if it's heterosexual, or homosexual. I've seen cats I've had do both types, and in all cases, the tom grabs the other cat's scuff of the neck, and forces itself upon it. It's partner never goes along willingly, especially if it involves another tom cat that's not into gay sex. But you see, animals rely upon instinct alone, while we persons seek initimacy from sexual relations. They'll tend to hit on anything that is available, even inanimate objects. And by the way, I've had goats living on our family land too. At times when I'd take a tinkle in on of their stalls, a goat kid would try to suck off my penis. But I'm sure that it's sucking instinct was to try to get milk, and it mistook my penis for a teet, not that it wanted to give me felatio. Not not I even let it get that far, after I realised what it was about to do. So in conclusion, humans are a higher order of being than base beasts, I think.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 16 Mar 2012, 00:24
Political Interest wrote:
It is far more humiliating for the animal to be involved in sex. Once you kill them and eat them their suffering is finished. There is also no indignity for them to endure.
So would you rather be killed and eaten or made to have unconsenting sex?
Both sound like dreadful prospects, but the survival instinct is stronger in most creatures (including humans) than the concept of pride.

Actually... it seems reasonable to deduce that animals have survival instincts and instincts to avoid suffering, but is there any reason to assume that the concept of humiliation/pride is something which plays a role in their existences?

Do those people who think that consent is reason not to allow bestiality also think that consent is an issue when it comes to killing and eating animals?
If not, why the distinction?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 716
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2007, 23:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 16 Mar 2012, 15:15
Of course not! Zoophilia is rape. Inter-species rape, yes, but still rape. If anything it should be treated as rape and punished as such.
Image

"Communism is more about love for mankind than about politics."
Me
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1782
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2009, 20:08
Resident Artist
Post 17 Mar 2012, 23:56
Zoophilia spreads zoonoses and that is enough to oppose it. I couldn't give a shit about the alleged 'rights' of the animal since I don't subscribe to the concept.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.