bubak In reply to rejlan [2010-06-24 23:33:30 +0000 UTC]

Thanks

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

bubak In reply to Juliabohemian [2010-05-17 13:31:27 +0000 UTC]

I agree, rape is traumatic.

My point was, that not every sexual act between human and animal is rape.

And that there are too many cases of animals put down without any evaluation of real mental state. Animals are simply killed because they had sex (consensual or not) with human, not because of trauma.

Besides no one puts children down because of trauma... why animals?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Juliabohemian In reply to bubak [2010-05-18 02:40:51 +0000 UTC]

There have been MANY points in history, during which human beings were arbitrarily put down, for reasons that are every bit as illogical as those you mentioned. And there are still MANY countries that practice such rituals. I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying, it does happen and continues to happen.

Having sex with an animal does not automatically qualify as rape. But animals are not capable of giving consent. Period. That's not an opinion. It's a fact.

You could however make an argument that gorillas and perhaps some other primates who have been taught to communicate via sign language, are capable of expressing their wishes. But that would not hold up in any United States court of law.

And the majority of bestial relations do not take place between humans and primates. Generally people select more docile creatures, such as sheep or cow, that are less likely to be able to physically defend themselves.

That being said, I do NOT think that animals should be put down as a result of trauma, unless they've gone batshit crazy and are attacking and eating people. And really, how often does THAT happen?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bubak In reply to Juliabohemian [2010-05-18 13:28:06 +0000 UTC]

I don't agree that animals can't give consent.

Consider this scenario:

Human drops pants and gets on all four. Male dog sniffs human, licks human, jumps on human, copulates with human. The dog can do whatever he wants. He can go away, go lick his balls, bite the human in face. But he decides to have sex. He acts on his own will.

I think it's pretty easy to conclude the dog consents to the act when he is actually the one who is executing it.

But I agree it's not always as easy to see if the animal is consenting or enjoying the act if the animal is in a passive role. In some videos I've seen, I couldn't really tell if the animal is consenting to it and willing to participate or just enduring the act.

To complete the enumeration, sadly I've also seen some where it's pretty obvious it is against the will of the animal. And be sure I would like to kick that humans ass.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Juliabohemian In reply to bubak [2010-05-18 14:54:53 +0000 UTC]

Need I remind you that the animals you're referring to here habitually eats its own feces, in which there is deadly bacteria and from which they could develop sepsis and die?

An animal that chooses to eat its own feces, unless otherwise directed, is not capable of consenting to anything.

Animals. Cannot. Give. Consent. Period.

Not going to argue about it with you. Thankfully I don't have to. No court on Earth would side with your theory. So I'm not going to get too concerned about it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

akelataka In reply to Juliabohemian [2010-07-27 12:13:09 +0000 UTC]

Sorry to jump into your conversation... I just can't find a link between "eating one's feces" and "being able to give consent".

Humans "habitually" touch money or star/bus rail and then eat without washing their hands, from which they can get some awful infection. Does that mean that humans can't give consent? Not really.

Animals can't give written or spoken consent. Animals can't give consent that would be accepted by law. That's only natural, human society works with it's own set rules. It doesn't mean that you cannot learn to understand the animal and it's "will". I put "will" into quotation marks because it's not clear whether human beings have "will" either.

In short, animals can't give consent BECAUSE they are not humans and because human society defined the word "consent" as being given by humans only. Not because animals are different.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Juliabohemian In reply to akelataka [2010-07-27 14:25:14 +0000 UTC]

To summarize:

Some random furry on the internet is confused by something I said a long time ago, that I can barely even remember typing and that wasn't even addressed to them, and they have replied to me with some furry-esque nonsense that I stopped reading after the first sentence.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

bubak In reply to eXdrachen [2007-02-08 14:28:17 +0000 UTC]

Is that some kind of split personality?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

eXdrachen In reply to bubak [2007-02-08 14:37:56 +0000 UTC]

Well... it's my photographer's account...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

bubak In reply to ange-diab0likK [2006-06-22 23:12:43 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome

👍: 0 ⏩: 0