When a Man Loves a Chicken (Yes, there's a serious debate here)

[RoboDude]

Seriously, what should our policy be regarding bestiality? We have laws against cruelty to animals, but does having sex with an animal automatically constitute cruelty? Does it make a difference if the animal appears to enjoy the experience?(No, seriously?)


[Hoping we can maintain a rational debate in between the inevitable jokes]

[yESTERDAY mAN]

Let the chicken be on top.

[jmullaney]

If RoboDude ever invites me over for dinner, remind me not to go. :eek:

[wring]

Did the chicken come first?

[elucidator]

Robo, are you by chance a graduate of Texas A&M?

[Spiritus Mundi]

Don't forget the duct tape.


trust me on this one.

[elucidator]

Why did the chicken cross the road?

To get away from RoboDude.

[elucidator]

You have misunderstood the recipe.

Where it says "Bone one chicken" that doesn't mean what you think it does......

[erislover]

In a (possibly) vain attempt to keep this in GD I'll be serious.

I have had what some may call the good fortune to read a detailed submission to a webpage (so take validity at your own risk) outlining sex with...dolphins.
I have also read a sort of largish document on how to have sex with dogs.

As far as the dolphins go it was pretty much a male human on female dolphin sort of thing because the male's penis had some, uh, unusual characteristics which would not allow pleasurable copulation with a human.

Anyway, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the average animal isn't easy to, uh, bed (I would think). If they are going to participate in sexual acts I wouldn't see it as abuse. I might wonder about the humans involved, but face it...a dolphin could easily swim away and, well, swinging in the breeze around a dog is a rather compramising position if you're gonna think about pissing it off.

In other words, taboos be damned. Just don't invite me over to dinner, as jmullaney so eloquently pointed out ;)

[RoboDude]

BTW, the first part of the thread title came from the title of a Bob Rivers song, not personal experience.

[andros]

Ok, ok, enough ribbing. I'm not going to chicken out of this one. I hope you all feel sheepish now for making all those dumb jokes.


Robodude, sex with anyone or anything that cannot clearly communicate consent is wrong in my book. With humans we have decided that fully informed consent cannot be given by children under a certain age, regardless of how much they might enjoy it. Now, admittedly, Fido likely doesn't have the emotional hangups we humans have, but to use an animal for one's own sexual gratification, regardless of the animal's gratification, is unhealthy at least and actively harmful at worst.

[erislover]

Andros, I trust you are a vegetarian, then. I mean, regardless of the animals pleasure we shouldn't have sex with them? Then, regardless of the animals lack of pain, we shouldn't kill them to eat.
As well, I'd ask to not bring "chilren" analogies in here as that has been a pretty tightly debated topic as well and can only cloud the issue. But, it ain't my thread and I can't stop you ;)

[elucidator]

"Lassie? Lassie? What's wrong, girl? Is it Timmy? Has he fallen down the well? WHAT!!?! He did WHAT!?!"

[The Flying Dutchman]

It occurs to me that bestiality isn't exactly a fetish. I'm sure it occurs, but primarily as an improved form of masturbation, simulating the real thing, or voyueristic degradation of women. I just haven't seen any Penthouse style crotch shots of chickens or sheep.If our society finds it unacceptable for animals in the circus to perform tricks........;)

[andros]

Andros, I trust you are a vegetarian, then. I mean, regardless of the animals pleasure we shouldn't have sex with them? Then, regardless of the animals lack of pain, we shouldn't kill them to eat.

Oh please. You want I should fight strawmen now? Firstly, it's a false analogy. Fucking animals != eating them, and sexual gratification != eating to live. Secondly, unless you can measure an animal's pleasure in human terms, you cannot derive any scale to determine when it's ok to screw Sparky. And you cannot do that. Sure, maybe one can tell when a dog is enjoying himself, but a chicken? Further, if the animal is physically harmed in the process of your getting your rocks off, you are engaged in nothing more than torture. That pretty much lets chickens out, and bunnies, and some sheep, and some dogs. I'm not making a slippery-slope argument here, but where are you drawing the line?

Grienspace, you might be surprised. There are plenty of folks out there who claim to have honest-to-ghod relationships with their pets, with emotional bonding and lots of sex. There are folks out there who cannot be aroused except by an animal. That's the definition of fetish right there. Hell, there's an entire subculture of people who fuck stuffed animals. I'm not going to post any links, but a trip to the Stile project will turn up some, I'm sure.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by andros
Hell, there's an entire subculture of people who fuck stuffed animals. [/B]


You're joking I trust.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Scylla
Originally posted by andros
Hell, there's an entire subculture of people who fuck stuffed animals.

You're joking I trust. [/B]
Unfortunately, no. Ick.

[RoboDude]

Not entirely. On "Disturbing Behavior Caught on Tape" I once saw a video of a night watchman doing it with a pinata.

[snuffafluffagus]

Move to Missouri, my friend. It is currently legal to molest your pets there. In fact, cockfighting, was just outlawed in Missouri. By the way, intercourse or other sexual acts with animals is horribly cruel and sick.

[Muffin]

Originally posted by andros
There are plenty of folks out there who claim to have honest-to-ghod relationships with their pets, with emotional bonding and lots of sex.

My Uncle Gordie was a meteorologist in the high arctic in the days when there were a few one-person stations staffed on six month shifts, and only in communication during scheduled fly-overs. In addition to canned food, the isolated station staff were issued a few chickens each season.

So one dark season Gordie was happily receiving regular reports from a fellow at one of these stations, when after a couple of months the fellow mentioned that he had to keep the report brief because he had to go dancing with "Gladys". Gordie figured the fellow was just joshing, and really just wanted to sign off for some benign reason.

As the season went on, the fellow started talking about going out on dates with "Gladys", and of what a wonderful companion she was. One fly-by he said that he had proposed to "Gladys", and that she had accepted. Gordie figured the fellow had an imaginary friend, and was gradually going off the deep end.

Well, Gordie was partly correct. The fellow was going off the deep end, but his lady friend was not imaginary. "Gladys" was one of the chickens with which he had been supplied.

Sadly, there was no fairytale ending to this situation. The fellow was shipped out and locked away. "Gladys" was stewed.

[Mekhazzio]

Say what? An animal cannot clearly communicate consent?

I'm guessing none of you saying this have ever had a pet :) It's pretty obvious what any animal is thinking after you become familiar with their body language...and animals are MUCH more clear about making it known that they're getting pissed off than humans are. You simply do not play with a dog, horse, etc, without its consent, or it will HURT you. Likewise, if they're interested, they'll make it known by rubbing up against you, teasing, that sort of thing.

With male animals, it'll be particularly obvious that they're willing participants. You just can't fake an erection or ejaculation ;) I don't see a problem with it. In fact, it'd be nice if more people would screw their pets (or vice-versa) -- it isn't very humane to keep these animals cooped up in an artificial environment and never let them have sex at all throughout their life just because their human keepers think the idea is "icky".

[elucidator]

And I thought American Pie was gross.

You need to adjust your medication. At once.

If you don't not actually have any medication, get some.

If you, for any reason, cannot get any professional advise on which medication is most appropriate, take whatever medication you can find.

First, of course, drop that keyboard, step AWAY from the computer........

[snuffafluffagus]

I agree that male dogs express their interest in humping. But, do you really think that women are typical participants in acts of beastiality. I have a mental picture of teenage hillbillies taking turns sticking it to their sheep.

[Scylla]

You know, I've tried to keep an open mind but animals, stuffed or otherwise is simply sick and twisted.

[Mekhazzio]

Originally posted by snuffafluffagus
But, do you really think that women are typical participants in acts of beastiality.

I couldn't even begin to say (hard data on such a thing is hard to come by, for obvious reasons) but my first impulse would be to say that there's just as many women interested in it as men. I remember reading some girls commiserating about how their dogs gave better sex for less maintenance to make happy (good boy, here's a cookie!) than any human guy ever would ;) And if you want really different, I know of some guys that are only interested in female humans, but are wild about male animals. Go figure :D

[Erroneous]

I think I originally found this article from a link someone posted on this message board, but here it is again:

Plushophiles (http://www.salonmag.com/sex/feature/2000/06/19/plushies/)

I think describing the is particular group of people as "sick and twisted" is a little harsh. Twisted, yes. Sick...well, they're not harming anyone, and if someone wants to boink their stuffed animals in the privacy of their own home, I don't have any problems with that.

[yosemite]

Too
Much
Information.

Oh my gosh. :eek:

[Tzel]

Originally posted by andros
[B]Fucking animals != eating them, and sexual gratification != eating to live.


You can't honestly tell me you think it's necessary to eat animals to live. If so, I and thousands of other people are in for a Bruce Willis-esque surprise one of these days.

Killing something is at least as damaging as fucking something. The only difference is that lots of people eat animals, so it's not in vogue to suggest that it's anything but a morally upright, saintly thing to do. Fucking animals is not so prevalent and there's a negative connotation to it. Basically, what you're saying is that the arguments that apply to bestiality don't apply to eating animals because, well, because they just don't, damnit!


Secondly, unless you can measure an animal's pleasure in human terms, you cannot derive any scale to determine when it's ok to screw Sparky. And you cannot do that.

Unless you can measure an animal's capacity for suffering in human terms, you cannot derive any scale to determine when it's ok to eat Bessy. And you cannot do that. Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of eating animals is that we should only care about our own species. Well, then, why do you think it is wrong to fuck animals? As long as a human is getting pleasure out of it, isn't that all that matters?


Further, if the animal is physically harmed in the process of your getting your rocks off, you are engaged in nothing more than torture.

Animals are physically harmed in the process of being raised for food. Frequently. Not to mention the harm that comes from killing them. But again, you will likely argue that the two aren't comparable because they just aren't!

Now, I really don't want to bring the old vegetarianism argument in here, but the fact is, the two are quite comparable. The only difference is that people have an "ICK factor" for bestiality, but since they eat animals, they block out the "ICK factor" involved in that activity. The arguments that apply to one apply equally to the other.

"Just because you don't fuck animals doesn't mean you can tell other people they can't. You don't want to be a rude non-animal-fucker do you?"


*ahem* Sorry for the tangent.

[Lamia]

Originally posted by Mekhazzio
It's pretty obvious what any animal is thinking after you become familiar with their body language...and animals are MUCH more clear about making it known that they're getting pissed off than humans are. You simply do not play with a dog, horse, etc, without its consent, or it will HURT you.

Substitute "beat" for "play with". Do you think that it is impossible for a human to beat a dog or horse without being hurt in the process? It happens all the time. Animals cannot always defend themselves against humans. Even when they physically can they often don't, either because they have been trained not to harm humans or because they are afraid to.

A lawyer friend of mine once had to prosecute a case involving a man who molested a horse so badly that it died of internal injuries. I think it is safe to assume that the poor animal did not consent to that. Yet the horse apparently did not fight back (or fought back unsuccessfully), as the man escaped uninjured.

[Monocracy]

... a man who molested a horse ...

Neigh means Nay!

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally posted by RoboDude
Seriously, what should our policy be regarding bestiality? We have laws against cruelty to animals, but does having sex with an animal automatically constitute cruelty? Does it make a difference if the animal appears to enjoy the experience?(No, seriously?)


Oh Please, do you think anyone really cares about these farm animals or their sex life. Oh some of us get all hot and bothered about killing farm animals, but does that affect their quality of life.I don't think so. But I tell you what does. Young bulls having their scrotums clamped to eliminated blood flow for several minutes! followed by no sex for the rest of their life. Cows never ever enjoying the full benefit of a bull's appendage and having to settle for a lousy human arm and needle with only one thrust. Stallions of low breeding being used to calm dawn a skittish mare kicking him all over and just when (she's finally hot) he's at the point of where all this abuse is going to be worth it, he is withdrawn in favour of the precious highbred stallion.

Talk about a lousy life. I would rather have a short good life than a lousy life. So I wouldn't worry to much about if you want to poke Porky, but leave the chicken alone.Just wear a condom.;)

[quixotic78]

Well, as Freud said (and probably ripped off from someone else), something's not taboo unless people want to do it. To wit, bestiality is taboo, but there is no cultural taboo about shoving red hot pokers up the ass.

Quix

P.S. Insert lame sex joke here

[rngadam]

Originally posted by aynrandlover
I have had what some may call the good fortune to read a detailed submission to a webpage (so take validity at your own risk) outlining sex with...dolphins.


Do you mean... this...

http://whiteshadow.pornopartners.com/guides/dolphin.html

[zen101]

uh.... ewww.

Still, having worked my grandparents farm off and on when I was a kid I don't think the average itsy bitsy weenie is going to even be noticed by most of your larger animals. I don't think they are enjoying it, but then I don't think it's any worse for them than being out in a cold pasture or getting shots or pills blown down their throat. I do think that if some fella was humping a small dog it would hurt the dog and based on it being painful I think it would be animal cruelty. On the gripping hand, I used to have an American Pitbull Terrier that had an anal gland problem and I had to expectorate it (or get the groomer to do it for 50$ a shot) and I know it hurt the poor guy. It wasn't really a medical problem and I could have not done it and he would have been ok, but it made him smell horrible (if you know what I'm talking about then you know the smell). I can't imagine it not hurting small animals pretty badly though.

As for women doing it with dogs and stuff, well I don't think you can force a male animal to have sex if it does not want to. No boner, no go. Also if the animal ejaculates thats' kinda' the proof that it had a good time right? I don't know why a woman would do it, but then thats not the OP.

I think you would need to define animal cruelty to exclude legal eating and sex acts not physically painful or unusually traumatic to the animals. I'm certain you can gauge trauma, like I said some animals don't notice much anyhow. Hell, you think them milking machines they use at dairies feel good?

I guess you could make a case for people mentally abusing animals in the same way as a non-impaired person using a willing but retarded person for sexual gratification. But then what about Dog Shows and how about dogs in commercials? Should they get to keep the money and decide when they are going to work and who they work for? They are animals, even if it is cruel we do all kinds of shit to them they would probably choose not to do if they were given a choice. As someone noted, they are loyal and loving, so maybe they would choose to let us hump on them too? I dunno' I'm not a dog or sheep but it just seems kinda silly to get bent out of shape over some goofballs fuckin' a goat when we let people put them behind electric fences with no fuss. One minut they are animals the next minute they need to be treated with the same respect as people. Maybe I'm off base here, but then I ate my pet cow when I was a kid and never thought anything weird about it. His name was "Friend" btw. He was really cool, let me ride him and stuff (not like the way the OP implies), but he was property too and food.

I don't think people should be humpin' animals but then again theres a lot worse shit out there that people do all the time and the jails and courts are sure as hell crowded. Do we really need to worry about it? Anyhow, it's not like sheepophiles are breeding? :p

Oh, and I especially don't think women should be having sex with animals when I'm not getting any. I'll droll on your neck and bark if you like that.

[The Asbestos Mango]

And I thought people gambling on Christmas was a sign that the world is going to hell in a cheap handbasket.

Why did I open this thread?

[Duck Duck Goose]

I'm with Thea. Geez louise.

1. While reading this thread, for some reason I was reminded that there are people who cut holes in sun-warmed watermelons and then copulate with them. Is this evil, if the watermelon doesn't consent?

2. I have to be deeply suspicious of any thread that cites the Stile Project. Sorry, Andros.

[JerseyDiamond]

Originally posted by jmullaney
If RoboDude ever invites me over for dinner, remind me not to go. :eek:



LOL@JMULLANEY :D

[JerseyDiamond]

With male animals, it'll be particularly obvious that they're willing participants. You just can't fake an erection or ejaculation ;) I don't see a problem with it. In fact, it'd be nice if more people would screw their pets (or vice-versa) -- it isn't very humane to keep these animals cooped up in an artificial environment and never let them have sex at all throughout their life just because their human keepers think the idea is "icky". [/B][/QUOTE]




EWWWWWW :eek:

[Biggirl]

The laws against bestiality have nothing to do with cruelty to animals and everything to do with society not wanting humans to fuck animals.

There is no law against wringing a chicken's neck just to watch it dance around with it's head dragging on the ground and that's pretty cruel, if you ask me. The laws are in place to regulate human behavior, not to save the chickens.

[Sofa King]

To those who would wish to do more research on the subject without getting their hands (and other parts) dirty might wish to consult the tour de force known as Fun on the Farm. It is still (I am told) a fine seller among bestiality porn aficionados. In this film, you can see people having sex with:

* Chickens (I am nearly certain that one chicken died in the making of the film)

* Horses

* Pigs

* Dogs

* Eels

Yes, slimy, disgusting eels. This film has left an indelible imprint on my psyche. I would point out that in a few cases, the consent of the animal is not in question at all--I cite the smiling male German Shepherd who delivers what might be the only recorded animal facial.

I need to go wash my hands.

[andros]

Tzel:

You can't honestly tell me you think it's necessary to eat animals to live.

Of course not.

The only difference is that lots of people eat animals, so it's not in vogue to suggest that it's anything but a morally upright, saintly thing to do.

Whatever.

Killing something is at least as damaging as fucking something.

. . yes. I said that killing and fucking are not equal. I understand where I was confusing. With my statement "sexual gratification != eating to live," I did not mean to imply that it is required to eat animals in order to survive. But the fact is that having sex with an animal is entirely for personal sexual gratification, whereas people eat animals for food. These two are not equable.

I did not say a thing about the morality of killing animals.

Nor did I say a thing about the relative moralities of killing animals versus screwing them. I merely pointed out that arl's analogy was a faulty one.


DDG:

Is this evil, if the watermelon doesn't consent?

But she was beggin for it, yer honor!

I have to be deeply suspicious of any thread that cites the Stile Project. Sorry, Andros.

:D Aw, c'mon . . . how often am I going to get the chance to plug Stile? Hey, I could cite Missy B, too, if you want.

[erislover]

Originally posted by rngadam
Do you mean... this...[[link provided]]Actually, wow, that is exactly it but in an entirely different page.

Andros, "," I did not mean to imply that it is required to eat animals in order to survive. But the fact is that having sex with an animal is entirely for personal sexual gratification, whereas people eat animals for food. These two are not equable." What? Animals derive no pleassure from sex, its all one way eh? New one on me. And since we don't, as you admitted, need to eat animals to live, then what else besides pleasure would we do that for? You're confusing me here. How is it morally acceptable to unnecessarily kill and eat animals to relish in their flesh then to let them live and fuck them when they seem willing? Having read many testaments of bestiality I've found the people to love their animals very much. It isn't seen as necessarily comparable to a human-human relationship, but all the sexual issues addressed clearly related how animals might not want to have sex but will submit anyway and how to tell the warning signs.

Abuse is not implied in this case, and it definitely isn't the majority opintion of bestiality proponents.

[Tzel]

Originally posted by andros
But the fact is that having sex with an animal is entirely for personal sexual gratification, whereas people eat animals for food. These two are not equable.


Why not? You haven't provided an argument as to why they are not. You're just saying, "They aren't." I have pointed out reasons why they are equatable. Having sex with an animal is entirely for personal sexual gratification, whereas people eat animals entirely for personal taste bud and stomach gratification. It's just substituting one pleasurable sensation for another, and I don't see why that one particular variation in motive renders the two activities incomparable. It's quite a good analogy, actually, and if you think it isn't, provide a reason besides, "It isn't." Or refute my reasons. I don't care. Just say something of substance, one way or another.

[RoboDude]

-------------------------------------------------------------
There is no law against wringing a chicken's neck just to watch it dance around with it's head dragging on the ground and that's pretty cruel, if you ask me.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Which state is this in, Biggirl? I thought at least most places have some kind of law against senseless cruelty to animals.

[andros]

Sorry all, I was away for the weekend. Tzel, ARL, I guess I'm still not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm making a moral judgement on eating meat. Maybe this will help: I look at the difference between killing for food and fucking for sexual pleasure to be similar to the difference between murder and torture. Are they both wrong? Yes. Are they equally wrong? I don't know, but it's irrelevant. Are they the same thing? No, no, and again no. Perhaps they are equally morally wrong, perhaps not, but they are, IMO, two different things, and must perforce be dealt with separately. Thus, murder != torture, even though they are both wrong.

"Ah," you say, "fucking my dog isn't the same as torture!" Maybe your dog enjoys it (though I continue to argue that unless he can speak or write english we can never know for sure), but I suspect that the chicken doesn't get much out of it. Or the lamb, or, for that matter, the lhasa apso.

I'm sorry, but it strikes me that hurting another creature for pleasure is wrong. Whether or not other things are also wrong is irrelevant.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by andros
I'm sorry, but it strikes me that hurting another creature for pleasure is wrong. Whether or not other things are also wrong is irrelevant. [/B]I don't think it is irrelevent at all. The majority of people in this country do not accept your position that killing an animal for food is wrong. The majority do accept the idea that bestiality is wrong. There is a serious question as to how, if possible, those two positions can be reconciled.

The subtext to this issue is that much of the historical opposition to bestiality is likely religious in nature. In our society many people have rejected this type of objection to the actions of other people. This prompts the question regarding bestiality.

[erislover]

My limit of understanding another life form is not matched by their ability to speak english. But I don't think you strictly meant that we can "never" know, just that there are times where we could very well be mistaken.

Clearly, however, I think most people have had a dog hump their leg. Allow me to pose: how could something like this could be misunderstood? I've seen female cats in heat, pushing their parts way up in the air, saying "God just MOUNT ME." I don't think we'd be doing them a diservice to play a little if one were so inclined.

Of course, I don't know where one would find a cat large enough though there are large enough dogs for such a feat. As well, I don't know that women can successfully mate with male dogs, but what the hell, if you want to why not try it?

Most species are ready to do it quite a bit. It is not *really* uncommon to see one male dog trying to hump another, as well. To quote Cecil, "Animals _always_ do it for fun."

The food issue is still relevant to me: we've already decided we own them, now its just a matter of why we pretend we don't.

[Muffin]

Originally posted by IzzyR
[The majority of people in this country do not accept your position that killing an animal for food is wrong. The majority do accept the idea that bestiality is wrong. There is a serious question as to how, if possible, those two positions can be reconciled.

I guess most folks can agree on not having sex with dead animals, but somehow I sorrta fear that someone out there is going to contradict me.

[Felice]

Originally posted by aynrandlover
Clearly, however, I think most people have had a dog hump their leg. Allow me to pose: how could something like this could be misunderstood?
...

Most species are ready to do it quite a bit. It is not *really* uncommon to see one male dog trying to hump another, as well. To quote Cecil, "Animals _always_ do it for fun."

I suspect I'm going to regret getting into this, but from what I understand from my vet, animal behaviorists, and dog trainers, 'humping' by a dog frequently is very misunderstood. It can be sexual (as when it's a male dog and a bitch in heat) but when it's a a dog humping something that's not a bitch, it's a signal of dominance. Male dogs hump each other, but without penetration, to exert and indicate their dominance/submission. If your dog starts humping your leg, it means he's trying to dominate you - in terms of pack psychology, he thinks he's more important than you are. It has nothing to do with how sexually attractive he thinks you are.

[erislover]

What *really* would be wrong with sex with a dead animal? Sure, I mean it ***REALLY*** can't consent, but then it isn't alive either so who cares?
Uhh.
Of course, there is the matter of freshness as I'm sure a mortician or two could contest to. I had the "opportunity" to service an intercom system at the County Coroner's office when I leved in Cleveland area...or should I say, I had the "opportunity" to be there when they were getting ready to transfer a dead body.
It stinks.
But if that's your thing I see it as fundamentally equal to doing it with a stuffed animal, using sheepskin condoms, and so on.
But god, the stink. And whatever bacteria now get to flourish with impunity. Really, though, as a hijack I think we should quit with the whole grave business and allow cannibalism after death. The meat probably wouldn't be as good as say, fresh veal, but I'm sure it would make a decent sausage if combined with a little pork and choice spices.

Felice, hmmm, that *might* be, but my last dog surely wasn't the dominant type over me. That poor little guy was the typical cartoon dog, always hanging his head and just barely peeking up at you. I don't know why he did that, either, because I never hurt the cutie. He still humped me from time to time...maybe trying to regain the control he thought he should have?

As well the whole dolphin thing I brought up earlier...I mean, look at what we do with these things. We make them jump through hoops, stay in smallish pools. Other animals at zoos, too, though they are treated nice enough aren't exactly in the best of environments. It is very clear to me that on a rather large scale we clearly own and assert our ownership of animals. We eat them. We wear them. We lock them up, we shoot them. We take their homes to put ours up. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just love them??? Or should we get along but not THAT well? ;) I mean, at least pregnancy isn't a concern.
:D
sometimes I am just TOO liberal

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by aynrandlover
What *really* would be wrong with sex with a dead animal? Sure, I mean it ***REALLY*** can't consent, but then it isn't alive either so who cares?
Uhh.I thought Muffin meant that everyone would agree that there's nothing wrong with it.

[Chickenhead]

Hello. I deny everything.

[Tzel]

Felice: Sure, that's what they say, and in some contexts, that may be the case, but, like aynrandlover, I have had my dog hump my leg quite often, and she is definitely not the dominant type. It's just unsettling for many to think that an animal wants to fuck them, so no vet, behaviorist, or trainer is going to say to their soccer mom customer (not sayin' you're a soccer mom, but that's one group of people that these professions will deal with), "Yeah, your dog wants to jump your bones," but in some cases, that just might be the case.

andros, if I'm reading your post correctly, you seem to be (indirectly) agreeing that you think eating animals is wrong? Am I correct? Well if this is the case, then you have salvaged your argument against bestiality, on at least one level.

You see, if your original line of reasoning applies equally well to both activities, as I hold that it does, then it would be expected that you apply the logic to that activity as well. If not, there are essentially two possibilities. You would either have to believe that the reasoning is invalid, which would invalidate your argument against bestiality as well. Or else you would have to believe that the logic is somehow incompatible with meat eating, in which case there would have to be some reason for this difference. Otherwise, we would have to conclude the first possibility, in which case, you wouldn't even accept the argument that you put forth, which would seem to weaken it somewhat.

[Felice]

Originally posted by aynrandlover
Felice, hmmm, that *might* be, but my last dog surely wasn't the dominant type over me. That poor little guy was the typical cartoon dog, always hanging his head and just barely peeking up at you. I don't know why he did that, either, because I never hurt the cutie. He still humped me from time to time...maybe trying to regain the control he thought he should have?

Well, humping can actually indicate a number of different things in dogs...I mentioned dominance up front because that's what it usually means when MY dog tries it. (But he's got dominance issues anyway.) A ten-second google search turns up a zillion pages discussing the non-sexual implications of canine humping: try this one for instance: http://www.wagntrain.com/BodyLanguage.htm

My only point is that just because a dog is humping doesn't mean he's sexually excited.
Also, on a somewhat different tangent: I believe that those human women who prefer their dog to human partners do not usually engage in intercourse with the canines. How to put this delicately? Well, a dog has a much more ...flexible... tongue.

[erislover]

You have NO idea how much I wondered about that tongue thing. It just seems so...obvious? I don't know. I am always suspicious of single women and dogs. Especially the dogs who are so eager to go crotch smelling? You know the ones!! Where'd they get their training, eh? :D
But that cold little nose, hahaha. Not being a girl it just wouldn't be the same (peanut butter or no ;)).

But still, I was talking about mutual sexual pleasure for both owner and beast.

[Biggirl]

Originally posted by RoboDude
-------------------------------------------------------------
There is no law against wringing a chicken's neck just to watch it dance around with it's head dragging on the ground and that's pretty cruel, if you ask me.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Which state is this in, Biggirl? I thought at least most places have some kind of law against senseless cruelty to animals.

My state has very different rules for "farm animals" and "pets". It is quite all right to wring a chicken's neck, but not quite all right to have sex with it. My point was that these rules are not to safeguard the animals, but to stop behavior that is deemed, well, icky.

Our species treats other species any way we damn well please. If it wasn't for the social taboo against bestiality there would be no laws against it.

[quixotic78]

Originally posted by Felice
My only point is that just because a dog is humping doesn't mean he's sexually excited.
And that's reason enough to think that animals can't consent. It's like trying to fuck a drugged-up girl who doesn't speak English... did she just say, "OK," or did she mutter something else? If you can't be sure, then that can't be consent.

Also, on a somewhat different tangent: I believe that those human women who prefer their dog to human partners do not usually engage in intercourse with the canines. How to put this delicately? Well, a dog has a much more ...flexible... tongue.
I know Dan Savage did an article on this... you can search the arcives of http://www.theonion.com because I'm too lazy to do it. And for the record, a dog might have a larger tongue, but I think this is one case where the old adage, "It's not the size that counts, it's how you use it" REALLY applies. :p

Quix

[Coldfire]

Originally posted by Sofa King
I would point out that in a few cases, the consent of the animal is not in question at all--I cite the smiling male German Shepherd who delivers what might be the only recorded animal facial.

I need to go wash my hands. And I need to toss my lunch. Thanks, Sofa King :D

Note to Self: nor more sex or poop threads during lunch break!

[Badtz Maru]

I knew someone who trained her dog to eat her out. She talked one of my friends into giving it a try. She would spread peanut butter on the region and the dog would lick it off.

[Coldfire]

Badtz, don't we all know a woman like that? (http://www.snopes.com/sex/bestial/peanutbt.htm)

[Edward The Head]

Well since I haven't seen this posted yet I'm gonna tell you about sex with chickens! :D

This actually comes from the book The Dictionary of Unusual Sex Acts and NOT personal experience. When a person has sex with a chicken during orgasim you are supposed to break the neck so you get the death spasms.

This I suppose falls under cruelity to animals, but what if you planned on eating it anyway could they still get you as you have to break it's neck anyway.

I do not know why I admit to knowing this, I probably shouldn't have, but there you have it folks the Straight Dope on chicken fucking! I now give myself the following :wally

[rngadam]

Originally posted by Felice
a bitch in heat) but when it's a a dog humping something that's not a bitch, it's a signal of dominance. [/B]

Do you also mean that when a male dog humps another male dog this is "dominance"? There's actually some debate on this:

http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

And I quote:

Dominance is the most popular excuse, with animals portrayed as jockeying for status with the ferocity of assistant professors, when they're only fooling around. "At times, the very word dominance itself becomes simply code for 'homosexual mounting,' repeated until it finally loses what little meaning it had to begin with," Bagemihl writes.

Now, what does this mean when a dog humps a human? I dunno. But your assumption as to why they do this may be incorrect.

[wayward]

:) :) :) :) :) :)

[Mekhazzio]

Originally posted by aynrandlover
As well, I don't know that women can successfully mate with male dogs, but what the hell, if you want to why not try it?

It's quite possible with a medium-sized dog, but not the really large ones due to anatomical differences that don't exactly make themselves known until it's too late (at which point you would get to spend thirty minutes or so in pain, because they can't "pull out" until they're unaroused again) As I understand, it's supposed to be fun stuff, since they go at it so long and enthusiastically, and in the very least, the previously-mentioned difference would make it very unique from a human male. Dogs are actually one of the most sexually compatible animals there is, with a libido off the charts (for the males, at least)

Also, on a somewhat different tangent: I believe that those human women who prefer their dog to human partners do not usually engage in intercourse with the canines. How to put this delicately? Well, a dog has a much more ...flexible... tongue.

A rough tongue, though. Being male myself, I can't really comment on what that might mean, but I would think it wouldn't be too terribly comfortable. On the other hand, dogs will enthusiastically lick you (no peanut butter required) ...I mean, watch em sometime. They lick themselves, other dogs, and anything that sits still long enough...why not you? :D

I'd go on, but this is probably more than y'all really wanted to know anyway. ;)

[Jeffro]

RoboDude

Seriously, what should our policy be regarding bestiality?
-----------------------------------------------------------

I knew I had this in my somewhere in my computer it just took me awhile to find it. This is from "NEWS OF THE WEIRD"
not sure of the date. Check out the second story.

British TV Program Guide: The BBC gave one more try in
December to save the 1980s hit program "One Man and His Dog," whose
viewership has fallen off; the program consists entirely of shepherds (each with his dog)competing to efficiently herd sheep into pens (although producers jazzed it up by equipping some sheep with microphones to capture their "baa's"). a Fall 1999 British-made documentary, "Hidden Love: Animal Passions," reported on practitioners in Missouri's "zoophile" community (i.e., humans romantically involved with animals), including an interview with an uncloseted zoophile
gushing over his "wife" Pixel, a horse; said one activist, "We are not
sick at all. Zoosexuality is (merely) an alternative lifestyle."

Uggghh!

[pldennison]

Originally posted by zen101
As for women doing it with dogs and stuff, well I don't think you can force a male animal to have sex if it does not want to. No boner, no go. Also if the animal ejaculates thats' kinda' the proof that it had a good time right? I don't know why a woman would do it, but then thats not the OP.

Not only does this ignore the fact that human women can be charged with raping human men (erections can be induced under many circumstances, sexual desire being only one), it's somewhat akin to asking if a female rape victim had an orgasm in order to demonstrate that she enjoyed it.