Yes. I know. It was a rhetorical lead-in to my statement that the appearance in, or absence from, the DSM does not end the question of whether something constitutes “mental illness.”
I meant as high as a human’s. So if it were, intelligent enough to be able to give consent, that would be OK. I don’t really think animals are intelligent enough to give informed consent. Isn’t that why we don’t let teens fuck?
As for wrong? Ok, pure visceral reaction here. I would have a harder time of it for sure if 'twere a man fucking a dog. It definitely is more penetrative. And I can’t see the dog getting any enjoyment out of it…it seems purely for the benefit of the man.
A girl willingly getting sexed up by a dog? The lines seem to blur here; the dog’s having fun, as is the human. I’m not quite as sure here.
And before you say, “Well, we let humans kill dogs, etc.”, killing dogs humanely is not for our pleasure but for the dog’s mercy. Or at least that’s the intent anyway.
Once she was done and led the dog away, we talked for a little while. (By “talk” I mean “she mocked me for not being even ten percent as sophisticated as my usenet persona.”) As I’ve mentioned a few times I’m phobic about dogs, so doing anything that might have upset it was as beyond me as flying.
That’s fine; it’s obviously impossible for me to demonstrate the truth of the events short of persuading Kath to video a return engagement with me in the frame, post it to the net, and set up a link, which for obvious reasons is not going to happen. Therefore I won’t try to persuade you to believe me or disbelieve me. I will ask what you think of the basic question of the thread, though.
I agree that animals can’t really give informed consent. But the concern with consent, I think, is that if one party isn’t giving consent, they may be emotionally or physically harmed by the activity. I’m making the assumption that, for the purposes of the OP’s question, anyway, there is no harm coming to the dog. I don’t know that anything else has to be taken into account other than that the dog is following an instinct and enjoying the process.
I do think that there is a difference if we were talking about a man penetrating a dog, or a woman using an object to penetrate a dog, for that matter. I don’t think it’s a difference of the human’s sex so much as it is much more difficult to determine whether the dog is deriving pleasure from the experience since the human is the one taking control. So I believe it would be much easier to argue that penetrating the dog, in any form, is potentially harmful and therefore wrong.
Finally, I don’t know if that sentence was directed specifically at me, but I agree with your statement 100% and would certainly not have made such an argument. I don’t think there’s anything at all valid about that comparison.
Sexual relationships with a dog don’t bother me. It’s the emotional aspect that does. I’ve read many zoophiles attributing human inteligence and emotions to their animals. They project onto the animal the personality of their perfect lover.
Skald Kath’s exhibitionism doesn’t seem to have hurt her in that you haven’t mentioned calling the police, her neighbors, family etc.
WhyNot has it right. If the behavior doesn’t hurt anybody, it’s not a problem.
Re Porn
With any area of porn, you’ll get the range of models from will-do-anything-for-the-next-fix to I-can’t-believe-they-pay-me-for-this. A photo of a woman eating feces may actually be of a cheerful woman who has found her dream job.
Malkavia Well, figure out what things you’re into that you will be photographed doing and e-mail me some jpgs.
The everyday, imminently pragmatic version of the DSM-IV 
All we need to do is add the claim that failure on anyone’s part to understand the need for treatment is a real good indicator that they need treatment, and we’ve got a cute little closed loop.
(One that has closed around me once or twice in real life, I might add. Some realities are immune to parody)
I don’t use “mentally ill”. I don’t find it a useful construct.
omeone who imposes sexual contact on other beings (human or otherwise) without their free and fully volitional consent is perhaps morally ill, or ethically ill. Maybe not necessarily & always… I don’t know my take on doggy consent, I honestly haven’t thought much about it before :eek:
Someone who engages in really bizarre behaviors that are destructive of self and others is someone who may have a brain dysfunction of some sort. Things can happen (e.g., a tumor, or brain damage from the intrusion of a foreign body into the brain tissue) which manifest as odd behavior.
Right . . . because it happened while his computer was “unattended”. A “coworker” did it.
:dubious:
Well, at least he changed his font!!!
Well, sure. Of course Lois Lane and Amanda Grayson are bestiality enthusiasts. But right now we have no convincing evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence and no way of contacting, let alone fucking, any that might exist, so we can ignore them for this discussion, I think.
I have a friend–not a zoophile,so far as I know–who said her favorite dog, recently deceased, had a human soul; she loved it, she says, as much as other people love their children. What think you of her?
Aw dammit, I just got divorced. Now you tell me.
What could be more important for the future of the human race than figuring out a plan in advance to fuck any hot aliens who might visit us? Let’s consider the important issues at stake here.
We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. I can think of no nobler mission for humanity than going out and getting some hot alien tail. (Possibly literal tail. It’s hard to say.)
Getting off bestiality and back to the more general question, the people I worry about are the ones for whom sexual gratification is connected with being humiliated or with humiliating someone else. Even among consenting adults. This strikes me as, not mentally ill necessarily, but psychologically unhealthy or indicative of a personality defect. But I don’t know whether I’m being fair in thinking this.
I think she was projecting onto her animal.
So what, did you just sit there and watch? How did you manage? (I’d be torn between hysterical laughter and vomitting)
Genuine question: for those of you that are saying the dog fucking is ok, so long as no one is getting hurt- why is necrophilia wrong? It’s a dead, empty body and the one living person is sure getting their rocks off.
And no, there’s nothing I need to admit to. I think necrophilia is wrong, as well as dog fucking. I’m just curious what supporters say when we flow the argument down the line.
Extra bolding mine.
I’m, quite obviously, not Anaa (plus, she’s already answered you), but I just wanted to ask another question. If we again flow this same attitude over, why couldn’t the same be said for a mentally hadicapped person and a person of non-disabled intelligence? Am I wrong in thinking that there are laws against a person of “normal” intelligence sexing up someone that is mentally a child?
Just like the rest of us, the mentally handicapped have urges. If a handicapped person were to have sex with a “regular” person, they would just be acting on an instinct and receiving gratification in that manner, so why-- following the above logic- - would this be wrong?
Sorry. I’m really sorry. I just didn’t like the word cross-species. I am ashamed. :o
**Diossa **already said what I was trying to say and not succeeding.
Yep, I’m fully grossed out for the week. Right yucked out. Why, oh why, does my curiosity compel me to read the spoilers?
Another problem, I’ve heard, is that the dog then becomes acustomed to this behavior and may try to “act it out” on other humans. I remember reading a story at the Bad Porn LJ community where a guy ran a dog sitting service so he could live out his fantasy of fucking dogs. It was NASTY.
I’m sorry you were grossed out – but I DID warn you. I’m pretty sure I wrote the word “bestiality” outside the spoiler box.
::quietly placing a barf bag on the teleport pad & bamfing it to Carlyjay, along with a box of Altoids::