Well, I would certainly hope so. It would just be terribly uncivilized if the answer is no.
The last line on this article: **“He was also given a four-year restraining order on visiting Kelly without permission and made no comment as he left court” **
Shit, screw Kelly, how about the dog?!
Now that is a fine line to walk. Drunk enough to think screwing the pooch is a good idea, but not so drunk that you can’t get it up.
Please! A full grown man would have to bend at the knees and waist so far in order to acheive penetration and make copulatory movements that his knees would soon give out if he didn’t fall over sideways first.
Grab a Paper Towel Tube and try for yourself.
I would expect to see more obvious injuries on someone accused of raping a bullmastiff.
Is no one bothered by this sentence?
But he didn’t deny having sex with a dead animal? A Necrophiliac Bestialitist? (Band Name?)
I don’t know whether she set him up, but I do have to wonder why she went to the police. Surely she’d know what kind of impact this would have on the children - the article says that the girls have been so harassed that the family is now having to relocate.
Yeah, I was feeling pretty bad for the family.
I mean, it doesn’t even require bullying in the convention sense. If someone just says “So…I hear your dad was convicted for screwing a bull mastiff” that’s accurate, and already a hell of a zing, no further slurs required.
While the information given above makes me think he did it, I’d be inclined to take they guy’s side just for the way the article is written. I’d dismiss it as just sensationalist writing, but then the police officer himself seems to get in on the act. It’s because the crime seems to be more about how shameful bestiality is, rather than the actual harm to the dog caused by the act. It’s all about how horrible guy is and what it does to his children.
This is at most a case of rape against the dog. But dogs are not human, and do not have the same attachment to sex that we have. Human rape is so horrible because of what it potentially does to the victim. Dog rape needs to be evaluated on the same grounds.
This should thus be treated at most as an issue of animal abuse. Leave the sex-shaming out of it.
Religious people think Guilty. They made Jesus Guilty having a servant on the high priest present when Jesus was arrested having them try to give Jesus guilt. The devil is guilty of rebelling against God. Giving guilt does not give anything that is good. Why then give it? All that person had was sex.
Mark 14:1-9, the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death, John 12;10 the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death
John 11 >>53Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.
King James Version
Religious minds are anti Christ taking his name at the same time. They are lurking behind the scenes sanctifying the evil that is done to the zoosexual.
They ignore the verses below.
Matthew 7:2:For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Romans 2:1: Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things
Romans 14:10;King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ
Condemn see Gods glory as Hell.
I am coming to you like Moses came to the Pharaoh.
By that logic, it’s perfectly fine to rape coma patients or the extremely retarded, since they can’t comprehend it or be upset by it.
You should be shamed for having sex with any creature unable to consent. A low level of cognition on the part of your victim is no excuse.
Did Parliament pass a mandatory DNA swab-a-penis law that automatically kicks in when a man is accused of the nefarious act?
Can I just go into any police station over there and have them swab my penis? You Brits are so lucky!
Penis swabbing is a time-honored tradition in Great Britain, my good man!
-drewtwo99 (decidedly NOT British in any way, shape or form)
The problem with that logic is that it means every time animals have sex with each other, by that standard it’s “rape”.
Consent theory doesn’t work very well when extended to animals.
That’s what HE said!
What does this have to do with a scenario where the fuck-er is human? The post I replied to posited that the only reason rape is bad is because it is upsetting. From this you must conclude it is perfectly fine to rape someone completely unaware of the fact, or without any ability to be upset by it.
In any event, consent theory obviously only applies when at least one party is human. The idea that doing something against another’s will is a bad thing, is an expression of human ethics. Only humans have ethical obligations, since ethics was invented by humans, for humans. Sadly for some, when you put your penis in a fully dependent creature with no capacity to say yes or no you will widely be considered a poor example to others.
Hey, fuck dogs all you like, just don’t expect the rest of society to consider you a good person.