Should animal porn be illegal?

Animals differ from children in many key ways

So you see, you don't really care about the animals' well being, you're just using the consent issue to justify your disgust on this topic, a disgust I share. However, I do not believe I am morally superior to people who bonk animals just because i find it gross. Nothing is immoral based on repugnance alone.

Those are my final thoughts on this issue: Not only is making me want to puke, but it's too rare to even worry about. I think the Kinsey report said only about 8% of the human population delves into this, so I don't really give a (*)(*)(*)(*). I know there are people who love animals and do not use them as sex objects, so I'll trust in them not to harm something they care about more than i trust myself to judge them because i really know nothing about that lifestyle, other than I don't wish to live it. It's the porn industry I have a problem with, because they drug the animals. I have issues with that, not some guy porking his dog in his bedroom.

Bottom line, it's too gross and too rare to talk about. If you'd like a broader conversation on what animals think, know and feel, I'd be happy to have that discussion. But I'm done with this topic. Excuse me while I go have a shower *Shudders*

 

Thank you president of NAMBLA.

My eating an animal which has already been killed, and the meat of which would just be thrown in a dumpster does not harm the animal in any way. I have never killed an animal myself.

By your standard pedophilia is not immoral then. The psychology behind a person who wants to bonk an animal is no different than a pedophile - they're a socially impared loser who can't get a relationship with a consenting human being, so they want an exploitative relationship with something they can't say 'no' to them - there's no way to justify this as normal, even by far leftist standards.

Seek professional help please.

Why are you showering Fido's hair off of your privates before your wife finds out?

I guess when right wingers say that there are liberals who want to legitimize sex with animals it isn't really just a scare tactic after all.

 

Should it be legal? My response is, why should it be illegal?

I can only think of a few reasons why it should be illegal, none of which are important in our society. You could ban it based on how gross it is, but homosexual sex is permitted, and Big Macs are legal, so banning it based on grossness is inconsistent. You could ban it as animal abuse but, then, we slit a cow's throat and hang it upside down while the blood runs out, so banning it on that basis would be inconsistent.

 

Not really, that would be like saying it's inconsistent to support war, and have a problem with murder. Or to support spaking a child, but have a problem with pedophilia. Apples to oranges.

 

Arguing that bestiality should be banned on the basis that it "rapes" an animal is nonsensical so long as you're willing to legally allow them to be butchered for meat, butchered for fur and leather, mutilated in scientific experiments, have their habitats destroys, their tails docked, their claws removed, force them to work on farms or in circuses, etc, etc. There is simply no reason to single out sexual activity with the animal, especially because a animal would probably prefer that in many cases to much of the above activities.

Or you can take the PETA position that animals have human-like rights and all this stuff should be prohibited, a standard that, if implemented would probably lead to the deaths of millions of humans no longer able to eat meat on any sort or destroy animals or animal habitats for crops. Anything else is inconsistent.

 

By your logic there is nothing wrong with pedophilic necrophilia. What's the big deal? The kid was already dead anyway, so it's none of your concern.
I don't think you have thought this out before committing to the keyboard.

 

Semantics. The animal still died so you could eat it. Your patronage of the meat industry guarantees more animals will die. So indirectly, yes you are killing an animal every time you eat one.

A stallion can kill a person. A large dog can kill a person. You harm these animals in any way, or take liberties that they don't want to give up, they can say no in very dangerous ways. On the other hand, a sexually frustrated person can just get a hooker. Much less dangerous. There's more to it than just an "easy fix". Quite the opposite actually.

 

There you go again destroying statist logic simply by taking the argument to its logical conclusion.

/thread

 

Pretty much. The reason I commented on this topic is because I used to know a guy who was what is called a "zoophile", someone who literally prefers animals to people. He claimed he was not attracted to humans at all. When I interned at a state mental hospital, I remembered him and asked around the doctors there and they quite candidly said that a sexual attraction to animals does not warrant treatment in and of itself, and more and more research is leading the psychiatric community to eventually decide it's not a mental illness at all, but rather a sexual orientation.

This, combined with my knowledge of animals as a vet student, has lead me to decide there is no problem with this. I do have a problem with the porn, because of the abusive conditions.

 

Actually you're missing the point - it should be banned because it encourages deviant human behavior, for just as much (if not moreso a reason) than any actual cruelty done to animals.

If you want to ponk a horse be my guest, but don't expect me to defend your legal right to be a pervert.

- - - Updated - - -

The cruelty factor actually isn't the main concern, the promotion of moral deviance is worse than the actual cruelty. Killing animals for food is just fine, because it has a productive purpose - while having sex with an animal is counterproductive to society and human evolution.

 

Actually it is - both pedophilia and necrophilia are socially deviant and counter productive to human evolution - so the actual harm caused isn't the concern. Eating meat on the other hand is has a productive purpose, and does not actually harm anyone unless you butchered the animal yourself, which most people never have.

'
Says the guy who thinks ponking an animal is normal.

 

Who are you to decide what "deviant" human behavior is if it doesn't violate the rights of another human being? You statist control freaks are all the same, you just choose to call yourselves by different labels.

 

What's so bad about deciding what others can and can't do?

 

why liberals(progressives),scrupelous perverted People have so much power?

 

Arguing on the basis of "perversion", "abnormality" or other such archaic BS is a sign of a weak, fascist mind. Such empty pseudomoral outrage was used to restrict the rights of homosexuals or interracial marriages. But everyone hates control freaks. The only valid reason to restrict something is "harm". And I dont think sex with animals or animal porn neccessarily leads to any harm to anyone. Only when it is abusive, and we have animal abuse laws for that.

 

So something should be illegal if it's "counterproductive to society"? What if not resting on the Sabbath day is counterproductive to society? Should that be illegal? In fact, many people think eating meat is counterproductive to society. Who gets to decide?

Who gets to decide for whom?

 

Could this be sexually pleasuring animals?
Is there any evidence to suggest, animals don't generally enjoy sexual activity with a human?

Anyway, just offering a point of view but it's actually of little interest to be because the jury accepted my argument that I was simple trying to help that sheep get over the wall.

 

Did someone say "Animal Porn" ???

 

In my opinion, people who become sexually aroused by children and animals are sickos who should be executed. Their problem is too serious to be treated and they are a danger to the mental and physical health of society.

 

You're being evasive. Your subject is not comparable to the subject of the thread.

 

He said the standard is "counterproductive to society" and that's the standard I'm applying. It's exactly the same standard.

So people should be killed even for having involuntary feelings? Where I'm from that's called murder.

 

Every time someone watches the video the child or deceased is further violated by the viewer.

Any sex between and adult human and child or human and animal is abusive and rape as the child or animal is unable to give their consent.

 

Whoa. I thought you meant naked dogs or cats. You need to know it's called bestiality and really gross. It should be illegal online. As for leftists... the last 2 instances here were by conservative redneck farmers. One in oh so red Jackson County, FL (man and horse) and one in oh so red Washington County, Florida. Seems as though you have an unusual interest in this activity.

 

Actually pal, eating animals is counter-productive to human health (cancer causing via hormones, cardiac problems, digestive problems with colon cancer) and is also economically unfeasible in that processing animals costs more than processing grains and vegetables. Why are you so thick? You blame liberals/progressives for this or that only to have it blow up in your face.

 

I view bestiality as a crime against nature in that animals never understand what's going on. Children at 16 and 17, probably younger know fully well what they are engaging in if it never happened to them before. They are able to accomplish complex tasks, drive a car, and do math... It's still wrong and illegal.

Thoughts from a Progressive.