Krypto1701 avoids jail, receives community service and fine
On Wednesday morning, Peter Bower (known in the furry community as Krypto1701) stood before Shelby Municipal Court on a charge of animal cruelty. This stemmed from the discovery that he had had sexual relations with a three-year-old shepherd-mix dog.
Bower's attorney, Gordon Eyster, entered a no contest plea on behalf of his client, and Judge Jon Schaefer found him guilty of the first-degree misdemeanor. He then sentenced Bower to 80 days of community service and two years of probation, as well as a $500 fine.
Judge Schaefer prohibited Bower from owning any animals, ordering him to undergo a sexual evaluation and take sex addiction classes. Opting against imprisonment, he said, "I believe you have a very severe problem. My first impulse is jail time, but jail will not help you."
Richland County Humane Society agent Missy Houghton and Richland County Dog Warden Dave Jordan expressed satisfaction with the outcome.
About the author
Higgs Raccoon — read stories — contact (login required)a (No longer a Flayrah contributor)
Comments
Only 80 days?! I'd lock him up for good, or at least give him a year community service an ban him from owning pets.
In related news, sex with animals could cause penis cancer. [Tai]
(There appears to be no such conclusion for female humans, though I imagine they face other risks.)
That's got a remarkably high incidence of bestiality. 31.6% of their control reported it. That's at least three times higher than the highest estimate of prevalence I've seen before and it's twice as high as reports of zoophilia in the furry community. I'm inclined to think there's something wrong with this study's figures.
Edit: Actually I see now it was conducted in Brazil. The other surveys were in the US and Miletski's book says there is a much more relaxed view to bestiality there. In fact there's a much more relaxed view in pretty much every country.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Oh really? maybe it will make Zoophiles stop.
He's only out 500 bucks. I doubt it will even stop him.
Cue donation posts appearing under his name :P
At least Lupine Assassin and Kavi made determined, superficially plausible attempts at bullshit-cum-emotional-blackmail to get idiots to hand over money. How much of an dumbfuck asshole would you have to be to donate to a convicted animal-abuser?!
I dunno, another zoophile, or a zoophile apologist?
Well... it is the furry fandom, the whole spectrum is represented on that score. Seeing donations go to such a person would really not be the worst thing I've seen money used for in the fandom...
"I believe you have a very severe problem."
Him, and everyone who would defend or excuse him!
"My first impulse is jail time, but jail will not help you."
Too bad. It might at least have acquainted Mr Krypto with what it feels like to be raped.
Bestiality still should not be a crime. Considering it as one is inconsistent with all other treatments of animals. In addition there is no evidence of it being abusive or harmful to animals and, since we must assume that other animals have similar experiences as humans, it will be pleasurable for them.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
/\
Asshole.
As a person who has been owned by dogs all my life I have to say Your a freaking Idiot. support your claims show evidence provide me with some unbiased studies etc. now i will pass on my anecdotal evidence most of the female dogs I have owned (all were spayed) have at one point or another taken to "masturbating" rubbing their female parts on people and humping things. all of them were fed good food given all recommended medications and shots etc. so i can only believe it is pleasurable for at least dogs to commit sexual acts.
Now I personally draw the line at inter-species relationships kinda an ew factor for me but I do not judge the world
Dude!
DUDE!
DUDE.
Having sex with animals is... not... CORRECT.
Figure it out, PLEASE. Until then, you are indeed a blue-ribbon, 1st-prize asshole.
I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand but to make claims they need to be supported by something. If you say sex with animals is not 'correct' then that needs to be justified, however the main arguments that get touted out all fail at various points, either no supporting evidence or the principles are not followed in other example of human-animal behaviour.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
And you should darn well no just because their is no "support" for a proposition does not make the opposite true. It has never been philosophically proven bestiality is okay, either.
Besides, arguing that it does no harm in a case where the dog was put down is not exactly brilliant. Even if we grant you that the vaginal infection the dog was put down for had, uh, "natural causes," the fact of the matter is that the dog was euthanised for a problem with an easy fix (i.e. spaying) that was not much more expensive than euthanasia. But that would render the dog sexually unviable, so it was so sorry, plenty of more victi ... I mean dogs at the shelter.
Also, have you considered the harm krypto did to himself? Not physically, I mean reputation wise. Its like that joke where the punchline is "But you screw one goat!" Screwing dogs is all he'll be known for now. He lives in a society where bestiality is frowned upon. Whether his society is "philosophically consistent" doesn't matter; his reputation is irrefutably damaged in his society.
Speaking of reputation, you know who's reputation you are hurting beside your own? The furry fandom has spent the last decade trying to beat a rap of bestiality; every time you post in support of it, you are taking all that work and flushing it down the toilet. Furthermore, you no longer just represent yourself; you are a "contributing editor" at Flayrah, and I can't speak for all the rest of us on the letterhead, but some of us don't like to be associated with bestiality. If you don't give a damn about your reputation, good on you; just remember that its not just your reputation you are hurting.
That last line is unfair; I see myself personally harmed by your statements, though I have made damaging comments to the reputation of Flayrah myself. To be fair, I didn't know I was on the letterhead until recently; I really thought it was just my reputation I was damaging.
Also, apparently CraftyAndy on FurryNewsNetwork is another bestiality apologist; I don't know why you all decided to defend the one case where a count of "animal cruelty" would have probably have been thrown in even if bestiality laws had been on the books in Ohio.
Personally, the punishment seems a bit light, though I'll admit the judge makes a good point about jailtime; it wouldn't help any sort of "rehabilitation," and jail space is limited. Animal cruetly punishment, of any type, is depressingly light in most cases.
Changing your behavior because you were given a title? How silly XD
Well, I'm trying to be nicer. Really.
No more "die screaming" posts aimed at a majority of the readership, anyway.
Flayrah encourages the free exchange of opinions by its readers, including its contributors.
Commenters should bear in mind that their karma may be negatively affected if they persist in discussing a topic beyond the point that other readers feel it contributes to the topic at hand.
The response so far indicates not general acceptance of bestiality, but merely that some fans believe it should not be a crime (which is true). As reporters, we should not fear to disclose uncomfortable truths or discuss controversial topics. If protecting the fandom's reputation mattered, I would have buried many stories over the past two years.
The opposite might not be true but it does mean you can discard the proposition. In any case we need to go where the evidence points and currently there isn't much evidence to say that bestiality is harmful. As for philosophically there is a paper in a journal of philosophy that challenges a number of the claims that it is immoral.
http://wrightjj1.people.cofc.edu/teaching/PHIL3000/what%20is%20wrong%20with%20be...
The problem could have been fixed by spaying the animal but that decision isn't without problems as well. For a start it has the same problem of a lack of consent that often gets cited as problem with bestiality, for example in GreenReaper's post below, as well as treating the animal as an object that you are free to modify to your liking.
Even medically it isn't always the best choice and most of the information provided to pet owners is heavily biased. For example in this review the author claims:
"On balance, it appears that no compelling case can be made for neutering most male dogs, especially immature male dogs, in order to prevent future health problems. The number of health problems associated with neutering may exceed the associated health benefits in most cases."
and
"For female dogs, the situation is more complex. The number of health benefits associated with spaying may exceed the associated health problems in some (not all) cases. On balance, whether spaying improves the odds of overall good health or degrades them probably depends on the age of the female dog and the relative risk of various diseases in the different breeds."
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/longtermhealtheffectsofspayneuterindogs.pdf
In an article in the Journal of the American Veterinary Association it says:
"-Pets should be considered individually, with the understanding that for these pets, population control is a less important concern than is health of each animal...
[skipped some bits]
-For female cats and male and female dogs, veterinarians and owners must consider the benefits and detriments of gonadectomy for each animal (Tables 1–3)."
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/pdf/10.2460/javma.231.11.1665
As for reputation that's practically a non-issue. Being silent to preserve it only means that only the popular views will be aired and there will never be an opportunity for change. In the same manner I can't help if people are unable to distinguish between an individual's views and those of a group but I do know that I don't ask people in the fandom to refrain from expressing views that disagree with mine.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Thinking of reputation as a non-issue is why furries have such a bad reputation. Simply put, I'm scared for my personal reputation because of you. Perhaps asking you to be quiet is a bit harsh (and my second post was made because I knew GreenReaper would be all over me, and I was right, in that that's GreenReaper's way of being all over somebody), but on the other hand I can't stand idly by and let you defend this krypto character without looking like I condone it. Which would negatively impact my reputation.
Whether or not it's "philosophically consistent" or whatever, 9 out of 10 people I must regularly contend with in real life are going to be down on bestiality, and the other one is going to do his best to pretend he or she is, too. This doesn't make it right, but there is nothing wrong with "erring on the side of caution." If it is immoral, I gain points for not partaking in the action. If it isn't, well, I don't lose points for not partaking, do I?
Admittedly, most of your opponents here aren't exactly arguing there side well (AIDS from South American monkey sex. Really?). However, they have thousands of years of Judeo-Christian ethics backing them up, even if they don't understand them. I can see why you'd reject these ethics, but the fact of the matter is you are fighting an uphill battle. Unfortunately, you have picked the worst possible battlefield given the thrust of your attack.
You are arguing that bestiality causes no harm; in this case, a veterinarian (you know, a guy trained to recognize and treat things that cause animals harm) has gone on record saying a dog was harmed. Not just a little harmed. The dog is dead. This is literally a case of a dog being screwed to death.
I mean, pick your battles, man. Wait until there's like a picture of a man screaming in obvious emotional agony while two stern-faced policemen drag him a way from his dog, who is also obviously struggling in another stern-faced policeman's arms in an attempt to get free. Not the case of the guy who, when told the only way to save his dog (from a vaginal infection there's a good chance he gave it) was to render it useless as a sex toy, shrugged his shoulders and said, "Well, kill it then," before walking to the shelter to find his next victim.
To clarify I'm not specifically defending Krypto but the practice of bestiality itself. I don't know enough about the details of this case to say much but from the news articles linked on the Flayrah posts I can't see anything that really supports the problems were caused by bestiality. I don't remember it in the earlier article and I didn't see it in this one so can you can link to where the vet says the harm was due to bestiality? You say it's a good chance he gave it an infection but, as I pointed out last time, the disease is extremely common.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Morally speaking, I see the most important factors as the lack of informed consent, and the question of authority. Concern over this is consistent with the way we treat other people (e.g. sex with the underaged or mentally-handicapped; student/teacher relationships and armed forces' policies on fraternization between ranks), and indicates a limited recognition of animals' status as more than property. If you deny the applicability of such principles on the grounds that animals are not people, you are objectifying animals. This is true regardless of the presence of other legal indications of such objectification in our society. (Many would like to change those laws.)
If you want to fuck a wild Psychic-type Pokémon who has the ability to understand the danger inherent in interspecies sexual relations, go right ahead. Otherwise it's like you went into a mental hospital and started banging the closest patient who didn't protest. Sure, they might enjoy it, but they may have no way of understanding the potential implications (pregnancy; HIV).
This is of course excellent justification for funding research into sapient human-animal hybrids (so you can have sex with them).
I'm retyping this because I had an error submitting the first comment and I lost it. Please make some way to get comments back, for example leaving the comment area editable after an error.
I don't agree with that authority is a problem. It's possible for couples where only one partner has an income to have consensual sex. Furthermore I'm pretty sure it's not illegal for people of different ranks to have a relationship, just frowned upon and perhaps against internal rules. Also that sort of objection doesn't apply to sex with wild animals or sex with another person's animals.
I think you'll find informed consent is an idealised and unrealistic concept. Generally it seems to mean understanding all the implications of the action, something which is impossible without absolute knowledge, which no one has. It's also not something that applies in any practical situation as people don't sit down and discuss what they want from an encounter and what the implications will be, whether or not that is a good idea. If informed consent is a requirement for sex then most sex will have to be considered non-consensual.
Also the comparison with children and the mentally impaired is unfair and addressed in Neil Levy's article in my above post. Consent in those cases isn't possible because the individuals are mentally impaired with respect to what they should be capable of. Adult animals are not impaired with respect to what they are capable of. So they are able to give full consent on their terms. Consent based on actual knowledge leads to all sorts of contradictions such as either children now are able to consent to sex or adults 1000 years ago were not able to consent to sex (because modern children will understand what is involved far better than any adult in that period).
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
But not in terms of actually agreeing, possible not in terms of knowing what they are consenting to before it is too late. In addition, it may also be considered rape, or certainly sexual abuse or assault, if there is a power dynamic forcing sexual conduct. This is the case if the breadwinner threatens the stay-at-home partner with withdrawing support unless sex is given. In the case of animals, that seems to be the general situation as they are required to follow the dominant party. That is not choice.
I can't believe anyone is actually defending any aspect of a real bestiality relationship.
We cannot understand a dog's sense of morality, even if it is fully developed.
As an example, you can ask a dog if it wants to go outside, and a wag of the tail and other such body language can pretty much tell you the dog's answer is yes.
You can then ask a dog if it understands the moral implications of going outside. Obviously, this is ridiculous. There is no way to communicate those ideas to the dog, and no way for the dog to communicate back.
Simply put, a dog may understand the moral implications. It may not. We don't know, and currently have no way to tell.
It's about erring on the side of caution again. If it later turns out that dogs can truly understand the situation, well, super. If it later turns out, whoops, dogs can't, well ... better safe than sorry.
That and it's theorized that the dog may not even understand the word "Outside" you can put any word there that contains similar lexicons and use the same vocal patterns, and give off body language that you're about to go outside and the dog will "understand" your intent. Hell, you could probably train a dog to believe they are going to go outside when asking "Want to go inside?" if you really wanted to.
You know, I really can't tell who is worse here: You, or the tooljob above you that made the unfunny prison rape joke.
"Bestiality still should not be a crime. Considering it as one is inconsistent with all other treatments of animals. In addition there is no evidence of it being abusive or harmful to animals and, since we must assume that other animals have similar experiences as humans, it will be pleasurable for them."
*facepalm* You could not be anymore wrong.
#1. I cant speak for others but I consider bestiality as a form of rape as animals have no say whatsoever in what goes on in sexual encounters.
#2. Our reproductive biology simply wasnt made to have intercourse with other members of different species. Animals can get hurt from the male organ being way too big to fin in most members, and the worst thing that could happen is that another unknown STD as devastating as HIV could work its way into the human population.
#3. And finally, except for two animal species (that being bonobos and dolphins), animals do not engage in sexual intercourse for pleasure; the main purpose is to produce offspring and ensure the it will not die out. And so far theres no evidence to support that any other animal sans the two above listed will do it for the fun of it.
1. People have said that but animals do have a say. Animals are often stronger than people and have claws and teeth that can do a lot of damage. So they are perfectly capable of physical resistance against things they do not want, for example if you try give a pet a bath or a pill or take it to the vet.
Furthermore this merges into the argument of consent which fails as the concept has no meaning anywhere else. Animals are not given the option to consent for medical procedures, are not consulted on where they live and are generally denied any freedom to choose. You can not claim a principle in one case but deny it in another, that's an inconsistent philosophical framework.
2. That has some truth to it but overstates things. Diseases are often very specific to their hosts and so there are few that are able to jump from one species to another because the body conditions are different. In addition there will be no STDs between humans and animals because that is not common enough for it to be a relevant target for evolution. When diseases do jump from one species to another it can be devastating but that risk is raised as well by farming and having pets, pretty much anywhere where there is contact between humans and animals.
The physical differences can be a problem but are easily overcome by common sense. If you are too big, don't do it. Also it runs into a major problem with only being capable of arguing against very specific cases. The argument completely falls apart if you look at a sexual relationship between a person and a horse, where there is no way a human can be too big, or if you consider an act like oral sex, where there is again no risk of injury regardless of the size of the animal.
3. There are plenty of examples of non-procreative sex, homosexual animal pairings and various examples of animal masturbation. Even if they do not normally have sex for pleasure there is the basic idea that you are unable to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Simply just because something is one way doesn't meant that that is the way it should be. That also comes dangerously close to the naturalistic fallacy that makes the mistake of claiming that something that is natural is automatically good and vice versa.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Animals are often stronger than people and have claws and teeth that can do a lot of damage. So they are perfectly capable of physical resistance against things they do not want, for example if you try give a pet a bath or a pill or take it to the vet.
Last time I checked, no pet ever goes full force against its owner when these things are happening due to it's strong and possibly only bond with them. Would you ever say that a woman wasn't raped because she didn't punch a guy? No, saying no, and being forced in any way shape or form is enough. The actions you mentioned are clearly for the animal's own good, not for their owner's. In addition, forcing a pet to the groomer's is in no way confusing to the relationship as sexual contact is.
Animals are not given the option to consent for medical procedures, are not consulted on where they live and are generally denied any freedom to choose.
Neither are children, particularly at younger ages.
In addition there will be no STDs between humans and animals because that is not common enough for it to be a relevant target for evolution.
There's great speculation that I think it was Syphilis came from sheep. Also, parasites do the most damage when they're in a host they aren't supposed to be in. Evolution keeps a disease or parasite from being too deadly in it's natural host (otherwise it couldn't get passed on), but when in an unnatural host it can't work the way it is "designed" to, so bad things happen.
various examples of animal masturbation
Again, children masturbate, young teens have sex. Doesn't mean it's right for an adult to have sex with them.
Doesn't that issue apply to nearly every activity animals are involved in, many of which are just for owner's amusement? How would sex be more confusing to the relationship when it is already a interspecies bastardisation of dominance roles for the animal?
I don't think that was syphilis. The big question with syphilis is if it brought from the new world by Columbus, or existed in the old world under different names. In the latter case it pretty much would predate recorded history. Unless you are confusing the research with an Italian epic poem character that the name is derived from: a shepherd punished by gods.
For the same reasons the host is ill-adapted to fight the parasite, the parasite is ill-adapted to deal with environment ad generic defences of the host. Outside of cases of bad luck, usually diseases and parasites do much, much worse in non-standard hosts.
With dogs at least, dominance isn't a difficult concept. However if a sexual relationship is initated, it confuses them based on the structure of the pack as it is part of the social structure and likely goes against what every other interaction says in terms of dominance.
Are you really willing to take that risk? If the odds are 1 in 10, but the outcome is 10 times worse are you willing to risk that? It's up to you, but it's a pretty dumbass move, not to mention the moral issues of choosing to have sex with an animal in the first place.
I'm not interested in taking that risk, but I do think a situation involving where one has to think and access risks is a lot different that arguing something is bad and should not be allowed because it is definitely too dangerous.
But the problem here isn't so much the risky vs. not, but the distraction the argument of risk is from the moral issues. If the moral questions were answered, discussion of health risks would be, relatively speaking, a lot more straight forward and could be heavily based on actual research. Maybe such educated, cited discussion would even be not so bad even with unanswered moral questions. Instead, randomly guessing at risks, or exaggerating them (intentional or not) as a scare tactic reminiscent of a poorly taught junior high sex education really just sets up an easy straw man while side-lining moral problems. For a topic with already too much baggage, it doesn't need more.
> or if you consider an act like oral sex, where there is again no risk of injury regardless of the size of the animal.
Oh I don't know, if the animal is big enough there seems to be significant risk of injury to the HUMAN. ;)
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
Don't #1 and #3 kind of cancel each other out? If animals treat sex differently than humans, and it is just some other instinct, why does it need special consent then, and why is it "rape" instead of a simple issue of physical assault? Why don't people show the same amount of disgust when other instincts are leveraged to get dogs to herd sheep, retrieve birds, or any other trick based on some combination of reinforcement and instinct? The whole idea that sex is special and requires explicit consent is a human trait that gets projected onto animals and conflicts with the idea that animals treat sex differently, as another mechanical instinct.
#2 isn't wrong, but isn't a blanket issue, and instead is rather specific to certain species and acts. Also, I tend to see a lack of consistency in cases when #2 isn't in favour of anti-bestiality side. Whenever a bestiality case is discussed and someone asks if there is evidence that such physical harm takes place, they become a pariah. I don't think I've seen anyone consoled when a criminal charge gets dropped for lack of physical harm in places without explicit bestiality laws, with no one saying "Well, at least that is better, it could be worse." It makes me wonder how much people actually care about that component of the issue.
And I do dislike bestiality, besides not swinging that way myself, even though people will charge me otherwise. But at least I acknowledge the dislike comes from an arbitrary projection of human psyche onto animals, and view it as an issue of playing it safe in case that projection turns out to be at least partially true. Others seem to try too hard to come up with reasons to back their emotions on the issue though, and the results are usually pretty poorly thought out in the end and don't even come close to gaining any ground or otherwise going anywhere.
Its rape they cannot say when it hurts or stop.
Agreed
No, we mustn't--that is a rather anthropomorphic view of things, no joke intended.
In fact, not including humans, bonobos and dolphins are the only animals that have sex for pleasure.
Behaviour doesn't mean they don't experience the same things. Here we are working that animals, or at least all mammals, have essentially the same brain structure and nervous system so we can assume that they feel things the same way that we do. Presumably you don't think that an animal won't feel the same pain as a human if you cut it with a knife so you should also agree that it will feel the same pleasure from sexual stimulation, unless there is good evidence to the contrary.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Fair enough; of course, that means they feel rape in the same way.
Wow.
I'll admit, your response baffles me.
Your post was comedy gold. Amazing. Five stars.
That also mean they can feel pleasure. Ok, maybe not by being fucked. But if the dog do it (he's doing the fuck) then you will also say it's rape? :s
Think of it this way: Even a dog with the most loving of owners is scolded when it misbehaves, yes? So, a dog will do what it is expected to do to avoid that.
Typically that works the other way, when the dog starts humping someones leg people tend to scold it :P
Furaffinity's harshest critic here supports dogfucking...
I don't think FA has anything to worry about.
um Rakuen, those animals you speak of, are Dolphins and bonobos. The "animal homosexuality is actual the animals way of showing dominance in pack settings or family units. Bottom line is human is stronger than a dog, if the human forces itself on the animal, chances are the animal can't fight back. And true while horses are bigger than humans, humans parts can still rip apart animals insides. Aids came from a man sleeping with a South American native who had had monkey sex. Therefore the more serious diseases come from sexual transition. Animal sex is plain out wrong. I think if you want to rape an animal you should not call yourself a furry. You give us respectable furs a bad image.
Er.. What?
Animal homosexuality is not about dominance. Certain instances may have something to do with dominance but many examples are in animals without dominance hierarchies and result in life-long homosexual pair bonding, even including the raising of adopted young together. The flayrah newsbytes has a story of a zoo forcing a gay penguin pairing apart in order to make them breed (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/the-other-side/unnatural-selection-zoo-spl...).
Dogs are physically superior to humans, hence why both civilians, the police and the military have used dogs as weapons or for protection at various times. Horses are far stronger than humans and veterinary procedures with horses and cows can have a vet's entire arm inserted into them.
Lastly HIV's most likely source is from bushmeat, not sexual activity, and occurred in Africa, not South America. I'm not aware of a single disease that has it's origins from human-animal sexual contact, although there are many for which that is a possible transmission route.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
You can kill or torture animals, you can use them for experiments, but having sex with them is a forbidden... lol...
I think the problem is a problem humans have with SEX.
Last time I checked you can't torture and killing is often looked at very critically. In experimentation there are extensive regulations.
As critical as hunting for pleasure or wasting food?
Or if you want better examples: Castration is made without their will, as well as ear cuting and so many other things! A dog will not choose what food to eat, nor where and when you will walk it, they have no right really. The only problem here is about Sex. Where I live animals suffer a lot when farmers kill them, I heard of cases of children being encouraged by their parents to torture animals cause they were going to be eaten anyway.
And now I see that someone who has just sex with a dog is an horrible person that has to go to hell and stuff? seriously...
Better start struggling against horrible things humanity do to animals everyday. Then maybe this humanity will be able/allowed to judge people that love animals a bit too much.
Hunting, even for pleasure, is done as a human instinct that is unnecessary for survival anymore, but still a strong pull. The urge to stick your tool into a dog is not.
Are you suggesting the desire for hunting is stronger than the desire for sexual gratification? The development of sexual interests and what arouses people can be quite a mess, but once at the point that a person is into that, it is a simple matter of sexual gratification. Of course people usually can control their urges, and many people can avoid engaging in acts that have issues, whether sexual or hunting. But I would think sexual urges are a much more fundamental and stronger urge than for going hunting. At the very least people more often put a bunch of planning, logistics, and delayed gratification into hunting and not so much have to deal with getting caught all the time doing it on a job or trying to convince someone for a quickie. I suppose that might not be exact enough though, you could always survey people and ask if they would rather give up hunting or sex (or even say just their favourite sex act).
No, I was simply offering an explanation why that form of alleged "abuse" is more socially acceptable than taking a pet/human relationship into a sexual one.
There are some parts of animal husbandry that I disagree with, particularly serious changes made for cosmetic reasons, but neutering can be done for the good of the animal, its own safety, and in the case of larger animals, humans' safety.
Report this. It's not right.
Try that same statement with loving animals replaced with women or children and see how that sounds. If you really loved them, you wouldn't sexually abuse them.
Neutering a dog which isn't mature is a cause of big troubles in his development. Even after problems can happen.
I don't like the kind of sexual intercourse this guy had with his dog (human penetrating an animal) but that doesn't mean it is always an abuse, for ie he would have done this to a cow, yes "maybe" it's an abuse morally (but in that case, it's not the worst abuse the cow got from humans anyway), but it can't really hurt the cow. Same things if it has been the dog fucking the guy. The dog isn't (always) forced.
Neutering a dog which isn't mature is a cause of big troubles in his development. Even after problems can happen.
Yes, but inevitably we're dealing with a case of potential escape and death. Complications from neutering are much less common and/or much less severe.
that doesn't mean it is always an abuse, for ie he would have done this to a cow, yes "maybe" it's an abuse morally (but in that case, it's not the worst abuse the cow got from humans anyway), but it can't really hurt the cow
Yes. It is always abuse when you take an animal you have a relationship with, and alter that relationship by including sex or sexual touching without full consent (which an animal can't give). There is more than physical damage to consider. You're being extremely shortsighted.
Being "lesser evil" does not make something right, particularly when this is "in addition to," not "instead of." If you really loved the animals, you would not abuse them in any way, which having any sort of sexual relationship is. If it's not a relationship (if that's even possible) you are using them as sex toys. There is not an acceptable way to do it no matter how much you try to twist is around.
That's your point of view and I really disagree. It seems you consider sex as something animals can't know or enjoy. Bwah... all of this is useless, you will always say it's abuse, you can't even consider an animal can think by itself and say when he wants or doesn't want something.
You should read that in full -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour
I consider a human-animal sexual relationship to be someone animals can't enjoy, no.
There's a difference between two underaged children having sex and an adult having a relationship with a child, even if the child was somehow verbally consenting.
you can't even consider an animal can think by itself and say when he wants or doesn't want something
You can't even begin to consider that there is a world of difference between an animal and a human's perception of sex, particularly as a dominance tool. Nor can you even consider that the animal may not have a choice. Nor have you considered that people abuse their pets when they don't want to be abused - you're not arguing that hitting an animal is right, but they're not always going to stop that either.
Even if their perception different, why is it so hard to understand an animal actually enjoy it? Even if it's for dominance, when a dog try to hump a leg, he's not forced, he's not abused. So what's the matter if instead of a leg it's something else, appart from being morally shocking?
And stop considering animals as children. I wonder if you ever saw a dog in heat trying to rub its rear on you. Again the animal is forced? Or you will say it has something to do with dominance again? Of course it won't be good if you do what she wait but don't say they never show they want it, it's just... wrong.
See, the "may" or "may not" can work 2 ways. You have arguments that say they can be abused (like in this case) and you are right, just not always. Should we accept or not to be their tool is just a question of morality. People died wanting to play that way (ref the movie ZOO).
Great, the floodgates are open.
Hey, you guys remember when we used to have trolls saying we said these things? I miss them now that they're redundant.
Saying people are more concerned with their sense of morality being offended than with the actual welfare of the animal is not necessarily apologetic bestiality or troll's portrayal of furries.
That doesn't even make sense grammatically, so I have no idea what your point is.
It's probably horrible though, so don't explain it.
Looks like that post may be missing a single word, "... not necessarily apologetic TO bestiality ..." otherwise it looks pretty straightforward.
Complaining that bestiality is handled differently than other animal abuse can go two ways, one of which is not supporting bestiality. In that case it is suggesting people have ulterior motives for their complaints, such as acting to appease their own emotions and disgust issues with a single kind of animal abuse, as opposed to actually caring about animal welfare in general by consistently fighting animal abuse.
Surely you weren't trying to imply it is horrible to point out lack of concern for animal abuse or to point out people using trying insincerely using animal welfare for other reasons?
Yes and we know that the only humans to abuse animals have been in fact furries.
Sarcasm by the way in case someone rips that from context somewhere down the line :P
What is it with "no contest" pleas anyhow? Fucking pussy can't even admit he's guilty?
Making a guilty plea carries the implication that you think the actions were criminal. Perhaps the defendant disagrees, while admitting to the facts of the case. A not guilty plea would likely have resulted in conviction with an increased penalty.
Ah yes, what might be called the Anders Behring Breivik defence: "I'll admit I did what I did, I just won't admit what I did was wrong."
Mr Krypto could do with spending a few hours with Breivik in the high-security cell -- not only would it scare the dog-fucker shitless, it might even shake Breivik's fascist faith in the superiority of the white race.
I kind of see the advantage of that plea.
Yeah, it gets taken advantage of, but there are times when you would want to say on the record, "I did it, but I did nothing wrong."
Nothing wrong w animal sex iv had saverl dog have there whay w me an I find it's beader w them than humans
The only explanation for the sentence making sense is that someone taught a dog to type, that's amazing!
Yeah I agree. Or he got some form of disease from that dog and its messing with his brain.
Post new comment