'Xanth' arrested over bestiality video
Blake T. Sanderford, known as Xanth in furry fandom, was arrested last Wednesday for "crimes against nature and aggravated cruelty to animals" after posting an online video of himself sexually molesting a dog. [FoxTrotFever/furrydrama_2]
Sanderford, a resident of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, was arrested January 18 after State Police received a complaint about the video. He remained in jail on Thursday on a $11,000 bond.
Sanderford's computers were seized for further investigation; his dog was taken into the care of the Jefferson Parish Animal Shelter.
Update (25 Jan): Insane Kangaroo reports contacting the shelter, who said the dog had been transferred to a foster home. When asked whether she would be put down, they replied "we don't put down animals which are the victims."
As the remaining conversation is now off-topic, comments have been closed.
About the author
Higgs Raccoon — read stories — contact (login required)a (No longer a Flayrah contributor)
Comments
Know what, I'm sick of hearing people, AND the media rag on blake, hes my best friend, you people don't even know half the damn story. Blake has had annika (the husky) since she was a pup, he raised her and loved her, and he still does, hes a zoophilic, (refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia ). This is the life we live because we choose to live our life with an open mind, and that we were brought onto this world to love, and give love to everything around us. Some of us find relationships in an animal, and reguard humans as something that would be lower then an animal. This is like a religion to us, we treat this animals as we would our own lover or mate, and yes sometimes this does involve sex, but its not played out like it is in the media where you just go and rape a damn dog, its not like that whatsoever. When you choose to make love with your lover, in this case Annika, Blakes mate, you do it as you would with a human, there's loving, kissing, holding, everything like that, animals are very affectionate beings, and we treat them with the same love and respect as they give us, there are so many people out there who think we should be killed, or castrated, or tortured, because they are under the close minded assumption that we rape animals when infact this is not the case at all. I know most of you are going to read this and be disgusted and I understand, because this is not your life, you think there's something wrong with us, but in-fact we see everything so clearly, and reguard those who don't understand, and which harm on us as the blind ones. All I'm asking is that you give how our lifestyles are a thought, we don't rape animals and we are ALL animal activists. There are thousands of us, and we all share the same passion for animals you do, except we treat these animals as we would our own kin, our own blood. Annika was taken from Blake at 6:30 in the morning, and now he is unable to ever see her again, imagine marrying someone, then having someone take them away and say you can't ever see them again, that is what it is doing to him, and all of us, we are in support of Blake and always will be, the media has already tried to silence our support by taking down all online support pages we have put up for him. All we ask is that you think about it with an open mind, not a closed one, we love these animals more then you could ever know, and we NEVER harm animals, we are just as much against that as you. The owner of this blog has already removed three different people including myself's comments, they are TRYING to make it look like everyone hates him and silence all the support he is getting, please, open your eyes. This is what I post on every page created, usually its for ones with comments but since this does not have any yet, you guys get to decide how you will take it.
If it's that important to the individual you would think they would move to a place where what they do isn't going to land them in jail. They didn't, so they go to jail.
Well he was going to college, so he was not in a position to cut himself off from the world by living in the middle of the woods, like most of us do.
This. Nothing more needs to be said.
I dunno if that's in support or not XD.
I myself have no opinion on the matter, I just don't want to have the prediction "inb4shitstorm" come true.
Granted, there is a 50/50 chance this page will be mentioned somewhere popular on the net and that'll happen anyway. Always confusing to me, I see furry drama but when a page gets awful linked it instantly triples.
And then a month later people complain that furry drama spills into other parts of the net. DEEEERP! This sums up my thoughts on that pretty nicely.
There are two fixes to stuff like that - we stop complaining, or they bugger off. It's not good to complain, but I'd rather be around someone who whines than someone who flicks their finger at my head constantly and doesn't stop until I shout "Fuck off!".
If all else fails, this should shut anyone up. Just replace 'negro' with 'furry'. I liked the part where he says "We enhance your very existence..."
One way to get used to being trolled without actually getting trolled is to make yourself read every single vandal edit on furry fandom on Wikipedia. I did. And my god, I ask myself why some people were so persistent. Most were different people - but some literally were at it for months. I read one IP's talk page and the very instant they were unblocked they started going on a crusade again. That takes dedication, much more than any fanboy can have toward a show.
Out of Sci fi fandom (and Trekkies), Anime (and manga) fandom, and Furry fandom (don't forget its related page, Furry), guess which one has almost 6000 edits total (most of which were vandalism)?
Granted, Trekkie has taken some slack, but it's nothing when you compare 1,000 to 6,000.
Goddamn it, I just wrote an entire flamewar all by myself. I need to get a LJ.
We'll its already gone mainstream, but its mostly died down for now, that's why i'm trying to keep it died down but its hard because its so easily spread.
Love or no love your friend should have realized that he's growing up in a time when zoophiles are treated like african americans and lots of minorities were not too many years ago. What do you think people did back then? They either put up with it and didn't talk or brag, OR TAKE FUCKING VIDEOS of it, they did what they had to do to survive with the love they had been given and laid low, or if they were educated enough they protested laws.
But seriously, I can't take what you are saying seriously when he made a damn video tape, that right there takes away a lot of credibility. He felt like flaunting something that made him a nearly universal target, he should have saw it coming.
I know, once everyone hears "he made a video" that starts the uproar, the thing is though he made a video because someone asked him too, and he put the video up on "gaybeast.com" because you earn credits for that and basically get to watch other people with there animals, i know it sounds weird but its just what we do, other people enjoy watching you share yourself with your mate.
> "he made a video because someone asked him too, and he put the video up on "gaybeast.com" because you earn credits for that and basically get to watch other people with there animals, i know it sounds weird but its just what we do, other people enjoy watching you share yourself with your mate."
You my friend are one of the main reasons people hate zoos. but of course you won't stop whoring out your lover for "credit" because god forbid you can't see other people fuck their lovers too. die, seriously. Leave the people who bear the same burden but with actual maturity in peace.
He fucked up by putting it online, that's it, it still does not change the fact that he loves her.
I have to go with The Onion here:
Why can't someone love an animal? No doubt if there were no sexual component you wouldn't think twice about someone loving their pets. And psychologists pretty much agree that zoophilia is real love, and that it is not a mental disorder.
"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~
Dude, when you take multiple videos of yourself having sex with your pet (or heck, anyone), and put it on a porn site to get credits so you can watch other people doing the same thing, that is not love.
Oh, you meaning that part specifically. It is an uneasy sort of area.
"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~
Holy Understatement,Batman!
Not really. People already film their pets and share the films on Youtube and national television without being thought of as terrible. Sharing a sex film only is terrible if you, for no particular reason, say that sex is a uniquely special act that should be treated differently. I can't really see a reason why that should be so. Just because some people tie sex with emotion and give it significance doesn't mean that it is so in any objective way nor does it mean all people should adhere to that paradigm.
"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~
Wait, this was about love, but now it's not about adhering to that paradigm? I'm so confused :(
Voltaire you retard.
Voltaire said that.
You are so stupid.
Actually...
What if my human partner (whom I love dearly, and am engaged to marry) and I shared videos of us making love on some hypothetical amateur porn site where we got credits to watch other human couples making love?
With this human partner's consent to post it online for that purpose? Sure.. go ahead.
Or are we now alledging that the dog can not only give consent to sex, but consent to post videos of that sex online for pornographic purposes too?
You're a sick fuck, go die in a fire you faggot.
I like the Taurus one, it's so freaking true...
I reiterate - it doesn't need to be awful linked. All it takes is the will of a single man.
That's not what zoos do, that's what pornhounds do. He shouldn't have needed access to porn, he had the real thing, but somehow, strangely, it wasn't enough.
"in a time when zoophiles are treated like african americans" are you insane?
Yes I do believe when Dr. Martin Luther King said "I Have a Dream" he was not talking about huskies.
I only wish zoophiles WERE being treated like African Americans... with Fire Hoses, Beatings, Attack Police Dogs, Death Threats, and the occasional Zoophile house explosion.
Please do the world a favor and promptly kill yourself fatty
I think you could safely end that with just the police dogs.
"Awww what a cute pupsy wupsy, would you mind letting me boff you today?"
suddenly, legions of crotchless zoophiles.
Hey, guess who doesn't get to decide how they will take it?
THE DOG!
Story or no story. Its rape. No excuse for that you sicko.
You're a fucking sick individual. You and your friend Blake.
This is like a religion to us...
"Religion is the orifice of the poodle."
Crazy dogfucker.
Doesn't matter if it's your life or not. You're still harming helpless animals. Look at rapists. Sure, it's their life, but what they do is illegal. Zoophilia is illegal because it's animal abuse, not because people are closed minded.
I've been planning to try and get that declared in a similar light psychologically, actually. Building an awareness campaign if you will.
Our first order of business is to buy ski goggles for everyone in the club, and then find out when a Take Back The Night March is happening. Awww yeah, it's like the perfect storm, right there!
Zevian-
I'd just like you to know, I totally second your opinion. Props for standing up for your friend and your own free will. I've seen dogs that are just as into the human as the human is into them. After all, if supposedly humans are only supposed to be attracted to other humans, then why are some of us attracted to animals? Why do people generally assume that the opposite is not possible-- for an animal to be attracted to a human?
It's tragic that his lover was taken from him in such a cruel way. I hope that dog gets the chance to bite the shit out of one of the douchebags that took them away from each other.
Some of you are attracted to animals because you are broken, and their is no hope in fixing something as messed up as you.
My question-- Why do all of you assume that all zoos are male? You all say "it's not love if you stick your dick in it" well, what if you're a girl? If that dog sticks it's dick in me that's its own damn choice.
How do you know what that animal is thinking? Oh right. You don't.
They have brains, science suggests they have feelings as well. Hard to believe then that so many thousands are killed daily because humans are too irresponsible to keep their population under control. Society is absolutely monstrous in its treatment of animals, why get all bent out of shape over one individual actually loving his husky?
Funny, how most of your "zoophiles" are the ones who're most vocal in the arena of NOT spaying or neutering your pets, because if you do, it's more difficult to diddle them. So they're a loudly vocal part of the humans too irresponsible to keep their population under control. And as Janeane Garofalo once pointed out in a horrible movie; "There's a difference between loving your pets and LOVING your pets." Sick fucks like these are why people absolutely loathe furries and think we're all dog rapists and pedophiles.
Dogs can be sexual after spaying/neutering. Lots of zoos advocate population control (spaying neutering) - lots of zoos have spayed/neutered pets, and lots of zoos have animals they are not sexually active with. You've not really addressed any issues, and not really provided any relevant salient points.
I'm in full agreement with you here, and by the way, there's over a million people worldwide just like Xanth, that are zoophiles. The media does a great job of portraying all these people as bestialist inhuman scum of the earth, but the reality is quite the opposite. Zoos love and care for their animals more than the vast majority of pet owners. It's because they share a loving bond with them. They read each other's body language, they feel their emotion. They have a connection that most people never experience with their human counterparts. Being zoo is just like being gay...you're either programmed for it or you're not. If you can't get aroused at all with a human (man or woman), but the thought of cuddling and kissing a pure being that will always provide you with unconditional love (such as a dog) turns you on, why should you not be allowed to express your love for that being? I'm a Christian myself, and though I believe relationships like this are sinful, I also believe this behavior is something that cannot be helped. Furthermore, I think it's ludicrous that someone like Xanth be arrested and lose the one thing in his life he loves more than anything because he chose to express his love with his pet in the deepest way possible, when others are allowed to have their dog chained to a 10' leash outside for their entire life and no charges ever get brought up against them. What truly is better for the dog? It is my strong belief that someone that gives an animal a ton of attention, feeds them, ensures their health, exercises them regularly, etc. is providing a much better life for their pet than someone who leaves their dog outside its entire life and spends 5 or 10 minutes a day with them (and there is a huge percentage of pet owners like this...and no recourse ever gets taken against them). Most zoophiles are regular contributors to animal charities too...why do you think this is? It's because they truly care about an animal's welfare...they have a bleeding heart and feel someone who beats or maims and animal should be the one's getting arrested and the animals relocated. What Xanth was doing with Annika was not harming her. Granted, it's unconventional and appalling to many people, because it's not "natural", but it is possible to have consensual sex with an animal. You don't have to have spoken language between two individuals for an act to be agreed upon. He wasn't forcing her to do anything and he would have let her go if she didn't want to be made love to. Let's look it this from the opposite perspective. If a human woman is naked and a male dog mounts her and penetrates her is the dog still the victim here? Hardly. And that dog is clearly consenting to the fact that he wants to blow off some sexual steam. I think Xanth is being judged unfairly here because he's a man and Annika is a female.
You are a sicko just like him. there is no excuse for something like that. Rot in hell along with him and that pluto guy.
this is the kind of post that gets a dozen whiteknights and rakuen sperging over the "injustice" of it all.
I didn't know Rakuen had posted here. My bad.
At least no one has said they want him dead or burned on a stake.. that's what nearly every post on new networks have been.
I know, as if petitioning for the murder of a human-being makes them any better then what they think he is. :/
I want him dead. The stake is too quick. I think he should have his junk cut off and then have his skin peeled off.
*fapfapfapfap*
you know what I like bucko. Lets go pay him a visit in the big house!
I hope the other prisoners give this freak a taste of his own medicine.
I didn't know they allowed dogs in prison.
(Sorry, couldn't resist :) )
Some prisoners do tend turn other prisoners their bitch.
How I miss the days when the judge decided about the punishment. What has our civilization come to, that we don't even flinch suggesting rape as the punishment for someone who hasn't even had his trial yet. Some of the people posting here have some seriously disgusting attitude. I wonder what kind of skeletons they in their own closets.
Civilization: A thin veneer over barbarianism. (John M. Shanahan)
I hope at the end of the day we find many more articles on the good things furs have done, of those who have contributed to their fellow man and animal, who have been self-less and law-abiding with a touch of weird that is pre-requisite to this fandom of ours.
I understand the need to report on folks who are quite the opposite but frankly it leaves me a tad depressed and jaded.
I don't really feel posting this kind of story is relevant to the fandom. So someone who happens to be a furry does something illegal, big deal. People who have all sorts of interests do illegal things all the time and they deal with the legal consequences of their actions, whether they're a furry, trekkie, brony or a stamp collector doesn't really matter. I wonder if Star Trek news sites report like this when some fan gets arrested.
Flayrah has really become more of a tabloid than a fandom news source in the last couple of years. These shock value stories don't really accomplish anything. If people wanted drama they'd be reading furrydrama2, which is the source of this article. :-P Maybe that's what this site is for now, which is a pity.
The primary source of this article is Nola.com. The name of the fandom member was provided on furrydrama_2.
I'm not sure what you would see as an "accomplishment"; one might be to ensure that the subject of the article is not placed in a position of responsibility at fandom events, at least unless the charges are cleared. This is unlikely to be achieved when information stays within a private community on LiveJournal.
I can't claim to be an expert on Star Trek fan news, but a cursory search suggests they report on similar issues. Do they care as much about this particular topic? Probably not, but then it is likely not an issue they have wrestled with in the past.
Immediately prior to this story, Flayrah published:
These stories represent our day-to-day content, and it's hard to see how they fit into your "tabloid" definition.
Your own contribution to Flayrah has been restricted to promoting your company's distribution of a film. While we are quite willing to publish such material, it is rightly marked as a press release when we submit it to Google News. I will readily admit to moving Flayrah away from being a mere repository of such press releases and newsletters, which is what it had become as of a few years ago.
I know you hate it when people do this, but frakkin five stars!
We could have an interesting discussion on this, but I'd prefer to email you privately.
Though from a user stand point there seems to be a pattern on the type of news posted by particular individuals. Higgs for better or worse seems to report on more 'adult' happenings in the fandom. The darker side of the news as it were. If people didn't want to see that right off, perhaps they could somehow screen the news they see to not include those written by authors that have history of publishing stories they don't care about.
Just a thought.
We have "ignore user", but it is not very effective for stories. Higgs also does more than just crime, and I wouldn't want the only choice to be all his stories or none. Unfortunately this kind of "customized news" is not a popular use-case (at least on an intra-site basis) and I didn't see any modules with support for blocking.
It may be possible to construct a filter using views, which already controls the front page. Perhaps I can find a way to let registered readers specify a list of authors - or better, tag names - that they do not wish to see.
Of course, this would not be effective when it comes to Twitter, Facebook, LJ, RSS syndication, etc.
Seriously, I took the ridiculously easy movie beat for Flayrah, while Higgs Raccoon seems to be our furry crime beat reporter. That is a hard beat for any reporter, but furry crime adds different disturbing dimensions.
Less murder, in general, but that's about the only consolation.
Much respect.
If I didn't have a moral aversion to using multiple public identities, I'd totally make up a poster like Higgs to write contentious stories. Heck, I could make up an editor, too!
(Cue conspiracy theory where Rakuen, Sonious and Mister Twister are figments of my deranged psyche.)
Actually, I think Mister Twister is my aunt.
Bestiality is a social issue in our fandom, prevalent which needs to be brought to light. Instead of ignoring the issue, people have chosen to come out and make sure people are aware of the consequences of such acts.
Reading GreenReaper's comments, Flayrah is not Forbes. Flayrah is not BusinessWeek, Flayrah is not ever going to be biased news. Flayrah reports on all issues on the furry fandom, even if such stories outline unlawful acts.
It's a great warning to those who don't know the person. Certainly I've seen folks exclaimed as great people by numerous knowns and unknowns in the fandom and then only later, say after finding property missing or someone abused, do people come out of the woodwork saying 'yeah, that guy/girl is a criminal,' 'yeah, they did that to me (?) years ago,' 'yeah, I knew it was only a matter of time before this happened.' More information can really be helpful in how you deal with people who are questionable.
You (as in the general 'you') can't complain about the fandom if you're going to just gloss over or ignore criminal, negligent, whatever the hell is bad for the community behavior when it's brought up. We're not talking dumb furry drama of he said she said or 'omg this person believe's this!' or 'that person is a slob' - NO, we're talking criminal behavior. It may be 'no big deal' to you but I for one appreciate the heads up and have known individuals in the fandom where a heads up would have saved me a ton of grief.
Oh grow up and let your testicles drop, would you? A small but pervasive part of the furry subculture are individuals who have slight to major emotional or psychological impairment that could classify them as either sociopathic or BPD. They either do not know, or refuse to acknowledge the difference between fantasy and reality or right and wrong and they have no morals nor common sense and -severe- poor impulse control. They will use people, steal things, commit illegal acts at a whim. In normal human society these people would be treated as reprehensible, if not criminally liable and ostracized, whilst in furry most often these people are given all the second chances and ass-pats anyone could want and allowed to continue their sociopathic behavior of preying on people, animals or things, whichever the case may me. Furries SHOULD be informed of those within the fandumb who are imbalanced, do illegal things, abuse others ect. so the vicious cycle of "acceptance/all are welcome" is broken and you know who to AVOID as they're likely to roll you or embroil you in some pathetic drama.
It's really scary when in the 21st century you get charges like "crimes against nature." What is that even supposed to mean? Something that doesn't happen in nature? "Nature" is not a moral guide that we should be looking to and "crimes against nature" is not a statement with any value. Indeed it's something which can be manipulated to say anything and is generally used to push forward an idealogical agenda that can't stand on its own.
The other part of the charges is cruelty to animals, something which they provide no evidence of, and aren't even going to prove. There is no reason to say that sex in itself is cruelty. Just because someone doesn't agree with it doesn't mean that they can say it is cruel without providing some sort of evidence of cruelty.
These laws are throwbacks to a time without reason and do not have evidence to support them. They only survive because they mirror what a lot of people feel, but personal feelings are not sufficient for telling someone else how to live their life.
"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 geez not you again! Its people like you that give the rest of us bad names as furries.
Furries definitely don't happen in nature. I'd say that was the crime, yep.
The point i'm trying to get across is, Xanth loves annika, he did not rape her, he did not abuse her. He gave her a loving home, and now annika gets to trade that for a cage, do the math.
> He gave her a loving home, and now annika gets to trade that for a cage, do the math.
I just did the research. Unfortunately for Annika, the Jefferson Parish Animal Shelter is NOT a no-kill shelter from what I can find on Google.
There's a good chance Annika might be put down.
Am I the only one who finds that very ironic?
Oftentimes they find animals who have been sexually assaulted to be maladjusted, and thus, they don't even try to adopt them out.
This kid basically killed his dog, just so he could see other dogs getting fucked.
You must have some information we don't have. I don't remember reading anything about xanth's dog bein maladjusted.
You need to learn reading comprehension.
Slowly read what was written above.
"Oftentimes" (Frequently.)
"They" (animal workers at adoption agencies or shelters)
"find" (discover)
"animals" (Like Annika, OR other animals in general)
"Who" (that)
"have" (were)
"been" (a form of to be, past tense)
"sexually" (dicked)
"assaulted" (by a human without consent)
"to be" (going to combine this one.. I'm about to assign a quality)
"maladjusted" (Not right towards other people who aren't conditioning them for dickings.)
Better?
Still not a single bit of information about xanth's dog.
You want a bit of info about Xanth's dog?
Fine :D
I'll email the shelter and ask what will happen to the animal.
Fair enough?
The shelter is familiar with all aspects of the relationship between the dog and his owner? How did they acquire private information like this?
Can you provide a source of this information? How were these statistics collected and analysed? How do they account for dogs they have not seen and any possible bias this may lead to?
"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 act like this is an issue where you are wrongly persecuted. Fact is, you hurt animals by doing this, and its rape since dogs have the intelligence of a 5th grader.
A fifth grader? Really? Have you ever seen a fifth grader play a role in drug enforcement, search and rescue, assisted living, law enforcement or hunting? No? Well have you ever seen a fifth grader reproduce?
Consent is an anthropomorphism, why make a dog out to be human, a dog is a dog, and a dog is an adult way earlier than a human. They have all the tools they need physically and psychologically to reproduce long before a human does... but then again, their lifespan is far shorter so they have a lot more living to squeeze into a shorter time frame.
You've never seen 5th graders reproduce? Go to England some time.
I just asked for the evidence supporting the claim. It must have come from somewhere so all I want to see is whether it's reliable or whether it was just thumb-sucked.
"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 hurt animals by doing this"
Supporting evidence, please?
I'd say they're smarter than most 5th graders I know, and I HATE dogs. Well, the publicly schooled ones, anyway.
Believing isn't knowing.
That's a pure supposition on your part, without foundation, quite troll-full if you ask me.
I have. She now has a loving home where someone wont stick a dick in her.
Putting your dick in a dog is bad.
Furfags should know better.
Oh wait.
O hey, a Furfag fucked a dog and is now arressted.
WHERE IS YOUR FUCKING COMMON SENSE.
You sir, are stupid.
Now you will suffer for your idiocy.
And your so called "loving" dog will be caged/rehomed/put down.
Congrats.
I would like to point out the retardation of the above comment, quoting "Love or no love your friend should have realized that he's growing up in a time when zoophiles are treated like african americans..."
I don't think this is a valid comparison, and it is also quite offensive to make such a comparison.
Dog fuckers should be put in jail for fucking dogs. It's animal abuse. It is on the same level as taking advantage of children because animals don't really have any higher intelligence or cognitive ability than a small child.
Really, zoophiles are treated more like rapists, and rightfully so.
Also, what the hell did African American do that was so bad they warranted this comparison?
I don't think racists make that comparison.
LOL, I thought the same when I saw that comment brought up to. It's a tad more than a blurred line that separates slavery, racism, and the like with videotaping yourself fucking a dog and posting it on a site to get access to other people fucking animals.
OCCUPY THE ANIMAL SHELTER! Woo-Hoo!!!
Hey, there IS a fetish behind that, I think they're called Goreans or something similar.
Dogs are very smart creatures, they love, and they like being loved, thats all xanth gave annika is love, and I dont think he should be put in jail because he loved his mate to much.
Stop justifying the act of putting your dick in a dog and go hang yourself.
Dogs are not "smart" creatures. They are semi smart they learn. Yes They also like to be loved. But sex.....they are biologically inclined to other canines not humans. They may have pack love for a human but never mate love. Its not biologically possible.
The book Biological Exuberance points out that animals can enjoy the pleasures of sex. The concept of enjoying sex for sex's sake cannot be unique to humans.
Animals are animals, not children. Children are expected to grow up learning how to interact and behave in a human world. They don't have the capacity to understand consequences and make decisions because they have no concept of the breadth of their life.
A dog is never expected to live as a human, so by requiring consent you are projecting your humanity onto them. They have all they need to make decisions as a dog by the time they reach adulthood.
This is not to say that rape cannot exist in this context, for certainly the dependency and power exchange might lend itself to that, but rape is most certainly not the rule here.
That sounds like something a dog fucker would say, to me.
How... insightful...
He raped a dog in a state where such an action is unlawful, he's going to jail. Nothing good will come of it.
Here's the thing, the crime is a 5 year sentence. Even if he doesn't serve all the time due to a plea deal or good behavior, he's now going to be branded a felon. He's going to have trouble finding a job, he's going to have trouble with his credit, he's going to have trouble doing anything which requires a background check because he's a risk for breaking the law.
Louisiana statute with penalty:
(RS 14:89 (2003) "Crime Against Nature" up to $2,000 fine and/or 5yrs with or without hard labor)
While I don't agree with bestiality, it's clear he's a moron for performing an act in a state where such action is a crime. Sort of like having homosexual sex in a country where the penalty is death or a lifetime sentence, don't complain when you know the law and get caught red handed.
Beastality is legal in LA, which is why they are trying to throw anything against him.
WRONG! Bestiality is NOT legal in LA. The general assembly of LA made such acts UNLAWFUL in 1975.
"Crime against nature is the unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with another of the same sex or opposite sex or with an animal."
What part of the statute do you not understand?
§89. Crime against nature
A. Crime against nature is the unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with another of the same sex or opposite sex or with an animal, except that anal sexual intercourse between two human beings shall not be deemed as a crime against nature when done under any of the circumstances described in R.S. 14:41, 14:42, 14:42.1 or 14:43. Emission is not necessary; and, when committed by a human being with another, the use of the genital organ of one of the offenders of whatever sex is sufficient to constitute the crime.
B. Whoever violates the provisions of this Section shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars, or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than five years, or both.
Amended by Acts 1975, No. 612, §1; Acts 1982, No. 703, §1; Acts 2010, No. 882, §1.
It's nice how people here are so quick to support the obviously-self-serving "crime against nature" when we could get stories about hundreds of homosexual furs being imprisoned under the same charges.
"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~
Interestingly, a similar provision in U.S. military law (Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) was almost removed late last year - including the bestiality provision.
I just ate a murdered chicken and yet he was arrested.
Why is it that because it was a dog hes going to be treated like an animal. Oh wait but hes not, we spend billions pampering our pets, no he's going to be treated like livestock.
Because the only thing stronger then our "love" of animals is our hunger for them.
Westerners have odd priorities. I'm glad my taxes are spend on this, you know, instead of helping homeless children and teens, or feeding the poor.
Murder is alright if it coats are stomachs, but love!?, INCONCEIVABLE!
How does one coat their stomach with love?
Oh, wait ... I just figured it out. Never mind.
Ew.
And now you know why little girls luuuuuuuv horses. :D
Yeah, let's report more on this in the furry context, so the journalists googling this case finally realize that all furries are dogfuckers. Oh, and while we're exposing this guys identity in so much detail, where's the address and phone number, so we can start our mobbing campaign, because what's the furry fandom worth if there's not a minority you can discriminate to make your feel superior to at least SOMETHING.
Excuse my cynism. I can't help it. Why you guys need to highlight every wrongdoing of a furry and make a point of "OH MY GOD IT WAS A FURRY WHO DID THIS" - and actively help this individual's conflict with the law reflect bad on the entire fandom is beyond me.
*points to how popular Bad Dragon dildos are in the fandom*
You were saying?
Yeah, and some furries apparently don't shower regularly, and that's bad too. And still, do we have to actively point out every individuals failures and declare it a "furry thing"? I mean, how much deep self-hate does it take to piss in your OWN pool like that?
OMFG! I just got a parking ticket. Quick, Flayrah, post my mugshot so people can brag about how that's typically antisocial furry behaviour, which is bad, because furries also use dildos. D'uh.
You're speaking to someone who knows most furries in his area. The meets/events/cons are typically surrounded by people who have social issues. They're using furry as escapism, many are not well paid, people going to develop stereotypes of the specific sample.
Why don't the normal furries come and degrade such a sample which contains stereotypes? We're 1) Too busy 2) Have better things to do than be around broken individuals and 3) Too busy.
Bestiality is a social problem in the fandom, people will develop a lust over non-human sexuality. It's up to the person to restrain themselves from going too far. Clearly the individual does not have any restraint or morals to speak of, thus committed such a heinous act.
Yeah, and I don't see anything wrong with using furry as an escapism. I mean, why else would you enjoy fantasizing about creatures that don't exist?
Bestiality is not a social problem in the fandom - what people do in their own bedroom has very little impact on the social fabric of the fandom. You can argue about the morality of the act, but no it's not a social problem in the fandom. It's a public relations problem of the fandom. The way other people see you because of what other furries have (supposedly) done is what causes most of the controversy and the outrage.
And that's why I don't get why people like you or the editors at flayrah insist on making that even worse. And this does not just go for dogfucking - every time a furries faces a trial for WHATEVER, flayrah is the first to reveal the nickname and link to all of the persons accounts on all networks.
Really, what purpose does this have other than getting some cheap attention by being a troll?
When a furry commits act of rape upon a child, you bet we're going to report such a person. Bestiality is no different than child rape, those who are actors of bestiality do exactly what a child rapist does to condition the individual.
You seem to not be aware what is defined as a social issue. A social issue is behavior which affects others. Even if the act is kept in quarters separated away from others in the fandom, there will still be behavior exhibiting and wanting to congregate with others in the furry fandom who are also actors of bestiality. Bestiality in the furry fandom is very much a social issue.
Everyone needs to help dissuade others and make sure people are aware what will happen if they choose such a path. That is all.
Heh. Bestiality is no different than child rape. Okay. You have a very simple minded world view, to say the least :) But hey, to each their own.
So let's pretend there really is no difference. Even then, posting articles like these do the fandom a disservice, because they make everyone else look worse than they really are.
You know, the guy who was stupid enough to film himself with his dog and put his name underneath, in a state where that's illegal - he already IS on trial. He's been exposed, he'll be punished, he'll be on the sex offenders list and live the rest of his life as an outcast.
Nothing you decide to post after the fact will make a significant difference for that guy. And nothing you post will undo what has been done. However, declaring it a "fandom issue" and pulicising it that way will make a very LARGE difference to everyone else who would otherwise not have been affected at all.
Fact is that the artificially created moral outrage does a lot more social damage to our community (and our standing in the eye of the public) than what this random individual ever did and ever will do.
Now, if you're on a personal cruisade against dogfuckers and just using the fandom as a willing vehicle for your personal message to the world, I can understand why you're not particularly opposed to this kind of effect.
But I don't care about your agenda, and I don't care about some random individual getting caught in bed with a pet. I just want to enjoy my regular, morally immaculate, and artistically valuable fandom activities, and if I think some "child rapist" is stepping on my lawn, I'll gladly tell him to get lost without the help of self-appointed fandom cops putting it on the frontpages.
I just want to enjoy my regular, morally immaculate, and artistically valuable fandom activities, and if I think some "child rapist" is stepping on my lawn, I'll gladly tell him to get lost without the help of self-appointed fandom cops putting it on the frontpages.
How do you know such a person has an ill background unless everyone knows about it?
Apart of the benefit of posting about such crimes on flayrah, people know who to stay away from in public and private.
i.e. Myself. I don't want felons or those who do drugs around me. Why? I've firearms, and such people are a risk of those who are in government to associate me with such imbeciles.
The furry fandom is the same way. You can be open and accepting, not post flayrah articles. Then people will associate furries with dog rapists.
On the other side of the coin, we can publicly shame and show discontent with the actions, giving the message to people furries are UNACCEPTING of animal molestation.
"You can be open and accepting, or ... "
.. have your children eaten alive by zombies! Yeah. I believe the world is more complex than a multiple choice quiz :)
"How do you know such a person has an ill background unless everyone knows about it?"
Why would I want to know? If this guy is in my personal social environment, it would have been hard to miss. And if not, why should I give a fuck about him? I'm not a dog after all :)
Furries commit crimes, and I'm pretty sure they do so at the same rate like everyone else. That's a matter of statistics, and there's nothing special to be aware of other than that we're all much more "normal" than we want to believe. There's no such thing like a "furry crime".
We don't need a furry crime watch, nor do we need a public fandom pillory. That's just backwards medieval thinking lacking any rational justification - moral outrage has never served anyone. History proves that fact.
And now ... since I think I've said everything I have to say, and I'm not planning to get drawn into a debate about the morality of zoophila or gun ownership (yes, I noticed the bait) I'll leave the space below for your final word on this matter :)
I'm sure you're going to enlight us all with an intelligent conclusion, that will clear out all doubt forever about what is wrong or right in this fandom :)
3..2..1.... go!
Read the article again. It is not long, sensational, or opinionated. It is a notice of an arrest for a crime. Without this notice, our readers are not going to know this person has been arrested for that crime, because he is not known under his real name within the fandom.
You cannot keep a rapist off your lawn if you do not know who he is – and in an international community which now numbers in the hundreds of thousands, it not feasible to rely on word of mouth.
Are all crimes worthy of such reporting? No. In the U.S., for example, there is a distinction between a misdemeanor and a felony (Verbrechen vs. Vergehen). Most misdemeanors would not be "news". This story involves a felony charge, with up to five years' imprisonment, and touches on a topic - the treatment of animals - of interest to many fans.
We have been told by our readers, by a wide margin, that they want us to cover 'hard news'. Well, this is it. As shown above, it is far from the only thing we cover, but it is part of our coverage and will remain so.
It is not a goal of ours to give those outside furry fandom a positive impression of the fandom — nor a negative one. The day we cut a story because of how it makes the fandom look is a day that I will not be editor of this publication.
Greenreaper, I think you didn't quite get which aspect of this kind of "news reporting" I'm criticising. Like Insane Kangaroo, you are making the assumption that what you're doing has some kind of benefit for the community.
You know, in medieval times, it was a very popular practice, to put all kinds of violators in a pillory, so everybody could see who they are, what they did, and if you wanted to, you could spit at them, urinate on them, or kick their ass.
This form of punishment is today deemed barbaric and uncivilized. What you (and undeniably also representatives of the established mainstream media) are doing, is putting up a virtual pillory on the internet - with exactly the same justification. They're criminals!
And of course you are "told by your readers" that they love gossip, and that they love to walk past the pillory and spit at the guy - it's human nature to enjoy the belittlement of others, it's highly enterntaining and it makes you feel superior.
But civilized, it is not. And it is ethically very questionable.
And you totally ignored my intial point: Your news aren't magically self-limiting to interested fandom members. You score on google, no matter who searches - and you are involuntarily suggesting to the public that individual failings of people who incidentally are also furry are incidents related to the fandom.
Also, I don't buy your notability argument. This guy is definitely not a danger to the general public, so if you think you're actually doing a service to the community, you're wrong. You're arbitrarily taking some random contry's legislation and assert that because they call it a felony and therefore it must be relevant for the fandom.
So, if someone screws his dog in germany (where this is perfectly legal), are we all missing out on the big story, because in the USA it's not?
I am not interested in punishment. I believe the goal of our readers is to avoid association with people who have been charged with a felony, especially when they are likely to be found guilty.
Your local newspaper likely has online distribution. Do you criticize their journalists for bringing the community into disrepute when they report on a crime committed by a community member?
I am no expert, but German law appears to make distribution of pornography involving sexual activities between humans and animals a crime punishable by up to three years of imprisonment, and/or a fine. Judging by the online evidence, the subject of this article might be charged with a felony if living in Germany.
Look at the comments you're getting here: I hope the man losses his penis ... Fuck off, get cancer and die ... I hope he gets raped in prison. There we are, right back in the year 500. If you have a shred of responsibility left in you, at least moderate the forum, and prevent people from stoning the guy in the pillory.
"Your local newspaper likely has online distribution. Do you criticize their journalists for bringing the community into disrepute when they report on a crime committed by a community member?"
Yes. Actually, crime records in Germany are not public, and publishing someones full Name and contact information would be considered both immoral and illegal - unless he is regarded an important public figure, like a member of parliament. Court photos are required to be blurred out, and names have to be changed.
Criminals are to be tried by a court of law, and not by the public.
Fair enough! It is not the standard of coverage here. The general principle is that justice is served best when all know the charges. It can result in persecution of suspects, but it also helps people protect themselves, and prevents criminals such as Wolfgang Werlé from editing themselves out of history.
Like Slashdot, moderation on Flayrah is in your own hands. If you feel a comment does not contribute to the discussion, rate it appropriately; if others agree, it will disappear from view. I participate in the process, to the extent of any other community member. (Like them, I cannot rate my own posts.)
Many of the comments are due to an influx of visitors from lulz.net. I expect these to fade over time.
Actually, bringing pillories BACK and voting in only secular judges would probably stop a lot of idiotic horseshit in the US, so I'm down wid dat. Certainly beats the prison-industrial complex.
Dogfuckers, furry or otherwise: Fuck off, get cancer and die!
-- Desiring_Change
What's the more imbecilic and offensive:
Dogfuckers comparing themselves to African-Americans, or silly cunt Kinkycoyote claiming that if you enjoyed watching the CSI: Fur and Loathing episode, that made you "no better than a Jew collaborating with the Nazis"?
Stupid cunts. Stupid dogfuckers. Stupid fucking furries.
Whoa, where's that comment mentioning the CSI episode? I for one would like to read it in full and get a good laugh :)
It was in an old FurAffinity journal of his which, of course, he later deleted, rather than leave proudly (if stupidly) intact, LOL.
I suppose 'surrendering' his journal like that makes SillyCuntCoyote the equivalent of, I don't know, Marshal Petain or Prime Minister Quisling -- if of course I, like him, was in the habit of making comparisons as offensive as they are just plain stupid.
God what a sicko. I hope the man losses his penis. along with all other people that rape and fuck animals.
Go and die yourself you small minded shit littered piece of low life human trash. A brain that big and yet so fucking stone age in comprehending zoophilia and producing nothing but meaningless banter, you sad excuse for something that calls itself self aware and intelligent.
Ooga Booga! I hope everyone I don't like dies and has cancer and loses their penis! And everyone who fucks their hamburger before eating it, too! *GRUNT* *GRUNT*
Okay, done. Can I have my five star rating now? :)
I'm the above anon guy who typed out the sentence :) And the one who made the post originally above that. Just so you know who I am.
Look, cheetah, I know you come from very different culture on this. From my standpoint, here's how I see this:
If you love someone (or a pet), you're going to do everything in your power to keep them safe.
Show me where this guy did this? He knew what he was doing was illegal. He knew it was frowned upon. He knew they would take his pet. He had to have known that after all the Katrina stuff that ripped through New Orleans that the animal shelters were all kill shelters. He had to have known that he would go to jail.
All these things, he knew.. yet, he still made a video of him fucking his dog (or having sex with his lover, depending on how you want to view it), posted that video, and where did he post it and why? To a site with other people doing it, so he could get "credits" to watch "pornos."
Translate that into human on human love, and ask yourself if that's acceptable. Would you accept someone video taping a sexual encounter with you, and putting it online without your consent so they could download other pornos? Is that love? Do you think that is a sign of love?
Now extend it. What if that act could result in your death? What if someone did this to you in a country that condemns homosexuals to death? (oh, and if you were gay.) Is that love?
You probably are a better example than this guy. I know a few "zoos" who are better examples. But this guy? You're going to defend THIS guy, who sold out his lover for a few chances to get his rocks off?
Your initial post was 100% emotional, 100% hate - and if taken seriously (which I obviously didn't) 100% barbaric. Sorry, I can't take you seriously - no matter how many rationalisations you're going to pull out of your arse.
You don't even know me.
Yes, it was 100% emotional. This dog is going to be viciously murdered because of this man's selfish and hateful actions. I tend to have visceral responses towards that. I also know for a fact that this type of sexual assault can cause long term physical and psychological damage to dogs, having friends who've worked in no-kill shelters trying to rehabilitate victims of this type of assault.
So yes, it was emotional . Hate? No. I think this guy is confused about what love is and is not. I think he's selfish, and thought only of what he could get out of it, and not at all about the long term or short term effects of his actions on his supposed lover. And it truly is sad that the dog is going to likely die because of this whole thing.
It didn't have to happen. But it's not hate asking a man to accept responsibility for his actions. And barbaric? For what? Stating the truth, that the dog likely will be killed?
Does anyone think of the dog in this situation, or is it all about how unfair the world is being to the only person in this who actually MADE decisions?
You know, I'm not going to argue with you about the morality of zoophilia. But if you want to get a point across, then by all means post it - like you did now - and not single-line death wishes because everyone else does.
This whole attitude of "I wish this guy dies in a car accident" or "this guy gets cancer" that frequently comes up in posts about morally questionable accounts always totally brushes my fur the wrong way anyways.
If you actually wish someone a long and painful death, go ahead and try to kill him yourself! If you want his penis to be cut off ... well, go right ahead! See if you still feel it's appropriate if you actually stand in front of this guy, looking into his eyes. And see if you are able to live with the consequences. The dare's on you, coward.
Well, of course I hope you're taking this as the thought experiment I'm intending it to be.
Regarding. "You don't even know me" ... how about using your brian before prematurely ejaculating all over the internet. If you have something to say, say it. If you just want to grunt along with the mob ... don't expect anybody not to be biased about you.
Short correction: Don't use brian. He hates that.
Uh, I never said I wish that this guy dies.
Or gets cancer.
Or gets raped in prison.
I just said I wish this guy would think before whoring out his dog to get credits to jack off to, because now the dog is going to die because of it.. and the dog never had a choice.
You're putting words in my mouth because you think it'd be easier to straw man me than to accept that what I'm saying has merit. You want to lump me in with the "haters" and make it that much easier to dismiss me.
Well, I will stay dismissed. Just please don't judge me based on the other anons. I don't want people to die. I don't want people raped. I just want people to think about their actions more and understand that those actions have consequences. When those actions have consequences, I want people to take responsibility for them.
It's funny, really. I post anon on these stories alone because I don't want people knowing who I am because it would change their opinion of me dramatically. I guess that says something about the state of the fandom and it's condoning of this.
Good day.
"This dog is going to be viciously murdered because of this man's selfish and hateful actions. I tend to have visceral responses towards that. "
You have a visceral response to a man who didn't harm the dog and just expressed his love, whether misguided or not, to it instead of to the people who are going to viciously murder it because of something it didn't start and because of laws it couldn't possibly know? I think you have your priorities there a bit messed up.
"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~
That love he showed, was forced, the dog did not want it. Yes I know that for a fact, the have the mentality of a 5 year old so they have no clue whats happening.
Really? Have you ever seen a five year old play a role in drug enforcement, search and rescue, assisted living, law enforcement or hunting? No? Well have you ever seen a five year old reproduce?
This is a terrible, terrible analogy and you should be ashamed for trying to rationalise it to yourself.
If a 5 year old human could smell drugs and such, do you think you could get them to sniff them out for candy? Yup.
And training a large animal to attack something is somehow demonstrating its higher intellect, decision making and feeling? Really? REALLY?
Fact is, dogs hold a different position in society and will never be expected to function as human beings. Fact is, their adulthood arrives much faster and dogs will live a full life and die in the amount of time it takes a human to grow up. The important thing here is that "informed consent" as you hint at ie decision making and higher intellect is moot when it comes to a dog. I was not demonstrating intellect, but adulthood and their different relationship to society as a whole. By the time they reach adulthood, they will have all they need in their heads to be a dog. Some of the things in their head put them well beyond the mind of a 5 year old but still, their brains are much simpler in structure than that of a human child and the child growing up will quickly outdistance a dog in its ability to think and reason. There is no use in placing a human condition (informed consent) on an animal, for they are not, and will never be human.
In addition, dogs reproduce at 2 in the wild, demonstrating they have all they need to participate in and make dog-decisions on sex. A human takes much much longer.
And no, I don't believe in most places children with those abilities would be put to work in the modern era... something about child labor laws. Point is, they are different.
See the addendum to the story.
That's good to know, and counter to the information I got, but I only asked if they were a no-kill shelter and if they placed dogs that were victims of abuse.
I should have been far more detailed.
If you've seen certain levels of abuse, you'd understand there are many abused animals in so much pain there is no choice but to put them down...
Oh, I know, but I didn't know particulars about this case. A lot of shelters just have strict policies on psychologically abused animals. In general, there are both psychological and physical problems that these abused animals suffer from, either of which could likely have been the case here.
But good to hear that she won't have to pay for her owner's crimes.
To play devil's advocate:
Have you seen how people in love act? Quite a few people do things in relationships that get them into legal trouble, or otherwise risk or damage their future lives. People pursue relations in times and places that are far from appropriate. The raw emotions involved in love quite frequently override rational decision making and long-term planning, especially with younger people.
You can't gauge love on whether someone exhibited bad judgement or lacked consideration of consequences. Impatient, naive, and stupid people fall in love too.
If he made and posted the videos solely for the purpose of accessing new porn, that would be pretty condemning of how serious he considered the relationship. But in general, the act of video taping sex acts and sharing them online doesn't seem to preclude deep romantic interest based on how many people use the internet these days, even if stupid and rife with negative consequences down the line.
I can gauge love on this one, though. Sorry. Selling out my significant other so I can get credits to watch other people have sex with their pets is NOT love. Heck, even a whore gets paid, this is nothing more than sexual slavery.
EVEN IF we assume he loved her.. EVEN IF we go that far.. the act of posting a video for profit meant that all she was during that was a means to an end. I get "credits" for doing this. That's it.
Maybe he felt he was doing something out of love.. but I don't buy it. Sorry. He's upset now that he got caught, and all his little friends are too.. but if he didnt' get enough credits, what would he do next time?
Yes, what is effectively selling out in this case is pretty damning of his claims of love. But people are also attacking the idea of it being love for lack of qualities that many human relationships lack. It is not that I am arguing this is love, only that people are trying too hard to distance it from love. Instead of stopping at mentioning his bad priorities or even sticking to issues specific to involving a nonhuman, they go on trying to evaluate with some standard much higher than what normally applies to people in relationships.
Fucking one's burger before eating it has highly religious and cultural value in Ireland. :Þ
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ireclan2.htm#conaill
http://www.thelapisgates.com/articles/Ancient_Ireland.pdf
I'm not sure, if pillorying someone is part of the US-American culture, but what really troubles me is, that it happens within the furry fandom. Isn't that like spitting into your own bowl? In that case into the bowl of the entire community?
Please.. there isn't an "entire community." There are a bunch of disperse groups of people who have many things in common, and likely many things not in common. Given that I've seen furs behave inappropriately with other people's animals, I'd rather like to know about situations like this. There's not one "tightly knit community of furs" out there, though. Please please please don't make the mistake that a lot of furs make.. that just because you identify as a member of the furry fandom, that you are automatically in some "brotherhood"
*nods* I understand your point. Seems like the days are over, when there was something like a bunch of misfits sticking together to collectively escape into a world of talking animals. ;) Anyway, I think especially certain parts of the press won't see these differences. They will easily associate furry with animal molesting and this particular story will probably add fuel to their fire.
The press will do what the press has always done. Don't worry about them. :D
Please, don't assume I want to belong to any "bowl" that happily includes (and defends) thieving furryporn junkies, closet-case Bible-thumpers and self-confessed dogfuckers.
It is constantly a shock to me to see people crawl out of the wood-work to defend individuals that are caught and/or convicted in cases such as this one.
The issue here is that under the state law where the individual lived, what he did was illigal. He broke the law, and chose to upload video - under his fan name, no less - and flaunt his actions. He is now being punished UNDER THE LAW for his actions.
This is no different from, say, stealing from a shop. The law lays out specific guidelines, and if you don't like/agree with them then you should probably move to a state/country with looser guidelines that you can adhere to.
I don't agree with what the individual did - I find bestiality heinous, and think it should be persecuted worldwide, and the amount of people trying to defend it is just completely baffling to me. Even at the barest reasoning he broke the law, and at the core of the thing he's been raping a poor animal that could not give consent. Disgusting.
+ Banrai
FurAffinity
Consent is a human construction not applicable to animals. A dog can certainly communicate a like or dislike of something, and that is much more relevant that projecting your humanity on her. She will never be able to understand many things in the human world as a human would, she's a dog. And around 1 and a half years old she'd have had her first heat. She'd have been an adult around 2. Dogs can enjoy sex, why require them to have a human's level of understanding in order to engage in it?
Not all laws are relevant or just... the crimes against nature clause does not seem to discriminate between bestiality and homosexuality.
One cannot argue that his actions were not ill advised. He, as you said, flaunted his activities using a traceable nick and showing his face. The natural conclusion to doing something like that in the biblethumping US of A is that you are going to get your ass hauled off to jail one way or another.
From what I've learnt about communications in canine is, that it is pretty subtle. I mean, most of us will be able to tell, if a dog endures a certain act or not. But I've come across people, who were so insensitive, that they didn't notice avoidance behavior, or behavior of utmost appeasement (like flattened ears, frequent nose licking, etc.). I personally think, that actually ignoring (on purpose or not doesn't matter, since the dog won't be able to tell) your dog's signals is the real mistreatment and in my opinion. Someone, who's really loving his dog, perhaps even physically, might easier be aware to those signals than maybe the average family dog owner, who cares a shit about why his dog keeps marking every tree, trying to reprimand the children, barking at strangers passing the house, and beating up every other dog, that crosses their way.
I don't know the video, this guy has gotten into trouble with, maybe the ones, who have seen it and have a certain understanding about canine behavior will be able to tell, wether the female dog showed signals of disliking. In that particular case, I just hope that the officials were able to tell the difference. Nevertheless, he made a big mistake of publishing something like that, while living in a state, that prohibits such acts. He has to pay the price and I dislike, that he's pulled into public that way. What I dislike even more is, that his dog has to pay the price, too, even more if her owner was otherwise a very responsible guy.
I just wish for her, that she'll soon find a nice social environment, that treats her well and makes it easier for her to accommodate.
It really is too bad that she got caught up in this human world of laws and social stigma.
It really is too bad that her owner, that was supposed to love and care for her, instead put his dick in her.
+ Banrai
FurAffinity
The video, the posting, the non-anonymity, that sure was stupid.
Although MY girlfriend is human, I love and care for her, and I put my dick in her all the time. So far it does not feel like a conflict of interest to any of us :)
People rant on and on about 'crimes against nature' and how it's a human construction, and how it's natural for a human being to have sex with a canine companion. I argue that it's not so - in the wild you don't see a bear and a deer copulating, or a raccoon and an opossum making a life together. Inter-species mating is NOT the norm, and while there might be some very rare cases of different breeds of the same genera mating (IE: the forced breeding of lions and tigers to produce ligers)the resulting offspring is un-natural and generally barren - a crime aginst nature of the rawest form.
Those that argue that 'crimes against nature' are a human construction are ignorant and uneducated, and should really research how nature works before forming their opinions. Just because you're a sexual deviant doesn't make you right just because you have feelings.
+ Banrai
FurAffinity
You said it yourself, "canine companion". That has nothing to do with the "wilderness". Dog and man chose to live together about 15000 years ago, because it had certain advantages for both sides. These canines have lost a great deal of their body language and instead learnt to "read" humans, learnt how to accommodate to a different species. This is where you're argument actually ends. If you only consider sexual interactions as unnatural, what about all those tasks dogs have learnt to perform over the past 15000 years? Retrieving, leading blind people, herding sheep? What about a canine happily hopping into your bed to sleep in the soft pillows? According to your argument, this is highly unnatural. Have you ever owned a dog? Then you'd know, what great opportunists they are. They do everything with great pleasure, that makes them feel good and won't endanger their social status (although they sometimes do make mistakes in that matter, but that usually belongs to a learning process). Male dogs sometimes have strange ideas, what can be humped and what not.
For once, put aside all those morale and decide on the basis, whether a dog likes or dislikes something. What the heck does the dog care, if humping with a different species is unnatural or not, as long as they're having fun and as long as they decide it won't do them any harm.
Basically the argument you just gave is the same one that pedophiles give when they say, 'But the kid came on to me!'
"For once, put aside all those morale and decide on the basis, whether a child likes or dislikes something. What the heck does the child care, if humping with an adult unnatural or not, as long as they're having fun and as long as they decide it won't do them any harm."
Do you see where you're wrong here? Or is your vision so clouded by your ignorance that you just can't open your eyes to realize that fucking anything that CAN NOT VERBALLY GIVE IT'S CONSENT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT IT IS DOING IS MORALLY WRONG, IS WRONG?
+ Banrai
FurAffinity
It's interesting how you so easily equate dogs and humans. A human child is expected to grow up and live/interact in a human world. There are consequences directly related to their life and their future (disease, pregnancy, social stigma, emotional implications etc) not to mention the fact that childhood is all about learning how to behave. When this natural progression is interrupted by abuse, it will affect the child for their entire lives, that's what makes child abuse so heinous.
A dog will never be expected to be a human in human society when it grows up. It's a dog, it has all the mental capacity it needs to make decisions about sex when it's an adult.
Have you ever seen a child do the things dogs are capable of doing? Law enforcement comes to mind... Do you think it's irrelevant that dogs can reproduce at two and humans cannot?
I know it's hard for a furry mind to do, but stop trying to anthropomorphize dogs. They deserve much better!
"I know it's hard for a furry mind to do, but stop trying to anthropomorphize dogs. They deserve much better!"
Most of all, they deserve to be treated as dogs.
A pedophile might be so indifferent and bent that argument that way. Funny enough, that you're doing the same. We're responsible for our children and therefore to protect them from anything, that might leave a mark, that will later be hard to deal with. Just like a mother dog would do with her puppies. Oh, by the way, children can give verbal consent, but it's VERY advisable to act responsible.
I didn't say, btw, fuck anything you want. I was just saying, that you can't apply human morale on canines, just like a dog will never apply human morale to its behavior. A male dog humps what he thinks is humpable, not caring about what you, Banrai, think nature has planned for us. Though for a dog owner it is still important to understand what the consequences might be, why his dog is doing that and so on. It is the owner's responsibility to keep an eye on the canine social meaning, as well as the human social meaning (i.e. letting your dog hump grandma's leg is not acceptable). But that is not only applicable to sexual behavior, but to EVERY SINGLE aspect of a dog/man relationship. I can tell you loads of stories where dogs are mistreated in a non-sexual way just by failure in communication or even with humans applying their concept of morality on their dogs. THIS is the real problem, not a dog and a human having sex every now and then while living in the best social arrangement possible, with both enjoying the companionship of the other.
It's obvious, that you haven't reflected on your concept of morale, since you put zoophiles and pedophiles on the same level. You reason, that inter-species sex is unnatural, without really being able to bring forth a logical reason. You know, where I've read such things? In the bible. It was made to set morale standards without telling what they're good for. Just right for idiots, who don't want to use their own brain to develop a feeling for what makes living together with other individuals comfortable and effective alike.
Actually there is a difference between simple consent and informed consent. The laws are there to protect children and give an arbitrary "age of consent" as a general guideline or rule. This recognizes an age where a human is supposed to be adult enough to understand the consequences of consenting to sex. Unfortunately there are a lot of 18 year old people who still don't understand enough to make informed decisions.
Yes, thank you for pointing that out. :) Of course I meant the simple consent. And yeah, it's sad but true. But I see it a bit as the responsibility of their parents to have taught their children all they should know to be able to make an informed decision, when they're 18.
"They do everything with great pleasure, that makes them feel good and won't endanger their social status."
Dogs don't have an understand of social status as we do. They only know two things as far as I know "Bad dog" and "Good dog". They don't have the cognitive realization that if they hump their owner in a state where it is against the law it will harm their social status because the results of their actions would cause them to be separated from their owner. The human, though, does. So to take such a risk, knowing that risk can one say that the human didn't care if they were separated from their dog by throwing caution to the wind. Would the dog still have gone through with such a relationship if the KNEW the real consequences of their actions?
We can't say, however for the consequences that do occur to the social status in this case, all the blame falls upon the human.
All laws happen to be human construction by the way, this makes them neither good nor bad, relevant nor irrelevant. I thought I might point out though that 'Consent' itself was being pointed at as being a human construction. This is a salient point given that canines are not humans. While they can communicate their likes and dislikes they will never be able to understand the full consequences and context of any given act. Their world is a much different one than yours or mine. If we were to have sex, consent would definitely be an issue, there's disease, pregnancy, social/legal consequences and emotional repercussions. These are things dogs simply do not worry about.
But back to "crimes against nature": Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl points to several non-standard familial and sexual structures in the animal world. It makes for an interesting read. Your supposition that it is not the norm is probably correct, but the fact that it is not the norm in nature does not mate it somehow unnatural. Lb is less common than He, but is still natural. There's also the problem of arbitrarily assigning moral significance or simple qualities to "the natural" when really morality and qualities are human supposition and very much open to argument.
Even the concept of what makes a species a species comes into focus when we talk about inter-species copulation. Did you know that wild canine species can and o mate with one another? I wonder if these copulations are "consensual..." Porpoises also mate with member of other species, sometimes quite violently. As an aside, there are many cases of dolphins raping and even killing human swimmers.
People who argue that people who argue that crimes against nature are a human construction should a> read more thoroughly before making inaccurate suppositions (realizing that the post they are referencing makes such an argument concerning consent for instance) and b> should try not to pretend to know more about the topic than they do. Know thy limitations.
An important question would be: If there existed many examples of inter-species mating in nature, would you change your mind?
Nature usually ends up being a bad example to derive morality from for humans, since it provides so many examples of territorialism, fighting, killing, and raping, running counter to what most people consider moral. To cite nature as supporting morality in this case would seem to be a matter of cherry picking or fair weather approach to arguing people should strive for "natural."
Funny you should mention biblethumping. Isn't that essentially what he and his friend do with zoophilia by shoving it into everyone's faces like that? It'd be far more defensible if the only way they found out was a nosy old bag with a telescope spying into his window daily.
I woke up this morning expecting a nice quiet one, you know what i get? 100+ emails from this thread, honestly drop it already, I hate having to fight with people ONLINE about something that has nothing to do with him. Xanth is arrested, annika is gone, there's nothing anyone can do about it, so lets drop it already.
No, sorry. It doesn't work like that.
You want the uneventful life? It's simple:
STOP FUCKING DUMB ANIMALS.
Annika, and all dogs alike are not dumb animals, not in the slightest.
You realise that DUMB means "unable to speak", right?
Stop fucking animals that cannot consent.
If you suggest they cannot communicate their desires, likes, dislikes, then you are wrong.
Furthermore, informed consent is a human construct inapplicable to animals.
Perhaps they should clarify it to mean coherently because I certainly think it applies to these sorts of cases AND their comment threads every single time ;Þ
How dare you call them dumb? The only stupendous race on this planet are humans you idiotic piece of vomit. Get off your high horse as animals are fucking intelligent and fucking spiritually (self)aware of themselves way more then we are with our overgrown out of control too big of a brain, which we seem afraid of and aren't able to handle that well.
You call an animal dumb in my physical space and you are instantly dead to me. Dead.
Don't bother responding. I won't get notified when new responses get posted to this thread.
You are the core reason why I hate God complexed humans with backwards information on how much animals can think and feel. Fuck you!
I was surprised myself, too. 130 (and counting) comments in less than 24 hours? What the fuck? That's a new record.
Well, the justice is not the law and bestiality sure is illegal.
But does it HAVE to be ? I don't really know what to think of it, so I'll just stay neutral about that...
But when you do something illegal, (be it just/moral or not) you have to be careful. And when you deal with the internet the only thing you have to do stay anonymous. Which is quite easy, if you know how to do it. And that include, not doing anything stupid, like uploading the damn video in the first place. I don't know how the cops found him IRL, but did he wrote his real name somewhere ?
Anyway, I don't want to say he is stupid because he fucked a dog, but because he got caught doing it.
Bestiality sure ISN'T illegal in Louisiana, they have no law against bestiality. Thats why they had to use the blanket "crimes against nature" law which defines any sex other than vaginal or anal sex with humans or animals as a "crime agains nature".
WRONG!
An act not titled "sex with animals" doesn't mean bestiality is legal, the content of the act matters. In this case, sex with an animal, aka bestiality, is UNLAWFUL in LA.
Please take time to read the statute, or learn to read.
Sorry, just typing something doesn't make it so. I'm not wrong, hence why they charged him with what they did. It was all they could charge him with. So instead of stooping to your level and attempting to respond to your feeble insults I'll simply point out that you misread my post, and to help you out I'll restate it in a different way.
Bestiality is not illegal in Louisiana. The "crimes against nature" can be used for ANY sex act, including consensual fellatio , cunnilingus and in a lot of states homosexual acts and or anal with the same sex. So like I said previously, it is not illegal, hence why they had to use a "blanket" law.
Going to have to side with IK, the statute seems clear enough to me. Again:
There is no natural human-animal carnal copulation, so it's just "sex with animals", or bestiality.
A law may make "action X" illegal, and also make other actions illegal at the same time. It's still "a law against X".
Yeah, anon is wrong about bestiality being illegal. He is right though that here homosexual sex is covered as well. "unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with another of the same sex."
A similar law was struck down in Texas not all that long ago. These laws are draconian in nature and need great refinement imho.
Worst of all, these morality laws seem to be driven by christian conservatives. I wish they would keep their noses out of other people's business.
And in Newt Gingrich's case, out of other women's orifices when he's not in an open marriage.
Yeah, but it's a prime example why law does not equal ethics. Or even morals.
The term "natural" or "unnatural" can not ever logically be used to describe an ethical property. We still do it all the time ... but it is completely irrational.
It is called "The naturalistic fallacy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Read up on it if you have the time, it's an uncomfortable, but enlightning read.
This is an E-mail I got today from one of my best friends in the entire world, these are his words, read them carefully.
___________________________________
Everyone here needs to read this, and read it carefully.
At 6:30 in the morning, last Wensday, IE Jan. 18th of 2012, my mate was forcefully taken away from me for, more or less, mating Annika, whom is the husky that he and I owned. This dog was treated like a queen, quite literally. We loved that dog, and we still do even though she is now in a foster home, where she will more than likely be neutered and put down for the rest of her life (in the sense of having a bad owner), or bred like mad for puppies that can be sold. I wouldn't be surprised just because of how beautiful she is. What people don't understand is just how well she was treated, and what she meant to us. He did that to her to pleasure her, and the videos were so that others who see zoophilia the same way he does can see the love that is shared between those two.
What other people also don't understand is that if it doesn't affect them, or their lives, why input on it? I've been getting harrassed on FurAffinity for what he did. Why? Because a lot of people are assholes and are unaccepting to new things. What other people also don't understand is how dogs behave around this kind of attention. The definition of zoophilia in a nut shell is basically being sexually ingaged with an animal and being emotionally tied to them. There is a relationship there and it's just as strong as the love that Xanth and myself have. 'You shouldn't comment on what you don't understand' <-- There is an interesting little statement for ya.
I'm scrolling down here and noticing some of the comments. To those of you who believe that there is no love if the video was posted on a website to get credits: He posted the video so others could see the affection between himself and Annika. He rarely ever went on that site. Anytime he did, it was to check a message and of course I know this. I am his mate. I LIVED with him. If I ever caught him pawing, it was to stuff on E621, or something hawt on FA, and I walked in on him several times.
As I'm reading the comments on this page, I can't help but laugh. I love (not) how many haters there are. Did you know that being a furry is something similar? You enjoy seeing one anthromorphic character, often with the genitalia of their feral counterparts, fucking another one with the same thing? Or anthro with feral? Or feral with feral? It's all interconnected in your mind, and so many furs are completely blind to that simple fact.
-sighs- I just don't understand why so many are unaccepting to it regardless. IF IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU, WHY GET IN THE WAY? I mean come on. There is enough stress going on as is. All of my friends, and Xanths friends are worried sick about him and myself. There is so much they wish that they could do and they can't.. It's the same with how I feel. It's a really shitty feeling when your mate, the one you love with your whole heart is forcefully taken away from you, and you can't do anything about it. There is no if, ands or buts. Granted, I will admit, he fucked up by posting the videos. I knew I should have told him to take them down, but I didn't, and this is the result of it all. My life is in ruins right now, and Xanths will be ruined for a very long time, regardless of what charges stick and are dropped. Is it really to much to ask for some acceptance? How about you put yourself in our shoes, huh? If you have a mate, someone you love dearly, was put into a scenario where you couldn't do anything to affect it, how would you react? How would you reeact further if others started to harrass you about it? For being accepting to the idea or for being with someone who enjoys that? What would you do? Would you say 'OH WE ARE OVER YOU SICK FUCK', or would you feel like shit because your loved one was just taken away from you and you can't do jack shit about it? Why don't you run those through your head before you comment on something and make other peoples lives worse.
Interesting email, now we know ferronarrumekan is in support of zoophilia.
Ferronarrumekan need not go to any furmeets, he's now labelled as a zoophile. I wouldn't let him around me or my animals, I'm sure other furries will treat him the same way.
Then don't let him around you, why don't YOU stay away from him and leave everyone else alone, last thing I want is a fucking riot of furs between zoo's and non-zoo's which is bound to happen if you try to fucking pretend that zoo's don't exist in the fandom, and then try to throw them out, which has already happened to xanth, they shut down his FA account.
FurAffinity doesn't tolerate those who rape animals. He doesn't deserve an account at FurAffinity.
Zoophiles are a small percentage of the fandom. People like buying Bad Dragon dildos, but that's how far they'd go. Most furs would not rape animals for their own sexual gratification.
Xanth will be labelled as a sexual predator in the national database, he'll have trouble finding work, he'll have trouble obtaining credit, he'll have trouble finding a place to rent.
He deserves to rot in hell for what he did, taking advantage of an animal living under him.
I find it funny that you demand that she was raped, yet you were not there, you did not see the videos, and you did not even know of him until it came out on the news? You must be one of those people who trust everything they hear from the media, you believe she was raped and abused because that's what the news said, yet you yourself have no idea what actually happened. I myself in fact do know what happened, because hes been my friend for three years and it just so happens that his mate has been my best friend for the same amount of time, you look at this with a biased mind, therefore you cannot understand, and if this disgusts you, leave, no one is keeping you here.
You leave, dogfucker.
Us fans of Robin Hood were here first. Find your own fandom, and stop trying to make dogfucking acceptable in this one.
I'm sick and tired of people expecting us to accept unacceptable things. Furry doesn't need to be about everything. We don't need to accept all of it. If we didn't have to deal with you people trying to make dogfuckery part of this fandom, we wouldn't have to worry about sites like this having stories like this.
"Tolerant is often mistaken for accepting."
-Samuel "Uncle Kage" Conway, at Anthrocon 2011's "Furries in the Media" panel.
I do not approve of someone having sex with a dog. Not in any way. However, I feel no need to refuse to talk to them because of it.
Please, at the least, don't talk about that if you do it ~ and if you don't, try not to think about it.
Do that, and we can all have a good time.
I think if you asked Kage what he thinks of zoophilia, he'd tell you to shoot yourself in the face a lot.
After all, this is a guy who banned Bad Dragon for life from selling at AC.
Fucking mythical creatures is a crime against nature!
Um..Bad Dragon wasn't banned for life from selling at AC. You can even check with the forums on that. Bad Dragon was told certain functional material is not permissable, but everything else was allowable. Bad Dragon OPTED not to sell at Anthrocon. Just another example of ill informed rumormongers at work.
Well it's not that much a stretch I've certainly heard worse from the fandom. Seeings as Bad Dragon's entire business model is selling dildos, since they can't sell that the business as it is is banned. Sure they can sell art, but then that's no longer "Bad Dragon", that's the artist that happens to work for Bad Dragon.
I mean lets say that Pittsburg said. "Well we no longer allow furries in our city." People would interpret that as Anthrocon being banned from Pittsburg, then a Pittsburg politican says "Oh no, Anthrocon can come to Pittsburg, they just can't be a convention for furries."
It's semantics.
An example of worse exaggeration? 2 the Ranting Gryphon on his "news" segement made the claim that IK was banned from anthrocon because he carried a gun AT Anthrocon. Not because he was detained at an airport on his way there, but because he had a gun AT the conversion. I wasn't aware they considered the airport part of the convention now.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3572440/
No apologies when confronted on this, just his normal ducking and weaving distraction and claiming "Oh look at dramas." then letting his fanbase do the lying for him.
To be fair, sex toys have generally been banned from the Anthrocon dealers den - and although that effectively means that Bad Dragon no longer has a business case there, the wording was chosen this way to make sure that it's understood that it's not aimed against this particular company or the people running it.
Who else was selling dildos at AC?
The thing is Bad Dragon is the best known one. Going back to my analogy, people would be most upset about Anthrocon being effectively banned, so that would be the first thing in people's minds. Yes, it'd also have the impact on Pittsburg fur meets. However, the only people that would be a concern of is the locals. I can't think of any others that were selling dildos at AC at this moment in time. Probably means they were being too good at being discreet.
Even then when the counter to "Bad Dragon was banned" is "Bad Dragon wasn't the only one effected/banned" in discreet mathematics that's called a subset. If Bad Dragon as a business model was banned and effectively so were others it does not make the statement that the Bad Dragon as a business was banned false.
I'm sure you'd treat your pedophile neighbour the very same way, huh?
The Penn State scandal happened due to attitudes like this, dude. Rape is rape, you do NOT "tolerate" so we can "all have a good time".
Get out you faggot.
You think that because a dog doesn't speak, it's consent?
The dog has no ability to say no. Therefore, it's rape.
Go kill yourself.
How often do you get verbal consent when you have human sex? I don't know about you but I don't verbally ask, I ask physically... responses are physical too aren't they? A light caress goes a long way, and when your mate turns their tailhole to you or whatever you want to call it yiffing ensues. But I suppose your more concerned with expressing your insecurities and hatred to do any real thinking.
So you're going with the "They were asking for it!" reasoning of consent.
And yes, I do get verbal consent when I have sex with my partner. Most sane people do get some form of verbal consent.
Much communication can be done non-verbally, there are few who are stupid enough not to understand. *shrugs*
Go and die yourself you small minded shit littered piece of low life human trash. A brain that big and yet so fucking stone age in comprehending zoophilia and producing nothing but meaningless banter, you sad excuse for something that calls itself self aware and intelligent. Ooga booga!
"He deserves to rot in hell for what he did, taking advantage of an animal living under him."
@.@ Yeah right, just like everyone else, supporting factory farming by eating meat, that's being produced that way. You're great, in being ignorant and arrogant.
Such unmitigated and unfathomable hatred from a Christian. You have no right to cast such judgement upon others. Obviously your moral compass is completely broken. Sex with animals is not equivalent to rape. One's defense of an act is not equivalent to engaging in it.
First you believe in an imaginary supreme being. Then you imagine such a being has given you the right to cast judgement upon others for a made up moral system. Then you imagine those who defend against your imaginary indignation are guilty of the same made up crime.
Yes, you are truly insane, completely consumed by your hatred. Are you sure you're not just projecting your own frustrations at how you've been misunderstood by those within and outside the furry community?
Leave your righteous bullshit dogma at home and leave these guys alone.
So people argue that posting such news here is of service to the community and a net gain.
Is there any service or gain by the near never ending discussion such articles always produce? Other than giving a place for people to vent, or to preach to the choir, or to give false hopes someone might actually convince the other side of something, what positive things are accomplished by comments on stories like this?
Maybe a compromise between those seeking to spread awareness and those that think this spreads negative publicity, would be to post such stories but disable commenting. Corrections and updates can still be submitted by other means. And it won't look like 90% of the interest/popularity of this site is discussing bestiality.
Personally, I learnt certain useful details of the law in Louisiana and Germany, and of the opinions of certain people.
My concern is that Flayrah remains a venue for the open exchange of opinions on the topics of the day.
I am not interested in how we look as a result, nor in how such discussions might make the fandom look bad. I've seen far too many decisions made on that basis in recent years, and I am not happy about any of them.
The sad fact is, Anon, 90% of this site IS talking about beastiality or cub, because those two elements have very loud factions in them that think we should all accept it in this wide open fandom. So, whenever a story comes out like this, you get people like Z up there talking about this dog as if she were a human girlfriend.. you get people like IK who talk about these people like they're pure evil, and you get the fandom wondering why the hell this is germane . The truth is, there's a war on, to determine whether furry is or is not about dog and cubfucking.
And that's where we are.
Personally, I like furry with the kinks, but without the kinks being mandatory. You know, like everything else. You know the guys you work with are into kinks.. but it's not your business, and it doesn't come up, and it SHOULDN'T.
I think furry would be much better off that way too. Not oppressed or repressed, but with a modicum of respect for people who just might not be into the hyper dog cub impregnation sissy rubber play.
If people think there's a war to determine whether furry is about cub or bestiality then they are misreading the thing. Neither of those are necessary for furry, they are just things that either fall under it or are related. Their actually separate topics.
"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~
Then why, in all these threads, am I constantly seeing people like you and Z defending the actions of people as though their actions are furry and thus should be accepted?
I've seen Z down there referring to this as a religion.. that it's part of furry and we need to accept them and it as appropriate behavior.
Why do I need to accept it as appropriate behavior? You can not convince me that there is consent. I've never heard a SINGLE case of a SINGLE zoophile EVER telling me that their animal did NOT consent. There's never been a single time in the history of this movement that an animal has said "no."
It's always, "Well, they said yes by their actions." But how do you know if they say no? And if you can't distinguish the difference, really, you can't get informed consent.
I'm not defending it because it has anything to do with furry. I'm defending it because I think the prohibitions against it are misguided and do not provide sufficient evidence to support them.
If I can't possibly convince you that there is consent then you've completely closed your mind to the possibility and any discussion would be a waste of time. I'll assume you didn't mean that as it was said though and I'll continue.
You might not have heard them saying their animal didn't consent but that's anecdotal and I've not really got anything to compare or judge it with. However there are times that animals resist (which would be when they say no). They are perfectly capable of doing this with claws or teeth or superior strength. For example no one has ever been unclear when their dog has refused to take a bath or their cat has refused a tablet, the latter of which can result in some quite painful injuries for the human. It's easy to distinguish between an animal accepting an action, or even going along with it (which would of course be the ideal as there's no grey area then) and an animal resisting.
An obvious example of an animal saying no would be in the Incwala ceremony where the king of Swaziland has ritual sex with a bull, where the bull is both drugged and held down. Surely you can see the difference between such use of force to accomplish the act and having sex with an unrestrained, undrugged dog that makes no attempt to escape or fight back and retains affection for the person.
"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 convince me there is consent if you can point out ONE relationship between a man and his dog amongst the thousands of zoophiles in Furry where the man said "Well, we were going to be mates, but he/she didn't want to be my mate." Find me ONE dog owning zoophile where it turned out that way. Or find me one where they were mates, but they broke up and the dog moved out to find another mate.
If you can show me situations where a dog ended a relationship COMPLETELY.. then I'll buy that the dog has the power to consent or remove consent.
But you can't, because short of the police coming in and taking the dog by force, animals do not have the ability to end these relationships. Only the humans do.. and if the animal does not have the ability to end the relationship, then there is no way consent can exist.
"If you can show me situations where a dog ended a relationship COMPLETELY.. then I'll buy that the dog has the power to consent or remove consent."
Careful, here you lowered the barrier too far, and now you have allowed the power of consent to exist in a one-off encounter with a stray dog. Sold!
I'm not talking about being mates, I'm talking about individual sexual encounters. I imagine there are cases where someone tried to have sex with the animal, it refused and they didn't press the issue further but I can't give you examples. Both because I don't know every person's private life and because that would be private information which I wouldn't be permitted to disclose even if I knew it.
As for dogs ending a relationship we can expand that to non-sexual relationships as well. You seem to ignore whether a dog consents to an owner/pet relationship and whether buying a dog is forcing them into something that they might not want. That aside though, there are many cases of animals, both abused and apparently not abused that have run away from home, thereby ending the relationship completely. In fact them running away is a big reason behind fences, leashes, microchips and the like.
"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~
That's a nice trick, because the way you set up your argument, the counter-argument would require the opponent to expose his own friends as zoophiles :) So you know you're not getting any answers - what a nice rhetorical trick to further your agenda.
But as a matter of fact, I know at least three zoophile men in my circle of acquaintences who own female dogs, and do not have sex with them, because their dogs simply aren't interested. So they just live a happy, regular, asexual alpha-beta relationship with their canine girlfriend, like every other good dog owner on the planet. The only difference is that their dog gets a lot more cuddles.
And as much as I'd love to post their names and phone numbers so everyone could go and check them out ... can't do you that favour, I'm sorry :)
Yeah, I agree that police are animals too.
I just wish people were as willing to put them down as they are 'damaged' animals.
>>Or find me one where they were mates, but they broke up and the dog moved out to find another mate.
Also this is totally my new favourite sitcom. Timmy finally grows up and gets married to the only one who can understand him, but then she grows distant and he finds she's been cheating on him with a shetland pony.
Animals do have a give up mechanism. If they think they can't fight they dont. YOu know some rape victims don't fight back because they know the other person is stronger. Its rape period. Not acceptable.
So, essentially you say, if you are dominant enough, you can achieve permanent submission both in dogs and humans. Well, even if that were the case,I think we all agree that uncondicional surrender is not a general prerequesite for sex.
So you'd have to present some actual evidence that the accused person in this case has taken actions to completely break any kind of free will in his dog up to the point she's willing to take pain from him without showing ANY kind of visible reaction.
Of course we all know you just want to troll everyone on the pro side in this discussion into as much emotional rage as you can, cause that's what gives YOU a boner, but you know there are some people who realize the world isn't flat just because some idiot on the internet told them so.
I wish there was a way to rate comments a 10, because this one right here deserves it. Bugger every one of you dogfuckers for rating it down.
+ Banrai
FurAffinity
A dog can say no and demonstrate it physically or aurally. In that case, you move on and let it be. It is what it is. Z is not and will never be a religion, though I think in some cases maybe druidic practices or some sects of some religions might hold animal copulation to be in high regard, I don't know, I'd have to do some checking. The answer as to how one can tell they say no is completely dependent on body language and aural signals like growling.
The quality of relationship between dog and owner in this case is almost completely unknown outside the fact that he 'had sex with his dog'
'Having sex' and 'rape' carry a common factor, but people would almost uniformly agree that they are two entirely different acts.
The point i'm trying to get across to everyone, even if you don't want to listen to it is that, I have seen the videos, and I have known him for 3 years, and what I say is from fact, not just because hes my friend. Number one, he honestly did love her, more then anyone here can understand. Two, one of his friends wanted to watch him be with his mate, so he turned on his camera for that ONE person, turns out that person was recording, then put it online for himself, that is how the videos got online. Number Three, she was not abused at all, he treated her amazing, brushed and bathed regularly, took her for walks, fed her right, she was VERY well cared for. Just realize, this is tearing everyone who knows him up, we want him out of jail, and we want annika to go back to who rightfully owns and loves her. There are far worse people out there, if you want someone to hate look at this: http://animalconnectionblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/vucko-dog-face-blown-off-with.html <-- that is who we should be hating, not Xanth, because he truly does love her, I know this for FACT.
You will get your friend back. He'll likely have to plead out to some menial charge.
He won't get the dog back. She's gone, forget about her, that ship has sailed. And, he won't be likely allowed to ever have a dog again.
He's allowed to own another animal, just not in the state of LA, and yes, we will get him back, they can't just keep him there without a trial.
They can keep him in jail until trial, which can be months. He has the option to pay bail.
Yeah.... we're working on the bail part right now...
Tell your dumbfuck dogfucker friend that not fucking dogs is highly likely to be one of the bail conditions!
You need to wash your mouth out with dogcum for an idiotic insensitive comment like that.
Awww, have I hurt the widdle dogfucker's feelings?
At least I don't need to wash my dick -- not having stuck it in any dumb animals' orifices.
Ahh okay, good to know you'd gladly accept a mouthful of dogcum... you're on the right path :P
11K is a pretty penny, but worth every one in this case.
You're so stupid you probably handed over money to Allan and Kavi as well, plus white-knighted for them to boot.
Regardless of any moral reasons (of which I can think of many but won't include them in this point)...
He broke the law.
I love my dog. If I was a dog too, then we would totally do it all the time. I am not a dog, it is against the law, and I care for her (clarification just in case: my dog) enough that I wouldn't do that to her anyway. Happy?
Why is it that zoophiles all sound like nambla members when they defend themselves? Also why do they always rape huskies? Poor huskies.
Unfortunately for you there is a stark contrast between adult huskies and young humans, it can't be helped if you can't understand the concept. Poor humans.
Unfortunately for you there is a stark similarity between adult huskies and young humans, it can't be helped if you can't understand the concept. Poor furfags.
Sexually-
Adult dogs reproduce - Children cannot
Adult dogs have all they need to know for sex by 2ish - Children have all they need to know for sex by 18ish
Beyond Sex -
Dogs have all they need intellectually to behave as a dog in a dogs world by 2 (they can act on behalf of drug and law enforcement, assisted living, rescue work, hunting and herding among other things.
Children will have all they need in an adult world by 18 (or should depending on the society)
Similarities? Dependency and power exchange are similar (in many but not all cases) and both are (in many cases but not all cases) illegal to have sex with.
I realize clever paraphrasing is a debate tactic but clearly you've not thought things through... so in the end, not so clever.
I have adult female friends who cannot reproduce. Does that mean they're the same as children? Gay couples don't reproduce. What about them? The entire reproduction argument is stupid and invalid.
It takes till 18 to have what you need to know about sex as a human? Really? What about in countries where people marry off and have kids at 13? Hell, I was in a sexual relationship at 15. Also, Google the story of Davidito and when you're done vomiting, re-read the ages at which the children there had sexual acts because the adults thought that was "natural". Also check what happened in the aftermath.
Children can live in their own well before 18 and they do in many societies.
Your arguments are all bizarre, irrelevant and unrelated to the fact that a dog is a creature pre-disposed to please their human and unable to give consent.
You make several errors here, when we talk about large groups and generalities often specific examples are glossed over. Is your female friend a species? are gay people themselves a species? Nope... It's semantics yes, but it is a simple flaw in your thinking.
Your point about the age of consent is well taken. But consider that these differences are historical and cultural. Can you imagine a time when 30 was considered to be old age? I think part of what makes child sexual abuse so very terrible is the relationship that child has with other people culturally and socially later in life will be fucked up forever... not to mention the interruption of normal childhood sexual development (a field by the way which is well studied and understood - take a look a Freud for a start.) To carry the point further, relationships between adults and even sexual roles and coupling will be different in different cultures making for differences in laws and in this case the legal defined age of consent.
For those of you guys complaining about a furry news site running, you know, a fucking news story, you might want to try Vivisector.org.
Seriously, they have a six post thread, and five of the posts are actually just more bitching about FurAffinity.
Really kind of weird.
Actually, I think that is exactly what people are complaining about, a furry news site running a fucking news story. They are usually ok with news story part, but want less fucking.
Oh, fuck off.
How about you go back to your furfag site?
Dude, this is my furfag site.
I mean, it's not mine, it's Green Reaper's, but it's the furfag site I hang out at.
Exactly, they want "fuck off" instead of "fuck on."
Okay, I think I get you now.
Also, also, Vivisector, you're defending yourself? Really? I mean, seriously, you have an entire board dedicated to bitching about FA. If you don't want to talk about a dogfucker dogfucking, great, but you know, really, how many times can you say FurAffinity sucks? FurAffinity sucks, never mind Dragoneer. It's an artsite with 75% technically crap art with an overlapping 75% percent morally indefensible crap art. And you're bitching about coding and administration?
I mean, I guess we're both right; dogfuckers suck, FurAffinity sucks. Using what's probably gonna hit 300 posts on Flayrah to say one, and an entire board on Vivisector to say the other is a bit overkill.
I've noticed at least once every six months there seems to be an arrest made of a furry who practices such acts. Now, of course that does not necessarily imply that "if you are a fur you are more likely to go into practicing zoophilia" as much as it could imply "if you are a zoophile you are more likely to go into the furry fandom". If it is the later though there is something important that zoophiles have to ask themselves: what is the frequency of arrests made to zoophiles and how does joining the furry fandom effect those chances?
My theory is the furry fandom gives a false sense of security to practicing zoophiles when in effect it is probably the most dangerous group to join. People love animals in this fandom, and most still do so in the way generally accepted by society. They tend to have pets who yes, they treat as family members. However, if you were to ask people in general what their family relationship is with their pet you would probably recieve: "They are like a son/daughter to me." AKA they are a child. Some might see them as a brother/sister. Only a zoophile would see them as a significant other.
Which is why if you are part of a group that loves animals in the way furry does, you're MORE likely to be turned in if you are found having sexual relations with those animals. Think about it. Why was this person turned in? It wasn't the zoophiles who viewed the flick on the web. It was probably his furry friend showed it to their furry friend, who then showed it to their furry friend who's into "feral" but opposed to IRL actions of zoophilia, who showed it in disgust to their friend who turned it into the cops.
What I'm trying to say is that, despite you thinking and our fandom is advertised as "tolerant" we are a large group of people who have different standards. One should not share with a stranger who is a furry what they wouldn't share with a stranger who is not.
As the fandom grows larger and more open to the general public my advise to zoophiles would to run, not walk away from the furry fandom. It's best not to give oneself a false sense of security in a group that is growing more mainstream that your behaviors would be tolerated as they would in a zoophile site.
But, but, didn't you read what Ferronarrumekan said -- enjoying 'Robin Hood' is no different to sticking your dick up Rover's arse! We're all one big happy fucking family!
I hope zoophiles masquerading as furries *do* get lulled into a false sense of security -- it'll make it easier for the rest of us to identity and report them.
Actually, let me just cut-and-paste one of the many comments above, because it's worth repeating:
"You leave, dogfucker.
Us fans of Robin Hood were here first. Find your own fandom, and stop trying to make dogfucking acceptable in this one.
I'm sick and tired of people expecting us to accept unacceptable things. Furry doesn't need to be about everything. We don't need to accept all of it. If we didn't have to deal with you people trying to make dogfuckery part of this fandom, we wouldn't have to worry about sites like this having stories like this."
You speak for one person, yourself. You don't speak for the fandom.
Sure, and you dogfuckers do, I suppose?
I honestly have no idea what your point is, you think by saying all this it's going to change us? No, its just you being a troll, this is a totally pointless conversation, no one is changing anyone's mind, its over, lets drop this petty bickering and move on, hes arrested, and hes going to get out, deal with it, you hate zoo's and yet we don't even hate you, we just wish for an understanding, if you don't accept what we do, then leave, go away, don't respond back, we didn't post this story, you guys did.
You just don't listen.
We don't want to accept you. We don't have to accept you. Quite honestly, why should furry have to accept every kink that comes down the path? Just because you identify as a furry doesn't mean people should be forced to accept what you do. Why don't you figure it out? WE DO NOT ACCEPT DOGFUCKING AS A CORE TENANT OF OUR FANDOM.
We do not, we will not, and this whole "just accept us as we are" bullshit is about as self-centered as you can get.
You are free to have whatever kinks you like. BUT, we are free to reject them. See? Was that hard?
And i just want to mention something to everyone, just so you get a little bit of understanding about me. I was a fur before i was zoo, its something i grew into because I felt it fit me and my religion, I am therian, therefore something like being a zoophilic just comes naturally. And something to think about, Do you still feel the same way when you see the animal fucking the human? I.E male horse or male dog?
There is no changing of minds, there is no explanation that will satisfy their lust for hate, there is no logic to confront their ill conceived notions of what animals are or are not capable of, there is no breech of their prejudice and condemnation, they've all ready made up their minds. They will cling to their zealous moral system without thought, without care for who they hurt in the interim, content that their religious dogma or gut reaction is right, is always right. Best to ignore such foolishness, protect yourself, protect those you love, protect your anonymity and do what they are incapable of: live and let live.
Beautiful.
Justifying abuse of animals. Good job.
Of course, if you're unable to justify your calling it "abuse" outright, and refuse to address points of logic, then what are you left with... but irrational hatred.
Wait - your religion is to fuck dogs?
....And Hitler chose to go after the Jews?
+ Banrai
FurAffinity
You refuse to accept logic, I just told you my religion is therianism, and now anything you say from here on is just going to be read as random hate spam, your fight is over, your logic is crushed, and nice try, you can't even hope to relate Hitler to zoo's, completely dumb.
Haha, whatever. You put your penis in dogs. Everything that you say literally is worthless because of that fact.
Literally.
So 'nice try' I guess. And, as I said below, you completely missed the point of what I said in the post above as well. Your logic is ignorant, just as you, yourself are.
+ Banrai
FurAffinity
It's a well-documented historical fact that Hitler was very fond of his dogs.
But even *Hitler* drew the line at fucking them.
Just sayin' :-)
So your saying we're worse then Hitler because he was not zoo? really?
LOLZ no, of course not you silly dogfucker.
I'll just settle for calling you a sick fuck whose friend is a stupid fucking cunt. (And if that wasn't bad enough, he looks more than a little like Crusader Cat, too -- must be some backwoods, white-trash-furry beastiality gene.)
Concluding advice for dogfuckers:
-- Don't fuck dogs.
-- If you do fuck dogs, don't video yourself fucking them.
-- If you do video yourself fucking them, don't film it in such a way that your identity is obvious.
-- If you do film yourself fucking dogs in such a way that your identity is obvious, don't post it online.
-- If you do film yourself fucking dogs in such a way that your identity is obvious, and post it online, DON'T LIVE IN A STATE WHERE FUCKING DOGS IS ILLEGAL.
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
It is legal, its why they charged him with crimes against nature, because there is actually no law against it, and guess what crimes against nature covers. Crime against nature is a legal term used in published cases in the United States since 1814[1] and normally defined as a form of sexual behavior that is not considered natural and is seen as a punishable offense in dozens of countries and several U.S. states. Sexual practices that have historically been considered to be crimes against nature include homosexual acts, anal sex, bestiality, and necrophilia. Other less common examples include fellatio, and cunnilingus. The term is sometimes also seen as a synonym for sodomy or buggery. Yeah that's right, you saw that right, Fellatio is illegal.
They call it "Crimes against Nature" because you can't say "The asshole fucked his dog" in polite company.
+ Banrai
FurAffinity
Did you hear that zoom sound?
It was the point. Wooshing right over your silly, empty little head.
+ Banrai
FurAffinity
Would you still say its wrong and put up this much of a fight if the person was receiving from an animal, as in male dog on a woman or man? If you want to bitch about something, go on zoo websites of countless women being fucked by dogs and horses, yell at the THOUSANDS of them, what we do is based on a religion and love, it is not beastiality, it is not abuse, we show them more love then anyone else in this world.
Even if its not Beastiality, it is still unnatural.
Dogs having sex with other dogs is natural. Humans having sex with other humans is natural. A guy molesting his dog is NOT natural, it is legally and morally wrong.
Dogs do not view their masters as significant others, they view them as the pack leader.
Zoophiles claiming that animals and humans can love each other romantically is just as stupid as NAMBLA members saying men and boys can love each other romantically. I say we treat Xanth like a child molestor and put him on Megans Law.
It is as much of a mistake to force the requirement of Informed Consent on a dog as it is to say they are capable of higher emotions. In both cases.... anthropomorphism... in your case you can't have your cake and eat it too... which is it? Are you going to anthropomorphize them by saying they /like children/ can't exhibit informed consent? or are you going to argue that dogfuckers can't possibly anthropomorphize dogs by imagining the dog romantically loves them? In both cases the anthropomorphism is wrong. Children cannot reproduce... dogs can... Children will grow up to be humans and will be expected to behave as humans in human society, a dog is a dog and will never be expected to be a human in human society. You cheapen child sexual abuse by equating it so, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding as to why it is so especially heinous.
Yes, absolutely I would say that it is still wrong, immoral and absolutely sickening. And, to set the record straight, I am female.
Please, point me to these websites. I'd love to shoot a note to the FBI. <3
+ Banrai
FurAffinity
Well, don't worry too much. They got lots of info off Blake's computer, I suspect, and more charges are pending. I wouldn't be surprised if Zevian here shows up in a few photos or chats with our boy the rapist.
That's most excellent to hear. Punishment where punishment is deserved.
If only they could track the blind defense he's spewed here to him, that would be a beautiful and quite poetic justice indeed.
Though I don't think GreenReaper would be much too happy if Flayrah had it's logs subopena'd - but I reckon even if Zevian went on a comment deleting spree if such happened there would still be plenty of records around - I know I still have all the ones emailed to me still sitting in my inbox. What a fun litigation that would be! -.-
+ Banrai
FurAffinity
Regardless of my position on this little overdone debate here, I really must say, banrai, that this is the last thing the community needs. May as well say grab our torches and pitchforks and lynch us some zoophiles.
Sure that may sound quite entertaining and fun, judging by your obvious positioning in this story, but sit and think of the lovely little butterfly effect this would ensue, making a mountain out of a molehill. No doubt this would be one more nail in the coffin, putting the fandoms front to the media to rest.
I mean we're no different in reality to your average everyday person as furries, but the media and other organizations like to justify this as otherwise as often as they're handed the chance. I don't know if you're a fursuiter or not, but I am, and I quite enjoy being able to brighten a kid's day by taking it upon myself to suit up, drop over to the park with my friends and bring great joy their fantastical and innocent outlook in life without having their mother call the cops on me for possibly being some kind of weirdo freak dog molester/probable pedo.
I must say, anon that is too shy to give his name but still feels the need to try to feel superior by addressing me by mine, that I think you misunderstood the meaning of my comment.
That being said, honestly I think that if it WERE to come out in the media, it would actually be a pretty damn good thing for the fandom. If people saw that us - the normal, well-adjusted people in the furry fandom shunned and rejected these sexual deviants and stood the fuck up and booted them in the asses, maybe it'd make a damn difference.
Really, though, you're probably right. I just hate dogfuckers. A lot. And these assholes piss me right the fuck off.
+ Banrai
FurAffinity
Since we're going to start assuming how the other person thinks, Banrai, while being an aggressive cunt needlessly in the process, Banrai, I suppose I can lay a few things out, save the last bit... mostly, Banrai. I'm not here to be condescending to you Banrai, but if you label me as that, Banrai, may as well go on and do so.
Really though. Lets not be children. The main purpose of me addressing you directly was to clarify my messages intended recipient. I never initially intended to address you provokingly in any way. However, I took it upon myself to treat this like a third grade argument, as the direction it was headed in with the above paragraph. As for the reason I remain anonymous, I have no actual account on here, and honestly, I have no placement or siding in the main subject of this little debate and don't feel it needed to have my name shown. It matters little, and I could give less a damn who you are, as you should me. I am glad to see you feel you're proud to display yourself and your position so willingly against such great odds. I mean, there are simply hordes of people apposed to this mans fate and whatnot here clearly.
Yeah, right. Seriously, I don't really care about this topic anymore, I'm caring more about the impact of what this topic might have, or topics in the future that might be in the hands of the media. Every little thing they can pull out of us when brought to limelight, they like to blow way out of proportion. I mean, look at history. Look at how often the media has taken the time to properly portray our fandom. I can't think of too many really, and I'm sure not many others can either. We're an easy group to sensationalize, and that's that.
I just wish something profoundly awesome would happen that was newsworthy and had something to do with the fandom would happen, just so we can finally have a few of those old exaggerated stains removed from our track record. I'll try not to hold my breath too much to that one, though.
ok :)
+ Banrai
FurAffinity
I already have my rope and tackle! Girls just look more beautiful when their necks are as long as Geoffrey's!
GREAT! I would be more then happy to talk to the police, they can arrest me for standing up for my friends, because god knows that's wrong.
I'm not really being an ass in saying this in any way, Zevian, and with that said, I must ask: Why do you continue to allow these people who disagree with your lifestyle and your friend's choices in life have such a smashingly fun time trying to find the most snide and intellectual ways, with very little evidence backing it up on their part, to berate and put you down as much as they can?
It's really hard, alas generally impossible to sway the opinions of others in terms of such great controversy. I really cannot understand why you allow yourself to endure this brutality when you have the option to turn away from it and try to move on. You can at least do that here quite easily, as this is the lovely internet.
I may not fully agree with some of the schools of thought you have (though I am understanding enough to know that the question of morality in this case has no solid intelligent and logical basis to fall on other than "it's simply just not right" which is bullshit), but I also can't stand reading this witch hunt. It sickens me to see people blow up with bloodlust the moment something society conveniently deems as taboo, simply because it was said it was to be in some meaningless old texts that rule our lives to this day, despite the so-called separation of church and state. I believe what goes on the bedroom should stay there, so long as no one is being physically, emotionally, or mentally broken in some way, and the government and furthermore, the public, should not give a damn as long as it's not rubbed in their face.
I sympathize with you dear. I really do... I highly suggest walking away from this and trying to move on with your life as best you can and focusing on what you can do, rather than what you can't, and what you can't do is accomplish anything here with anyone other than receive hateful rapport from the majority of the posters, or dim words of encouragement from others. I truly hope you find peace soon in all this drama.
I really wish that people would stop berating peoples' various religions (bla bla insert 50+ comments of religious debate), when in reality the problem has less to do with the book itself/separation of church and state than it does with people taking it and looking towards people with only the judgement-goggles of the Old Testament (or Old Law, Torah, etc.) and forgetting (or rejecting) the idea that Christ was sent to actually give people a chance to live imperfect lives and still be able to go to Heaven (or for some people, at the very least, not get stoned to death).
The original purpose of separation of church and state was to keep the state from creating their own religion that the rest of the people had to follow (and yes, the opposite has been claimed true also). That being said, regardless of belief, the Bible (or whatever original holy book you may care to read) has at least a few good principles for civil living. Take these away and you have a city of Sodom and Gomorrah (from which we get the word sodomy) with rape in the streets, incest, naught but drunkenness, and murder as soon as you're done with someone.
That is why laws exist (well, y'know, aside from Hammurabi), and why they happen to be pulled from the Bible.
…I'm not sure why I typed up that last bit, but I suppose it was to people talking about 'horrible Conservative leaders.'
That being said, cases of sodomy have been turned over (and legalized) before today e.g. Lawrence v. Texas overturning Bowers v. Hardwick. Maybe tomorrow it will be zoophilia.
For the record, I am slightly more conservative than I am liberal (primarily on my views of abortion and drug legalization, but whatever). Just saying this to give you an idea of where I'm coming from.
"That being said, cases of sodomy have been turned over (and legalized) before today e.g. Lawrence v. Texas overturning Bowers v. Hardwick. Maybe tomorrow it will be zoophilia."
Pretty much my feelings on it all. I feel it's a matter of time, and I don't necessarily feel it's a bad thing, so long as the old saying "as long what goes on in the bedroom stays in the bedroom" with a little addendum I personally would like to add: "and as long as it's not harmful in any physical, mental or psychological way" I feel it's fine.
I mean, sure it's unnatural, hell I'd not do it, but what's the real big deal, morals and opinions aside? I'd like to know in full logic, lacking opinion, why it's so bad.
It's like people trying to argue homosexuality is a terrible thing, a crime against nature and god, and all sorts of done to death rubbish. Problem is, people read between the lines too hard, and the majority, even the fairly open minded ones, are drilled with the thought that zoophilia is totally fucked up. I think it's a bit strange, but what actual harm does it do as long as the creature is being treated with care and love? If people are using animals as sexdolls and being total asses about it, they're jerks, just like jerks that do the same with their wives or husbands or whatever. But it's no ones business but their own, so long as NOTHING HARMFULL TO EITHER PARTIES IS OCCURING. Simple.
I mean, I might have incorrect perceptions, but I try to look at every angle, and I don't see what the big deal is. I'm gay myself, so I come from a side of society that can understand and empathize with others that are well... In a sense taboo without reasonable cause.
But yeah, like you said, I think it's a matter of time til people get over things like this. I feel bad for the guy and can't help but think what if I was openly gay as I am now a century and a half ago and had paintings made of my escapades found by the government. Next thing I'm thrown in jail for crimes against nature and sodomy, and whatever else they may have had back then. That would suck to say the least.
Alas the law is more draconian than it should be, in need of revisions desperately. I mean in some states, getting a blow job or having anal sex with a member of the opposite sex is technically illegal, not to mention the legal issues with homosexual activities. They're mostly ignored though now, though still oddly enough in place. Ultimately, the world needs to grow up a little more, namely the US law system and it's handling of "taboo" subject matter with such stigma.
When will logic overcome opinion over such matters?
Take religion away and you will have to think for yourself and come to an understanding of right and wrong on your own *gasp* do you think yourself so incapable that you have to rely on something else for your thinking?
I would normally not feed the trolls at this point, but I would like to point out that it's because of my free will and thinking that I choose a religion. If it didn't work for me then I probably wouldn't be following it.
For other trolls, I will not respond to this comment thread any further. These are my opinions and reasons. Deal with it. —u-u <-- crappy sunglasses
I fail to see how they are being a troll by defending themselves from your attack. You claimed the reason humans have any moral code, ethics or law are because of an ancient greek text. Kind of odd how all the civilizations largely separated from there teachings didn't turn out to be roaming bands of psychopaths.
Your argument actually points out something fairly disturbing about your own psychy. Are you saying without jesus, the bible and or christianity's teachings you would have no morals? The only thing holding you back is a book? Someone should lock you up. What if some day you decide to stop believing. You could become a serial killer.
Attacking? I was defending. All that I said was that I wished that people would stop berating people's religions. I am Christian myself. As far as origin of laws, I included that bit because I knew that someone would would say something if I didn't. I would most certainly have morals, just not as many.
Your claim that the poster or anyone agnostic, atheist, or otherwise would be somehow less ethical or, have lower personal morals based upon there beliefs is an attack and an insult. You can't claim religious superiority and simultaneously play the victim card, it doesn't' work that way. Well, I guess you can, but you don't come out looking too intelligent, instead you come out looking bigoted.
I don't have a problem with Christians or any religion per se , as long as they don't tell others they're inferior for having a separate belief. However, you are saying that the poster and anyone who believes differently from you is inherently inferior to you morally.
You are going to be given very little credence for your responses for several reasons.
People here are not concerned what the context of bestiality is.
Your statement that you believe your actions are based on religion are simply not accepted by the majority, just as they do not accept that virgin sacrifice is a part of appropriate religious activity, nor the marriage of 13 year olds to 50 year old men. Whether you like it or not, you live in a HUMAN world, filled with HUMAN laws and constructs. And these laws are what you are required to abide by. It has nothing to do with prudishness nor any type of discrimination. It has everything to do with a fundamental belief that any being, whether a human child not yet of a certain age, or an animal which does not have the ability to explain what is bothering it, should not be used as the focus of sexual activity...regardless of your own personal feelings. If the dog had an ability to say "Not tonight, I have a headache." or "I don't want to, you smell bad." or "I love you like a brother, not like a lover."...then people might have a differing view. But the truth is, these animals don't have that ability, just as they don't have an ability to say "it hurts to breathe" or "it's not my stomach, but my chest that hurts". Since they can't speak for themselves, and can be "trained" to like certain sexual acts, the world deems sexual activity with animals as fundamentally wrong. Until the dog has an ability to write, speak, use sign language, or otherwise communicate in a language that a court of law can understand with unequivocal clarity, the society you live in will continue to deem this act wrong. Simply saying "This is my religion" is quite honestly...not enough at this point.
damn you for beating me to the punchline. But you didn't research far enough!
Animal pornography is governed in the United States by the same Miller test and obscenity laws as any other form of pornography. In many countries such as Canada, Hungary and the Netherlands, such material is legal, although in some countries where zoophilia acts are legal, zoophilia pornography is not (Belgium, Germany, Russia).
He simply refused to let our proud Aryan bitches be reduced to filthy fap fodder for Finnish fops!
Hitler loved dogs you know. Maybe Blondie was the one who told him to do that!
Therianthropy is not a god damn religion, go read a definition and stop making up your own.
Therianthropy is not a religion, it does not sanction dog fucking, YOU have a fetish for screwing animals, now stop trying to rationalise or excuse it.
Wiki is a poor explanation for it, don't rely on the meaning, its more then that, more then i care to explain, I'm done fighting, this is been so stressful dealing with this, my best friend is in jail, the other has nowhere to live, and yet I have to sit here and fight people online, fight the media, fight random furs all because they don't believe or understand what we do, i'm going to tell you guys this one thing, I have never slept with an animal, ever. I'm here to protect my friend, and that is it. Peace, I wish all of you the best, even the haters.
That's real great. So since you're all finished arguing, I hope you march right on down to the police station and give them the same reasoning you've given us here as to why your buddy should be let free and get his dog back.
I'm certain they'll understand better than we have!
+ Banrai
FurAffinity