'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
It's my fondest wish that Zevian takes the thousands of words of dogfuckers' apologia he's written here, shows it all to Xanth's lawyer, and tries using it to appeal Xanth's (inevitable) conviction all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.
"You can't convict two sentient beings for being in LOVE! It's in the CONSTITUTION!"
Oh please please PLEASE try something that stupid, if only so Orly Taitz would no longer have the distinction of being the craziest individual to petition the Court!
Really it would only be better if he tried to claim religious protection, I think! C:
"NO SIR YOU SEE THE MAGICAL MAN IN MY HEAD TOLD ME I HAD TO PUT MY PENIS IN THE DOG."
+ Banrai
FurAffinity
I don't need a wikipedia explanation. I used to author what was at the time one of the most acclaimed therianthropy information websites online.
It's not a religion and it does not, not EVER have ANYTHING to do with animal molestation. Do NOT attempt to sieze an inoffensive term and warp it to your own sick uses.
It's not a fetish. Animals are living beings and treated by most zoos as sex objects, thus not a fetish.
Zoophilia is a sexuality. Not a fetish.
Animals shouldn't be considered dumb just because they have the inability to speak our vocal language.
Humans consider themselves waaaayyyy too intelligent and being the most complete and awesome species regarding features and what not. Stop it, I expected more from you. Gross. Ew.
There, now that record has been set straight I can agree with you on the following:
Indeed. Why all these pages of endless banter trying to not only excuse for it, but all the pointless emotional banter against it as well.
Everyone will just leave this thread with the exact same mind set and opinions carrying on their hypocritical double moral lives and continue using animals for food and whatever else not.
Oh. And we discussed the subject on MSN already, but I felt replying to you anyway.
"Fetish" just sounds wrong to me and ticked me off instantly.
You may figure out who I am by the nick used. I am making it too easy for that matter.
No no, don't bother to reply back here. I don't get notifications and I have this page open only tonight because someone linked it to me.
I am just here for an entertaining speed read while shaking my head.
(And what the heck, as you can see: a post too no less! Oh well, there goes my new golden rule to stop doing that lol.)
Great, now accusing therians such as myself as being "naturally" interested in bestiality, what?
And sites like this one are in the business of pouring oil into the flames. Crimes are committed every day. Outside the fandom. Inside the fandom. Being a fan doesn't make you a saint. We're all normal people. But on sites like this, practically everything that has the word "animal" in it instantly makes the headlines. Of course one one hand that kind of selectivity lies in the nature of fury interests. We're interested in animal stuff, anthro or not. However, of course it als ends up giving a very skewed image.
And that's where it becomes a vicious circle. Once you're afraid of being "fursecuted" because of course society will lump you in with the dogfuckers ... that's where all tolerance ends. It becomes pure self-defense - and it make people pick the most extreme positions, just to distance themselves socially as far as possible.
That also explains why this discussion is so irrational. It's not really about the ethics of dogfucking. It's about showing that you're one of "US" and not one of "THEM".
I don't plan to go to a police department when i'm across the country from him, there's nothing I can do but fight online and work out the legal stuff, but oh well, there is nothing I can do anymore except the legal stuff, but anyway, have a great day, and great job making Carolina_furs I'm sure a lot of people appreciate your hard work, have a great day :3
Lol, you're such a good internet detective! You get a gold star for making yourself sound even creepier than you already have. I didn't think it was possible, but you've exceeded expectations!
+ Banrai
FurAffinity
Actually i just clicked the wikifur link under your name lol...
You know what? Fuck you guys.... This is not love, it's ABUSE.
Xanth, Zevian, any other zoos, you should be ashamed of yourselves. This is not healthy for the one you "love" if you really loved them, you wouldn't stick your dick into them... They are not made for this.
Take it from a zoo who refuses to act on her urges because she understands how wrong it is. (Also thanks to Bad-Dragon <3)
But really, you need to understand about what actually happens to these poor animals. These poor dogs are hurting, you're not pleasing them.... *sigh*
You people make me sick.
Actually take if from a zoo, female dogs ARE made for it, a dogs penis is FAR bigger then a humans, and the knot itself is HUGE. Partaking in sexual acts with a female dog can only hurt her if your not careful or too rough, we are CAREFUL with them.
You are a zoo in the same way as self proclaimed animal lovers across the world are zoos.
If you can't understand they are not children, if you can't understand that they can enjoy the pleasures of sex, if you can't understand their language or give them the space and sexual freedom they deserve, than by all means do not go down that road. You would be a danger to any animal you'd cross that sexual line with.
You may be a zoo but in the sense of the discussion here you are not a Zoo.
Don't know about dogs about shut up about mares unless you have something to back it up, like 15 years in the field.
Small minded biggots like you is what makes *me* sick.
I am not ashamed of myself and never will be. The only thing I am ashamed about is being part of this human race. That's it. :)
(I won't read your reply. Don't even bother replying.)
Everyone here equating animals with children is guilty of neoteny. I so wish that was a punishable offence.
Actually the tie between animals and children in society goes way back. Did you know that the word Ox is Masculos in Latin, drop s and you get the word Masculo, which seems to mean 'boy'. If you look up the etymology for boy you obtain the word a word tied with oxes as well. Children and cattle were seen as one in the same. Both had to be obedient to their keeper. However, their keeper had to be responsible for them as well.
It's also interesting to note that if one looks at Leviticus 18:22 in the Bible the line about Homosexuality is surrounded by a line dealing with children and animals, many people have claimed this means homosexuality is equivalent to the two, HOWEVER if you look at other language translations of this passage you will note that in the German bible of the 1500s 18:22 contains the word "Knaben" or an old German word for boy, or the youth. Therefore, the line talking against homosexuality might actual be against pedophilia. This would also make more sense in the context in the English version since the Bible didn't jump around in the earlier parts of 18 dealing with incest.
In the Latin version the word "masculo" is used in 18:22... interestingly the word masculo only occurs in the Latin Bible 3 times. The most telling is Leviticus 27:6, in the English version it talks about how males OF A PARTICULAR AGE (less then 6 or something) have to pay penance to God. The lines around 27:6 use similar structure to tell penance of men of other ages, the Latin version never used "Masculo" to describe them... so "Masculo" must be a specific type of male, like a male child.
That's just a theory anyway, but my point is, animals have had a cultural tie with children in many mainstream cultures, it's not just particular individuals doing it.
Very nice information, great work! But I think what he was trying to say is that everyone on here should stop saying that just because a zoophilic has sex with an animal, does not meal that he/she is going to rape a child, because that's what everyone has been saying is that "oh this is just the beginning, next thing you know they will be raping children" which is a totally outrageous statement.
I don't think you'd rape a child.
But I do think you miss something in this. A child can want pleasure and to feel good. So can a dog. I would imagine that if you touch a child sexually, they would react in a similar manner as to if you touch a dog sexaully. It's physiological.
My problem with you guys is, you read a physiological response in a dog as consent. Logically, you should read a similar physiological response in a child whom you've touched sexually as consent. Do you?
I know the question is loaded, but you have to understand, if you touch someone's sexual organs, you will get a response of pleasure. This is regardless of if this is a dog... or a child. Considering that consent means you would consider it consenusual with a child.. or you have a logical flaw in your argument.
So.. answer this for me.
If the physiological sexual response is sign of consent in dogs, is it also a sign of consent in humans?
Children are neither physically nor mentally mature. Consent applies once the individual reaches maturity as before any major decisions they make will not be made with their true reasoning abilities.
And animals are not children. We do not treat them the same way so you shouldn't be using them as an example. People eat animals but not children. People buy and sell animals but not children. People put animals on display but not children. What we do to one is not determined by what we may do to the other.
"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~
Yes, children can consent. The legal issue with children however is that there brains aren't fully formed and thus they are ill equipped to understand the magnitude of the decision to have sexual intercourse. This makes them easy to take advantage of, so legally they're off limits. Anyone who truly thinks a child can't consent is deluding themselves.
Children cannot give informed consent... this constraint is place upon them because there are very real uniquely human consequences to sex the consequences for which they cannot understand. (which have no bearing on animals)
Simple consent is not informed consent.
well there is also the fact that 90% of the time they feel adults are automatically the authority and relinquish control easier, just as how the average person finds the boss/secretary thing unethical. There is a pre-established expected
No matter how much of a dominating bully or well-mannered and matured they are their consent is typically not to be trusted because they have this niggling "adults are right" feeling in the back of their head, simply from cultural/physiological osmosis. Not disagreeing just saying that that seems like an incomplete thought, somewhat. There's more to it than just the brain being undeveloped/inexperienced. Even if raised in a totally truly free completely unrestricted nudist hippy commune there would still be that 'listen to these elders of your own species' trigger ticking away unconsciously.
I don't recall anywhere in the bible that says "Thou shall not breed squash-faced dogs to resemble the face of a child". Using bible quotes to counter what is inherently WRONG is a great example of why it should be discarded as useless drivel.
Etymology and history are interesting in an of themselves but have no bearing on the physical and psychological differences between children and animals relevant to human animal sexual contact as discussed in this thread.
Children and animals are both "innocents", they have been traditionally thought of this way for a very long time. That's always been their link and will continue to be so. A child cannot consent, an animal cannot consent. It's a very fair comparison.
No one is directly comparing everything about a child and everything about an animal.
Since when has tradition been fair? Thinking traditionally is the opposite of thinking fairly.
Now you're just abusing semantics and overlooking the second part of the statement. A child cannot consent. An animal cannot consent, that's a fair comparison.
There are many ways to expand it but I seriously don't think your intellect is low enough not to be able to draw the comparisons. The whole point was that drawing comparisons between an animal and a child can be perfectly fair, and to make a bizarre analogy, just like saying "this t-shirt is red, this apple is red" does not imply that a piece of fruit is an item of clothing.
Try telling any animal behaviorist comparing a child to an animal is fair. It's perfectly insulting to ethologists. The response was direct, otherwise it wouldn't have drawn such a bad analogy out of you.
Oh yeah I totally forgot one woof yes two woofs no, isn't it? Oh no wait, it's any number of woofs or the complete absence of for yes when you're a dogfucker.
Animals and children cannot consent. That is not "insulting", that is just the TRUTH. Insulting is when people will twist any behaviour or the lack thereof to their own fetish: she turned her butt towards me and she totally wanted it. It doesn't hold up to anyone with an ounce of sense or moral decency, sorry.
Yes, hide behind moral decency when truly understanding body language is beyond you. Failing that, just cut their balls off. We can't have animals behaving immorally according to our anthropocentric view of the world now, can we?
Why can't they consent? That they can't consent isn't unanimous anywhere and previously I linked to a journal of philosophy explaining why animals can and children can't consent. You're taking that they both can't consent as a given but others are taking animals maturity and ability to communicate to show that they can consent. And, whether they can or can't consent, why is consent not taken into consideration when looking at other aspects of animal-human interactions?
"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 is complete bull. What you are saying is that dog's don't talk ... well d'uh.
However, if you ever had to do any kind of necessary but unpleasant procedure on your dog (let's say, clean out the ears because the poor guy has ear mites), then you'd clearly see how dogs show you that what you are doing to them is unpleasant.
It is VERY VERY VERY obvious, to say the least. Even you would understand it.
So, yes, a dog can say "no" even without saying "no". Avoiding and protesting unpleasant or even painful situations (unless it's a fight vs flight situation) is essential to the survival of a social animal.
Even among dogs, females can be very choosy with which males they allow to get it on with them. This kind of behaviour is very well documented, and nothing stops well-educated humans to correctly interpret it.
Of course differentiating has never helped anybody winning a political/ideological debate. So have fun running up that hill and waving your flag :)
No, my dog was trained from the time he was a very small puppy to let me poke about his ears, his mouth, his paws, his nose, without complaint. I sat him on my lap and did those things while we sat and watched TV and stuff, I did it in a matter of fact way while petting him so that he got used to the idea it was normal, expected, and not something to freak out about. This was simply training for easier vet visits and treatment later in life. Now if I want to go poking about his ears to clean them, which I know is unpleasant to him, he sits still and let me do so. Because that's how he's trained.
My old dog was a rescue (adopted age 8) and he'd freak out if you touched him in any of those ways. He was not trained for these things and thus he expressed his natural avoidance of those uncomfortable things.
If you take a dog's dish away, some dogs will bite the shit out of you - the natural reaction. Some will let you do it because you taught them that was right. Having fostered literally dozens of dogs while working in dog rescue, I've seen the whole spectrum of reactions.
The point is: people also train their dogs to accept their sexual advances. The internet is stacked with information on how to do this, bestiality forums are full of people looking to train their dog to hump them or accept their humping. They are exploiting the fact that the dog can be trained to accept things which are not necessarily good for them. The dog will accept it because you are their owner and they trust you.
Without words, there is no way to establish consent in a relationship of power like this - a relationship the dog cannot end, cannot leave and doesn't understand.
Korrok has said everything here more eloquently than I think I, or anyone else in this thread has so far. -votes 5-
+ Banrai
FurAffinity
I guess it helps to espouse your disneyfication of them when every rescue dog is desexed. I bet all the training in the world wouldn't get them to consent to that.
I assure you when they first come into rescue, they are not spayed/neutered. They generally do not arrive in a foster home spayed/neutered either. And my dog is not neutered since I have no need of it - he's always under supervision when outside and around other dogs.
Try another stupid argument.
Way to let a whole lot of zoos reading this thread know how to get access they otherwise wouldn't have.
What a silly remark.
Not unique to dogs, as even many humans can be "trained" to be stuck in abusive relationships, and frequently people won't help them unless they ask for it.
The problem of whether or not a dog can consent is not a problem of communication; it is a problem of understanding. It is unknowable whether a dog is capable of truly understanding what he is communicating; perhaps they do understand the full consequences, perhaps they don't. Wanting something is not consent; I can very much want to, say, kill you in the face, but I know this is wrong, so I don't do that.
There is evidence to suggest, however, that if a dog wants to kill you in the face, it will freaking try to kill you in the face. That's a canine misunderstanding of a pretty basic human moral tenet (don't kill people in the face, yo); sexual immorality is ten thousand times more difficult to understand.
In other words, fucking a dog is taking advantage of the dog's inability to understand morality.
The only evidence of that kind is dogs that humans train to kill you in the face. People can be trained that way too. Dogs don't naturally see us as something to attack. Morality can exist in all species at the level required simply and without the need to construct a mental gymnasium ten thousand times more difficut. Having an incorrect perception about this is why people are so amazed when animals demonstrate it on youtube.
Sorry, just watched The Grey. May have colored my viewpoint a bit.
Thing is, they don't have to understand the human context, they need to understand the thing in a dog's context. They have all the physical and psychological tools they need in order to participate enjoy and even desire/seek out sex by the time they reach adulthood. The concept of informed consent, the concept of morality is a human one, and inapplicable from a dog's perspective.
I'm not arguing that the act is immoral for dogs; I'm arguing that it is immoral for humans. The human is taking advantage of the lack of adult human morality in the dog, and that is immoral. The dog is the victim, here, even if it is willing.
The thing is that even if an animal "gives their consent," that doesn't mean that they fully understand the consequences of their actions. Take, for example, Alex the parrot: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112405883 (Be sure to listen to the interview).
He understood simple, and even some fairly complex language and ideas, but when he had to be taken to the hospital, he began freaking out thinking that he had done something wrong to be brought there. Do you think that a dog fully understands the consequences? This is much like the way that a small child might react to the situation too.
So riddle me this then:
A good portion of this little soapbox opera details how there's an issue of consent with an animal when progressing to have some form of intercourse with it. Many angles have been covered, MANY.
But one thing I can't seem to understand is why having sex with an animal is automatically lacking consent and deemed as rape, when neutering or spaying them isn't considered a form of assault and molesting. They never asked for it. Just as a child never asked to be circumcised.
How can anyone advocate against this crap based on morals, when there's so much worse that people simply ignore because... Why? Because it's never been made a big deal earlier on in history.
For instance with spaying/neutering, by fully removing a portion of the sexual organ in any living creature, instantly they change more than physically in that particular area. There's all sorts of chemical and hormonal changes going on in the body, changes that are not natural, changes that are for an easy way to reduce the overpopulation of animals. I mean sure, it's a great thing animal shelters don't have to put down nearly as many as they normally would have if they didn't, but at what cost? I really feel it's a form of assualt against the animal. I mean how would you like if the government instituded some sort of propaganda of a procedure that involved removing your sexual organs in order to prevent the world from being over populated?
If we're going to talk about consent and all this lovely rhetoric, we may as well go full into detail into animal rights then and actually face the real problems at hand, rather than what goes in the bedroom with people with odd tastes.
For the record, I am opposed to spaying and neutering; if people really care for their animals, then they should take the time to keep them out of trouble as well. The main point is that screwing your dog is against the law in many states. Were it not, this article would not have even been posted.
However, lets say that you have and incredibly intelligent dog, and you have trained him/her to know what all of this means, but even if the dog was capable of understanding all of this, there is no way that it could understand what putting the video on the internet meant. Going along with your points and saying that dogs can give consent, how do you think that dog would feel if it knew that you were posting your love-life on the internet for all to see? How would most human girl/boy friends feel about this? The idea being that if a dog can give consent for sex, then shouldn't you also get their permission before posting a video about it online? At the very least, assuming that everything else was done out of love, can that final act be considered love too? Not likely.
On the other hand though dogs have no sense of privacy and will mate or go to the toilet in full view of people. So it's hard to imagine a dog caring about a video being posted publicly. It's probably more of an issue here but we must be careful of too much anthropomorphism. We have evidence of animal intelligence and communication but we can't extend all of our feelings, like privacy, onto them.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Yeah, I thought about that, but the idea is if zoos are anthropomorphizing animals enough to say that they can give full consent (btw, out of curiosity did you read/listen to the article that I posted?), then they may as well be given the right to say yea or nay regarding their privacy too, otherwise they (EDIT: the zoophiles) would be creating a double standard of sorts.
And yes, a large part of this comes down to morality, which without religion or belief there are none, but both would have been much better off if he had kept his private life private and his dog happy (as far as we know). But the idea is that he likely deluded both himself and his dog into believing that it was love when all he was really doing was getting off with her as his tool of choice.
I wouldn't call it a double-standard at all. It would be recognising that there still are fundamental differences. That's why I said we have evidence for some things animals can do that are also relevant to humans and so we can discuss those with a shared standard. Where humans and other animals differ, for example on privacy, it no longer makes sense to apply human standards because they are meaningless in the context.
I did not listen to the article but I am reasonably familiar with Alex. He's brought up all the time in terms of animal intelligence and language and I think he was also in one of the chapters on the animal welfare book I reviewed. I get the point you were making there though and I have thought about it before. I would personally resolve it by saying that you have to see what the consequences are of the decisions you will allow an animal and whether they are necessary or not.
I'd allow a dog to consent to sex because although the long-term are beyond its understanding they are generally insignificant. In this case they have drastic consequences but this is a minority event. You couldn't allow a dog to decide whether to live with a human or not as that decision has almost no short term consequences but major long-term ones concerning things such as shelter, food, water and medical care all of which aren't going to be anticipated.
"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~
First I have to say I admire your constant defense of this issue on various levels. It takes a lot to view another angle that might not be easy for others to comprehend and will more than likely earn you nothing but hateful commentary, or spit in your eye.
With that out of the way, I really must ask, as it's been bothering me, how can a dog love a human the same way a human can love a human? I really feel it's a form of escapism from humanity on the human's part who are partaking in such levels of a serious relationship with that of a creature which cannot understand all the levels of thought humans have. You mentioned somewhere before that psychologists suggest zoophilia really is love, but how is that a healthy form of love, a love that is symbiotic and reciprocated in every way that a normal human relationship has, but that a zoophilic relationship can't have? In an unbiased outlook, I can understand the human feeling such levels of endearment, endearment enough to want to share their body with their animal of choice, but where's the communication? T me, it almost feels like a form of psychological regression to a more primal state for a person to go so far as to have such a relationship with an animal. That's not a normal human psychological makeup, and there had to be a cause, a root to this behavior, and having a relationship of such magnitude with ones pet has to be the result.
There again, I'm sure it is really difficult to put human psychology and canine psychology together and come up with a definitive answer.
Firstly, thank you. ^^ Always nice to get encouragement.
While I believe other animals also have emotions and can love I don't think it is anything like zoophiles might say. I think that those relations are emotionally one-sided. However, and some zoos have not been friendly about this either, I don't think whether there is love or not, from either side, is relevant in whether it is harmful or moral.
I don't know enough to say whether it's real or healthy love, but the DSM-IV says that zoophilia is not a problem unless it interferes with the person's daily life or causes them distress. My issue is really whether it is harmful or immoral and what evidence and reasoning there is to support those arguments. As such I just look at it as though it were casual sex. Love may or may not be there but I don't see its relevance.
"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~
Perhaps if that dolphin translator (http://gizmodo.com/5210899/dolphin-translator-is-sure-to-uncover-valuable-insigh...) project ever gets finished then we'll be one step closer to answering such questions. Until then though, there doesn't seem to be much point in trying to argue this kind of thing much further. Truly this whole article has turned into a contest in which both sides try screaming at each other until somebody's lungs collapse. Oh well, I have work to get to, so cheerio!
This I can agree with!
Though I feel you're trying to aim me in a direction that serves to say something along the lines of "the fact is, a dog can't consent, because a dog can't tell that videotaping it without it's permission is wrong, and can't argue like a normal couple, therefore love not being possible between the two." Or something of the sort. I'm not here to argue about that, I'd have to write an essay in order to outline every logical detail while remaining as unbiased as possible without intent to persuade. That would drive me nuts. :P Though this gives me a spicy idea for an anthropology class essay, or something of the sort if I need it later.
Ultimately, though, I find the posting of the video, in a sense whoring his loved one out for all to see was something rather awful; I mean to be frank I'd be pissed if my boyfriend decided to sneak a video of me masturbating or having sex with him on the web without telling me as would most people with their significant others. I wouldn't instantly rule out that there was no love there though, unless he was constantly doing this, and using me for sex and his whimsical desires. Humans are selfish in nature to a degree, and in Xanth's case, he merely wanted to either get credits, or show off his dog and him together to anyone willing to watch. It points to probable lechery, but it doesn't totally discredit and point to the fact he had no love for the dog. In that sense, it was misguided, and probably an attempt to reach out to his little community of zoophiles. In a normal couple, video taping without consent would likely earn a slap or two, and/or a tasteful argument over the matter. In a zoophile couple, I guess... That's a perk, since she can't say "You dick, why post this without telling me! *Slap*" This is simply because dogs don't have the capacity to understand that far into details as humans do, therefor automatically don't care or have an opinion or angle.
Which is the reason why I disagree with zoophile relationships and sexual intercourse. Not because of morals, or the difference in their species, or any of the sort posted here. Dogs and all animals alike don't have a mental capacity to understand things the way a human can or love the way we can (though I'm sure they have similar chemical productions within the brain to induce a feeling of endearment as we do), therefore I find any zoophile's sexual and emotional chemistry to be a form of escapism from humanity in a sense, if they do indeed love their animal as they say the do. In essence, it feels like a mental disorder to me that should not be punishable by such harsh fines and years in prison, but mandatory psychological hospitalization, and observance after the required time frame has been met. Fact is, it's cheaper and easier to jail someone and call them an atrocity against god than try to help them.
But the question is... Is it -really- that big of a deal? I think scientific and psychological research needs to be put into the subject rather than jumping into conclusions based on assumptions and morality. I'm thankful some people are open minded enough not to throw rotten fruit and rocks and actually consider things before opening their mouths and casting a stone or two with the rest of the bandwagon.
Funny you say that, since both him and his dog would likely have been killed a few thousand years ago for this. And actually, the psychological hospitalization might not be such a bad idea. Another student I know wrote a paper on rehabilitation v. prison costs, and all in all, therapy is far cheaper than prison, plus the person is less likely to commit the same crimes in the future.
EDITED FOR CLARITY
I would never have guessed that one actually. That's very surprising to hear; I mean, you would think it would cost more to host doctors and medical professionals than guards. I work and study in the medical profession myself, so I get a taste of how expensive such things are (it's hopelessly inflated to say the least).
I kind of wish I could read this paper, as the thought totally blows my mind to be honest. :P
Well, his grammar wasn't particularly scholarly, but his research checked out. If I remember rightly, the primary reason was that costs for maintaining a prison rise exponentially, while psychiatric care costs mostly rose linearly. Again, though, it's been a while, and at the time I didn't pay as much attention to it as I should have.
EDIT: In addition, rehabilitation is (in many cases) shorter, or at least the person doesn't have to stay in the hospital. Truly they system is quite poor as far as sentence times v. the crime. Oh, that's right! I remember, the reason it costs so much is that the people are more likely to end up in prison a second time, while therapy is more likely to help prevent them from doing the same things in the future.
Minor digression. They wouldn't have been killed a few thousand years ago. Many early religions and cultures were fine with bestiality. If you read the history section of Hani Miletski's book "Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia" you'll see that there were even temples specifically for bestiality. I mentioned a cultural tradition that's survived to today that reportedly contains bestiality. The interesting thing from reading Miletski is that the prohibition against bestiality mostly stemmed from the church and fairly recently and that it's strongest in the English-speaking world. Bestiality was decriminalised in a lot of Nordic and German-speaking European countries and is culturally accepted in Brazil and parts of Asia and Africa.
"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~
Again, if he was capable of being born a few thousand years ago, who knows who's culture he would have been born into. ;) And as far as the temples and whatnot, that doesn't surprise me one bit, and as far as stemming from the church (I suppose you mean the Christian church), since it revolves around the Bible, there is no reason why it wouldn't since it is expressly forbidden in the Bible: http://www.gotquestions.org/bestiality.html
Well if you're gonna quote the bible, you should go all out and quote every english translation of it :) Click the page header to toggle between the dropdown method and a huge table.
https://landfill.bugzilla.org/bugzilla-3.6-branch/attachment.cgi?id=1817
Oooh! I'll have to bookmark this! Thank you. I was posting it more as a generalization of the reason why the "...prohibition against bestiality mostly stemmed from the church..." as Rakuen said. But now I has all teh informashons!
Ahem.
Well, this has certainly been an interesting discussion to say the least.
EDIT: Um... how do you input other references?
There's only one other reference that interests me: the Bible in Basic English, Joel 1:20
"The beasts of the field are turning to you with desire"
ROFL
http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=joel+1%3A20§ion=2&translation=bbe...
Obviously you were joking, but just so other people know, that particular verse meant that the beasts were hungry for human flesh since there was nothing left to eat due to famine.EDIT: Didn't see "of the field" in the literal translations. The animals were coming to people to find a drink.
Currently in Columbia it is extremely common for young men to have sex with donkeys until they can find a woman. (source - short documentary film, however NWS/NMS for actual bestiality footage near the end, watch at your own risk).
Does that make it right? No, it doesn't. And even bringing religion into it, Columbia is the majority, Catholic. Cultural tradition, as you said, does play a part in it but at the same time you have to realize that the cultures that DO engage in this act are being left behind while the rest of the world progresses and makes leaps and bounds in understandings and animal rights. It's basically the equivalent of watching a tv show and seeing a tribe of native peoples learning how after all this time they've been hunting with sticks and rocks, while the rest of the world has developed guns and cars and clothing and they've continued to wear skins and live in mud shelters.
Fucking animals is a regressive behavior, and one that we have advanced beyond because society understands now that animals indeed can not properly consent, they are beasts and only survive to serve us, their masters. A dog will do anything to please it's master, and if it thinks that it's master likes doing... whatever... to it, then it will let it happen because it makes master happy. Dogs are trainable - that is WHY they are man's best friend.
Sex with animals is wrong. People do it anyway, and in some societies it is for whatever reason still socially acceptable. That does not mean that here, in the United States of America that it is socially acceptable, and therefore people that engage in the act are punished under the laws of the land. If a person wants to engage in activity with their pets, maybe they should look into learning Spanish and moving south.
+ Banrai
FurAffinity
Well, that was an informative documentary. I would note that the main subject was said to have sex with donkeys in addition to having sex with his wife; the implication being that interest in non-human sex is a dimension of sexual orientation similar to gay/straight.
I must admit that the morality of allowing people to kill and eat animals while simultaneously forbidding sex with them escapes me. Perhaps one day a vegetarian majority will likewise look down on today's "unenlightened carnivores".
I don't think bestiality has any link to the country advancing or not. It's also not regressive as my support of it stems from interest in animal rights/welfare and indeed the recent decriminalisation of it in Europe also shows that it's not necessarily regressive, unless you're implying that anything not American is regressive.
"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~
Where exactly in Europe has it been recently decriminalised? The majority of western European countries have banned it (the latest being the Netherlands I believe, 2010). In several it is not specified as illegal but falls under animal welfare acts and the distribution of bestiality pornography is illegal (e.g. Germany).
You make it sound as if all of Europe allows it when I assure you it's very much frowned upon, especially in my home country of the UK, where even owning porn of it is now illegal.
The Netherlands did ban it again, yes, but they also decriminalised it about 50 years earlier. As far as I could tell their reasons for banning it again were poor, but most of the material was in Dutch and/or I wasn't able to find it. Pornography has nothing to do with the act and in most cases although distribution is banned, possession is not.
Also you apparently missed my point about English-speaking countries being the least tolerant. That happens to include the UK. (In fact it's the UK and US that have the biggest problem with it, which is where the majority of the furry fandom here come from.)
"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~
For all this, you still insist on anthropomorphizing the dog, you still insist on requiring a dog understand thing for human sexual contact even after it is grown up and is given by nature all it needs to perform and understand sex (as a dog.)
I understand your point about pornography and you are correct, it does the dog a disservice to record and share and risk what he did. For that, I agree.
You obviously haven't heard of comparitive ethology.
Dogs are definitely not innocent. There are many things they do in their world which we as humans would lock another human being up for doing. (pooping in public, chasing and throwing baby rabbits up in the air, fucking in public, peeing on a statue of George Bush ...)
A child cannot give informed consent... for an animal, consent is irrelevant. If you are ascribing simple consent (as in simple willingness to participate or solicitation) then their body language can indeed show their desire or displeasure.
You realise that without discipline, children will poop and pee in public, steal, pull the legs off of spiders and other sadistic behaviours? ;) They need to be trained to behave too, haha.
I doubt you would visually and socially accept a child pooping in the park on the ground or peeing on a fire hydrant. :P
In a sense, I have to argue against that point. Despite the fact that I agree seeing a child partaking in such activities is not only unsanitary, but primal and rather unsightly. Beyond that what makes the idea of a child, or anyone doing such a thing so bad?
To answer for most anyone, it's the social development in society, or "behavioral advancement". Moreover, I kind of feel you're emphasizing more on the behavioral aspect of the issue, than the logistical and sanitary or otherwise points here. So in a sense, this would sort of neutralize a portion of your argument based on that logical flaw.
Which once again brings me to a point I tire of making... Simply because a behavior is unsavory to someone doesn't make it wrong automatically. I often find myself asking why is something 'bad' and in need of regulation, such as the main issue of this topic. However, in the example of public urination and defecation, they are rightfully so 'bad' as it would be unsanitary for the public, that I'm sure anyone can agree with.
Perhaps we are looking at two different sides of "innocents." Both dogs and young children do not know what they do from a moral perspective. Dogs will never be able to conceive of their wrong doing because they do not develop as the human child will over time. Neither is capable of informed consent, but in the case of the adult animal the point is a moot one given that they will never be expected to have morals, they will never have to learn about ethics and morality. In essence, nature has given them all they need to engage physically in and decide to engage in sex.
The problem with the op in this particular line is the equivocation of "consent." The relevant kind of consent here is informed consent, that is, the understanding of context and consequence of actions.
If we talk of simple consent, both animals and children are quite capable to showing what they like or don't like, what they desire or do not desire. The act of these decisions and their contexts are completely different between adult animals and human children.
Animals can be sexually mature, children can't. Comparison is invalid.
To those who've made it this far and obviously have an interest in bestiality and zoophilia far outside the norm, I just wanted to leave a few words. To the sane and level headed people making cool, calm, well reasoned points. To the people not having a shrill rant against something they can't understand but still remain obsessed about. To the people not wishing death or injury on others:
While it may seem your comments are futile, naive, landing on deaf ears, know that they are not. For every person shrieking and demanding blood, there are a hundred remaining silent, either undecided or uncaring. Most of the population does not care about this issue, else there'd be protests outside every abattoir in the land. Most honestly don't give a shit. But there are some, who are undecided, who read places like these, keeping an open mind and weighing up all the facts. Know that when you are arguing against someone as close minded, as shrill, as twisted as some of the people I see in this debate... You're making your point to the silent, open minded people, who are taking this all in. Know that when you're calm and reasonable, while others preach for your death and mutilation, while allowing things like animal abuse on an industrial scale to remain unchallenged (the meat industry), you're being noticed. Know that the people you're directly talking to here, can probably never be convinced, but us, the silent ones, are seeing every side of the debate.
I've broken my silence to say this. You're being heard, so keep up the good fight.
Dear god. Beautiful. It's wonderful seeing someone who thinks the same way I do.
Was beginning to lose hope in the world, but this post gave me hope. I think you, sir/ma'am.
Perfect.
The silent people are really just the people who, you know, don't give a shit. Period.
Also, anybody interested in starting a pool on this article's comment total? I'm going all out: I got 100 imaginary Internet dollars on quadruple digits by February.
Why are people so shocked that this person is being defended so much? It's the logical extreme of what our society is turning in to. Decriminalize homosexual behavior, and polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality will naturally follow. People called me crazy when I said this, but now that statement is being proved true. In another note, the ONLY reason bestiality is condemned in our society is because of the Bible. Every non-christian I have seen acts like there shocked and appalled by what they call "animal abuse" but in reality, they are just conforming to the norms of a society that has a heavy Christian influence. The more liberal America will get, the more sexually perverted we will get. Still don't believe me? Look at ancient Greece, it was a pagan culture, and sodomy, pedophilia, and bestiality were ALL viewed as normal.
I can't agree with you more. I've been preaching things like this to people with closed minds all my life. I wouldn't say all that you've listed (pedophilia is a real problem though, putting aside the morality and blind hatred there), but a few. Religion has defiled society far too much, only because, to put it simply person A didn't like what group B did, so person A made it ungodly and unlawful for those that don't act like group A and person A.
I mean I don't like it when people burp in my face, but should it become a punishable offense? Is it harmful? Is homosexuality harmful to anyone anymore than heterosexuality is? Is what goes on in the privacy of one's home that does no harm to others or oneself such a problem? I detest such lack of logic and how invasive society, religion, and the government can be when they could be paying attention to issues that are relevant to their purpose.
Ravvy, honey, you do not agree with him. Trust me. He is saying homosexuality being decriminalized is a bad thing.
He's the opposite lunatic fringe from you.
I know he likely is the opposite of me. It was a funny way of making a point. I've a bad habit of making ambiguous statements that are so sharp, no one but very few or just I understand and often end up being misread.
My point was that it's interesting that people can see beyond what people tell them to see, yet fail to find the cold hard logic before twisting it to some ideology or way of thought that is eventually biased or corrupting in some way or another. I've been seeing that off and on all the while reading this over-lengthy bit of commentary. Frankly, it's a bummer...
Thank you for trying to catch me there, though. I have been oblivious on things like that before. :P
Christianity isn't the source of the issue, Brazil is very religious however sexually tolerant (heck they have the biggest Jesus statue in the world). China is very secular however very sexually intolerant. So the idea of getting rid of religion will solve all the problems is about as valid as converting all the non-religious individuals would.
I never directly implied that Christianity hands down was -the- source of the issue in terms of intolerance against sexuality, among various unrelated things, nor implied abolishing a single religion, or many for that matter would be a corrective measure worth considering. The idea of such a thing sickens me and goes against everything I believe in.
The real problem is, as I said, an authoritative person or group deciding something is bad, just because they do not like it, or can't fully understand it, despite the issue of it being harmless in nature. We could take a look at the crusades and the catholic church for several fine examples there. Certainly good did come of it for many people, but the abuse of word, abuse of religion, and the abuse of a strong sense of society and community -- if you wish to call it that -- has instated long withstanding ideals of what's right and wrong that (some of it) lives even to this day. Since religion tends to have a major impact on society, even for those not religious, these ideas become adopted and contemporary.
Another example, aside from religion, would be governmental corruption. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Killerdrug.jpg an old 1935 propaganda poster slandering Marijuana in a most exaggerating way. Even an advocate against the drug who has a level head can clearly see past such nonsense; however, I've met people, young people, that actually believe the drug is as bad, if not worse, than this poster portrays. These very people wouldn't dare be swayed otherwise.
It all boils down to this: Issues that shouldn't even really be issues today wouldn't be issues if it were not for corruption in power. Power that could be used to solve much more pertinent issues in life. I understand my view is extreme, but also understand I realize such an idea (wishing corruption in power to magically go away) is nearly futile, as humanity's greatest gift and worst enemy aside from free will is imperfection. I'm just emphasizing what should be obvious by now, but evidently isn't, and what should be given more thought than it has been given.
China is getting 10,000 new Christians per day. And how is Brazil a Christian country if they have the worlds largest violation of the second commandment?
You're saying a statue of Jesus is a false idol? That's actually very nuanced. One could ask the same of those whom worship crosses and hang them around their necks.
The question is, if we had a Jesus statue of comparable size would you still have issue of it? Or is that simply a way of saying: "It's not the size, it's what you do with it"?
But anyway for references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil#Religion (About 90% identify)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Religion (About 75% identify)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China#Religion (<50% identify)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Brazil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China
As a matter of fact, I would have a problem if we build a statue of Jesus in America. I even have problems with Narnia because of the supposed "Jesus allegory Lion" which also extends to the "furry Jesus" Images drawn my several Christian furry artists. Not really sure if this applies to crosses, since most people wear them just for the look, or simply to identify themselves as Christians.
Wikipedia says one thing, while the Bible says the opposite. It's not to hard to see which one is more valid in it's claim on what is and isn't a Christian country
I would actually kind of agree with that, however why not go one step further, if one is worshiping a Jesus that merely exists in their head and not in the actual being and the things his stood for would that also be going for a false idol? False idols are not necessarily physical manifestations are they?
It's an interesting slope, but a bit off the topic at hand.
If you mean like a twisted personal "He told me to kill those people" kind of Jesus, then yes. Potentially that could actually be a person tormented by demons that have clouded his/her view to a point of madness.
Well, you are going somewhere with that, but I think that would apply to the first commandment and not the second. If it's a fake "Jesus" then I think it classifies as a false god.
Actually the first commandment says nothing about "false" gods that I can see.
It says: "You shall have no other gods before me."
What about after him?
As long as he's number 1 right?
If an atheist holds no gods then they are still holding no others before him right? Since they hold none at all?
Ohhh clever! However, the phrase "before me" means "in my presence" and since God is omnipresent, that means you shouldn't have any gods anywhere. I would also like to take this time to Thank you, so far you are the ONLY person who bothered to create an intelligent response to me. You didn't take this opportunity to bash me, but instead took it to make a point (for which you provided evidence). Even though we disagree, you were able to discuss it in a mature and intelligent way. Be proud of that.
LOL, someone made you the Pope now did they, Crazy Cunt? You get the God-given right to pass judgment on the Christian identity of an entire country?!
YOU'RE A STUPID FUCKING CUNT!
I'm simply repeating what the Bible says, It says not to make Idols, and a statue of Jesus is an idol.
The Bible also says don't eat shellfish, don't use anaesthetic during childbirth, don't do any work on Sundays (that's ambulance drivers and air-traffic controllers screwed, then), go near women when they're menstruating or give them positions of authority, don't get divorced, and that it's OK to kill your children if they're disrespectful, d'oh!
Way to go off topic. It's clear you don't understand a book written at a 5th grade level (I'm referring to the Bible since you were obviously confused by my last sentence). Not surprisingly most of your stuff is made up. For example, not using anesthetic (which didn't exist until the 1800's) is never mentioned in the Bible. As for the woman being visited by their aunt flow, I don't see why you would have a problem with this unless you have some kind of really weird blood fetish. Keep in mind, it was the best way to prevent disease due to lack of the medical technology we have today. And where does it say that women can't be in authority? Did you even hear of the Judge Deborah? Isn't a mother in a position of authority? The Bible also does not say divorce is a sin, divorce and REMARRIAGE is a sin. When you read a verse, it would help to actually finish the sentence you are reading. Finally, the Bible does not say to kill disrespectful children, it says kill the son (note there is not specification on age) if he hits (assaults) his father. So based on what you just said, I'll just assume you think assault (which can carry a prison sentence of up to 16 years in America today) is a good thing.
First off, the sabbath was a Saturday, not Sunday, and according to Hebrews chapter 11, certain laws, and ONLY certain laws (including the dietary requirements) are no longer observed.
So, it's abundantly clear that you know next to nothing about the Bible, considering your ignorance of such an easy to read book, why should I even consider you competent to make deductions on my personality?
The first half is you repeating the Bible, the second half is you saying what you think it means. People aren't disagreeing on the first half, they disagree with the second half.
Coming from someone who reads and follows the Bible and has had many discussions and debates about this, an idol is something that you worship created by mortal hands. If one worships a statue of Jesus and not the true Jesus, then they have made it an idol.
EDIT: And for the record because I know someone will say something, the objects don't have to be made by mortal hands. They could just as easily be a giant rock or the sun.
It is still a matter of interpretation, even if you disagree with some of those interpretations of find them convoluted.
Regardless, those individuals who worship the statue would be breaking the commandment, not the statue itself, nor those that may appreciate it without worshipping it, nor those that simply live in its proximity. To condemn those is not repeating what is in the Bible, but making a personal judgement.
Actually, I replied to the wrong comment, meant to make it out to Crusader Cat; I'm agreeing with what you just said entirely.
Why am I wrong? simply because you said so? Please provide evidence for your claims.
Am I supposed to quote every Bible verse that doesn't explicitly call a statue of Jesus an idol, or doesn't state you should judge a whole country for that?
Yes, you can string together an argument for those things based on scripture. Likewise, you can construct an argument against those things too. It comes down to how you interpret the meanings, priorities, and relations between different parts of the text. To say you are just repeating what is in the Bible, except for that which is explicitly stated, is quite disingenuous though.
I am not passing judgement on anyone, the Word of God already does that, specifically Proverbs 14:34. What you are doing is known as "Shooting the messenger" If you have a problem with what I say, take it up with God because it's his words I'm using. You constantly accuse me of misinterpreting scripture, when in reality I am taking it literally. It says not not make a graven image, I am smart enough to know what a graven image is, just because the image is some blond haired, blue eyed white guy that people call Jesus doesn't mean it gets an exception to the rule. Your whole argument here is basically an appeal to ignorance. Here is another example, "The Bible says not to bow down to an idol, but it doesn't say anything about worshiping an idol standing up, therefore it's ok to worship an idol as long as you stand up."
And yes, if you intend to prove me wrong, than use scripture (the more the better), otherwise your argument just turns into "I'm right because I said so"
Metaphorically shooting a messenger is valid when the messenger adds to the message and passes it off as the original, as they are no longer fulfilling their duty. This is regardless of what they add is correct or not, as it is not about correctness, but about the false authority involved. Once again, one cannot cite scripture to show something is not in scripture. One could try to cite scripture to say something is incorrect or at least incongruous, although that wasn't the main original point. And additionally, that rarely goes anywhere when it is the same lines being quoted by the opposite side.
And as we have now gone firmly off-topic, comments are closed. Thank you, everyone.
These people would be arguing for bestiality whether or not homosexual behaviour was legal. You can even find rare cases of people against homosexual behaviour, but for bestiality (in heterosexual cases only).
About the only thing legality of homosexual behaviour does for them is give them another parallel to try to draw. But they can already draw that parallel now, and how well are their arguments at convincing people in the end anyway? Pro-bestiality people have also drawn parallels to interracial marriage, civil rights, slavery, etc. Should we go back to old laws on with those issues too, just to inconvenience the pro-bestiality rhetoric a little more?
The problem with this slippery slope argument, is it assumes there are only two options: those for a moral-immoral dividing line between heterosexual sex and all else, and those against any dividing line. This false dichotomy ignores people who think a line should exist, but at a different place, which is probably the vast majority of people.
Well CC, in your words I'm a "heathen fucktard cum dumpster wannabe", and even *I* think dogfuckers are depply fucked-up assholes... a bit like you, in fact!
BTW, Did God tell you to bawlete your LiveJournal or something? Silly Crazy Cunt.
"People called me crazy..."
You're a STUPID FUCKING CUNT is what you are! Fuck off and die in a gay tryst with Brine already.
-- Desiring_Change
My Livejournal is friends only now, I bet it's driving you crazy now knowing what I'm saying behind your back isn't it? When the zoophile rights movement hits the UK (and it will before it hits America because the UK is a pretty shitty country) I guarantee you will be the zoo rights poster boy, bending over backwards to defend animal/human love just like you defend man/man love. Anyway, Good luck with you new years resolution lard ass.
LOL Mr Santorum, how's the Presidential bid going?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Religious_perspectives
Well, I guess it's a little late in the ballgame to point this out, but, shoot, you dogfucker apologists sure know how to pick your battles. First it was "sex with dogs does no harm" in the Krypto stories (you know, the one where the guy fucked his dog to death), and now its "it really is about love" in the case of the doggie pornographer.
You guys sure know how to pick'em.
I doubt your intention is to debate with a level mind based on your level of emotional rapport. If you feel that strongly about the issue, I have to ask you what drives it? What drives your hatred against it? Do you feel it should be unlawful because of it?
Also understand you can fuck anything to death. People that do this are terrible. Period. Using that as an example isn't really a valid way to prove 'dogfucking' being bad. That just makes the person who did that to an animal all the more fucked up. It happens more often to humans though, so take peace in knowing that.
Another thing I have to clear up is I'm not an apologist, I simply try to understand beyond what I've been taught to see, try to come up with my own ideas, and try to understand things at a less conventional approach. I'm not defending or attacking any angle directly, or picking sides. I am simply being the devil's advocate.
My personal views deem bestiality as wrong and I'd prefer not to see it, but what I haven't read so far is a good reason as to why it is wrong enough to be punishable by imprisonment and why it results in people being scorned as much, if not more than everyday sexual offenders.
Well, I was pissed at Rakuen Growlithe because he was the big player in the Krypto debates; I enjoyed debating with him, and then it became ugly because, shit. I spent a fucking year telling Portal of Evil, no, not only do furries not fuck dogs, we're actively agin' it. Then, bang, Portal of Evil was right, and that makes Lion Cub Jesus cry. This is also why I'm so against it; as a furry, every time a furry defends a dogfucker, that looks bad on me as a fellow furry. It doesn't matter that that isn't fair to me, it's how the world works.
Also, I'm not using the "fucked to death" argument as why bestiality is bad; I'm using it as an argument proving bestiality can be harmful. It doesn't get much more harmed than dead. And Rakuen Growlithe's sole argument was "the dog is not harmed." Perhaps he could argue that in this case, but not in that one. Likewise, the whole porn angle kind of throws the love thing out the window, because porn does not equal love, and if you think that, boy howdy friends!
My point in the above post is, shit, these dogfucker apologists are fighting a losing battle to begin with that is actively hurting everyone around you (whether its fair or not, I'm just going to nip that argument in the bud, you can be Non-Judgemental Man with Extreme Fence-Sitting Action, but that's your little red wagon, not the world at large's), and the fucking morons can't even go five sentences without running into an obvious contradiction!
On one hand, sorry for moving you into the dogfucker apologist lunatic fringe. On the other hand, pick a fucking side, because no side is the most lunaticiest lunatic fringe of all.
Neutrality means that you don't really care, 'cause the struggle goes on even when you're not there. Blind and unaware!
- Collapse (Post-Amerika), Rise Against
I just had to.
It's easy to understand your plight now when you say your personal side of the story, it really is. The reality is crushing when you realize something you stood up for was a mere apparition, a false sense of hope, or wishful thinking. Fact is, this issue extends far beyond the furry fandom, and furthermore statistically reading the furry surveys and information collected from wikipedia and doing a little math, the values aren't far apart when describing the amount of zoophile activity. In other words, you're pissed at sub-stereotype of 'dogfucking' in the furry fandom, when it's just as an active occurrence as it is with non-furries. Which means you're pissed at people giving a shit and blowing things out of proportion on things they don't fully understand and fail to grasp or acknowledge every angle, right? Well, then you're not too far away from my view then in that sense.
I already said my position really, but I guess I didn't make it concise enough: I take my own side, I come up with my own answers, and I'm also open to having my views reeducated if someone produces worthy evidence. In other words, I guess I'm too open minded for your liking? Sorry to say, there's more than Democrat and Republican, good and evil, or black and white.
Another position I have is being over-biased and overemotional in trying to convey a message really just trashes any point of a debate and makes it null and void. There's no reasoning with an angry bear but with patience.
And since this has totally been derailed, I really don't see any further point in carrying any further commentary on this particular forum of debate (more concisely this more personal argument you brought up), as it's getting horridly off topic.
Wow, that was a lot of words to say, "Golly, gee, I sure am a smug sonofabitch!"
Now I have to... xD
Imagine this in a (smart, cause this one has to be conceited and a know-it-all) 4th grader voice, trying so desperate to convince his audience all "but johnny was the one...."-like:
'The Character Gregory House is a smug sonofabitch, and people can find themselves able to understand him in some light, even enjoying his thoughtful input, though how "lunatic" it may be.'
Alright I'm done now with that.
I really did have fun though. It sucks when strong personal opinion (not suggesting in a condescending way) gets in the way of argument, but you did have some pretty decent defense nonetheless. That said, it was the whole "defending the furry fandom thing". Yeah, I think we need to promote having everyone love who we what, live how we want want, believe in what we want, and give a shit about what we want them to. Oh, don't forget censor what we want.
I was being nice before, honestly.
Now I'm done (being provoked), really. That was smug. Toodles.
Well, you know, you shrugged off the action figure comparison (and that was good line, too!) so easily I had to see if you were actually human.
The dog there wasn't "fucked to death." There was no evidence provided that supported the bestiality as the cause of death. The dog died from a common disease. You also need to learn the difference between evidence and anecdote. An example of someone drowning does not mean that swimming is harmful. On the balance swimming is still safe, and good for you.
Looks bad on you as a fellow furry just means that it contradicts a view that you share with the rest of the world. If the world thought an interest in anthropomorphics as an adult was a problem, as apparently a lot do, then you wouldn't think that a furry saying they were a furry reflects badly on you. You would consider the difference to reflect badly on the rest of the world.
"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~
Yes, we know, you don't give a damn about your reputation, have never been afraid of any deviation.
I like that song too, it's catchy.
Harm can come from missionary heterosexual sex. The fact that rape and harm can occur in humans does not mean it will occur, nor does it inform a blanket moral moratorium on sex between humans.
Harm can come from bestiality. The fact that rape and harm can occur between humans and animals does not mean it will occur, nor does it inform a blanket moral moratorium on sex between humans and animals.
Also, the language of defining the subculture should be much clearer than you are making it out to be. I don't see anyone in the mainstream claiming furry=dogfucker.
Being a furry doesn't make you gay, doesn't make you straight, doesn't make you a fur-suiter, doesn't make you love Robin Hood or Fox and the Hound, and it sure as fuck doesn't make you a zoophile.
I wonder why you so vehemently insist on some perceived irrational threat?
It is true we live in an age of increasingly religious conservative moral precepts and decreasing privacy. This is cause for alarm for each one of us who does not fit their preset notion of a moral upstanding human being (what ever that may be.)
And by the way if you see contradictions, then point them out, simply stating "they're full of contradictions" does not make it so. You can start with this post, it has 12 sentences, you should be able to find at least 2 contradictions.
The argument "it does no serious harm" used by Rakuen Growlithe was used to defend a case in which the animal was clearly harmed (the dog had a vaginal infection known to occur in dogs who are used in the manner this dog was used), this harm was confirmed by a trained veterinarian, and the dog was put down by said veterinarian due to this harm, which is evidence it was pretty serious, however much RG denies it. Harm in itself, is yes, not enough to call blanket accusations of immorality in all cases, but when your opponent's entire argument is "it causes no serious harm" in the case where the dog was pretty obviously seriously harmed is pretty good evidence your opponent is a fucking idiot.
Furthermore, Zevian's main argument is "he really loved that dog," in the case of a man who was caught producing homemade porn videos for a barter system of profit. For profit porn stars usually do not fuck for love; at the very least, it could not be argued that the acts leading to the arrest were entirely about love. They were at least partially motivated (in this case, credits for other porn) by something other than love. Therefore, once again, the guy is using the wrong argument for the wrong case.
To be perfectly clear, I am not even really arguing against general bestiality; I am pointing out that two arguments being used to defend these two cases do not apply to the respective cases. In other words, even if Rakuen Growlithe's and Zevian's arguments were acceptable defenses of sex with dogs, these two cases are indefensible.
So what? That misuse and misinterpretation of information of a specific incident has no real bearing on the larger moral issue. It might be clearer to say that human animal sex cannot be said to necessarily cause harm in the same sense that human human sex cannot be said to necessarily cause harm. Rape and harm though can occur in both instances though, but the fact that if can occur, does not mean it must occur, nor does it inform a necessary moratorium on the behavior in question.
I agree with you insomuch as his misuse of video material and risk he took to publicize his sexual interactions online with his own face and own nick were very unwise. Lack of wisdom however does not denote lack of love. The argument does stand. The objection you have, I think, is with the sexual interaction, which it has been argued was itself an expression of his love. From this point of view you are looking specifically at the mental picture of the human involved, not the point of view of the animal's psychology. Is the human's mental picture or context of events relevant to the morality of the issue for you?
As above, the human's mental picture is everything; the dog (both literally and figuratively) has no say in this, and that's why it is wrong.
I will say, even if Xanth truly, really, deeply, madly loved the dog (in a non-physical sense as well as physical), he would still be in the wrong here. If he truly loved the dog, physical love would be unnecessary. There are better ways to show love to a dog than ramming your dick into its vagina, is what I'm saying.
Furthermore, you can totally ram your dick into another human's vagina without love entering the picture; it's not a stretch to think the guy may have just wanted to ram his dick into a vagina, especially since he's using the act to essentially buy pornography.
Also, also, when I say the dog has no choice, I mean there is no evidence that dogs are aware of the very concept of "choice."
Now you consider things from the dog's perspective: the concept of choice may not be something a dog is aware of and yet every day we see dogs making all kinds of choices: where to poop, where to lay down, which bone to grab, which dog to harass (do I pounce this way or that way,) how do I get that tasty human food out of that human's hand (do I look toward or away, do I wag my tail, do I whine.)
What's more is that they are very good at reading intention movements. If you take your dog out for walkies, you know what I mean. They can sense when you are going outside, they can observe you putting your jacket and shoes on, they can observe you grabbing that leash. When their excitement mounts, they demonstrate an awareness of cause and effect, an awareness that you will be taking them on a walk. The same can be said for sexual situations. If they do not like what's coming next when you grab the lube they will make themselves available or unavailable, or when you caress their rump or croup or even position yourself near them with lube in hand, they will make their desire or dissent known in any number of ways. The lack of conceptual understanding of "choice" or "simple consent" does not somehow rob them of the ability to anticipate or make choices for themselves.
Continuing further: Dogs and humans have co-existed for hundreds of years. Many breeds have been bred as companion animals. Desirable traits have been bred into dog breeds over the centuries. Every time you pet a dog, you reap the benefits of that long arduous process. Studies have shown that dogs respond to simply having a human in the room with them (lower heart rate) and humans respond to petting a dog (lower blood pressure.) Furthermore, dogs have demonstrated a keen awareness of human states of mind even to the point of being able to anticipate seizures. Their senses and wiring are built to read and respond to humans. The physical interaction being what it is seems a natural extension of that evolutionarily reinforced bond.
If a person massages and pets their dog either for therapeutic or because it feels good to them, the pair will respond to one another. The canine will begin to understand the context (much in the same way as walkies) and be able to anticipate or even solicit that kind of attention. There are some behaviors which seem reflexive or automatic... there may be a particular magic spot (withers) that causes the dog to scratch with a hind leg or another spot (inside of the ear) that causes the dog to close their eyes or or lean into you. It's hard to distinguish between programmed (reflexive) and chosen behaviors but I submit it matters not. Both beings are served (as the studies show) in a deep way when this kind of bond is explored.
It's not hard to extend this hypothetically into the sexual realm. Take someone who enjoys finding those magic spots, those interactions which the dog outwardly displays emotions of liking or desiring or down the road even solicitation and extend them into the sexual realm. If you look at a bitch in what's called raging heat, their behavior begins to gear itself around solicitation of attention. One minute you might be scratching an ear, the next, she's turned and your scratching her rump instead. There are other odd behavioral changes... of you press down on the area above her tail on her back she will (at the right time in heat) present her sex organs. It could be hard wired but there are many extensions of observed characteristics of desire/solicitation and pleasure in some of these highly charged interactions.
Did Xanth push all the right buttons? Was his relationship a sensual exploration of shared sexual and nonsexual experiences? Was it an expression of his love and her solicitation of pleasure? I suppose this information is out of reach for a forum such as this. All indications (without watching footage) are that he loved her but made some really unwise decisions, and what human isn't guilty of making mistakes? (Is a dog capable of being culpable?)
We can never truly know what lies inside the motivations and thoughts of another. What we sense and perceive and what we label as "love" or "lust" for example might actually mean completely different things between individuals. Having sex can be an expression of lust or it can be an expression of love. Shared pleasure, shared experiences build bonds. In this case, if Xanth himself fell romantically in love with his dog, even though the dog is probably not capable of loving him back, she was certainly capable as an adult dog with all the adult dog equipment, to safely engage with, and enjoy having sex with him. Unless in the video you can see signs of damage or body language/growls that are ignored by him (evidence of rape) you have a really hard case on your hands proving he did something wrong (if you just consider Xanth's mental state in this context.)
Psychology, as a field, attempts to untangle the inner riddles humans have and what they have to say. As you might have heard the DSM IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) classifies this as a paraphilia, qualifying as a disorder if harm comes of it, if it affects their ability to integrate into normal social structures or if they feel unable to control or at the mercy of their behavior. Does this apply to Xanth? That's up to neither one of us to judge as we lack both training and clinical information to make any meaningful diagnostic analysis.
Enter the video taping: exploitative, a dumb idea, an unnecessary risk, unwise - yes, but as I've stated above lack of wisdom does not equal lack of love.
1. You are asking me to take, on faith, the idea that this was an act of love, when the surrounding circumstances (i.e. the porn thing) are not consistent with actions of people in love.
2. I don't know why you're still pursuing the matter, because even if I did take it on faith, I have previously stated love is not a defense here.
No, it's much simpler than that:
"We lack the training and clinical information to make any meaningful" judgement.
Why extend beyond the limitations of your knowledge and judge another? It has very little to do with you one way or another.
And in the area that really matters to you the following point is pretty self evident: Being a furry does not make you a zoo any more than it makes you enjoy fursuit sex or gay or any other label.
Because I believe in "erring on the side of caution."
If we lack the training and clinical information to make a judgement(i.e. the morality of an action), then maybe we shouldn't do said action.
And it may not be fair to judge someone else's actions, but the world is not fair; I will be judged for remaining silent on the issue, so I am not silent. As I've already pointed out (sort of), silence is not consent, but not getting consent, apparently, never stopped Xanthy boy from doing what he wanted, so it's going to happen.
I can live with the sin of "being judgemental." I cannot live with the sin of bestiality.
Unfortunate that you are comfortable with your ignorance (limitations of your perceptions) ...no small wonder then that you lack the confidence and ability to navigate difficult moral waters.
Sticking my dick into a dog because I fucking feel like it is not navigating difficult waters.
It's saying, "Fuck it, let's just do this! Oh, haha, I just made a funny!" then sticking your dick in a dog because you fucking feel like it.
I've edited the above post too many times, and you apparently have a limit; the last sentence should read "these two cases are indefensible using those arguments" to be completely (or at least more) fair.
The infection was known to occur in a large number of unspayed dogs. There is no known link to bestiality. Go read the stories again. The only connection was that someone said it was could have been linked. I think I asked you before to quote whatever part of the articles says it was caused by bestiality. I don't know if you're deliberately refusing to acknowledge that or just didn't read it properly but all you need to do is try quote the article.
"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~
"According to euthanasia documents, Maggie and Bowers' male German shepherd were put down five days later. Maggie reportedly suffered pyrometra, which is an infection of the uterus.
Jordan said the infection could have been caused by the use of lubricants."
Okay, so "could have been," you know, like lung cancer "has been linked" to smoking.
It's a magic of semantics... "We found crossaffliction to be a furry which "COULD* be linked to dogfucking..." In politics its called push polling "How would you feel if Rick Santorum was found to have an illegitimate black baby out of wedlock?" The words you chose often affect how they are used and perceived.
Except there are studies linking smoking and cancer, not lubricants and pyrometra. That could is merely saying that lubricants are not usually found in a dog's uterus and it's possible that it could have caused the infection, a very common infection I feel I must add again. Furthermore it would be just as correct to say, "Jordan said the infection could have nothing to do with bestiality." You have to be very careful what you say in science.
There's actually a good reason why you say "has been linked" with cancer. Studies of cancer and smoking are epidemiological studies that look at lifestyles and outcomes and generalise from that. It supports a link between smoking and cancer but it is not proof. To prove smoking causes cancer you have to actually perform the experiment, you will have to randomly make some people smoke and others not smoke and then compare their cancer rates. There is no ethics board that will ever approve an experiment that will probably give someone cancer so we are forced to work with "links" or experiments done in animals, which may or may not be applicable to humans. Although the strength of the link between smoking and cancer is strong enough that it would be foolish to doubt it but I was just using it as an example of what you can and can't say.
"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~
Look, man, you're the rationalist. If there is a possibility of harm, shouldn't the action be, rationally, something not done?
Furthermore, the treatment of choice for pyometra is an emergency spaying (and I know you have issues with general spaying, but an emergency spaying to save the dog's life is a bit different), which would have rendered the dog useless for Krypto's purposes, so he had it put down. Even if the infection was not given to the dog via Mr. Krypto's lubricated penis, it is still fair to say bestiality killed that dog.
There is a risk in walking down stairs. Proper precautions and mitigation of risk are what enjoying life is all about. That's what Xanth is guilty of: lack of risk mitigation not of rape. :)
No, he's guilty of rape.
"Even if the infection was not given to the dog via Mr. Krypto's lubricated penis, it is still fair to say bestiality killed that dog."
No, often times even spayed dogs can still have sex, only the uterus and ovaries are removed, women have hysterectomies, partial or total too and sex doesn't end there for them.
A normal man doesn't need artificial lube, they produce it themselves.
The proper lube that should be used (if any is) of course is used by gynocologists, veterinarians etc is KY jelly or equiv.
Responsible zoos also wash up both their member and their hands before activities, since dirty hands touching a dirty member is not good, neither is inserting fingers.
You wouldn't work on your car engine, and change the oil and then go sit down to dinner without washing your hands, or finger your girlfriend without washing the oil and grease off your hands, it's no different.
Clean is always best no matter with whom, but normal bacteria isnt a problem, that's what an immune system is for!
If you are an attentive dog owner, you will catch the early signs of pyometra the day it starts, it's not an emergency then, though the vets who want to justify their $1,200 bill will tell you it is.
If you are the type of dog owner who has a dog chained up out back that you check on once a week when you dump a bag of feed back there for it, then yes, the dog will probably be dead by the time you noticed a smelly bloody discharge.
Spaying does not, to my knowledge, prevent sex. And again you're jumping a couple of steps. Did Krypto know the dog was sick or how serious it was? You can't immediately say he did what he did only to continue having sex with her. And yes, if that is the reason she didn't get treatment, that is terrible.
The problem with your possibility of harm is that it's far too general. Firstly I don't think the probability of harm is nearly high enough, at least according to what we currently know, to say the act shouldn't be performed. Secondly we do many things that are harmful without anyone minding, at least not to the point where they want it banned. Lastly we can't know the possibility of harm without perfect knowledge. Maybe using computers is harmful in some way and we just haven't realised yet, we can't know but we still use them because we don't have evidence of the harm now. Fossil fuels are harmful to the planet but when we first started using them no one knew that and they couldn't be expected to wait until they were sure.
"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~
I make this post and then find this article.
http://health.yahoo.net/experts/dayinhealth/your-computer-harming-your-health
Guess computers can be quite harmful. I suppose we won't be hearing from you any more then. :( Be careful, it's a dangerous world out there.
"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're missing my point; I'm saying your defense is a bad tack to take in that case. Taking risks is all fine and dandy, but defending a guy who took a risk where one of the parties to said risk ended up dead by saying he didn't take a risk is a bit stupid.
Jesus Christ, I drive 20 miles down a semi-trailer busy but still unfortunately two lane highway to work most days, then 20 miles back, and it's a risky venture, but that doesn't make it immoral. However, if something were to happen on that highway (and something does every other week) and some loony comes in and says I deserved it because cars are immoral or whatever, please don't defend me by saying I wasn't endangering myself or anyone else driving, because I fucking was!
Unlike driving, however, dogfucking has moral implications that have nothing to do with physical harm, so defending bestiality by saying it does no harm is both a. beside the point and b. not a very good tactic in the Krypto case.
Furthermore, I don't need an article telling me computers are harmful to my well-being; they put me in contact with you, didn't they?
"Spaying does not, to my knowledge, prevent sex. And again you're jumping a couple of steps. Did Krypto know the dog was sick or how serious it was? You can't immediately say he did what he did only to continue having sex with her. And yes, if that is the reason she didn't get treatment, that is terrible."
Spaying usually does not, it can if from lack of hormones the internal structures shrink greatly, but large and giant breed dogs are plenty large enough.
Not everyone can recognize pyometra, and if it occurs shortly after a heat cycle the owner might think it's just an extended cycle left over.
People are making a lot of assumptions about female dogs and men, and assume that the only activity that can happen is intercourse, and that is false. The more talented dogs have very big soft tongues that they learn quickly how to use, most all dogs find the taste of semen to be like a treat.
Put the two together and there's lots more beyond simple intercourse.
Also, the clitorus is not removed from the dog either, and functions the same as it does in women, spaying makes no difference to that function, it can still provide orgasms.
Only Krypto knows the facts, but many zoos were outraged, condemned and shunned him after he posted about the dogs, their problems and his rationale along with his views and comments (the post was subsequently deleted.)
However, in light of the costs involved for treatment, someone who is unemployed or has little money simply can't afford to spend $1,200 or more on a dog, and of course if the dog is over age ten, and, or has other health issues, then those factors have to be weighed as well.
Do you spend $1,200 to treat a fourteen year old dog of a breed whose normal lifespan is ten-twelve? What if the dog has cancer, do you spend $5,000-$10,000 on chemo, surgery, radiation, travel on a fourteen year old dog to gain at best a couple or so weeks more "life" in pain from surgery, sick, only to die shortly afterwards?
If the dog is two and the outcome has a good measure of hope, yes, such an expenditure and putting the dog through all that pain, surgery, medications etc is worth while as the dog can live a dozen more years in good health if cured.
Everyone has to make their own decisions and choices, not all of them will be correct, but a self proclaimed "zoo" who puts their dog down because the dog can't perform any longer is sickening, outrageous, and guaranteed will have a lot of real zoos on their behind.
Remember- not everyone who CLAIMS to be a "zoo" is one! people claim all sorts of things, and in my opinion real, ethical zoos don't do bestiality related porn or upload it, share it, or give it away, they don't put their dog down because they can't have sex any more, and don't parade "zoo" all over the internet as the coolest thing to experiment with.
Being zoo is not about "fucking animals," that's "bestialist," "zoo" goes much deeper into the spiritual, companionship and relationship aspects, the sex is icing on the cake, it's part of the relationship like it is with a married couple, but like some marriages, some people were never meant to be "zoos", and some lay title to it falsely.
If you're fucking a dog, you're fucking a dog, dude. I'm not playing your stupid-ass "all dogfuckers are equal, but some dogfuckers are more equal than others" game.
That being said I did point out to Rakuen Growlithe that Krypto was the dogfucker other dogfuckers looked at and said, "Hey, that's pretty fucked up what you did right there," and that maybe he should have waited for this guy (though seriously, he was a pornographer, so maybe he should've waited even longer).
I don't think making TWO personal videos for a friend makes one a "pornographer" as you imply.
Krypto, the self claimed zoo, was looked at negatively by real zoos the same way heterosexual men look at other heterosexual men who beat their wives up.
Just because the wife beater claims he is a "family values man" and is of the same sexual orientation as the other heterosexual men around him, doesn't make him the same, nor does it make him the claimed "family values man."
Certainly no more than the self proclaimed "zoo" (who happens to have sex with animals,) is a real "zoo" at heart.
The name for that type of "zoo" is "bestialist," look it up.
But aside from that, it became clear over time from his obsessive compulsive behavior, his very strange writings about his dogs, and his final actions along with his bizarre justifications for putting down his healthy male dog, that his problem had to do with one or all, of these disorders --{
Mental illness, emotional problems, social disorders.
Okay, I hate to break my Internet promise for such a lame, hack, old joke, but are you using the same defense Bill Clinton used in the Monica Lewinsky trial; i.e. it wasn't adultery (in his case) or bestiality (in your case) because a blowjob isn't sex?
Because if it didn't work for the friggin' President of the United States of America, what makes you think it'll work for you?
"That could is merely saying that lubricants are not usually found in a dog's uterus and it's possible that it could have caused the infection,"
A dog's cervix is normally very, very closed up, unlike other animals where a vet can insert a pipette for A.I. purposes right thru the cervix, the dog's cervix is not normally large enough to pass anything into.
The infection comes from a progesterone/hormonal imbalance, that is where the pyometra starts, and it's anyone's guess as to why, but since it's usually seen in middle aged and older dogs it's certainly a byproduct of aging and/or a defect such as hypothyroidism which can cause a variety of problems just as diabetes does in humans, which can cause loss of a leg from gangrene.
Spaying mostly prevents pyometra, but spaying has it's own side effects and problems, one is spay induced urinary incontinence. It's said to affect some 50% of boxer dogs, and other breeds in varying amounts, but spaying is the cause, and doggie diapers and/or drugs for the rest of their life is a common outcome.
Spaying can also increase aggression towards people in some females if there was any before the surgery, it can cause increased hypothyroidism and more.
Neutered male dogs have an increased risk of prostate cancer, lack of proper bone development, increased hypothyroidism, juvenile sized genitals which can cause urinary difficulties, and other problems.
There is no perfect solution, every surgery has it's risk, every action or inaction has a reaction, outcome, or consequence, in the end every animal owner has to decide what's best for their animal and their situation.
"According to euthanasia documents, Maggie and Bowers' male German shepherd were put down five days later. Maggie reportedly suffered pyrometra, which is an infection of the uterus."
Jordan said the infection could have been caused by the use of lubricants."
He is a known obsessive nut-case with a number of "problems" I wouldn't even classify him in the same class with real zoophiles, he is the rare exception. The dog was an older dog, but he put the male down too as he claimed the dog would grieve too much, totally sickening to those who know the real background story, and it had nothing to do with zoophilia and everything to do with psychological and financial issues.
Lubricants don't cause infections! men don't need lubricants usually, the only way a lubricant would cause vaginitis- a vaginal infection- is if he used vaseline, applied with dirty hands, or used something else like cooking oil- all of which we are all warned to never use for sexual purposes, and to use medical approved and used KY jelly or similar for any lubrication needed for sexual activities or insertions of medical devices or the like.
(the dog had a vaginal infection known to occur in dogs who are used in the manner this dog was used), this harm was confirmed by a trained veterinarian, and the dog was put down by said veterinarian due to this harm,"
Wrong, it is common knowledge that female canines are especially prone to that and it has a medical name, it's called "pyometra," it is a serious uterine infection. Veterinary science has known about pyometra for ages, they still don't know what the cause is, and to assume it's from sex is ridiculous.
Pyometra develops at random, and due to no known specific cause, the THEORY is that in dogs unlike wolves who have one estrus per year, they have two per year due to better nutrition and other factors associated with domestication and if not bred to produce a litter of puppies, the uterine lining skin becomes "old."
When the lining becomes "old" from not being removed (by pregnancy) it can become a reservoir for naturally occurring bacteria to get out of hand and develop into the infection we call pyometra.
The cervix which closes off the uterus from the vagina has a mucus plug, the tiny opening is normally too small for anything to enter.
The infection STARTS in the deep uterus not the vagina!
It can take two forms, closed or open, with the closed form the pus and bacteria are trapped in the uterus which greatly expands and can burst.
In the open form which is more common, this drains out in the form of a purulent bloody/mucus discharge anyone can recognize.
At that point she can be spayed and it removes the whole problem.
With the closed form, or idiot owners who never check their chained up dog out back except to throw a bag of food in the doghouse- the owner may not be aware of the problem until the dog becomes sick and goes off food.
The disease is highly curable with a good outcome when recognized early, but it can cost $1,000 to $2000 or even more for treatment and surgery, and most people will opt to just kill the dog rather than pay that.
Again, every AKC/CKC dog breeders eventually runs into this frequently if they have multiple dogs, as do ordinary pet owners of intact dogs, even wolves and coyotes develop this disease, it's not limited to just pet dogs.
The disease usually starts shortly after a heat cycle but can start at any time, also it typically strikes middle aged to older dogs, especially those not used for breeding or who had several cycles with no breedings that produced a litter to remove that "old" lining. It affects all breeds of dogs, including toy poodles and chihuahuas which are obviously not involved with zoophillic activities due to size.
Cheque drops to prevent or stop heat cycles can help prevent pyometra in dogs the owner wishes to maintain intact as nature intended, but can't be given every heat cycle long term.
For those owners, relentless watch for any abnormal discharges outside of heat (or after heat is over), especially any sticky purulent type discharge that has a foul or metallic odor is cause to have her examined right away.
Once pyometra has started, the only genuine cure is spaying. Some extremely limited success in stopping it in some dogs has been obtained by the use of prostaglandin injections which work by sloughing off the uterine lining, but it has an extraordinary failure rate, and the dog can still (and likely will) develop pyometra at the next heat cycle or soon after.
Pyometra and Cystic Endometrial Hyperplasia in Dogs
The abnormal thickening (pyometra) of the uters' lining can occur in dogs at any age, although it is more common in dogs that are six years of age or older. Cystic endometrial hyperplasia, meanwhile, is a medical condition characterized by the presence of pus-filled cyst inside the dog's uterus, causing the endometrium to enlarge (also known as hyperplasia).
Pyometra is a result of hormonal and structural changes in the uterus lining. This can happen at any age, whether she has bred or not, and whether it is her 1st or 10th heat (although it becomes more common as the dog gets older). The main risk period for a female is for eight weeks after her estrus cycle has ended.
Normally during this period, the cervix, which was open during her heat, begins to close, and the inner lining begins to adapt back to normal. However, cystic hyperplasia of the endometrium (inner lining of the uterus) – known as cystic endometrial hyperplasia (CEH) – may occur at this time for some animals, as an inappropriate response to progesterone.
Even spaying does not prevent this disease, Stump pyometra is a serious health condition that may occur in female dogs that underwent spaying. In this condition, the remaining stump of the resected Uterus becomes infected and filled with a purulent fluid. The symptoms are similar to those of true pyometra. The risk of this condition is significantly reduced if no uterine or ovarian tissue remains from the original ovariohysterectomy. Diagnosis of a stump pyometra may be challenging as pyometra is often discounted as a possibility if the dog has been previously spayed.
Pyometra in dogs is a hormonal imbalance of the uterus that causes uterine enlargement and cyst formation. The disease affects female dogs that have not been spayed. Middle-aged to older dogs are the most likely to suffer from pyometra and certain breeds are more predisposed than others. The main cause of pyometra is a hormonal imbalance in the uterus, but it is really the cascade of symptoms and responses to the symptoms that tends to escalate pyometra into a serious and potentially dangerous disease.
Overproduction of the hormone progesterone, or the oversensitivity of the uterus to progesterone, causes pyometra. When this occurs, the uterus swells and the uterine lining thickens and form cysts. The cysts release fluids and as the uterus swells, the liquid leaks out of the dog's vagina. Symptoms of pyometra are excessive thirst, frequent urination, low grade fever, and a white fluid discharge from the vagina
Romagnoli, Stefano (2002). "Canine Pyometra: Pathogenesis, Therapy and Clinical Cases". Proceedings of the 27th World Congress of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association. Retrieved 2006-12-14.
Pyometra". The Merck Veterinary Manual. 2006. Retrieved 2006-12-14.
Notice that it indicates the disease results from hormonal and structural changes (as the dog ages) but they still don't know exactly what causes it. It could be certain hormones or flora that keeps it from happening decreases over age, but it's basis in fact is it's a self-starting problem caused by hormonal changes in the uterus itself, the uterus lining gets thicker especially from never having a litter, and the dog has pyometra.
Surgical sterilization of free-ranging wolves
Christine E. Spence, James E. Kenyon, Darrell R. Smith,
Robert D. Hayes, Alan M. Baer
...A second female wolf, treated in early 1997, died approximately 3 mo following surgery. Upon necropsy,
the wolf had a severe infection of one of the ligated uterine segments. The infected area had ruptured into the abdominal cavity, evidently causing fatal peritonitis.
There was no apparent introduction of bacteria from an external ligature. These findings are consistent with
cystic endometrial hyperplasia-pyometra, a condition that is commonly found in older canines
Here, lets make it easy for you to find more contradictions, let's take a look at the apologist's axioms:
1. Adult dogs are not human children with regard to sexual activity, social design, psychology or physical capabilities
2. Dogs need not exhibit informed consent in order to safely participate in sex (with or without humans)
3. Dogs can derive pleasure and even seek out sex.
How much of this is defending specifically the people in the stories versus responding to more general arguments about bestiality in general? If someone responds to a story about a human rape cases with, "And this is why human sex is immoral and should not be performed, because it could cause harm," would arguing against that be necessarily supporting that rapist?
Obviously there is a biased concentration of people supporting the particular person, and very little to encourage more level-headed people to post well-thought out discussion here. Some still try though, and to assume everyone offering counterpoints supports the person in the original series is quite short-sighted.
That sir, is by far the BEST post in the ENTIRE thread!
LOL!! XD
Well, it's less words than Ravvy, but you're saying the exact same thing, and being hypocritical about it to boot, since it's not like this is your first post.
Only hypocritical if in one of those previous posts he claimed he was not doing it to feel like a big man.
Well, nobody really asked him, so I guess he gets a pass.
Aw, so you do sort of enjoy my 'insanity'; well, at least over hypocrisy. I feel touched. :3
Well, I was way off.
However, since nobody took me up on the pool offer, I guess I get to keep my 100 imaginary Internet dollars.
I don't know what I'm going to imaginary Internet spend them on, though.
In other news, none of you are so crazy as the woman that made this. O_o
The real problem is not that the guy messed with his dog. The actual reason so many are against it is because many are Furry and or ignorant. Furies (the ones against Zoophilia) feel that if they do not embrace such a lifestyle (Zoophilia). That they can therefore feel good about having interests with other furies who portray themselves as animals. Furies are in denial and the loudest voices are those with the most infatuation with being a furry.
The original definition of Zoophilia was:
1) Having or fantasying about sexual intercourse with animals (either imaginary or actual).
There is more but not posted here.
BUT..... that covers Furry rather well. see what i mean about denial?
Anthropomorphic animals; imaginary animals having human characteristics; including the human exclusive in reality ability to consent and also boobs, which is also important.
The crucial part missing from your definition is "with human characteristics"
Furries are intelligent beings with the ability to give informed consent. Plain animals, even fully-grown, don't have that, just as human children don't. This is the moral basis (from an animal-rights perspective) for criminalizing sex with animals.
We don't care that you want to have sex with a person who looks like a dog. We care that it has the mind of a dog.
Okay, I'm done, for the practical reason that it literally just took ten minutes to load all these comments, and I actually for once have a pretty fast computer. I must have something on in the background I'm not aware of, but still.
The only point that I need to make was the whole "worrying about my reputation" thing is not about being made fun of; I spent a frigging year on PoE defending furry, so it's not like I haven't been called dogfucker before. The real reason is, hey, guys, some of use our real frigging names here because we'd like to believe it's safe to do that on a furry site, but, you know what, if this costs me a job later on, thanks a fucking lot, dogfuckers.
You really are hurting everyone around you. You need to realize this and stop what you're doing. Right now.
Nope. If it leads to having any traits close to what you displayed in these comments, not on your life.
It is not just the pro-bestiality people that contributes to this mess. There are a lot of anti-bestiality people making it worse by doing such horrible jobs at making a point, they only accomplish giving the other side straw-men or other easy to dismiss arguments. In some cases, that is more encouraging than coming out with open support for them.