bestiality

[Jacques]

Originally Posted by greatsayaman

The one who was talking about public nudity dares being as bad as beastiality dares. =3

I was just pointing it out, is all. Nothing more.

A lot of people's fetishes on here are "sick."
Incest, bdsm, shit, piss, having freedom taken away...

But why judge someone for it? It's just a matter of respect, really. =3

EDIT: Oops, paying too much attention to this movie. Apparently no one did, and it was you?
Either way... XD

She was not saying public nudity dares were as bad as bestiality, she was saying they are both illegal and talked about on this site.

Actually- I say it's a matter of respecting animals, and using them as sex toys is incredibly disrespectful. In addition, bestiality cannot be a consensual activity, since as I have argued an animal cannot consent to sexual activity- even if it would not be harmful.

[greatsayaman]

Originally Posted by Jacques

She was not saying public nudity dares were as bad as bestiality, she was saying they are both illegal and talked about on this site.

Actually- I say it's a matter of respecting animals, and using them as sex toys is incredibly disrespectful. In addition, bestiality cannot be a consensual activity, since as I have argued an animal cannot consent to sexual activity- even if it would not be harmful.

The animal consents when it mounts the woman.
The animal consents when it licks the person.
The animal consents when it doesn't try to escape.

Animals are instinct-based creatures. Unlike humans, they will struggle 100% of the time, if they're not happy with it, unless they're starving and can't struggle, in which case they're being abused in ways NOT sexual, and I'm not arguing that point.

A 5 year old girl can't consent to seeing your ugly big hairy dick, either. But it could happen. =3
(Not saying you have an ugly big hairy dick, just using imagery for effect. =3)

[theone]

Originally Posted by Jacques

Your scenario of buying a dog is ridiculous- just because someone thinks bestiality isn't wrong does not mean they encourage or suggest it- they are not defending it as such, merely challenging the idea that is automatically wrong- I disagree and think it's wrong, but they are entitled to express their opinions and produce arguments to back them up which the rest of us can then challenge.

No it most certainly is not ridiculous it is a principle used by law enforcement agencies in the judgement of what constitutes pornography. Materiel is judged on the effect it may have on the target audience in respect to its likelihood of causing depravity. The target audience here consists of very young people.

A dare to go nude publicly may be illegal but it certainly does not have the depraving tendencies as suggesting “you go fuck a dog.”

Even if nude pictures were allowed on this site the potential damage is nowhere near as great as suggesting to a 13 year old to gratify themselves sexually on their pet dog. Most kids have seen naked pictures and a lot of them may have done naked dares anyway. That is really quite harmless in comparison to bestiality issues.

[Jacques]

Originally Posted by greatsayaman

The animal consents when it mounts the woman.
The animal consents when it licks the person.
The animal consents when it doesn't try to escape.

Animals are instinct-based creatures. Unlike humans, they will struggle 100% of the time, if they're not happy with it, unless they're starving and can't struggle, in which case they're being abused in ways NOT sexual, and I'm not arguing that point.

A 5 year old girl can't consent to seeing your ugly big hairy dick, either. But it could happen. =3
(Not saying you have an ugly big hairy dick, just using imagery for effect. =3)

I have never heard of an animal mounting someone to perform sexual activity without any prior experience of a human training them to. Dogs hump legs but they do so becuase they are on heat and their brains give them no other option- therefore it is not truly their choice to hump legs. If a dog licks something it does not consider it a sexual act- therefore it cannot be said to consent to the sex act- and the argument that if they don't escape they consent is clearly absurd- just because a human submits to being raped does not mean they consent, look up the legal definition of consent and you will see it does not- therefore the fact a dog submits to sexual activity in no way means it consents.

Your example of the 5 year old proves my point- if you subject a 5 year to any sexual activity (and exposing genitals to them is a criminal offence) they are unable to consent to it, and therefore it is wrong.

[greatsayaman]

Originally Posted by Jacques

I have never heard of an animal mounting someone to perform sexual activity without any prior experience of a human training them to. Dogs hump legs but they do so becuase they are on heat and their brains give them no other option- therefore it is not truly their choice to hump legs. If a dog licks something it does not consider it a sexual act- therefore it cannot be said to consent to the sex act- and the argument that if they don't escape they consent is clearly absurd- just because a human submits to being raped does not mean they consent, look up the legal definition of consent and you will see it does not- therefore the fact a dog submits to sexual activity in no way means it consents.

Your example of the 5 year old proves my point- if you subject a 5 year to any sexual activity (and exposing genitals to them is a criminal offence) they are unable to consent to it, and therefore it is wrong.

1. I have. A lot.
2. My point exactly. They're instinctual creatures.
3. It doesn't consider it a sexual act, but it doesn't consider it an act it doesn't want to participate in, either.
4. Dogs, as I pointed out before, are based on instinct. If they don't like what you're doing, they'll escape or bite your dick off. Dogs and humans have different mentalities. Dogs don't feel emotion as strongly as we do.

My 5 year old example was only about public exposure, though. Humans and dogs are different (as I've pointed out before).

[cassaddee604]

AGREED, Its disgusting and HORRIBLE!!!

Originally Posted by CollaredBlondie

What they said. I think it's horrible.

(high five guys, anyone want a shiney star sticker? You can choose your colour!)

Originally Posted by BettyBoop

I think it's disgusting. To each his own, but seriously there's a limit.

Originally Posted by theone

Bestiality is totally wrong.

Originally Posted by Night-1991

Obviously this started because of the pet dares thread. I hate it. Simple

Originally Posted by Nixie

Disgusting... Yeah that sums it up

Originally Posted by Kinky_sexkitten

iTs PRETTi MUCH SiCkKNASTyY EWW>.<

Originally Posted by Hunterman36

Ok how bout this do you think that humans are supposed to have sex with animals that genes or DNA can not combine...... NO therefore having sex with an animal with which u can not reproduce serves no practical purpose and can in most cases cause the animal harm or the human so that is why bestiality is wrong SIR

[Jacques]

Originally Posted by theone

No it most certainly is not ridiculous it is a principle used by law enforcement agencies in the judgement of what constitutes pornography. Materiel is judged on the effect it may have on the target audience in respect to its likelihood of causing depravity. The target audience here consists of very young people.

A dare to go nude publicly may be illegal but it certainly does not have the depraving tendencies as suggesting “you go fuck a dog.”

Even if nude pictures were allowed on this site the potential damage is nowhere near as great as suggesting to a 13 year old to gratify themselves sexually on their pet dog. Most kids have seen naked pictures and a lot of them may have done naked dares anyway. That is really quite harmless in comparison to bestiality issues.

The target audience here is not very young people, it is people who already have opinions regarding bestiality and want to debate whether it is wrong. No one has encouraged bestiality- to compare- saying heroin should be legal is not the same as telling people they should take heroin. Talking about a subject does not encourage it, and there is no way any young person who read this thread it it's entireity would be depraved- no one has suggested 'you go fuck a dog' as you wrote.

Anyone with an interest in bestiality could i'm sure find a shockingly large number of sites to view it, but this thread is in no way like those websites. If bestiality were suggested as a dare in a thread it would be a different- we are simply discussing whether the activity in general is wrong or not- that is not depraved.

btw- even if it were suggested as a dare- it would not necessarily be depraving- no one who didn't already think bestiality was ok would even consider doing it, and there would be a large number of posts saying how it was illegal/ disgusting, and telling people not to do it.

[Jacques]

Originally Posted by greatsayaman

1. I have. A lot.
2. My point exactly. They're instinctual creatures.
3. It doesn't consider it a sexual act, but it doesn't consider it an act it doesn't want to participate in, either.
4. Dogs, as I pointed out before, are based on instinct. If they don't like what you're doing, they'll escape or bite your dick off. Dogs and humans have different mentalities. Dogs don't feel emotion as strongly as we do.

My 5 year old example was only about public exposure, though. Humans and dogs are different (as I've pointed out before).

In order to consent to sexual acts- you have to know the act is sexual, and have the freedom and capacity to consent to it- a dog does not know the act is sexual, they do not have the capacity to make a choice precisely because their brains operate on instinct, not on reasoning. Just because a dog doesn't feel emotion as strongly does not make having sex with it justifiable. Anyone who even considers having sex with an animal is in someway psychologically damaged, and is using the animal for their own gratification- they do not care about how the animal feels and are hardly likely to consider whether they enjoy it or not. Just because anyone or anything participates in an activity does in no way imply consent, dogs cannot understand the acts, or why the human is doing them, and whether they enjoy it is irrelevant to whether they consent.

I've already made these points before- and this debate is clearly not going anywhere- if you truly believe that bestiality is not wrong, there are many, many reasons it is wrong, and the fact you reject them all says more about the ability of humans to be pigheaded beyond belief that it does about anything else. An animal cannot legally consent to sexual activity no matter hwat you believe, so bestiality will always be illegal, I suspect it will also always be immoral and disgust the vast majority of us. This debate stopped being interesting to me a couple of pages back, so this will be my last post in this thread.

[theone]

My simple humble OPINION.

There have been several pet dares on the site recently and for the most they would probably have gone unnoticed.

While I would not advocate using your dog to lick peanut butter off your dick I accept that it is something some people do. My opinion like some others is that they should not be allowed to own a dog.

However after making my rant I usually completely forget the matter and I certainly make no judgements on the person doing it. People do experiment and sometimes those experiments get a bit wild, especially in sexual matters. I suspect that those experiences would not result in permanent dysfunction to the person doing them.

The issue here is different because a harmless thread inviting people’s opinions on bestiality has turned from a discussion into a debate. I still contend that this is not the place to debate such issues because it is becoming disruptive to the site and causing the polarisation of opinions. People will naturally defend their convictions and that is why we are introducing problems. The people defending bestiality have already said that they are not themselves zoophiles, the argument that they are actually defending is the right to do whatever you want if it doesn’t harm anyone. I personally think that a lot of trolling is going on here as well.

Having said that they are forcing the issue of bestiality on the site, a subject that most people would normally simply ignore. I am sure that that there are a lot of things on this site that others don’t like, hence the use of limits in their profiles.

Bestiality has now been made an issue on this site therefore I think it is reasonable that this subject is addressed as pertaining to this site.
A few silly dares of dogs licking peanut butter off genitals is one thing but this is getting out of hand. As far as I can see the creator of this thread only issued an invitation for opinions, and I myself contributed from the start. My feelings are still the same; this thread has been hijacked by trolls and forced into a debate that is why I refused to be drawn into the debate. Yes I am still contributing but to the original discussion NOT the debate.

The issues of bestiality are not good for this site in my opinion so my question is simply, why are we making it an issue here? If it is going to be an issue and specific viewpoints are going to be touted then the consequences of those provocations will need to be addressed. I myself am unhappy that this has become an issue on this site, we simply don’t need it. If bestiality does become a big issue on this site then in my opinion there could be big consequences for the site as well.

In my opinion bestiality is totally wrong. BDSM and other issues are regarded by society in general to be fetish but bestiality is regarded to be depravity by most.
How can this be good for the future of this site if there is an attitude that encourages this amongst younger members?

Why are we being bullied into a debate by a few internet trolls? Get back to the discussion and leave people alone who want to voice a simple OPINION. Stop harassing them to defend themselves this is not a debate site it’s the lounge of an internet community.

Everyone calm down and get back to having some fun on the getDare site. Forget about the trolls, stop feeding them and they will go away.

[theone]

Originally Posted by Jacques

Anyone with an interest in bestiality could i'm sure find a shockingly large number of sites to view it, but this thread is in no way like those websites. If bestiality were suggested as a dare in a thread it would be a different- we are simply discussing whether the activity in general is wrong or not- that is not depraved.

Sure that is true they could. Conversely any one who was interested in porn could go to a porn site and any under eighteens could probably find a way of posting their nude pictures online. BUT getDAre doesn’t allow that and we all know why that is. Also bestiality has been suggested on the site by others in the “pet” threads.

If people want to debate about fucking dogs, then why not do it on a debate site. Making bestiality an issue on the getDare site, giving it a higher profile than it deserves and biting the bait of internet trolls is not good for the profile of this site.

I like this site, I like the people, I admire the admin staff.

I reiterate this is the lounge of an internet community with some younger members present. Let the trolls tout their rubbish on another site and let them leave the members of getDare in peace. Yay, even let them voice an opinion that bestiality is wrong or depraved if they want, many seem to be doing that.

Also most of those people saying it is wrong are also not making judgements on the opinions of others. Hence it seems that they are not interested in a debate in the lounge.

[Night-1991]

Originally Posted by theone

Sure that is true they could. Conversely any one who was interested in porn could go to a porn site and any under eighteens could probably find a way of posting their nude pictures online. BUT getDAre doesn’t allow that and we all know why that is. Also bestiality has been suggested on the site by others in the “pet” threads.

If people want to debate about fucking dogs, then why not do it on a debate site. Making bestiality an issue on the getDare site, giving it a higher profile than it deserves and biting the bait of internet trolls is not good for the profile of this site.

I like this site, I like the people, I admire the admin staff.

I reiterate this is the lounge of an internet community with some younger members present. Let the trolls tout their rubbish on another site and let them leave the members of getDare in peace. Yay, even let them voice an opinion that bestiality is wrong or depraved if they want, many seem to be doing that.

Also most of those people saying it is wrong are also not making judgements on the opinions of others. Hence it seems that they are not interested in a debate in the lounge.

Your two posts above mine i absolutely agree with. And with that you've just said there. I don't want this site being the bait of Encyclopedia Dramatica or 4chan.

Thats why it's a good idea leaving Beastiality out of the site for good.

[greatsayaman]

Originally Posted by Jacques

In order to consent to sexual acts- you have to know the act is sexual, and have the freedom and capacity to consent to it- a dog does not know the act is sexual, they do not have the capacity to make a choice precisely because their brains operate on instinct, not on reasoning. Just because a dog doesn't feel emotion as strongly does not make having sex with it justifiable.

The fact that the dog has no capacity to understand and consent to it... in which case the dog also has no capacity to deny it, or feel that it's "wrong, dirty, etc." Dogs have no morals.
They operate on instinct; they want to have sex. So, they do it. It's ALWAYS a choice. You can fuck something, or not fuck something.
No, maybe not justifiable. I'm not arguing for that, I'm arguing that it's not cruelty to animals. If the dog enjoys it, participates in it without restraints (which is impossible without injuring the dog, and I'm not arguing for that) and ultimately it comes out at the end uninjured and perfectly healthy, it is not cruelty. The animal is not being injured, mentally or physically.

If you want to leave out beastiality, leave out dares/truths involving family members, leave out shit dares, and piss dares, and BDSM. Because all of them are morally wrong.
Incest.
Playing with body waste.
Injuring and controlling the life and body of another human being.
Having your freedom taken away.

[theone]

Originally Posted by greatsayaman

If you want to leave out beastiality, leave out dares/truths involving family members, leave out shit dares, and piss dares, and BDSM. Because all of them are morally wrong.
Incest.
Playing with body waste.
Injuring and controlling the life and body of another human being.
Having your freedom taken away.

I think we need a slight silly distraction here in the hope that we can regain some sanity and perspective.

Selling bananas of the incorrect curvature, allowed for the country of origin is also morally wrong. Or so we are told by the European parliament, along with thousands of other silly rules they are making. And as you say our freedom is being taken away because we might just want to eat a nice curved banana. Morals are funny like that, but the point is nobody considers eating curved bananas to be adding to the depravity of the target consumers. And nobody has yet been able to link this dubious mastication practice to bestiality. Yet! Give it time.

From this we can assume that when a two year old child wets the bed, that is morally wrong because that is connected to bestiality?

When a mother changes the nappy/diapers of a baby and messes with the baby’s excrement, that is morally wrong because that is connected to bestiality?

When you go to your place of employment and your boss tells you what to do, that is morally wrong because that is connected to bestiality?

When we lock up criminals, that is morally wrong because that is connected to bestiality?

Oh and yes BDSM, that is morally wrong because that is connected to bestiality? I mean it obviously means you have to have sexual relationships with a monkey.

Can we also add eating food without a knife and fork like a monkey, that is morally wrong because that is obviously connected to bestiality?

Hold on a minute does anyone have a dictionary?
Let’s get really technical to avoid confusion and drop the word bestiality and replace it with the more technical word or descriptor, Zoophilia.

Zoophilia, from the Greek ζῷον (zṓion, "animal") and φιλία (philia, "friendship" or "love"), also known as bestiality, is the practice of sexual relations between humans and animals, or a preference or fixation on such practice. ...

Ah, so Zoophilia technicaly involves sexual relationships with an animal. It's defiantly not just about freedom, BDSM, bodily waste, bananas, or green aliens from the planet zork.

So I suppose the real point is that having sexual intercourse with your pet dog is considered cruel and sick my most people. But they are just lots of people and why should we even consider what they have to think, after all it’s just an opinion. Not a proven point established in the courts of debate.
Just like the people in the lounge of getDare they just want a friendly discussion in the lounge, but let’s force a debate on them. Well I don’t think that is right because you are taking away their freedom and that’s bestiality.
/ END BEING SILLY.

Let’s get some perspective. Try hawking these ideas on a proper debate site and see what happens to them then. It is unfair to push this issue here when most people clearly don’t want to debate them.
If bestiality becomes a strong feature of this website then I think the future of the site is in jeopardy, considering the lower age of the target audience.

[greatsayaman]

I didn't even read that, because after a few points you're talking a lot of crap. =)

When I made my points, I made it fairly obvious that I was talking about sexual activities involving these morally corrupt practices, in response to Night's post.

You, my friend, are just looking for loop holes. =3

EDIT: You seem to have some bizarre notion that I was linking each of those to beastiality. I wasn't. They're seperate fetishes, anyone who would think otherwise, is an idiot. =)

They're still morally wrong fetishes, regardless.

[theone]

Originally Posted by greatsayaman

I didn't even read that, because after a few points you're talking a lot of crap. =)You, my friend, are just looking for loop holes. =3

Not true at all. I’m cool, calm, drinking my coffee and contributing to a thread by applying the duly deserved tool of sarcasm it needs. I’m simply looking at the big picture. I’m not dwelling on any specific points at all or looking for any loopholes.

I’m trying to regain some sanity, reason and perspective to the issue.