|
is it really rape when a girl bends over and a dog gets excited and fuck the girl? not even troll
|
On June 15 2013 10:39 ImperialFist wrote:
is it really rape when a girl bends over and a dog gets excited and fuck the girl? not even troll
Did the girl bend over so the dog could fuck her? Then no, it's not rape,
|
|
|
On June 15 2013 09:32 Dienosore wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 09:14 KoRDragoon wrote:
I just googletranslatede what he said:
"However, we note that it ultimately becomes a matter of what is sexual exploitation of animals. Let me give some examples. Is it, and should it be, legal to a sex emphasize on something that for example a dog tastes or smells good, to let the dog lick it is påstruket on sex? Should it be permitted to stroke a bitch on the teats with love, or will it count as a sexual exploitation of animals? It can become extremely difficult to determine exactly how to change the law."
I see this is really bad enlgish but i don't have time to make a better translation now.. Ill help you out. "It ultimately comes down to a matter of defining the issue. For example, would it be considered exploitation to encourage a dog to sexually smell or lick something? Should it be legal to fondle a female dog's teats with love, or will it count as sexual exploitation? It becomes extremely difficult to exactly judge how to change the law." "permitted to stroke a bitch on the teats with love" sounds totally creepy lol
It sounds pretty creepy but considering the fact that most people who own a dog love that dog, and almost all of the dogs I know or have owned love (loved) to have their belly scratched I can understand where he comes from.
In all honesty, I think this debate is a classic case of much ado about nothing... Yes a few animals might be sexually abused (170 cases in 40 years? I think a number like that might be too low, but still...) compared to the thousands of animals who have been brutally misstreated in the same time period (only counting home owned animals, the food industry is on another level by itself), I'd much prefer they'd focus their legislation in that direction.
Before someone calls me a hypocrite, yes I am aware that we have had a similar law in Austria for the past 20 years, I also believe that whoever spent his time on that law also wasted his time 
|
Only half a year left to make sweet luv to them animals.
JK. 
But seriously, the idea that beastiality should be illegalized is not as clear cut as you might think instinctively. Indeed, if, as ImperialFist so bluntly suggested above, a woman would let a dog do it's thing on her; the dog enjoys it, she enjoys it, is that really a crime? And the argument that it's hypocritical how we find it totally acceptable that we slaughter them and use them as tools in a ton of various ways, yet having sex with them is wrong, is an interesting one as well. If their ''consent'' is really that important, isn't the slaughtering of animals straight up murder?
I disagree with this legislation I think.
|
I bet there's gonna be some really wild donkey shows on New Years Eve!
|
On June 15 2013 03:05 Gladiator6 wrote:
Good for us, although it has never been accepted of course.
I saw some sick documentary a time ago though, in some South American, where they would have sex with donkey's first before trying a girl, maybe it was Chile or something? I can't remember the name or the country but if someone know's the documentary please link! ^_^
Saw this posted earlier: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=417172¤tpage=13#260
|
Poll for the men and women of TL
Poll: If it weren't taboo, would you fuck an animal (dog, horse, goat, etc.)No (189) 83% Yes (40) 17% 229 total votes Your vote: If it weren't taboo, would you fuck an animal (dog, horse, goat, etc.) (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
|
On June 16 2013 14:25 electronic voyeur wrote:Poll for the men and women of TL Poll: If it weren't taboo, would you fuck an animal (dog, horse, goat, etc.)No (189) 83% Yes (40) 17% 229 total votes Your vote: If it weren't taboo, would you fuck an animal (dog, horse, goat, etc.) (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Where's the maybe option?
I mean, if it weren't illegal/taboo, I wouldn't immediately run to the first goat I see and fuck it, but who knows what happens in life?
Also if it was legal and not taboo I would be fine with other people doing it.
|
On June 15 2013 08:40 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 08:26 Ponera wrote:
I am officially cancelling my tickets to sweden.
Honestly, people who are into animals are no different from pedophiles, homosexuals or straight people. Well, they are in the sense that they partake in risky/potentially abusive behavior like pedophiles do but the brain lights up the same; they are attracted to what they are attracted to. It's just unfortunate that what they are attracted to happens to be a horse and there is no way in which to partake in the activity without potentially harming yourself or the animal. It's like pedophilia; they are attracted to children, that part is not their fault. However, partaking in their fantasies is what causes harm.
Would be a horrific spot to be in, mentally.
Being a pedophile isnt't a crime and not all of them act out their desires. Zoophiles who partake in their fantasies don't necessarily cause harm, thus the discussion. Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 08:29 S_SienZ wrote:On June 15 2013 08:17 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 08:15 S_SienZ wrote:On June 15 2013 07:53 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 06:48 S_SienZ wrote:On June 15 2013 06:37 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 06:21 S_SienZ wrote:On June 15 2013 06:14 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 06:07 S_SienZ wrote:
[quote]
That's the problem right there.
Most people just look at the paradigmatic cases of law we have and assume morals are the reasons why they are there. But that's far from a clear cut answer. There are many potential explanations for laws regarding murder, from Hobbes's social contract to Mill's harm principle to Bentham's empirical positivism.
When people only know the laws but don't know why they are there, we potentially develop bad laws like this one for the wrong reasons, assuming they were the original reasons underlying the system in the first place. So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is? I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason. There's been (a still ongoing) hundreds of years of debate about that. It hasn't been conclusively resolved but it's been roughly divided into 2 camps: one side is saying laws are a social tool for regulation and essentially whatever the "source of law" in a society says is law. In that version, the content of law is generally checked by democracy, separation of powers, yadayada, you know the drill. The other camp is basically saying that laws and morals are one and the same. But personally, that camp's ideas is getting progressively untenable as globalisation forces the mingling of differing cultures. Think about it, if laws that are moral are ok, what's stopping the legislation of positive obligations? (Instead of don't do something, you have to do something). What's stopping say, a predominantly Catholic populace from voting a new law that makes church mandatory for EVERYONE. They'd argue its moral, it was voted by a majority. Laws passed are generally negative obligations because such laws are the least infringing of people's dignity. Also, a gap between law and morals is essential for moral goodness to even exist. Imagine a man walking past a beggar, he feels sorry for him and hands him his sandwich. The man has done a moral good deed and the beggar feels grateful. Now imagine if there was a law, for moral reasons, that compelled such charity. The beggar would (rightfully so) be entitled, and the moral merit of the deed is void since there was no choice involved. Laws are often based upon morals but morals are not based upon law. Our society doesn't seem to feel anybody has a moral obligation to do anything, save look after children properly, so I don't think laws of positive obligation are anything to be concerned about. Does the removal of choice alter the morality of an action? If you say "kill x person or I will kill you" it removes some of the responsiblity from myself, but it doesn't make the act of killing that person any more or less morally corrupt than doing it on my own, the only difference there is that I did it through my own choice and responsibility for this morally wrong action lies solely with me. If it was legally required to give money to homeless people that doesn't change the inherent morality of the action, it just places the credit of the action elsewhere as opposed to making it void, but that's not going to happen anyway. Your first statement raises more questions than it answers. Laws are often based upon morals, how often? Is there a principled method? Also is the problem of subjectivity, a conflation of the legal and the moral could only feasibly work with the existence of an objective moral code (if you look at the works of those who argue for such a case e.g. Aristotle, Finnis, they talk about self-evident (LOL) basic goods which all humans should strive towards), but such objective morals have yet to be proven. How do you resolve it when one side's morals fundamentally clash with anothers? Of course the removal of choice alters the morality of an action. Morality isn't an instrumentalist concept that's concerned with outcome, but about how we arrive at our decisions. If outcome were the sole determinant, businesses who grant scholarships for tax break purposes would be far more moral than the pauper who split his bread to a dying hobo. I think choice is a matter of responsibility and doesn't change the nature of the action, but motivation is entirely a separate issue. If I do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed? If I go back in time and kill Hitler, am I a cold blooded murderer or a hero? Am I both or neither? If I were American, I guess I would be sentenced to death for unlawful murder then high-fived all the way to the chair by everybody in the place, which seems a little strange. I think whether we like it or not a conflation of legality and morality is exactly what we wrestle with every day. I feel morals dictate laws and changes in law reflect the changing morality of the populace. I think that's a good thing and it seems to me that morals should actually overrule law as a result of this. Why should I be punished for murdering a genocidal maniac just because the basic act of murder is morally wrong? To consider laws without morals or morals without laws, I'd have to choose the latter, laws are just a shortcut to arriving at the right moral answer in the majority of cases, I guess this is where judge and jury come into play to explore the final aspects of an each individually. When one sides morals clash with the others, I guess you just have to go with the majority. If the majority of the population are pro-choice it stands to reason that this act has to be viewed as morally good, as there is no objective morality apparently, and if the majority of the population are pro-life it has to be morally corrupt. Compromise is often the only tool at our disposal and when uncompromising issues arise majority dictates morality. Using my own reasoning on this then I'd have to agree with this law if that's the way the majority of Sweden feels, but then you'd have to consider the morality of denying others their wishes simply because you disagree with it and that's where we get into issues of harm. The majority of Sweden may feel the act itself is immoral but I feel the act of outlawing certain activities because of purely a moral objection would itself be more immoral than the act itself, which is why I disagree with this ruling. Morality I think does and should dictate law but it's incredibly complex and intertwined. This is a difficult situation because everyone has decided that cruelty to animals is morally wrong and overrules the rights of the person inflicting the cruelty on the animal to do so. What I think is questionable is whether it really constitutes cruelty, laws based purely upon a simple moral objection with no connection to other pre-established moral guidelines are definitely not a good thing. But you don't have to make a choice between the 2. That's actually the beauty of the argument behind separation of laws and morals, it allows moral criticisms of the law. One could morally disagree with a legal provision while acknowledging that nonetheless he is legally obligated to do something. To clarify further, I don't see the problem with this law, if as a matter of public policy, Sweden feels sufficiently strongly against this, they decided to ban it. What I am essentially objecting, is the notion that beastiality is banned because it is morally wrong. There's 2 arguments at play here, what I think the law should be, and one regarding what the law now is in Sweden. Lets disregard the former for a moment here, for its just my 2 cents, I'm arguing that this law needs to be passed for the right reasons. Going back to the idea that laws are a social tool, the detachment of laws and morals is precisely what allows this to be passed. But the understanding of this as moral law, is what opens up the can of worms. I find this confusing because it seems to me what you're essentially saying is that if the majority of people in Sweden feel it's morally wrong then it's okay to ban it, but it's not okay if they decide to ban it because it's morally wrong. In scenario A the law remains detached from morals in essence, each Swede could have different reasons for supporting such a ban, ranging from personal views that such acts are immoral, to paranoia of potential diseases which might form because of such acts. Law remains social, it is law by virtue of the Swedish society saying so, for whatever reasons. In scenario B the law is passed because it is derived directly from morals. A logical causal connection exists. That is what I'm refuting. A. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a multitude of reasons, including morality. This is okay. B. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a single reason, morality. This is not okay. I don't understand.
You really don't understand the basic difference between "multiple" and "single"? For a seemingly intelligent human being you've said some incredibly poorly thought out things.
Basically, the government of Sweden in case A is understanding that the majority of Swedes are against bestiality but it could be because of risk of disease, worry about animal cruelty, "immorality" because they believe it is wrong, etc. Case B would be a direct result of believe it is immoral with no concern to the animal or the transmission of disease, etc. Basically, Case A considers multiple facets while Case B only considers one (immorality of the human being as judged by the societal context).
|
To be honest I came into this thread like a lot of other people thinking eww bestiality took em long enough to make this law. After reading posts made by people especially Kwark and Reason my view has completely changed. Although I would never have sex with an animal I really don't think it is my right/others to say what people should and shouldn't do in the privacy of their bedrooms (or barn lol) among other great points brought up by them.
|
On June 16 2013 17:00 darklordjac wrote:
To be honest I came into this thread like a lot of other people thinking eww bestiality took em long enough to make this law. After reading posts made by people especially Kwark and Reason my view has completely changed. Although I would never have sex with an animal I really don't think it is my right/others to say what people should and shouldn't do in the privacy of their bedrooms (or barn lol) among other great points brought up by them.
I just watched at least 10 bestiality porn due to this thread. I dont know what to think anymore.
|
On June 14 2013 16:56 DorF wrote:
A total of 209 cases of bestiality, of which 161 involved horses, have been documented since the 1970s.
wow that's shockingly low number. I came here thinking " maybe we Swedes are weird" but 200 cases in 43 years ?
not even bothered.
I doubt people who engage in that tend to document or report their experience to the proper authority.... I imagine its much more prevalent than that.
|
On June 14 2013 18:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 17:51 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 17:38 KwarK wrote:
I strongly disagree with this change, if no animal is being harmed then who gives a fuck, people outrank animals anyway and the law has no place in the bedroom. Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight! Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future.
How would a person guarantee that they're not hurting the animal? How could they absolutely know? I just disagree with it in general.
|
On June 14 2013 16:16 Capped wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 16:14 Orangered wrote:On June 14 2013 16:11 nttea wrote:
We can own them, pet them, restrain them but god forbid someone tries something sexual with them. Stupid law but if i were to protest something it'd be something more important so W/E. Are you implying you think sex with animals is ok? I think he's implying he actually does it. User was temp banned for this post.
i think he meant that its a useless law because there are other important issues they should focus more rather than this one
|
United States42186 Posts
On June 16 2013 21:20 RHGaming wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:05 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 17:51 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 17:38 KwarK wrote:
I strongly disagree with this change, if no animal is being harmed then who gives a fuck, people outrank animals anyway and the law has no place in the bedroom. Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight! Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future. How would a person guarantee that they're not hurting the animal? How could they absolutely know? I just disagree with it in general.
Hurt and harm are different anyway but animals are perfectly capable of expressing pain.
|
On June 14 2013 17:08 StarBrift wrote:
This will be a big blow to the sheep industry.
this gave me a good laugh xD
|
I would be very interested in seeing what kind of harm is done to the animals involved in beastiality (okay, that sounded creepy.) What harm IS being done to these animals? I can't imagine very much/any at all considering the size of the animals (unless its like a chicken or something) and if you're a woman I can't imagine any harm at all.
If theres no real harm being done to the animals I seriously can't fathom how this could be illegal. Something you perceive as disgusting does not mean it deserves to be legislated against. I'm personally not a fan of scat porn but I believe that people have the right to shit on one another if they get off on that.
The other dimension to this is the animal's suffering, but since we can rule out psychological damage, this comes down to physical damage. So, if an animal receives no physical harm then how can this be considered harmful?
Consent should be a non-factor. We do not grant animals consent. Consent is only a factor between humans.
Overall, I just don't think that the government has a right to outlaw beastiality if it does not harm the animal. If it does harm the animal, well shit we have animal cruelty laws that cover that.
|
On June 14 2013 16:07 Xahhk wrote:
pussy is pussy (literally).
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
|
United States24615 Posts
On June 17 2013 01:01 Zambrah wrote:
I would be very interested in seeing what kind of harm is done to the animals involved in beastiality (okay, that sounded creepy.) What harm IS being done to these animals? I can't imagine very much/any at all considering the size of the animals (unless its like a chicken or something) and if you're a woman I can't imagine any harm at all.
If theres no real harm being done to the animals I seriously can't fathom how this could be illegal. Something you perceive as disgusting does not mean it deserves to be legislated against. I'm personally not a fan of scat porn but I believe that people have the right to shit on one another if they get off on that.
The other dimension to this is the animal's suffering, but since we can rule out psychological damage, this comes down to physical damage. So, if an animal receives no physical harm then how can this be considered harmful?
Consent should be a non-factor. We do not grant animals consent. Consent is only a factor between humans.
Overall, I just don't think that the government has a right to outlaw beastiality if it does not harm the animal. If it does harm the animal, well shit we have animal cruelty laws that cover that.
The only argument I can think of is that yes, some animals can theoretically be hurt emotionally. Think of a dog that isn't really physically hurt but is abused in other ways. It can experience sadness and things like that.
Also there are possible medical complications in both directions, but I haven't heard any strong arguments that really justify new legislation.
I summary, I think the arguments for the complete banning of sex with animals are not with zero merit, but don't justify full bans (the same way I don't think we should ban other things unless we specifically have a good reason).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
