Moral Relativism Discussion  

header1979 37M
404 posts
5/28/2006 9:49 pm

Last Read:
6/8/2006 7:12 am

Moral Relativism Discussion

On May 26, Curvymeli posted the following in the Advice Line:

"Get this bes*iality off here!!
sahar81khiz actually posted
a question on here with his primary photo of an animal in a sexual act with a female for all to see.

"Please report him to the abuse team at AdultFriendFinder."

The post got a lot of responses agreeing with her. Then several responders said those who were objecting to the photo were being judgmental and narrow minded. Then a debate started about people being judgmental and why objecting to bestiality was not being judgmental.

I got into an interesting discussion on this topic with Ubermik. Although I don't agree with Ubermik's position, it was one of the best discussions I have had with someone with whom I disagree. No body called anybody a horse's ass and told them to fuck off. lol I want to have the discussion in my blog.

So that this blog will not take up too much space on the front page, I am going to post Ubermik's responses and mine as comments to this blog. You may add your comments also. I have posted in the Advice Line thread that I have copied the comments into my blog and advised Ubermik to check my blog in the event that there were any comments on his responses. If you want to see all the responses to Curvymeli's post go to her post in the Advice Line.

header1979 37M
507 posts
5/28/2006 9:55 pm

This is Ubermik's first posting in the thread:

Now dont get me wrong as I am not condoning the picture or
the essence of the act portrayed and will for the duration
of this post not cloud it with my personal views on the topic
one way or the other

But what I find interesting from an objective standpoint
is that on a site geared up for sex there is such a vehement
response and reaction to something like this

I can accept and expect people to have strong views about
it, but then again a lot of people and some on here also have
equally strong and equally negative views about people
cheating, about food play, anal, S&M, three, four or moresomes,
gay sex and a whole host of other pursuits this site allows
and encourages by allowing it

What I see is a pic of what is in effect just another sexual
act that just has a predefined legality which should be
reason enough for it to not be displayed by itself, but also
one that isnt in any worse a position than anal sex and homosexual
sex was just a very short time ago

As a hell of a lot of people on here have "tastes"
that other members would be disgusted at and other turned
on by I would have thought this place above all others would
have more of a sense of "live and let live" or
if it doesnt direct me then its nothing I will stress about,
or "each to their own" sort of thing

Infact I would even have a better time understanding this
thread and the tone on it had it been a man performing a penetrative
act on an animal in the pic as the question of an animal being
non consenting is a foregone conclusion

But having seen several professional and a few amateur
bestiality films in my life and having known two women who
did that sort of thing regularly with their pets establishing
consent isnt really the problem, trying to get them to NOT
do it has been the main problem

So that just reduces it to a topic of what someone is doing
or allowing to be done to their body, which as with the topics
I mentioned previously like anal, s&m and the others are
surely a case of their body, their preference and their

header1979 37M
507 posts
5/28/2006 10:05 pm

This is Ubermik's second post in which they are diagreeing with some previous comments and complimenting those who said that some of the comments being made objecting to bestiality were judgmental and narrow minded:


You said

"There are, unfortunately, some people that are into those things.
But personally I think they are warped and should be prosecuted."

50 years ago that applied to gays and even consenting anal
sex with an opposite sex partner

Eventually times moved on and those who had thought gays
were reprobates, perverted freaks that out to be put to
death were swapped from being the bastions of moral decency
to the narrow minded pious self righteous judgemental
cerebral invalids they really were

I personally wouldnt have expected everyone to give a rip
roaring thumbs up to the picture, or even tolerate it being
on public display

But to be so vehemently opposed to an act that to a vast amount
of society wouldnt be seeing as any less perverted, disgusting
and lacking in even the most miniscule modicum of morality
and decency as some of the stuff I bet half the posters on
here get up to behind closed doors os to be honest quite surprising
and shows that even the seemingly "open minded"
can be as closed minded and judgemental of anything THEY
dont want to do as your average church congregation

"In other words, I have no problem with the people
on this site banding together to get rid of something like bestiality
or incest"

Me either, but simply with HOW its been done

I personally wouldnt bat an eyelid at someone who cheats
on a partner being dragged out into the street naked and
chainded to a lampost for a week standing in their own filth
and pelted with mouldy food as a punishment before having
to find somewhere to live leaving behind everything including

Infact some of the cultures that are politically correct
favourites still think its reasonable to stone cheating
wives to death even tho the men are allowed to do it

But, thats a personal feeling that I wouldnt care less if
it WAS the case, I would neither invest any effort into actually
trying to make it the case nor denigrate someone who has
or is cheating to that extent, I would just state that I dont
agree with it on a variety of levels and and state reasons
for my objection but above that respect the fact its their
life, their body and their choice and doesnt in any way affect

Theres ways to voice a dissagreement even that shows an
open mind and ways that shows someones true colours and
blinkered and closed mind

Liberal doesnt mean "agreeing with the things I like"

Hats off to MsLez and cplseeksgrlinky for not only seeing
the narrow minded judgemental outlooks but also for having
the balls (couldnt think of a better word ladies sorry )
to publicly state it on a topic that is still a conservative
trendy one

header1979 37M
507 posts
5/28/2006 10:12 pm

This is my first comment in response to the comments that said that those who objected to the bestiality photo were being judgmental and narrow minded:

Bullshit to those who think that objecting to bestiality
is being narrow minded and judgmental. There is a difference
between not being judgmental and having no judgment. People
who think that bestiality is just another form of sex are
lacking in good judgment. It is NOT sex among consenting
adults. It is sexual ABUSE of animals. If you can't
figure that out, you have very poor thinking skills. There
are people on this website who have called people "judgmental
and narrow minded" because they objected to posts
about pedophilia. In the US pedophilia and bestiality
are illegal. The terms of use of the website specifically
prohibit bestiality and pedophilia. If you have something
to bitch about, take it up with the "judgmental narrow
minded" website management. It is their website
and they will decide what is posted. They have the good business
sense not to let the website become a venue for pedophiles
and those engaged in bestiality and other illegal activities.
They have their liability to look out for. That is good business
judgment not "judgmental and narrow minded."
There other websites devoted to zoophilia and pedophilia.
If this website gets overrun by that type of stuff, you will
also have the FBI trolling the website to get the perverts.
Then you will never know whether you are talking to law enforcement
or not.

It has been my experience that the people who scream the
loudest about narrow minded judgmental people are the
ones with the poorest judgment. And a lot of them in this
thread showed just how poor their thinking skills are.
And the sad part is, they haven't a clue and don't
even know it.

header1979 37M
507 posts
5/28/2006 10:21 pm

This is Ubermik's response to several comments made about his posts including my previous post:

Iannah, I personally think you have a huge problem if at
any point in what I wrote you can see me saying I CANT tell
the difference betweent the two, and if you think you can
then be a luv and point it out eh? Failing that dont use things
I havent said as clich├ęd soap box to spout regurgitated
comments from please but respond to what I HAVE actually
written if at all

As for what animal psychologists say, similar experts
used to say women ONLY wanted a provider and the ones who
didnt had "issues", science isnt always right
you know and other studies show the complete opposite such
as dolphins that will aggressively attempt to mate with

Not to procreate, not because they are confused even, but
as a form of masturbation because it keeps the sperm count
high for when they DO meet a female dolphin

Similarly with dogs they will to the point of ejaculation
screw anything if the instinctual need is there, as such
no coersion is required and what they are doing is a natural
process to maintain a high sperm count as they dont have
hands or an opposeable thumb

Hippie, define "know"?

A dog does have a limited cognitive capability, but instinctively
it knows that it should ejaculate periodically to maintain
its sperm count, unless you are suggesting the dogs are
mistakenly trying to start a family I am not sure what other
things they should "know" that you are pointing
out they dont

As for the point of "Just how stupid do you have to be
to not recognize that HUMANS are supposed to have sex with consenting HUMANS?"

As I said earlier, where did I say that wasnt the case?

But humans arent SUPPOSED to ram oversized battery powered
appliances up themselves either are they? Or be tied up,
whipped, fucked up the arse and a whole host of other actuvities
that many humans CHOOSE to do with their own bodies either
are they? Do you use a vibrator at all? Just how stupid do
you have to be to realise humans arent SUPPOSED to do that?

Re-iterating yet again, my points here are neither condoning
nor demonising the topic, merely the rather judgemental
and closed minded way people have objected

As for

"It has been my experience that the people who scream
the loudest about narrow minded judgmental people are the
ones with the poorest judgment."

Yeah I know, thats the point I have been trying to make all
along actually as those traits have been on pretty much
every post have they not?

Or is your definition of judgemental and narrow minded
limited strictly for views you DONT agree with? If so then
you might want to consider what narrow minded and judgemental
actually means and apply it to yourself as well

"No matter how many steps back we take we are always
too close to see ourselves clearly"

header1979 37M
507 posts
5/28/2006 10:27 pm

This is my response to Ubermik's previous comment:

The legal definition of insanity is the ability to be able
to distinguish between right and wrong. It appears that
some people may need to visit a shrink and get themselves
checked out.

People who get mired in moral relativism have lost the ability
to think clearly about what is right and wrong. There are
things that are objectively wrong whether they can understand
it or not.

Murder, , pedophilia and bestiality are all objectively
wrong. The key is ABUSE and CONSENT. Any one who can't
distinguish between consensual acts and abusive acts
his a very serious problem. It is not judgmental and narrow
minded to object to and condemn acts of abuse. The consensual
acts of homosexuality and sodomy are not acts of abuse against
others. People who equate these acts with the abusive acts
that do harm to others, have a major problem that they need
to address. The prisons and mental institutions are filled
with people who think like that.

To follow the line put forth by some in this thread, no one
could object to anything that anyone else did and would
be called judgmental and narrow minded if they did. Genocide?
Slavery? The Holocaust? Executing people for religious
beliefs? They all are acts of abuse in which harm is being
done to others. I have seen elsewhere in one of the groups,
people put forth the position of cultural relativism in
which they believe that these are part of a different culture
and we should not judge these acts based on out culture.
OK. If that line of reasoning where to prevail in the world,
African-Americans would still be slaves, Jews would have
been exterminated from Europe, and various religious
groups would have been exterminated in most parts of the
world including most protestant denominations.

It is not a matter of agreeing with VIEWS. It is not agreeing
with ACTIONS. In the real world actions have consequences.
It takes a very faulty infantile thought process not to
grasp this. Debating opinion is one thing and different
from condemning abusive actions that harm others. That
is why there is a judicial process to protect society from
individuals who have little or no concept of right and wrong.
There is nothing wrong with being "closed minded"
about abuse. You don't have to be tolerant of abuse.

How about this line of reasoning? Well we have to understand
how the felt. He had the need for sexual gratification
or to express his power over some one, so from his point of
view it is OK. We have to understand him and not judge him
by our standards. Do you see how much bullshit that is? Yet
that is the line that is being pushed by some in this thread.

I don't think those that are calling others judgmental
and narrow minded because they object to acts of abuse see
themselves very clearly.

header1979 37M
507 posts
5/28/2006 10:36 pm

This is Ubermik's response to my previous comment:

Again you meandour away from the point

Right and wrong are subjective, suppose tomorrow the government
decided it was prudent to jail all muslims just incase one
is a terrorist?

Now legally that would be "right", so would
you therefore agree with that premise wholeheartedly?

If not have you just become insane and lost a sense of right
and wrong?

Homosexuality was at one point illegal, does that then
mean anyone after the point it was illegal who doesnt still
cling to THAT definition of right and wrong is insane? What
about people who thought it should be legalised before
it was? Insane?

On a topic like this its easy to hide behind the imposed law
as that requires no thought

It also wouldnt have taken too much thought to have understood
what I have actually been saying rather than replying to
what you would have liked me to have been saying, which ISNT
if you check back that I think bestiality is "right",
infact it isnt even that I think its wrong either

So before you try to be condescending to someones point
of view at least make sure you understand what that point
of view is or it just makes you look a bit thick and like you
are showboating

And just whizzing through the rest of it, you said "Debating
opinion is one thing and different from condemning abusive actions", so would you care to explain how the act depicted "harms" anyone
or anything?

Do you reckon whatever animal it was felt hollow and unloved
afterwatds and was unable to form lasting relationships
as a result?

Not really any better than trying to use and child molestation
as comparators really as they are also ones where "harm"
is present and where only one participant is willing and

Not really much of a comparison to the scenario being villified
here is it?

941 posts
5/28/2006 10:37 pm

Is it actually against the laws of the AdultFriendFinder site to display beastiality pictures? Whether or not I agree with such things is of no relevance but to whether it abides by the laws of the site and if it does, then like anything else we don`t approve, indulge, condone or like on here, click the red X button up the top right hand corner and move on.

When it comes to the thumbs up or down of animals performing sexually with women against men helping themselves with animals, is that able to be made a similar argument like, it`s not so bad for female teachers to seduce their teenage students (15/16) but abhorrent for male teachers to do the same thing? When does being the penetrator or penetratee make something okay when it is abhorred or illegal in society? Because a women is supposed to be soft, feminine and submissive, a man, dominant, rugged, the protector and aggressor, it`s different?

header1979 37M
507 posts
5/28/2006 10:44 pm

This is a follow on post by Ubermik to his previous comment:

Heres a throw away thought while i'm at it

The scenario being talked about as I understand it would
have been a male of some species willingly and without duress
doing what it wanted to do, to a woman who one would hope wanted
the animal to do it with her again without duress and with
both gaining pleasure from the act

Now, ,, ,how many of you are vegetarians?

Those who arent, would you consider what happens to animals
so they can eventually end up in your digestive tract better
then? More moral? More enjoyable for the animal? Consented
by the animal? Without duress?

Anyone care to take a stab at (soz about the pun like lol)
what a male animal might prefer?

a) what was depicted


b) being slaughtered for its meat, skin and possibly fur


So how many non veggies on this thread then? Show of hands?

header1979 37M
507 posts
5/28/2006 10:53 pm

This is Ubermik's response to a comment made about one of his previous comments:

And misterate

I wasnt "putting you in your place" lol, sorry
if it sounded like that but my message board style and tone
is often missinterpretted which if I could give a toss I
might have changed lol

All I was doing was simply throwing different perspectives
and paradigms into the fray, drawing similarities that
societally we dont want or tend to make because we are intilled
with a set of rules almost from birth which negates individualistic
evaluation, or at the very least curtails it on frowned
upon topics such as this one or removes peoples ability
to objectively consider a situation due to the clutter
of spoonfed assumptions they have been indoctrinated
with throughout their life

I would not expect, want or try to make you change your view,
agree with mine or do anything other than look at a topic
without social blinkers and consider all view points equally
which IMO is simply free thinking with an open mind and on
most topics for most people will still make them arrive
back at their initial view anyway

Discussion IMO isnt about changing peoples views, or winning
and losing as many seem to see it, its about not only seeing
other peoples viewpoints but also the thoughts and influencing
factors behind it as well as causing re-evaluation with
the addition of new paradigms and vantage points

A point of view or belief should IMO stand up to scrutiny
and/or comparison. Be bourne out of the persons own reasoning
rather than simply adopted

If not then it should be questioned

header1979 37M
507 posts
5/28/2006 11:01 pm

This my response to previous comment made by Ubermik concerning one of my previous responses:

This could go on and on. "Right and wrong are subjective."
I vehemently disagree.

Murder is WRONG.
Genocide is WRONG.
Pedophilia is WRONG.
Slavery is WRONG.
Execution for religious belief is WRONG.

They are WRONG regardless of whether they are illegal or
not. They are fundamentally wrong. In the US we have a very
famous document that is one of the founding documents of
our nation, that begins "We hold these truths to be
self evident ..." There are some human values that
are the inalienable rights of humanity, that exist regardless
of law.

People whose minds are mired in moral relativism appear
to be unable to grasp the concept of right and wrong. Indeed
it appears that that at least one person does not even believe
that there is a concept of right and wrong. It is all subjective
to them.

This thread began with a person objecting to a picture concerning
bestiality that was posted on the website in violation
of the terms of use. Many agreed with her. Then there were
attacks made on her and others calling people "judgmental
and narrow minded" because they objected to the photo.

Now just who is being judgmental here? Those who are objecting
to abuse or those who are objecting to people objecting
to abuse?

As to "showboating, " if anyone thinks I am
"showboating" they ought to see what I write
that gets carried in the US national media. I write on US
national policy issues for the clients of my firm in Washington.
I get paid for "showboating" and do it effectively.
When people print bullshit, I point out in the press that
it is bullshit. In Washington bullshit is called "spin."
I don't let people get away with "spin"
on the issues that I write on. That is what freedom of the
press and freedom of speech is all about. And I have no compunction
about pointing out bullshit on the Advice Line either.
If anyone thinks that is "showboating, " I
say lets have three cheers for "showboating."

See my blog for more discussion on this topic.

header1979 37M
507 posts
5/28/2006 11:08 pm

This is Ubermik's respense to my previous comment:


Murder is WRONG. Execution is murder, saying otherwise
is just semantics and a convenient classification that
allows one form of murder while dissallowing others

is WRONG. No disagreement there in a civilised society,
in others its just the way it is

Genocide is WRONG. Genocide in many of its forms is simply
war against another culture or race, the inequalities
in Iraq make that almost genocide had the death count been

Pedophilia is WRONG Agsin a social definition, biologically
after about 12 its natural and medically more likely to
produce healthy offspring and check it out if you dont believe
me, but medically proven that women who have kids as soon
as possibly capable have less chance of getting many forms
of cancer. But socially we have a limit which is set differently
in different countries

Slavery is WRONG. Socialists would say capitalism creates
working class slaves, and in many ways they are right, its
just smoothed over by the addition of some money rather
than merely board and food

Execution for religious belief is WRONG ONLY if its not
a religion you believe in, which is quite overtly a narrow
minded and judgemental view simply saying that I cant respect
it if I dont believe it myself, that IS the essence of close
minded judgementalism is it not?

If a religion thinks its justified and the wish of their
god then it IS right to THEM, if their is a god and theres is
the right one then its right full stop, as that cant be known
then niether can whether their religion is doing whats
right, only whether we agree with it or not which ISNT a classification of right or wrong, its a PERSONAL opinion of it

All of those are subjective social classifications of
right or wrong, indoctrinated standpoints that in OUR
society arent overly questionable, but also arent universally
right or wrong, just SUBJECTIVELY right or wrong as well
as simply being subjectively defined by semantics because
to highlight one example, to some taking a life under ANY
condition is wrong, that includes execution through law,
religion and even war as each is still no matter how its dressed
up taking someones life

Having an open mind DOESNT imply agreeing with what someone
does which almost seems to be what you are implying, it merely
means accepting they do want to do it and as its their life
and their choice maintaining your choice to not also do
it, but not seeing them as substandard compared to you because
of it

Apply the same ethos to culture and you have racism

Apply it to gender and you have sexism

Apply it in this context and you have people who would defend
their wish to be anally screwed, cheat on a partner, be pissed
or shat on or do the same to someone else but would try to claim
the moral highground on acts they personally dont want
to do whilst expecting their equally disgusting acts (in
the eyes of others) to be not classed as disgusting

Its hypocrisy at its finest and complete double standards
which are selectively applied. And its the HOW its applied
that I am concentrating on here not the WHAT it is applied

header1979 37M
507 posts
5/28/2006 11:15 pm

This is my response to Ubermik's previous comment;


Interesting comments, although I don't agree with
all of them.

You are falling into the trap of defining words with your
own personal meaning and then applying them in a different

For instance the words "murder" and "execution"
are not the same and define two different sets of circumstances.
It has been that way in nearly every language since the languages
were created. The only commonality is that a life has been
taken. Murder is the unlawful taking of life and execution
is the lawful taking of life. One may take the position that
not all executions are lawful or that all executions are
unjust. But one cannot legitimately say that all executions
are murder because it is a false statement and a gross misuse
of the word. That is not intellectually honest. Communication
involves using a language and words with the meaning for
which the word was created and in the context in which it
is used. Otherwise words are just babble and there is no

Many people use The Ten Commandments as a reason to oppose
the death penalty. There are many good valid reasons to
oppose the death penalty, it just so happens that The Ten
Commandants is not one of them. I don't base any arguments
for or against any policy based on religious principles.
I bring up the Ten Commandants only to illustrate how language
can be misused in a debate. The King James English language
version translates the applicable commandment as "Thou
shalt not kill." The actual word in the original Hebrew
is “ratsach” which more accurately translated as “murder”
rather than “kill” “Ratsach” has the meaning of unlawfully
or criminally taking innocent human life. The Hebrew word
for the more general term “kill” is “harang.” The use of
the Ten Commandments to mean that it prohibits executions,
wars, or slaughtering animals for food is patently fallacious.
I can understand lay people making this mistake because
very few people have the education to understand this.
But if a member of the clergy says this, he or she is either
incompetent and ignorant of their trade or a charlatan.
I have sent many clergymen from the room with their tail
between their legs when the spout off this type of crap.
I am not an advocate for the death penalty and I know that
there are valid reasons to oppose it, but I don’t put up with
bullshit from incompetents and charlatans. I can and do
unmask bullshit in the US media for a living.

The other word that you have grossly misused is “slavery”
regardless of what socialists think. Let me give you some
context for comments on this. First I have attended the
world’s leading school of socialist thought in London.
I have also lived in European socialist countries. So,
unlike most Americans, I have some first hand knowledge
of socialism. Second, socialism is not a “nice” word in
the US. This is primarily because of the difference between
the structure of US society and European and UK society.
European countries and the UK have a much more defined class
structure and a more definable labor class. The US has no
such thing and is a much more socio-economically mobile
society. Unlike many other countries, labor in the US is
part of the middle class, has middle class values and has
middle class aspirations. Labor in the US does not view
itself as a downtrodden proletariat as in Europe and the
UK. Labor is very prosperous in the US and better off than
upper middle class and upper class in many other countries.
So the socialist model does not fit the US. This prosperity
of labor in the US is why the US is such a magnet for people
wanting economic opportunity. Any one can succeed here
regardless of their background.

For socialists to equate slavery with the working class
is about one of the most offensive things I have ever read.
It shows a complete lack of understanding of the horrors
and tragedy of African slaves. To say that people who work
for a living and are paid are the equivalent of slaves boggles
the mind and is just one more example of the fallacies of
socialist thought. People who are brought up on the concept
of class warfare as their worldview just are incapable
of understanding other economic models that actually
work in real life. Socialism has been an abysmal failure
wherever it is tried and is one of the reasons many people
with ability leave socialist countries in droves if they
can. I do make a distinction between socialist policies
and a socialist form of government and economic structure.
Socialist governments and economic structure is suffocating.
Most of the people in socialist countries have no idea how
suffocating their society is because they have not experienced
anything else. They are taken care of and if they don’t have
aspirations that conflict with the socialist model, they
live contently in the structure established for them by
their government. But the suicide rate is very higher in
socialist countries so there is some form of unhappiness.
However, some socialist policies work well and have been
adapted to the US form of government.

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing
of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal
sharing of miseries.” - Winston Churchill

But I digress. I wanted to point out the evils of slavery
not socialism. I suggest that you do an internet search
on slavery to find out just how evil and horrifying it was.
It will break your heart when you find out what happened
to Africans caught up in the European slave trade. The Dutch
and the Portuguese introduced African slaves to the Western
Hemisphere. They controlled the slave trade from Africa
and were the leading slave traders in the world. The Dutch
brought the first slaves to Jamestown colony in 1619 in
territory that is now part of the US. In 1672 Britain entered
the slave trade. In 1713, The Treaty of Utrecht gave Britain
a monopoly on the slave trade to the New World. Liverpool
was the British base for ships and businesses engaged in
the slave trade. Finally in 1808 Britain abolished the
slave trade to the New World but by then the damage had been
done in America. The colonies had no vote in Parliament
and had no control over the importation of African slaves
into the colonies. When the US was formed as an independent
country after the revolution in 1776, it had to deal with
the problem of slavery that had been introduced in to the
American colonies. Slavery was against American principles
laid out in the founding of the country and it took a civil
war to finally end slavery in the US in the 1860’s.

During the period of the European slave trade to the Western
Hemisphere, slaves were brutalized, families broke up
and sold, they were not allowed to read or write, they had
no freedom of movement. In short they were essentially
prisoners. To compare this with labor that is free to move
about, have families and to better themselves is incomprehensible.
It shows a complete lack of understanding of European socialist
in the complicity of European countries in the slave trade
and the horrors of slavery that were unleashed on the world
by European countries ‒ the effects of which we are still
feeling today in the US. It takes a mind mired in moral relativism
to equate labor and slavery. If this is the best type of thinking
that socialists have to offer the world, it is no wonder
that socialism leads to failure. I wish someone had made
that statement to me when I was going to school in London.
I would disabuse them of that silly notion pretty damn quick.

I don’t understand your statement about executions for
religious belief. I didn’t say anything about agreeing
with the religions that were being persecuted. Execution
for religious belief is wrong whether it is a religion I
agree with or don’t agree with.

This has been an interesting discussion. I obviously do
not agree with all that you have said but enjoy hearing other
points of view.

8328 posts
5/28/2006 11:27 pm

Well, what I can discern from this is that evidently Curvymeli doesn't dig the fur.

You'll find that the human rationale when it pertains to sexuality is rather liberal, yes, up to and including our furry friends of the animal kingdom.

I can understand why people cry "animal abuse", but on the other hand I have also seen dogs freely mount women doggystyle if given the option.

I'm not in to bestiality, but I won't go so far as to judge those who are.

After all.....

I don't think that horse was asking Curvymeli to take his full length between her tight white asscheeks.

She's complaining about something that does not affect her and and likely never will.

Good post, Header.


"My every move is a calculated step, to bring me closer to embrace an early death." -Tupac Shakur

evil_lolita 34F

5/29/2006 9:15 pm

My take on beastiality (along with pedophilia, etcetera) is that those involved cannot necessarily give informed consent. The animal involved cannot explicitly indicate that yes, this is what it wants.

So no, I don't think it's something people should be doing *shrugs* That's my opinion.

Come to the edge, he said. They said: We are afraid. Come to the edge, he said. They came. He pushed them and they flew.

Guillaume Apollinaire

Alberta Nightlife Under 40 - check it out!

Hippink 35F
4499 posts
6/3/2006 10:06 pm

What is so evident in Ubermik's arguements is exactly what the problem is, and has always been. People who think that everything on the planet is here to be over-powered, controlled, contained, and USED in whatever way they want to, will not be against bestiality.

I didn't go back to that posting to see what had become of it, I see he responded to what I wrote. His arguement is something about using vibrators. Well, that just proves my point that he doesn't understand that animals are living entities that do not deserve to abused and used by people. A dog is a living, breathing being. A vibrator is not.

It seems that MAN will never learn that not everything in nature can or should be harnessed for MAN's use. I don't care if it's against the law. I don't care if the dog looks like he might be enjoying himself. I have had my fair share of dogs humping my legs. I KNOW THAT I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE SEX WITH A DOG. THAT WOULD BE ABUSE, USING A BEING THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE ACT IS NOT ABLE TO CONSENT.

animals HAVE that urge because it is necessary for procreation. Sure, they can't masturbate cuz they don't have opposable thumbs. Well, if that was intended or necessary, don't ya think they'd have evolved to have the ability to masturbate? And, anyway, they DO effectively masturbate when they hump some inanimate object.

I do believe having an educated judgement is a necessity. And realization that animals are not masturbatory toys obviously needs to be hammered into some people's brains.
Sorry it took me so long to get here... been busy. I wanetd to respond right away, but you were in the process of adding the responses the first time I checked it.
Hippie XXX

ThaRealLiv 43M

6/6/2006 10:24 am

There is a long thread of comments here, and I read about half of it, and don't have the energy to read the rest right now, but I've fromed my opinion on tha general subject, anyhow!!

Tha way I see it, is everyone should have a right to express their opinion, and people should be mature enough to debate those opinions. I think if someone just immediatley bashes someone's opinion without giving an intelligent proposition, they are entitled to being bashed themselves.

With regard to getting rid of people on this site, it is my opinion that society is better off by allowing all people on tha site.

I think our children and pets would be safer in tha world if pedophiles and dogfuckers came onto this site. This would allow the intelligent people on either side of tha law to seek them out, and it becomes one less child or dog we have to worry about in the outside world.

It takes time to gain someone's trust anyways, so why not have them here.

I'm sure most people are smart enough to know who they are going to bring into their life.

Plus, we can be secure in our interactions with people, knowing that tha wolfpack is tracking their scent.

People can be deceiptful in a number of ways, but if you yourself know your colors are pure, then you know you will come out good in the end.

As for those who are not pure, every word and person they have interacted with is stored in this sites database.

It's not likely that they can get away with anything.

When people in tha outside world begin to realize tha value of knowing people on this site, people will be likely more cautious about people who are not on this site.

That's not to say that they have to be on this site to be trusted, but as a member of this site yourselves, you can introduce people you meet off this site, to this site as you get to know them. AS they begin to understand how the society in this site operates, if they are hesitant to come on it, they are likely not too trustworthy.

Having all people on this site, unites the pure, and cleanses the unpure from our society, both on and off the site.

Ginnung 37M

6/6/2006 11:11 am

Unfortunately, this is a topic which is impossible to discuss objectively. The emotions involved are simply too strong, and lead to personal attacks.

I believe that we need to better understand the nature of consent before the issue of beastiality can be addressed. You obviously believe that animals are incapable of consent, while Ubermik obviously believes that they are capable. Without exploring that in greater detail, you lack a common foundation on which to build your arguements.

Hippink 35F
4499 posts
6/6/2006 8:00 pm

TheRealLiv has a good point, something I thought of as well. Everyone was trying so hard to get rid of a group that was talking about incest, and blogs, pics & questions that featured bestiality... I thought it'd be better to let them openly discuss it so that the proper authorities could be notified. When there was such uproar about that incest group still being visible, I thought it was possible a sting operation was going on. At least, I hope so.

Erasing these things from the site is one thing... but it doesn't solve the problem, it just hides it. DEALING with the problem so that the victims can be saved from the abuse is something that needs to be done, cuz it's never going to stop otherwise.

I have to disagree with Ginnung again over this issue. I DO NOT believe animals are capable of knowledgeable consent. I see it as being no different than sexually abusing a child. All too often, humans see animals as just another resourse to USE as we see fit. I see them as living beings not onlike ourselves that deserve the same rights to not be used like slaves.
Hippie XXX

header1979 37M
507 posts
6/6/2006 9:32 pm

Thanks to Div, Evil Lolita, Liv, Ginnung and Hippie for adding more to this blog. I welcome differing points of view. That is what a discussion board is all about. People commented in the Advice Line, that although Ubermik and I had differing view points, it was one of the best discussions that they had seen on the Advice Line in a long time. Each of us treated each other with respect and there was no flaming. I enjoyed the discussion. Thanks for all of you for joining in.


Ginnung 37M

6/7/2006 3:27 pm

Hippie: *Wink* I'm not saying that animals are capable or incapable, but that their capacity for consent is really the crux of the issue. By bringing discussion of the act itself into it before addressing that, things get complex, since pretty much nobody agrees with the act.

Hippink 35F
4499 posts
6/7/2006 5:46 pm

Ginnung: True. I guess I see you sitting on the fence, and I'm trying to pull you onto my side.
Hippie XXX

Become a member to create a blog