Sexual Acceptance

[DallasApple]

Yes. It is still rape, and if our laws won't defend the rights of rape victims, I would be willing to do so. I normally oppose vigilantism, but when we're dealing with rape in a situation where the law refuses to step in, there's no real choice. Rape is one of my berserk buttons.

Rape is one of my "beserk " buttons too.I mean come on..I think there is something wrong with someonone that would say "well they wanted it" because they were horny too when it comes to animals and children..Its just too far gone.

My BIL has a brother..so my BIL BIL..who is downs syndrome.He is a 40 year old man with downs syndrome..He gets "amorous"....He has sexual urges..that doesnt mean its O.K for me to have sex with him..That would be rape..IMHO and the law agrees with me .....If the law didnt agree with me then the law is wrong.

Love

Dallas

 

[enchanted_one1975]

I agree...but in all fairness the majority of people are hetrosexual.Therefore you are likely to see more hetero PDA's..Just by sheer #'s more are out there..

Im not saying there isnt a "double standard"..Just the fact there are MORE examples of over the top PDA"s would be statisitcally innevitable..IMHO..Because by far there are more heterosexuals.

While it may seem that there are more heterosexuals, this might not be the case. Many people that are not heterosexual are ashamed of themselves, thanks to society. It is my opinion that this is why we have a lot of hate crimes against people based on sexual orientation. I feel many take part because they are convinced that if they do it proves they are "normal." Many bisexual people don't flaunt their sexuality in public either. I have even heard of homosexual men and homosexual women getting married (usually when they are good friends) to put on a "normal" appearance for the outside world. This all being said, they can take polls about sexuality, but it doesn't mean people will tell the truth. :no: With as violent as people are toward those that are different, one may feel the need to lie about who they are and it may have nothing to do with their own security.

 

[DallasApple]

While it may seem that there are more heterosexuals, this might not be the case. Many people that are not heterosexual are ashamed of themselves, thanks to society. It is my opinion that this is why we have a lot of hate crimes against people based on sexual orientation. I feel many take part because they are convinced that if they do it proves they are "normal." Many bisexual people don't flaunt their sexuality in public either. I have even heard of homosexual men and homosexual women getting married (usually when they are good friends) to put on a "normal" appearance for the outside world. This all being said, they can take polls about sexuality, but it doesn't mean people will tell the truth. :no: With as violent as people are toward those that are different, one may feel the need to lie about who they are and it may have nothing to do with their own security.

If you are trying to say that most people arent born (by majority) to be attracted to the opposite sex naturally but its because of social conditioning then say the same thing then about people who arent heterosexual...That they are only homosexual or bi-sexual due to outside influence.

YOu are going BACKWARDS with that argument..

Love

Dallas

 

[enchanted_one1975]

I am not saying their attraction is based on influence. I am saying the image that they show the outside world is based on that influence. I am talking about people staying "in the closet" for the most part. Some may choose to act different, such as a bisexual man denying his urges and forcing himself to live a heterosexual lifestyle. This doesn't mean he is heterosexual. he is just not being true to himself. All the possibilities aside though, my real point was to show that things are not always what they seem.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you are trying to say that most people arent born (by majority) to be attracted to the opposite sex naturally but its because of social conditioning then say the same thing then about people who arent heterosexual...That they are only homosexual or bi-sexual due to outside influence.

YOu are going BACKWARDS with that argument..

Most psychologist would agree though that social influence does indeed play a part in sexual orientation. Biology also plays a role though. It's not an issue of nature vs nurture, but rather how much of a role each plays in our development.

LOL Naaa you have to be a breeder for that. (Kidding Kidding.) Regardless, your views are your views but let me ask you something if it was legal and your neighbor was boinking a critter, would you do something about it?

I would be very likely to take said animal, and then take it to an animal shelter, where it is not going to be violated. Why? Again, animals cannot consent, and they only know how to have sex to reproduce. Bestiality does not reproduce offspring, and the needs of only the human are being met. The animal however, could be off it's reproductive cycle and have no interest in sex at the moment. If the animal is male, then that is taking advantage of it. Really no different than a date-rape drug or intoxicating your date just to get them to consent to sex, even though they normally wouldn't.

 

[MSizer]

...what is it that makes people so opposed to what people do in their own bed room?...

Probably the most recently adapted moral domain is that of personal purity. As humans (well, previous forms of what would become humans) began to live in groups, the potential for quick spread of disease became a threat, so those groups who had no regard for personal purity died off. This is why about half of us are literally wired up psychologically to think that sexual practices and dietary practices are moral matters. They elicit the emotion of disgust in about 50% of us. The problem is that we're now at a point where medicine and education are able to help us avoid disease better than an aversion to specific dietary and sexual practices, but those half or so of us who are born with a natural tendency to react with disgust toward "impure" practices now have to realize that it's an obselete trait that served us in the past, but is now a hiderance to human rights. Of course the average person is not so enlightened as to take that step to look past emotions for the greater good of an expressed principle, even if it means descrimination to some.

 

[Black_Shuck]

Probably the most recently adapted moral domain is that of personal purity. As humans (well, previous forms of what would become humans) began to live in groups, the potential for quick spread of disease became a threat, so those groups who had no regard for personal purity died off. This is why about half of us are literally wired up psychologically to think that sexual practices and dietary practices are moral matters. They elicit the emotion of disgust in about 50% of us. The problem is that we're now at a point where medicine and education are able to help us avoid disease better than an aversion to specific dietary and sexual practices, but those half or so of us who are born with a natural tendency to react with disgust toward "impure" practices now have to realize that it's an obselete trait that served us in the past, but is now a hiderance to human rights. Of course the average person is not so enlightened as to take that step to look past emotions for the greater good of an expressed principle, even if it means descrimination to some.

I never thought of it that way, disgust as a survival instinct. I might have to look into that.

 

[DallasApple]

I never thought of it that way, disgust as a survival instinct. I might have to look into that.

I've wondered something similar..Why are we disgusted with certain odors?

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Oh and further..some odors that disgust "most" dont disgust some people..

I mean havent we all heard the phrase" you smell like a skunk"(meaning bad)..???

Well I met a woman that loves the smell of skunk spray.//

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Most psychologist would agree though that social influence does indeed play a part in sexual orientation. Biology also plays a role though. It's not an issue of nature vs nurture, but rather how much of a role each plays in our development.

I can understand that..except that just doesnt explain how even without "nuturing" or social acceptance for instance homosexuals have risked losing much (including their lives) to be outwardly homosexual.

Maybe its a matter of how "strong" the biological is?

Love

Dallas

 

[Black_Shuck]

I can understand that..except that just doesnt explain how even without "nuturing" or social acceptance for instance homosexuals have risked losing much (including their lives) to be outwardly homosexual.

Maybe its a matter of how "strong" the biological is?

Love

Dallas

I think that social skills play a bit into the nurture part. Some homosexuals I know can easily slip unnoticed as heterosexual in the outside world. I am a member of the military and I meet about seven homosexual people that are defending our country in the day time and carry on pretty interesting lives when off duty.

 

[DallasApple]

I think that social skills play a bit into the nurture part. Some homosexuals I know can easily slip unnoticed as heterosexual in the outside world. I am a member of the military and I meet about seven homosexual people that are defending our country in the day time and carry on pretty interesting lives when off duty.

O.K I understand that...but that doesnt change the fact they are homosexual just because they pretend they arent.

Im talking about can you "nurture" someone to be homosexual ,heterosexual,bi-sexual...

And on that note..I can "easily" slip unnoticed as a homosexual even though Im not if I had to...Im sure..

Im not talking about "social skills"..Im talking about what your true nature is .

Love

Dallas

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I never thought of it that way, disgust as a survival instinct. I might have to look into that.

Evolutionary Psychology would be a good place to start if you do want to look into that. There was also a thread, either here or at another forum, that discussed research that showed how fears can be inheritable traits. During the study, two aquariums had crickets in them, and one of them had a wolf spider in it. The one that had a wolf spider, the crickets off spring showed fear of this spider, and lived much longer. The other one, the spider was introduced after the crickets were born, and they had no idea how to act to be able to survive.

 

[Black_Shuck]

O.K I understand that...but that doesnt change the fact they are homosexual just because they pretend they arent.

Im talking about can you "nurture" someone to be homosexual ,heterosexual,bi-sexual...

And on that note..I can "easily" slip unnoticed as a homosexual even though Im not if I had to...Im sure..

Im not talking about "social skills"..Im talking about what your true nature is .

Love

Dallas

Personally, I never had anyone nurture me to be what I am, I think nature plays a greater role than nurture. When I reach puberty I found that I was equally attracted to both sexes, heterosexuality was more accepted and the fact that my family raised me as a Jehovah Witness taught me that men to men contact was a big no no.I believe it is more nature than anything.

 

[Alusky]

My own orientation is despised

I won't hate you, actually I would like to be friends and maybe you get to meet my boyfriend (btw: he pees on 3 legs)

You could argue that you are taking advantage of animals even if you aren't hurting them.

When some buys a dog, he is taking advantage of the dog from the beginning, (advantage by gaining happiness, companionship, protection at the cost of the dog, who will be a "slave" to that owner) So how is non-abusive sex any different from training useless tricks on a dog to make him perform on an agility contest?

Animals cannot consent. If you have sex with an animal, you are raping it.

I guess you mean animals can't give LEGAL HUMAN consent, because they are able to give normal consent for basic things like letting a human ride them (horses) or let a human caress them or even let a human have sex with him/her. If the animal does not give or withdraws normal consent the human will end on the floor (horse case) or will be attacked or at least show that the activity done to the animal is not welcome (caress and sex case) animals have body language and other ways to communicate normal consent and humans can understand that comunication with training or by spending time with the animal, so is NOT always rape if normal consent is involved and the opinion of the animal is respected.

Now how come LEGAL HUMAN CONSENT is required only for sex with animals? But not required to murder them for: food, population control, dangerous animals control or sport hunting, or for: scientific experiments, making them work for humans, unnecessary operations like: dew clawing, ear and tail cropping, neutering, or even having a pet (which is the same as an slave) all those actions are done without the animal LEGAL HUMAN CONSENT and I bet you are OK with it.

You have a double standard, legal human consent is not why sex with animals is wrong. As animals don't have legal human consent laws protecting them.

The day that killing an animal without his LEGAL HUMAN CONSENT becomes illegal and equal to murder, your argument will be valid, but for now it is not a valid reason to say bestiality is wrong.

That it's some sort of alternate sexuality however is patently absurd and not up for debate. Maybe a semi-acceptable fetish [mental illness] and that's stretching it.

According to 4 resent studies done to around 400 people that had or are having sex with animals, around 80% of them where zoosexuals (they fit the sexual orientation profile) the other 18% are people with a sexual fetish for animals and the last 2% where zoosadists who enjoy killing and torturing animals, some times in a sexual way (if the animal dies or suffers)

Zoosexuality or animal-fetish are not a mental illness unless the person is unhappy with his behavior or he is hurting others (thats what the APA says in the DSM). Not all the Bestialists (animal fetish people) hurt animals, and the Zoophiles will never hurt animals on purpose (only by unwanted accidents)

Zoosexuality is composed of bestialists (they are the ones with an animal fetish, they can be abusive or not to animals)+zoophiles (always good never abusive)+zoosadists (always abusive)
Same segregation is found in human+human orientations (excluding pedosexuality)
For example: Heterosexuality is composed of people with a fetish for humans (they see humans as sex objects, normally using female or male prostitutes for sex, they can be abusive or not to humans) the "normal heterosexual" (people that loves and care for humans and have sex with them, they are always good) and the rapists and abusers (they are the bad guys).

I think a lot of people forget that your freedom to express your opinions, views, and individuality does not take away my freedom to express my views, opinions, and individuality in disagreement of yours

No problem with that, the problem is that some people take that freedom to express an opinions to the physical realm of killing the animal involved and beating or killing the human. (I had my share of death treats against me and my 4 legged boyfriend)

Ugh...just no. Just don't rape animals. Those laws are in place for a reason.

There are already animal abuse laws that protect animals from all kind of abusive activities (even sex) what those anti-bestiality laws want is to punish people that are not abusing (raping) animals but doing something disgusting and sinful.

In Washington DC you can go to jail up to 10 years if you are cleaning a horse genitals and he gets an erection. You actually have to hire a veterinarian to do anything that may give a horse an erection since only vets are allowed to arouse animals on purpose or by accident. For example: If you are caught in Washington DC french kissing a dog or leting a dog hump your leg till he orgasm you will go to jail up to 10 years too. That is unfair, that stupid are those anti-bestiality laws. (luckily in 17 USA states is legal to have non-abusive sex with animals)

While it may seem that there are more heterosexuals, this might not be the case.

Actually theres more than heterosexuality and many combinations with other sexualities, but most people will keep their "abnormal sexual orientation" as a secret to avoid discrimination. For example there are: Pedosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, zoosexuals, objectosexuals, dendrosexuals, ecosexuals, pansexual, polysexuals, (maybe asexuality too) an many more sexual fetishes that may fit the sexual orientation profile. (PS: all those I just mention are protected in USA under sexual orientation sex crimes bill)

Animals only know how to have sex to reproduce. Bestiality does not reproduce offspring, and the needs of only the human are being met.

Not really, over 400 species of animals are know to have homosexuals activities including anal sex with full orgasm (no reproduction at all), a bigger amount of animals are know to masturbate themselves (no reproduction) and a smaller amount of animals are know to have sex with objects (female porcupine masturbate by walking while dragging a stick that is in touch with the clitoris and dogs are know have sex with pillows or any object for that matter) also inter-specie sex occurs in many species (elephant with rhino for example) no reproduction in there, some exceptions are the cases of nearly related species where reproduction is possible and causes hybrids offspring like: (tiger with a lion) or (camel with alpaca) or (zebra with horse) most of the time the offspring is sterile.

All those non-reproductive activities can be easily observed on places like youtube if you want visual prof.

BTW if the human knows what he is doing the animal can gain something from sex, animals can reach orgasm, have fun, get good exercise, stress relieve, stronger bond with the human and maybe prevent prostate problems in male dogs. (since sex seems to do that on humans prostate)

Probably the most recently adapted moral domain is that of personal purity.

Very interesting theory indeed.

Oh and further..some odors that disgust "most" dont disgust some people.

I find garbage odor to be pleasant or neutral. When other people will cover their nose and stay away. Yet some perfumes give me allergies or I can't stand near them because I don't like the smell at all.

I guess some smells are genetically programed, maybe on rare cases some one may smell something different than some one else, for you an apple may smell like an apple but for some one else it will smell like a pear, you both will name the object apple and will say that "it smell like apple" but the other guy is actually smelling pear and you would never know that he smell it different than you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

When some buys a dog, he is taking advantage of the dog from the beginning, (advantage by gaining happiness, companionship, protection at the cost of the dog, who will be a "slave" to that owner) So how is non-abusive sex any different from training useless tricks on a dog to make him perform on an agility contest?

When I 'bought' my dog, it was to rescue her from the shelter, as it had been the second time she had been in; the first time is because she was born in the shelter. She was a starved, malnourished, severally matted, skin and bones Australian Shepperd/Retriever mix. Since then, we have both become very good companions, with her getting her coat brushed and me getting licks on the face. She (quite literally) jumps in my arms when I get home, and at my bed side at night, and crawls into bed with me after my fiance gets up for the day. If anything, she is the one taking advantage of me, because I can't help but buy her treats when I am in town, toys, make special trips into town to take her to Pet-co with me (she really likes to strut her stuff when she is on a leash), and being showered with love and attention.

I guess you mean animals can't give LEGAL HUMAN consent, because they are able to give normal consent for basic things like letting a human ride them (horses) or let a human caress them or even let a human have sex with him/her. If the animal does not give or withdraws normal consent the human will end on the floor (horse case) or will be attacked or at least show that the activity done to the animal is not welcome (caress and sex case) animals have body language and other ways to communicate normal consent and humans can understand that comunication with training or by spending time with the animal, so is NOT always rape if normal consent is involved and the opinion of the animal is respected.

Have you ever watched a rodeo? A bull or horse being branded that kicks? Or a dog lashing out at an abusive owner? Animals do indeed say no. And a very common thing the hear a young child/barely legal adult girl to say when her much older pedophile boyfriend goes to jail is "but we love eachother." It may seem he has her consent, but is it really consent when the girl was being manipulated into believing there was a real love connection? One of my cats is so horny that he has actually tried to mount my dog. This isn't because he wanted to have sex with my dog, it's because his natural drive took over, like it does in most animals. An unfixed animal will mount or spread for almost anything.

Not really, over 400 species of animals are know to have homosexuals activities including anal sex with full orgasm (no reproduction at all), a bigger amount of animals are know to masturbate themselves (no reproduction) and a smaller amount of animals are know to have sex with objects (female porcupine masturbate by walking while dragging a stick that is in touch with the clitoris and dogs are know have sex with pillows or any object for that matter) also inter-specie sex occurs in many species (elephant with rhino for example) no reproduction in there, some exceptions are the cases of nearly related species where reproduction is possible and causes hybrids offspring like: (tiger with a lion) or (camel with alpaca) or (zebra with horse) most of the time the offspring is sterile.

Homosexuality is entirely unrelated. A good number of male species will hump another male in a display of dominance, such as dogs. Or the dog will hump anything that moves to show dominance. Or one male will hump another simple because there is no female around.

 

[RomCat]

The moral law applies in your bedroom the
same as it does out on the street.
The natural law applies in your bedroom the
same as it does out on the street.
When you violate either one or both the whole
of society is affected negatively in some way.
No man is an island.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is unfair, that stupid are those anti-bestiality laws.

But it's unfair to assume that an animal wants to have sex with you, and isn't responding to it's most primitive and basic drive. Animals do not have the mental processes to know that inter-species intercourse will not work out, or work out for the offspring. They also do not have the mental capabilities to understand that inbreeding will eventually cause genetic defects. We as humans, who are capable of a higher thought process, do understand this, and it's why sex between parent and child, siblings, cousins, or anyone else who is blood related is frowned upon.
And again, you can manipulate consent. Child predators do it all the time. The victim will plead that there is love, but fortunately there are laws to protect such abuse, misdirection, and manipulation. The same goes for animals. They simply cannot control there sex drive. One species of mice, as soon as the males hit puberty, they literally do nothing but have sex with as many females as possible until the poor thing dies of dehydration, and an agonizing case of starvation.

 

[xkatz]

I don't think one should have sex or perform any sexually acts upon animals. They cannot consent and most do not enjoy or want intercourse with humans. It also is very risky, since you can get diseases and parasites, and perhaps even be physically harmed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And one more thing to add: if you have a pet and have it fixed like any responsible pet owner would (I'm working on getting the cat BTW), the animal will not have a sex drive, so it would be abuse because the animal lacks the drive to have sex.
If the animal isn't, then it simple does not know better and is acting on instinct, not passion or love, and is still abuse because the animal is being taken advantage of to be used as a sex toy.