The following interview, although it shows no sex acts, is an interview with people who like to have sex with animals.

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/52154/Animal_Passion.html

It seems to me that we are either "tolerant" or "intolerant" regarding such things, and the category picked is a matter of interpretation.

A. If we are tolerant, do we allow everything, including child, animal and corpse sex? Obviously no one would say yes, so we become intolerant.

B. If we are intolerant, at some point we become NO FUN and have to reconsider. Once we endorse, for example, anal sex between heterosexual couples, why not group anal among gays... and from there, if a horse wanders in, why not that? Thus we become tolerant.

It seems to me there is no way out here: every society will draw some line and all lines are about equal, except that it seems from history that the best societies were the least kinky without being uptight and repressive (e.g. Christianity).

Can't stomach opening the link. Beyond sick. How does two human adults consenting to sex equal animal fucking? Corpse fucking and child rape?

Tolerance is a spectrum, not a binary thing. That's something most Americans, especially the Christian Right, just can't cope with. It makes life way too complicated for them. Fundamentalist Christianity lures people into this no-brainer binary morality, everything is either "good" or "evil." Life cannot possibly be that simple.

Fundamentalist Christianity lures people into this no-brainer binary morality, everything is either "good" or "evil." Life cannot possibly be that simple.
Many people see the World as Black & White.

..., everything is either "good" or "evil." Life cannot possibly be that simple.

Why not? If, like the peaceniks and doo-gooders want, the entire world came together in the name of peace, and kissed each other on the lips every day, then it would almost have to be that simple!

But just remember, if a society decides to make laws and rules in that manner, then life would be that simple.

I also think that most people do have a good sense of right n' wrong, and most times that sense is pretty simple, pretty black n' white. The problems come in when that sense is challenged ...then it might become a bit muddy and/or cloudy.

Baron Max

Does the idea of consent have any bearing on tolerance?


A. If we are tolerant, do we allow everything, including child, animal and corpse sex? Obviously no one would say yes, so we become intolerant.

B. If we are intolerant, at some point we become NO FUN and have to reconsider. Once we endorse, for example, anal sex between heterosexual couples, why not group anal among gays... and from there, if a horse wanders in, why not that? Thus we become tolerant.

Regarding point A, I don't see how an animal or corpse can consent to sexual contact: even if a dog, for instance, has an affirmative pavlovian response to human sexual stimuli, the dog is not consenting to sex: it shows no understanding of disease transmission or other factors that might affect a human's decision to have sex with another person. If we don't tolerate bestiality or necrophilia, there is on the one hand a visceral revulsion among the majority, but the lack of consent is a more compelling argument than a simple, "Yuck!" Regarding children, the issue is a little more complex: in American history, the age of consent for a girl to give away her virtue has run as low as seven years old. Indeed, a footnote in Lysander Spooner's rant against the regulation of vice notes that while a girl could give her virtue at ten, nobody was allowed to drink on Sundays. It seems rather an absurd proposition to me. Sex is not the only issue pertaining to age, though. As the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed of Missouri's highest court, the decision-making processes of juveniles is such that we should not execute convicted murderers whose offense took place before their eighteenth birthday, which benchmark is a general assignation of adult responsibilities (alcohol consumption excluded). According to such a notion, a child cannot properly consent to sexual contact. In the case of point (A), we see an issue of consent involved in the decision to be "tolerant". Is it intolerant to refuse usurpations of consent? Would it be intolerant to punish a mugger who steals at gunpoint?

Point (B) suffers a conflict of sheer absurdity: from hetero- anal to group homo-? After a fashion, the point can become that, but once again, when introducing the horse (wasn't there a Pet Shop Boys video with a Shetland?) we run into issues of consent. I can't say I've ever seen a horse with herpes, but then again, I've never really made a point of looking or inquiring.

I find it strange, though, that whenever we see the proposed comparison of homosexuality to bestiality, consent is nowhere on the radar.

Tolerance? Consent? Hello? What am I missing here?

Does the idea of consent have any bearing on tolerance?



Regarding point A, I don't see how an animal or corpse can consent to sexual contact: even if a dog, for instance, has an affirmative pavlovian response to human sexual stimuli, the dog is not consenting to sex: it shows no understanding of disease transmission or other factors that might affect a human's decision to have sex with another person. If we don't tolerate bestiality or necrophilia, there is on the one hand a visceral revulsion among the majority, but the lack of consent is a more compelling argument than a simple, "Yuck!" Regarding children, the issue is a little more complex: in American history, the age of consent for a girl to give away her virtue has run as low as seven years old. Indeed, a footnote in Lysander Spooner's rant against the regulation of vice notes that while a girl could give her virtue at ten, nobody was allowed to drink on Sundays. It seems rather an absurd proposition to me. Sex is not the only issue pertaining to age, though. As the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed of Missouri's highest court, the decision-making processes of juveniles is such that we should not execute convicted murderers whose offense took place before their eighteenth birthday, which benchmark is a general assignation of adult responsibilities (alcohol consumption excluded). According to such a notion, a child cannot properly consent to sexual contact. In the case of point (A), we see an issue of consent involved in the decision to be "tolerant". Is it intolerant to refuse usurpations of consent? Would it be intolerant to punish a mugger who steals at gunpoint?

Point (B) suffers a conflict of sheer absurdity: from hetero- anal to group homo-? After a fashion, the point can become that, but once again, when introducing the horse (wasn't there a Pet Shop Boys video with a Shetland?) we run into issues of consent. I can't say I've ever seen a horse with herpes, but then again, I've never really made a point of looking or inquiring.

I find it strange, though, that whenever we see the proposed comparison of homosexuality to bestiality, consent is nowhere on the radar.

Tolerance? Consent? Hello? What am I missing here?

Tolerance is wrong. Acceptance is not the same as tolerance, you tolerate what you hate but won't destroy.

Why not? If, like the peaceniks and doo-gooders want, the entire world came together in the name of peace, and kissed each other on the lips every day, then it would almost have to be that simple!

But just remember, if a society decides to make laws and rules in that manner, then life would be that simple.

I also think that most people do have a good sense of right n' wrong, and most times that sense is pretty simple, pretty black n' white. The problems come in when that sense is challenged ...then it might become a bit muddy and/or cloudy.

Baron Max


Right and wrong is black and white? Sounds like a racial meme to me.

I agree, there is good and evil, right and wrong, up and down, based on how much damage a person does.

Tolerance is wrong. Acceptance is not the same as tolerance, you tolerate what you hate but won't destroy.

Enlightening.

I'm surprised that we've got this far into the thread without someone making a puerile bestiality joke. Can't think of one right now though. Sorry. :(

Tolerance would be the only way a heterogenous population can live together in peace. Unfortunately this tolerance has to be provided by all parties.

Can't think of one right now though. Sorry. :(
You dissappoint me.

I agree, there is good and evil, right and wrong, up and down, based on how much damage a person does.
Huh? So there is a balance of good and evil in everybody? If you had 2/3 good and 1/3 evil, what are you, good or evil?

Huh? So there is a balance of good and evil in everybody? If you had 2/3 good and 1/3 evil, what are you, good or evil?


If you used the 1/3 of evil to worship your gun you would be good. If you used the 1/3 of evil to roger a goat you would be evil (in the USA - reverse situation in UK).

5 minutes later and the best I can come up with, bestiality-humour-wise, is a vague rhyme of 'fiddle' and 'Tiddles'. Write the rest of the joke yourselves.

But anyway, yes, sexual tolerance:

What business is it of yours what I do with consenting adult goats in the privacy of my own bedroom?
What business is it of mine how many gerbils you've got rammed up your bum right now.

And the answer, of course, is: quite a lot, since animals can't give vocal or written consent.

So animals out, and kids out, leaving the rest of us, being of sound mind and body (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cannibal), to tickle and spank each other to our hearts content - yes?

Tolerance is a spectrum, not a binary thing. That's something most Americans, especially the Christian Right, just can't cope with. It makes life way too complicated for them. Fundamentalist Christianity lures people into this no-brainer binary morality, everything is either "good" or "evil." Life cannot possibly be that simple.


There is a good and evil, but logic is fuzzy, and if someone is more than 50% evil, then they are evil. It's based on percentages according to calculated reasoning. Basically it depends on how much damage they do. Rape is definately evil.

If you used the 1/3 of evil to worship your gun you would be good. If you used the 1/3 of evil to roger a goat you would be evil (in the USA - reverse situation in UK).

Exactly, this is why most gun worshippers promote gun control, so that only evil can access guns.

There is a good and evil, but logic is fuzzy, and if someone is more than 50% evil, then they are evil. It's based on percentages according to calculated reasoning.
How the hell do you calculate how evil someone is? more than 50% evil? What the fuck does that mean?

Nickelodeon; 51% evil and I know it.

Tolerance would be the only way a heterogenous population can live together in peace. Unfortunately this tolerance has to be provided by all parties.

Practice what your preach. Promote tolerance, invite a black person over for dinner, in fact date her. Then I'll take you seriously.

How the hell do you calculate how evil someone is? more than 50% evil? What the fuck does that mean?

Nickelodeon; 51% evil and I know it.

If you do more harm than good, if you are destructive to the point that all you do is hurt people. If you commit a lot of evil acts. Don't pretend like you don't know evilw hen you see it. If someone raped you, they are evil, but if they do it as a priest, they are even more evil. Do you see?

Evil is when people deliberately make a career out of harming others. You want to know what evil looks like? An evil person is always thinking about how to harm anyone and everyone, in the greatest way possible.

Evil is when people deliberately make a career out of harming others.
Like soldiers?

Practice what your preach. Promote tolerance, invite a black person over for dinner, in fact date her. Then I'll take you seriously.

haha...you fucking moron. My family is mixed.

haha...you fucking moron. My family is mixed.


Does really fucking European actually count as mixed?

Does really fucking European actually count as mixed?

Fucking Europeans don't count for much ...mixed or otherwise! :)

Baron Max

Evil is when people deliberately make a career out of harming others. You want to know what evil looks like? An evil person is always thinking about how to harm anyone and everyone, in the greatest way possible.
Isn't that what we call Capitalism? Are you some sort of communist? I won't stand for this sort of thing on my Sciforums.

The same 'Animals can't consent' issue came up in a doggy thread a little while ago. Leopold and TOR refused to see past their disgust and to discuss it properly.

I'm of the view that it's a little bit misleading to have sex with an animal. I think an animal sees it as reproduction, but us humans know that interspecies copulation leads to a gooey mess and not much else. So, in that way, it's a little unfair because the animal has inbuilt 'have sex, make small animals' thoughts and in effect, you're lying to the animal.

Animals like dolphins, who are proven to have sex for enjoyment, are perhaps a little better, but the day you decide to spread your cheeks it might think it's going to impregnate you.

Humans should be allowed to do whatever they want to each other, assuming everyone involved consents and is honest about their health. The lines get blurred a bit with suffocation and chloroform fetishes. It's dangerous, and that's what gives people their kicks I s'pose, and it can go wrong.