Planetarion Forums - [UK] Weird program about sex with animals on Channel 4 now!

meglamaniac · 21 Jun 2004, 23:11

Those people need help.

Stew · 21 Jun 2004, 23:11

EFB!!!
Just came here to post that!

1-X · 21 Jun 2004, 23:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

Those people need help.

otherwise it keeps slipping out?

Stew · 21 Jun 2004, 23:33

These are some ****ed up ppl.

I'm expecting Dante to come in and say "freedom of choice" etc - but tbf I'd like to see him defend this.

How can you be aroused by a horse or dog!?!?

Nondescript Human · 21 Jun 2004, 23:35

Dodgy.*

* Not that I'm watching it, of course.

Dante Hicks · 21 Jun 2004, 23:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stew

I'm expecting Dante to come in and say "freedom of choice"

Hi.

Quote:

but tbf I'd like to see him defend this.

I'm not watching TV atm, but if it's just people ****ing animals, what's the problem? Did you find the scene in American Pie where he ****s the apple pie completley sick? Why is one lot of organic matter OK to ****, but another lot completley unacceptable? Unless there is some special characteristic you are assigning to animals but not plants?

Quote:

How can you be aroused by a horse or dog!?!?

I've no idea how men can be aroused by other men tbh, or indeed, by black women, but a lot of people seem to manage it. Takes all sorts to make the world. So long as you don't harm any human beings I'm not fussed by what you get turned on by.

meglamaniac · 21 Jun 2004, 23:41

It's people in long term relationship with animals, even fake marraiges and shit.

Stew · 21 Jun 2004, 23:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm not watching TV atm, but if it's just people ****ing animals, what's the problem? Did you find the scene in American Pie where he ****s the apple pie completley sick?

No, I found it funny

Thats a sex aid though - theres no difference between an apple pie and a vibrator.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Why is one lot of organic matter OK to ****, but another lot completley unacceptable?

Well an apple pie isnt living.
And of course there is a huge difference between an animal and plant.
The "worst" thing I guess is that the animals dont have a choice.

It's not "natural"

Androme · 21 Jun 2004, 23:43

Quick, someone inform skiddy.

* Paging skiddy.... no wait, I don't have his pager... - heh *

Dante Hicks · 21 Jun 2004, 23:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

It's people in long term relationship with animals, even fake marraiges and shit.

I heard one guy tried to marry his motorbike or something.

I don't see the problem. The people involved might be sick, but so long as they're not doing anyone any harm I have no problem with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stew

The "worst" thing I guess is that the animals dont have a choice.

Huh? And plants do? And plants are living anyway. If we're going to allow people to kill, ride, hunt, stuff (lol) imprison and beat animals then saying that "raping" them is beyond the pale seems a bit odd.

The easiest way of determining whether your objection is rational or emotional is to consider : Would you be equally sickened by people having sex with animal corpses? If the answer is yes then your objections probably aren't based on any rational considerations but purely on an emotional response of "OMG, that sounds disgusting!!!".

1-X · 21 Jun 2004, 23:47

we can save ourselves a hundred posts if we just accept that while most people believe that a certain amount of respect for the rights of animals is basic civilized behaviour, Dante does not. Simple

queball · 21 Jun 2004, 23:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stew

How can you be aroused by a horse or dog!?!?

Doggies are cute :))))

Nondescript Human · 21 Jun 2004, 23:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1-X

we can save ourselves a hundred posts if we just accept that while most people believe that a certain amount of respect for the rights of animals is basic civilized behaviour, Dante does not. Simple

Surely Dante is right though?

Dante Hicks · 21 Jun 2004, 23:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1-X

we can save ourselves a hundred posts if we just accept that while most people believe that a certain amount of respect for the rights of animals is basic civilized behaviour, Dante does not. Simple

Since I'm going to bed now, this sounds good to me.

Having said that, I've no real problem with the animal rights argument per se (obviously I disagree but that's fine). It's the inconsistency that gets me. People are quite happy to have chickens live in pretty apalling conditions, or let cows be painfully slaughtered in their thousands, or horses beaten harshly during races, etc, etc - but if some farmer decides to get frisky with their dog it's "OMG, hate crime!".

As a btw : I'm sure they had a similar TV program to this before. It had a blind guy who had a dog he used to ****, and he preferred the term "animal lover" to bestiality or something. I still chuckle when I hear from "animal lovers", especially those who take their pets to bed with them.

skiddy · 22 Jun 2004, 00:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Androme2

Quick, someone inform skiddy.

* Paging skiddy.... no wait, I don't have his pager... - heh *

Tomkat · 22 Jun 2004, 00:08

I'm with Dante.

If people want to have relationships with their animals, that's their choice. They're sacrificing a normal social existence for that animal, as they won't be able to discuss it, and will be frowned on. Of course, it's pretty strange, and you could argue it's abusing the animal, as it has no choice.

Evergreen · 22 Jun 2004, 00:13

If you are a vegetarian then are you allowed to find this very disgusting?

We do sentence people to death, life imprisonment, many things, but if we said it's ok to **** em too, that'd be too far.... there are punishments, roles and rules for stuff in nature.

We Breed certain animals only for the fact that we have to eat them to survive, we accepted that, that has been the way for a long time as food wasn't as wonderfully diverse as it is now, we do not breed them for sexual ****ing partners... we never condoned that, we condone the usage of animals to supplement our lives in the form of extending it, having sex with a ****ing dog/cat/horse/cow isn't going to extend your life any, eating one/companionship to stop depressive behaviour forming/using one to overcome a disability to further human life is beneficial, having sex with one serves no benefit, it serves someone's procreational needs but that can be achieved in lots of other ways.

So yah Dante has his views that are of a world that has been in the 20th ****ing century for the whole of eternity.

Perhaps he should criticize the fact that we haven't moved to update certain things rather than arguing that seeing as we do all this to animals still we should condone this other unneccessary behaviour...

Androme · 22 Jun 2004, 00:26

Next time you eat meat, just remember it originally came out of its mother's anus

skiddy · 22 Jun 2004, 00:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Androme2

Next time you eat meat, just remember it originally came out of its mother's anus

So you took biology at school, right?

Dante Hicks · 22 Jun 2004, 07:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evergreen

If you are a vegetarian then are you allowed to find this very disgusting?

You're allowed to find whatever you want disgusting. I personally find the idea of two men (or two fat people) having sex pretty damn disgusting tbh, but that has nothing to do with the morality of it.

Quote:

We Breed certain animals only for the fact that we have to eat them to survive, we accepted that, that has been the way for a long time as food wasn't as wonderfully diverse as it is now, we do not breed them for sexual ****ing partners...

OK, what if we started breeding animals for sexual partners? What if we found a tribe somewhere that did so? Would it make a blind bit of difference to how moral the act is? If we had a history of breeding humans for sexual abuse, would that make it OK?

Quote:

having sex with one serves no benefit, it serves someone's procreational needs but that can be achieved in lots of other ways.

It "benefits" the person who is enjoying it. But anyway utility is different from morality. In court, saying "Well, I murdered my mother because I'd inherit loads of money, so there was benefit in me doing it" is not a valid defence.

Quote:

So yah Dante has his views that are of a world that has been in the 20th ****ing century for the whole of eternity.

Not really. History can explain why social conventions have turned out the way have, but they can't lend any further weight to moral arguments. If a white klansmen killed a black person under the pretext that "his people" have victimised blacks for hundreds of years now, would any jury accept that?

Quote:

Perhaps he should criticize the fact that we haven't moved to update certain things rather than arguing that seeing as we do all this to animals still we should condone this other unneccessary behaviour...

That was my point. The fact we could once justify eating meat on grounds of necessity is utterly irrelevent in terms of justifying it now. According to some (I'm skeptical), slavery was "necessary" at certain points in history. This does not mean we allow the practice now.

I fail to appreciate your opening argument regarding the death sentence in humans, btw. Humans (in most vaguely enlightened countries) start out with various rights (the key amongst these which should be liberty) which they can forefit through criminal behaviour. That's completley different from animals.

Structural Integrity · 22 Jun 2004, 07:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by skiddy

So you took biology at school, right?

heh heh