# Bestiality and Fur Affinity



## Dragoneer (Aug 23, 2009)

As some of you know by now we have begun taking some actions against "zoophiles" on Fur Affinity, and I'd like to take a moment to clarify the general stance on these actions.

We are only taking action against "zoos" _who openly discuss engaging in sexual activity/bestiality with animals_ on the site. We take the same actions against those who discuss open interest in pedophilia, illicit drug usage or other illegal activity. Drawing "zoo" is fine, being a "zoo" is fine. We do not judge based on fantasy, but when we have unquestionable doubt that such discussion has turned to reality.

*What we WILL NOT take action upon:*


Drawing artwork featuring non-anthro characters
Being affiliated with or supporting "Zoophilia"
 *What we WILL take action upon:*


Discussing how you engage in sexual relationships with a pet, farm animal or other creature (living or dead).
 Personally, I do not care what goes on in the privacy of your own bedroom. _It's not my business, _and I turn a blind eye towards things like that. However, the moment you begin discussing such activities on FA it goes from being private to public, and once it becomes public it becomes our problem.

This is both a moral and legal issue (per Virginia and Pennsylvania state law), and it is an unpopular one with several people. That said, we believe there is a sufficient distinction between fantasy and reality. Furry is a variety of things, and it's an umbrella to many different groups all with similar interests. However, we need to draw a distinction between fantasy and reality somewhere, and when it involves real animals that's where that line gets drawn.

*NOTE: *I'd also like to note vigilantism/drama squads against individuals trying to ferret out "zoos" will not be permitted. If you have a concern report it privately, as we will take into account what's going on.


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 23, 2009)

Sounds quite fair to my way of thinking. 

Besides, if zoos want to speak about their private time, there are zoo forums on the internet where they can do that.


----------



## Duality Jack (Aug 23, 2009)

Nice, Good to have the law laid out so its cut and dry. Now people cannot complain about the grey ares.


----------



## Balthamos (Aug 23, 2009)

Very very good points there hon. x


----------



## Aurali (Aug 23, 2009)

Well thanks for making that completely clear Dragoneer :3
Out of curiosity? How far does this retrograde back? and does this apply cross-site like some communities do it? or is it just FA only.


----------



## Furrywriter (Aug 23, 2009)

Sounds like pretty fair standards to me


----------



## Freehaven (Aug 23, 2009)

I agree with this policy.


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 23, 2009)

Eli said:


> Well thanks for making that completely clear Dragoneer :3
> Out of curiosity? How far does this retrograde back? and does this apply cross-site like some communities do it? or is it just FA only.


I can't say how far back it goes because each case is individual. However, I think if somebody posted comments past a year out they should be disregarded.

Discussions in such manner should never have been brought up on the site in the first place. But that's merely my opinion.


----------



## marmelmm (Aug 23, 2009)

Works for me.


----------



## Pegla (Aug 23, 2009)

Sounds good to me.


----------



## Vellah (Aug 23, 2009)

Aye Captain.

If you need me, I'll be in my lab.


----------



## Aurali (Aug 23, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> I can't say how far back it goes because each case is individual. However, I think if somebody posted comments past a year out they should be disregarded.
> 
> Discussions in such manner should never have been brought up on the site in the first place. But that's merely my opinion.



Yeah I think that's pretty fair, though I'm expecting a lot of people get shocked when they realize they can't discuss their drug habits here anymore. Everything else has always been a no-brainer though.


----------



## Ainoko (Aug 23, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> As some of you know by now we have begun taking some actions against "zoophiles" on Fur Affinity, and I'd like to take a moment to clarify the general stance on these actions.
> 
> We are only taking action against "zoos" _who openly discuss engaging in sexual activity/bestiality with animals_ on the site. We take the same actions against those who discuss open interest in pedophilia, illicit drug usage or other illegal activity. Drawing "zoo" is fine, being a "zoo" is fine. We do not judge based on fantasy, but when we have unquestionable doubt that such discussion has turned to reality.
> 
> ...



That is a fair and balanced approach to this and I do beleive that it shopuld also apply to other art **cough cough* cub, snuff, and other arts that people get all drama whorish about


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Aug 23, 2009)

You ban people who admit to using illegal drugs on FA?

Huh, that's news to me.

That said, eh--could be worse, could be better.


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 23, 2009)

Ainoko said:


> That is a fair and balanced approach to this and I do beleive that it shopuld also apply to other art **cough cough* cub, snuff, and other arts that people get all drama whorish about


It does apply to cub stuff. Fantasy is permitted, reality is denied.


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 23, 2009)

This is exactly what I've been telling those who flaunt their actions, keep it to yourself...we don't need to know about your illegal activities, and mentioning it on certain sites (FA for example) can and does break law.


----------



## NachT (Aug 23, 2009)

I'm confused. You mentioned that you'll actively go against anyone talking about having taken actions of illegal activities, yet the only big one that's in the spot-light is sexual activity with animals and minors. Haven't seen anything negative on any other illegal activity, such as drug use, anti-government/religious debates, or anything along those lines. Are these going to eventually be brought up where people need to pretend not to do them, or are they safe to still talk about?

~N~


----------



## FoxxLegend (Aug 23, 2009)

Hmm, I've heard of this kind of thing but I'm glad to say that I don't do that. That and it's good that it's being brought to attention before anything big does happen. The ASPCA can be ruthless, which is good.


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 23, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> You ban people who admit to using illegal drugs on FA?
> 
> Huh, that's news to me.


Depending on circumstances. However, generally drug usage is different (it's not an instant-ban). We remove comments/journals first, warn them. If it happens again...

It's sort of a different scenario since when it comes to drug usage, for the most part, the only person who gets hurt is the individual. Their direct actions don't afflict another.


----------



## Grisser (Aug 23, 2009)

> (living or dead)



( ï¾Ÿ ãƒ®ï¾Ÿ)


----------



## Ainoko (Aug 23, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> It does apply to cub stuff. Fantasy is permitted, reality is denied.



I understand that, but this should be made loud and clear to those who want the art and artists banned. I have no problem with fantasy, but the moment you or someone else crosses the line into reality, then it becomes my problem as well.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Aug 23, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Depending on circumstances. However, generally drug usage is different (it's not an instant-ban). We remove comments/journals first, warn them. If it happens again...
> 
> It's sort of a different scenario since when it comes to drug usage, for the most part, the only person who gets hurt is the individual. Their direct actions don't afflict another.


A very good point.

Though I'm pretty sure drug users get longer sentences than dogfuckers :V


----------



## ResEvil07 (Aug 23, 2009)

So for god's sake dont make a damn post "coming out" WE DONT WANT TO FUCKING KNOW!


----------



## Sportmotor (Aug 23, 2009)

agreed


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 23, 2009)

FoxxLegend said:


> Hmm, I've heard of this kind of thing but I'm glad to say that I don't do that. That and it's good that it's being brought to attention before anything big does happen. The ASPCA can be ruthless, which is good.


And considering our ties to the NJSPCA/state police... it's all the more imperative.



Grisser said:


> ( ï¾Ÿ ãƒ®ï¾Ÿ)


I'm just saying is all.



Ainoko said:


> I understand that, but this should be made loud and clear to those who want the art and artists banned. I have no problem with fantasy, but the moment you or someone else crosses the line into reality, then it becomes my problem as well.


That was made loud and clear dozens and dozens of times, and they know that.

I know that the "zoo" drama is being discussed quite a lot on other "zoo" sites, and they're aware. I read their forums, too.


----------



## Shoki (Aug 23, 2009)

Sounds good to me. It should be common sense not to announce one's illegal activities publicly anyway.


----------



## hooves (Aug 23, 2009)

Well as long as 'those' people just stay quite just stay in the closet...  Hmmmm I seem to have heard that line somewhere before in the past... about some group of folks the rest of society didn't like for some odd reason...  Just saying it all sounds familiar... Something to think about... or are not its up to y'all...


----------



## Ainoko (Aug 23, 2009)

Shoki said:


> Sounds good to me. It should be common sense not to announce one's illegal activities publicly anyway.



That is one of the best peices of advice that I have seen on the forums so far


----------



## Takun (Aug 23, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Depending on circumstances. However, generally drug usage is different (it's not an instant-ban). We remove comments/journals first, warn them. If it happens again...
> 
> It's sort of a different scenario since when it comes to drug usage, for the most part, the only person who gets hurt is the individual. Their direct actions don't afflict another.



What about users who have stoner, marijuana, weed, and other things as their user name?


----------



## WarMocK (Aug 23, 2009)

*Thumbs up* 8)


----------



## Aurali (Aug 23, 2009)

dragoneer said:
			
		

> That was made loud and clear dozens and dozens of times, and they know that.


 I think you need to make it louder 'neer, they are plugging their ears going "lalalal I'm not listening!"



> I know that the "zoo" drama is being discussed quite a lot on other "zoo" sites, and they're aware.


 I'm sure it isn't just Zoo sites that are discussing it.



> I read their forums, too.


Oh do you?


----------



## Sportmotor (Aug 23, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> I know that the "zoo" drama is being discussed quite a lot on other "zoo" sites, and they're aware. I read their forums, too.


 
*wants to be a smartass* X3
but knows better


----------



## Mazz (Aug 23, 2009)

I can't stand the artwork for things like zoo and pedo stuff but I understand FAs stance on allowing it. 
I applaud that you do not allow people to openly discuss how they raped their dog or how they want to touch their neighbors children... that I wouldn't be able to ignore as easily as I can ignore the artwork.



hooves said:


> Well as long as 'those' people just stay quite just stay in the closet...  Hmmmm I seem to have heard that line somewhere before in the past... about some group of folks the rest of society didn't like for some odd reason...  Just saying it all sounds familiar... Something to think about... or are not its up to y'all...



I know you're talking about homosexuality. Being gay isn't the same. 
When you're having consensual sex with someone of your gender it's not rape. 

When you're having sex with a child or animal, both of which cannot consent because of the lack of an emotional and mental capacity to do so it's RAPE. Animals do not understand sex the way we do and they CANNOT consent due to the lack of that ability.


----------



## Lambat (Aug 23, 2009)

well have really polemic about "zoophilia" and "bestiality"


Everybody that have a pet is zoophilic, because:

Zoo refer to wolf of animal

and

Philia, means "attraction", "affection"




and "bestiality is just sex with animal with no any attraction, usually when somebody wanna sex with an animal, this last is forced or drugged to have relation ships.



well this is the mean about zoophilia and bestiality to ma point of view.


----------



## Takun (Aug 23, 2009)

Hold up, are comments on bestiality drawings like "oh murr, I'd fuck that dog." and on cub porns like "what a naughty boy, I'd suck his penis"  still allowed?

Seems like advertising it too.


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 23, 2009)

I feel this needs to be extended to those who make journals detailing their sex lives in general as well. 

Unless that already happens?


----------



## AkumaSephitaro (Aug 23, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> I feel this needs to be extended to those who make journals detailing their sex lives in general as well.
> 
> Unless that already happens?



That's not illegal, but I could see warnings going out for something like that if anything.


----------



## Takun (Aug 23, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> I feel this needs to be extended to those who make journals detailing their sex lives in general as well.
> 
> Unless that already happens?




This please.  And journals saying you'd kill someone (ie Murrbama.)


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Aug 23, 2009)

Lambat said:


> well have really polemic about "zoophilia" and "bestiality"
> 
> 
> Everybody that have a pet is zoophilic, because:
> ...


Your grammar is atrocious, but the following definitions seem to be what the admins are going by:

"Zoophilia" = Love of animals, may or may not end up becoming sexual.
"Bestiality" = Sex with animals, may or may not involve affection.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 23, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> I feel this needs to be extended to those who make journals detailing their sex lives in general as well.
> 
> Unless that already happens?



I agree. If journals have to be kept public, than the sex talk needs to go. There are chat rooms, and stuff for that kind of thing. There is no sense in creating that loop hole that creates legal entanglements.


----------



## Rottenmeats (Aug 23, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> It does apply to cub stuff. Fantasy is permitted, reality is denied.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1...hCompass.LoadingDiv').style.display = 'none';


(8) â€œchild pornographyâ€ means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, whereâ€”     (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;   
    (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or   
    (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.     
      (9) â€œidentifiable minorâ€â€”     (A) means a personâ€”     (i)    (I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or   
    (II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and   

    (ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the personâ€™s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and     

    (B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.


----------



## Nightingalle (Aug 23, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> Hold up, are comments on bestiality drawings like "oh murr, I'd fuck that dog." and on cub porns like "what a naughty boy, I'd suck his penis"  still allowed?
> 
> Seems like advertising it too.



This. >\  People need to be warned for commenting like that (be it on drawings OR photos of pets / children..)


----------



## Fuzzle (Aug 23, 2009)

I don't see the need for the "living or dead" part...


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 23, 2009)

To hell with freedom of speech. Someone plz ban this account for my own good.


----------



## Angyl (Aug 23, 2009)

Interesting how what the Moderators actually say and what the rumour mill produces are very different.  This does seem like a fair policy and I'm sure that much as with the paedophila issue we'll see quite a bit of knee jerk reaction from those that haven't seen this post, for whatever reason.

Very often, people forget that sharing one's fantasy online is very different to the reality itself and I totally agree with real life being kept behind closed doors in the instance of sexual fantasies.  If nothing else, it keeps the media away!


----------



## Aurali (Aug 23, 2009)

Rottenmeats said:


> .



Already been discussed. in detail. and thrown out. in detail.

Let's not have this conversation.


----------



## Mazz (Aug 23, 2009)

KoiFishSushi said:


> This. >\  People need to be warned for commenting like that (be it on drawings OR photos of pets / children..)




Agreed, I rarely post pictures of my pets here and refuse to post any of my daughter due to going to a perfectly clean picture of an animal and seeing. "oh what a sexy dog; murr" in the comments.


----------



## Takun (Aug 23, 2009)

Eli said:


> Already been discussed. in detail. and thrown out. in detail.
> 
> Let's not have this conversation.



Still needs to go.  Had a guy here in Iowa get arrested for loli.


----------



## Nexus (Aug 23, 2009)

Agreed!


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 23, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> Still needs to go.  Had a guy here in Iowa get arrested for loli.


In every case that's happened the person has had images of real children and proof of such deviancy, and the art was used as additional evidence.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 23, 2009)

Dragoneer, I have a question.

So what if a person who is an FA user, is found to be a practicing zoo by legitimate off site information? Would that still warrant the person a ban even though the information that indicted him or her was not present on FA?

After all, when people like Alan Panda get caught doing what they do, you did not hesitate to ban the account, even though it's all off site information.


----------



## Hungryjackal (Aug 23, 2009)

Might want to update the TOS or AUP Neer, so people don't use the excuse "Well its not in the TOS, you are just on a crusade."

You know they do that.


----------



## Quiet269 (Aug 23, 2009)

You really screwed the pooch by issuing bans without a warning... Hell you issued bans on a rule that wasn't even in effect when the discussion was had.

You should have implemented the new rule, made a site wide announcement, warned anyone that had posted something against the rule prior to the rule change, then banned anyone who continued to break the rule.


----------



## Duality Jack (Aug 23, 2009)

> Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 410 (86 members and 324 guests)


 seems to draw attention.


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 23, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Dragoneer, I have a question.
> 
> So what if a person who is an FA user, is found to be a practicing zoo by legitimate off site information? Would that still warrant the person a ban even though the information that indicted him or her was not present on FA?
> 
> After all, when people like Alan Panda get caught doing what they do, you did not hesitate to ban the account, even though it's all off site information.


Generally, what happens off site is not my concern. I've seen a LOT of things, and look the other way.

Alan Panda was exception, but when you make the national news and the circumstances involve what they did... I will make exceptions. In such instances, we banned those accounts to show that we do not support their actions.

When you make national headlines and news your actions defy standard circumstances.


----------



## Takun (Aug 23, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> In every case that's happened the person has had images of real children and proof of such deviancy, and the art was used as additional evidence.



http://iowaindependent.com/15560/iowa-child-porn-case-has-comic-book-collectors-reeling

This man has been charged ONLY for the comics.  No child porn.  No sending nudes to a teenager.  JUST for comics.  So that's wrong.


----------



## Vlos (Aug 23, 2009)

I agree with that Neer has said. What you do in your personal life is no ones business but those you tell privately. Putting it up on the forums makes it public knowledge and mmost people don't want to hear about it. I mean, i don't mind cub art, but i would never do anything like that RL cause of the way i was raised.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 23, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> You really screwed the pooch by issuing bans without a warning... Hell you issued bans on a rule that wasn't even in effect when the discussion was had.
> 
> You should have implemented the new rule, made a site wide announcement, warned anyone that had posted something against the rule prior to the rule change, then banned anyone who continued to break the rule.



Doing so gives people a chance to try to evade ban. Dragoneer made as smart move, if you ask me.

Besides technically it does not matter if Dragoneer has it specifically stated as a rule. Virginia law applies to the servers, and in Virginia there are anti-bestiality laws. So he can pull based on that with out even making a rule. All he is doing is making it clear he will enforce the rules that his site has to follow based on where it is located, and bringing to light one of the ones his site has to follow.


----------



## Mazz (Aug 23, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> You really screwed the pooch by issuing bans without a warning... Hell you issued bans on a rule that wasn't even in effect when the discussion was had.
> 
> You should have implemented the new rule, made a site wide announcement, warned anyone that had posted something against the rule prior to the rule change, then banned anyone who continued to break the rule.




Private site means he could actually make up rules and ban people for having a pink fursona if he oh so wanted too. 
So if he decides to implement a new rule he has no need to warn people not to talk about fucking their dogs... they should know they shouldn't be talking about it in public anyway if they have a brain larger than a peanut(considering it's illegal in most states).


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 23, 2009)

Hungryjackal said:


> Might want to update the TOS or AUP Neer, so people don't use the excuse "Well its not in the TOS, you are just on a crusade."
> 
> You know they do that.


Let them hate me, let them create rumors and false accusations. Let 'em. If people hate me because I'm putting my foot down on people discussing having sex with their pets... then I can't think of a better reason to be hated.

Besides, the current TOS already covers this. Just because it doesn't specifically site "thou shalt not discuss the touching of animal's bums" doesn't mean it doesn't apply to them.



Quiet269 said:


> You really screwed the pooch by issuing bans without a warning... Hell you issued bans on a rule that wasn't even in effect when the discussion was had.
> 
> You should have implemented the new rule, made a site wide announcement, warned anyone that had posted something against the rule prior to the rule change, then banned anyone who continued to break the rule.


The rule was always in effect, and we've taken action against people about this before. Lately, people have just gotten worse and more open about it which leads up to our current position.


----------



## Minnie Shoof (Aug 23, 2009)

"Other creatures" - ... so we can't talk about having sex with our human partners, either?...


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 23, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Generally, what happens off site is not my concern. I've seen a LOT of things, and look the other way.
> 
> Alan Panda was exception, but when you make the national news and the circumstances involve what they did... I will make exceptions. In such instances, we banned those accounts to show that we do not support their actions.
> 
> When you make national headlines and news your actions defy standard circumstances.



I don't see how it makes an effective show of "We don't support that" if it is looked the other way until it reaches national news. That's just my opinion.


----------



## Felicia Mertallis (Aug 23, 2009)

Well, I think I can actually deal with this.

But I am one whos into specifics, so when you say "someone affiliated or supporting the zoophilia community" does that mean someone can have the words "i am a zoo" on their page as long as they don't actually discuss it or write about it.
And can someone in support of it state that as long as they don't discuss the details of the actual act?
I want to flesh things out so I know whether I can safely state my opinion or not.


----------



## Occoris (Aug 23, 2009)

for some reason i always revert back to edis's way of putting it for times like this.

"I haven't found something I wouldn't draw yet. I guess I find it desensitizing because of the fact that it's all imaginary and cartoonly drawn. I feel quite differently in real life about many of the things I draw."

which is, in my opinion, part of the basic difference between reality and fantasy :/
ESPECIALLY in furry!
people need to really get a better hold on tha :/
(also, for thos eof you who are among those who complain about the cub porn?
In my experience, the cubs in the porn are consenting adults who .. want to be the kid O-o
very rarely is it anything more than a dominance thing.

I can't really say the same for zoophiles, though i know plenty who'd never do it irl 8D)


----------



## Mazz (Aug 23, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Let them hate me, let them create rumors and false accusations. Let 'em. If people hate me because I'm putting my foot down on people discussing having sex with their pets... then I can't think of a better reason to be hated.




I think I love you for that sentence.


----------



## Hungryjackal (Aug 23, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Let them hate me, let them create rumors and false accusations. Let 'em. If people hate me because I'm putting my foot down on people discussing having sex with their pets... then I can't think of a better reason to be hated.
> 
> Besides, the current TOS already covers this. Just because it doesn't specifically site "thou shalt not discuss the touching of animal's bums" doesn't mean it doesn't apply to them.



Honestly, I think this will make most "normal" people like you better.  Haha.  I had the impression most disliked you cause you didn't act against them before.

Oh well people just need to lrn2read.


----------



## Takun (Aug 23, 2009)

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/May/09-crm-493.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/May/09-crm-493.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/May/09-crm-493.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/May/09-crm-493.html


 Christopher Handley, 39, of Glenwood, Iowa, pleaded guilty today in Des Moines, Iowa, to possessing obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children and mailing obscene material.
   According to court documents, in May 2006, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) intercepted a mail package coming into the United States from Japan that was addressed to Handley. Inside the package was obscene material, including books containing visual representations of the sexual abuse of children, specifically Japanese _manga_ drawings of minor females being sexually abused by adult males and animals. Pursuant to a search warrant, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) searched and seized additional obscene drawings of the sexual abuse of children at Handleyâ€™s residence in Glenwood. Handley was indicted by a grand jury sitting in the Southern District of Iowa in May 2007.
   Pursuant to his plea agreement, Handley today pleaded guilty to one count of possessing obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1466A(b)(1), which prohibits the possession of any type of visual depiction, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct that is obscene.
   Handley also agreed to plead guilty to one count of mailing obscene material and to forfeit all seized property. Handley faces a maximum of 15 years in prison, a maximum fine of $250,000, and a three-year term of supervised release.
   The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Peyton Gaumer and Elizabeth M. Yusi of the Criminal Divisionâ€™s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section. The case is being investigated by USPIS, ICE and the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation. In addition, the FBIâ€™s Language Services Section has provided significant assistance in the prosecution.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 23, 2009)

By Dragoneer





> Let them hate me, let them create rumors and false accusations. Let 'em. If people hate me because I'm putting my foot down on people discussing having sex with their pets... then I can't think of a better reason to be hated.



I can't think of one either. That's a good way to look at things.


----------



## blackpuma (Aug 23, 2009)

Seems pretty fair to me. Unbiased, yet strict enough to prevent (all too big) moral wars. Also, is there ever been a situation where the ''living or dead'' rule had to be explained? I kinda lost my stomach for a sec there. ^,^;;


----------



## Mazz (Aug 23, 2009)

blackpuma said:


> Seems pretty fair to me. Unbiased, yet strict enough to prevent (all too big) moral wars. Also, is there ever been a situation where the ''living or dead'' rule had to be explained? I kinda lost my stomach for a sec there. ^,^;;



I think he's covering bases to make sure someone doesn't talk about how they humped a dead deer in a field then complain when they get banned about how it wasn't alive. Because in this fandom.... anything is possible. D:


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 23, 2009)

Also no witch hunts please. It still counts as harassment and is also a bannable offense. If you really suspect or have a problem, file a TT and report it privately. Getting groups to troll confessions out of each other not a good idea.


----------



## Aurali (Aug 23, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> The rule was always in effect, and we've taken action against people about this before. Lately, people have just gotten worse and more open about it which leads up to our current position.



You know what they say, give them an inch and they'll run for the mile.


----------



## antihuman (Aug 23, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> You really screwed the pooch by issuing bans without a warning... Hell you issued bans on a rule that wasn't even in effect when the discussion was had.
> 
> You should have implemented the new rule, made a site wide announcement, warned anyone that had posted something against the rule prior to the rule change, then banned anyone who continued to break the rule.


 

As much as I agree with this new rule I agree with you that it wasn't handled in the propper manner. Dragonneer should have announced the new rule then started banning, not the other way around.


----------



## Mazz (Aug 23, 2009)

antihuman said:


> As much as I agree with this new rule I agree with you that it wasn't handled in the propper manner. Dragonneer should have announced the new rule then started banning, not the other way around.



As he said it's not a new rule, there is a rule banning discussion of illegal activities and putting it in your dog's pooper is an illegal activity.


----------



## Shirazzi (Aug 23, 2009)

I have no problem with FA's stance on zoophiles, and I am not much of a drama causer except when it comes to ripping on transgender people. I do have a personal problem with FA's stance on illegal drugs (do not do them myself, but I am an advocate), but I will keep that to myself and my opinion is my own. Since, thus far I believe I have kept pretty close to following the ToS as best I can. By the way everyone, illegal drugs is in the ToS and even the mention of furry related nicknames for them such as "catnip". All this information has been in the ToS since at least I've joined the site. Not to sound like a self-righteous ***** (in which I know I sound like by now), but overall the ToS hasn't changed much if at all. Anyways, back to Bebop...


----------



## Armaetus (Aug 23, 2009)

Well said, have you considered making an announcement on the front page regarding this?


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 23, 2009)

antihuman said:


> As much as I agree with this new rule I agree with you that it wasn't handled in the propper manner. Dragonneer should have announced the new rule then started banning, not the other way around.





			
				The Terms of Service said:
			
		

> FA staff will uphold the policies set forth by the TOS, SA and AUP and will protect the general interests of the Service. *This includes, but is not limited to*: art theft, identity theft, harassment, defacement, piracy* or other illegal activity*.


In almost every state (and most countries) bestiality is illegal. Granted, this is covered in "other illegal activity" and not spelled outright... but unfortunately, I shouldn't have to spell that out directly. This is directly covered under that veil, but will be spelled out in a further update.


----------



## antihuman (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> As he said it's not a new rule, there is a rule banning discussion of illegal activities and putting it in your dog's pooper is an illegal activity.


 
Sorry about that, I made my reply before reading down to Dragonneer's reply. After seeing what he said I agree with him.


----------



## mrfopsers (Aug 23, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> Christopher Handley facing imprisonment for possessing naughty comics



I cried. I just died a little bit inside.

Just close your eyes and visualize the scene; While people are stealing, murdering and raping in real life, "respected" police officers are condemning manga collectors... now look in my eyes and tell me you think it's right. I dare you.

We need a revolution a la V for Vendetta.


----------



## WolfyWetFurr (Aug 23, 2009)

That is totally respectable. I fully support freedom of artwork and individuals views. But not every one shares such views. That is a great way to go about it Neer.


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 23, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/May/09-crm-493.html  Christopher Handley, 39, of Glenwood, Iowa, pleaded guilty today in Des Moines, Iowa, to possessing obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children and mailing obscene material.


The problem is he pleaded guilty from the start, and did not fight his case and stand up for himself. Because he did not stand up for his rights he gave them up, and the penalty of the law was placed upon him from the start.


----------



## DoomiX (Aug 23, 2009)

Agreed


----------



## ragnarakk (Aug 23, 2009)

zoophilia is okay and i reckon that is a good solution to it.. it'll stop those "oh look at what I did" people and confine it to art


----------



## Mazz (Aug 23, 2009)

mrfopsers said:


> I cried. I just died a little bit inside.
> 
> Just close your eyes and visualize the scene; While people are stealing, murdering and raping in real life, "respected" police officers are condemning manga collectors... now look in my eyes and tell me you think it's right. I dare you.
> 
> We need a revolution a la V for Vendetta.




My opinion, if it was a sexually depicted child even in art I'm glad he went to jail. That's my opinion though and regardless of if the law follows my opinions or not it won't change. 
Marijuana is illegal here and I don't agree with that; but when it comes to children I would agree if they considered even artwork illegal.


----------



## paran0id42 (Aug 23, 2009)

I support this initiative.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 23, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> Christopher Handley, 39, of Glenwood, Iowa, pleaded guilty today in Des Moines, Iowa, to possessing obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children and mailing obscene material.



I misread the name as "Chrisopher Hart" and was like yeah that guy belongs in jail for shitty how-to books.


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 23, 2009)

mrfopsers said:


> I cried. I just died a little bit inside.
> 
> Just close your eyes and visualize the scene; While people are stealing, murdering and raping in real life, "respected" police officers are condemning manga collectors... now look in my eyes and tell me you think it's right. I dare you.
> 
> We need a revolution a la V for Vendetta.



Nice fallacious thinking you've got there.

Yes, some crimes are more heinous than others, but it doesn't change the fact that all crimes are criminal and worth doling out some form of punishment. You can't make exceptions.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> My opinion, if it was a sexually depicted child even in art I'm glad he went to jail. That's my opinion though and regardless of if the law follows my opinions or not it won't change.
> Marijuana is illegal here and I don't agree with that; but when it comes to children I would agree if they considered even artwork illegal.



Meh. You're closed minded. Not for having an opinion, but for openly stating that your opinion can't be changed.

Also, while you might consider banning depictions of illegal artwork moral, it is not *ethical*.

Either way, I support the application of the rules stated in the OP


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> When you're having sex with a child or animal, both of which cannot consent because of the lack of an emotional and mental capacity to do so it's RAPE. Animals do not understand sex the way we do and they CANNOT consent due to the lack of that ability.




I'm going to pose a question to you on this matter.

Obviously, forcing oneself on a dog or other animal is rape the same as forcing oneself on a human would be. But if someone submits to an animal and the animal takes them up on that offer, is that not consent? In nature if a female does not want a male to mate with her, she will fight him off, I'd say some animals understand consent rather well.


----------



## mrfopsers (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> My opinion, if it was a sexually depicted child even in art I'm glad he went to jail. That's my opinion though and regardless of if the law follows my opinions or not it won't change.
> Marijuana is illegal here and I don't agree with that; but when it comes to children I would agree if they considered even artwork illegal.



Well, think of it that way; who's the victim in this case? Has anybody been raped? People in the mangas don't count as they're actually just ink on paper and can't be raped unless the guy strokes his dick on the pages, and at this point that's his own business.

Besides, I strongly believe that actual pedophiles, are less likely to commit rape when they can fantasize about it in books, much like gamers who are less likely to kill someone when he can do it on his computer.

But anyway, I'd like to respect your opinion, but it would be nice if you could explain to me why you think it really should be illegal to possess drawings of people doing illegal activities.



AlexInsane said:


> Nice fallacious thinking you've got there.
> 
> Yes, some crimes are more heinous than others, but it doesn't change the fact that all crimes are criminal and worth doling out some form of punishment. You can't make exceptions.



What was the crime? And if it's just a matter of what's written in the book, if there was a law that stated you can't wear rainbow colored socks, would you agree with it?


----------



## Mazz (Aug 23, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I'm going to pose a question to you on this matter.
> 
> Obviously, forcing oneself on a dog or other animal is rape the same as forcing oneself on a human would be. But if someone submits to an animal and the animal takes them up on that offer, is that not consent? In nature if a female does not want a male to mate with her, she will fight him off, I'd say some animals understand consent rather well.



Animals don't have the mental capacity to understand sex the way we do. It submitting is that.. it being submissive not wanting you to rape it. 
--

I will happily forever be closed minded to those who want to rape children and animals.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

KoiFishSushi said:


> This. >\  People need to be warned for commenting like that (be it on drawings OR photos of pets / children..)




I'm not sure you can warn people for making said comments when it's a fantasy picture (which all beast pics are on this website because real photos depicting sexual acts are forbidden) and people make comments like that all the time in regards to various anthropomorphic pictures, which are fantasy.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Aug 23, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> The problem is he pleaded guilty from the start, and did not fight his case and stand up for himself. Because he did not stand up for his rights he gave them up, and the penalty of the law was placed upon him from the start.



Hear hear. The saying is that 90% of cases never even go to court, isn't it? Doesn't matter whether it's a traffic ticket, murder, drug use, fucking a dog, or CP, at least make the prosecution do its job.



Mazz said:


> Animals don't have the mental capacity to understand sex the way we do.


I must add that human sexuality is _very_ different from that of animals.

Humans have no fixed mating rituals. Animals within a given species tend to have very specific patterns to their "courtship".

It's not just that they don't understand, it's that they're in completely different paradigms.


----------



## Nightingalle (Aug 23, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I'm not sure you can warn people for making said comments when it's a fantasy picture (which all beast pics are on this website because real photos depicting sexual acts are forbidden) and people make comments like that all the time in regards to various anthropomorphic pictures, which are fantasy.



You missed the point.  It was meant in " If I post a picture of my dog or child up on this website and someone comments about wanting to fuck it - they should be at LEAST warned for such a gross comment."


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 23, 2009)

mrfopsers said:


> What was the crime? And if it's just a matter of what's written in the book, if there was a law that stated you can't wear rainbow colored socks, would you agree with it?



If there was a law that stated I couldn't wear rainbow colored socks you can be damn sure I wouldn't be wearing them. Not that I would anyway. 

Seems a bit stupid, really, people breaking the law and then acting like they've done nothing wrong.


----------



## Science Fox (Aug 23, 2009)

I see that Local, State and Federal law enforcement agencies are actually doing something to try and get scum off of the streets as of late. A pity (but not surprising) that some of them come from this site and "furry fandom". Hopefully they continue to make arrests. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Maybe one day soon all of the criminals will be routed and we can have a respectable culture here...


----------



## mrfopsers (Aug 23, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> If there was a law that stated I couldn't wear rainbow colored socks you can be damn sure I wouldn't be wearing them. Not that I would anyway.
> 
> Seems a bit stupid, really, people breaking the law and then acting like they've done nothing wrong.



And you wouldn't question it? You wouldn't believe something's wrong somewhere in the system? How about a law that forced you to kill your parents once you turn 18?

Edit: I'm not trying to claim that you must be an anarchist that disobey the law whenever he can, I'm just saying that we are those who are supposed to make the law, we're supposed to make it so the majority feels equally secure and free. Sometimes stupid laws are passed that we the people didn't see coming, and that's why we need to question our government and judicial system.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Aug 23, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> If there was a law that stated I couldn't wear rainbow colored socks you can be damn sure I wouldn't be wearing them. Not that I would anyway.
> 
> Seems a bit stupid, really, people breaking the law and then acting like they've done nothing wrong.


This.

You don't have to agree with the law, but you have to abide by it until it's repealed--if, of course, it ever is.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> Animals don't have the mental capacity to understand sex the way we do. It submitting is that.. it being submissive not wanting you to rape it.
> --
> 
> I will happily forever be closed minded to those who want to rape children and animals.



I'm against forcing an animal to have sex, but how do you know they don't understand sex? Why does a human have sex? 3 reasons, 1 is it's fun and 2 is for procreation purposes, and 3 it helps show love. Can say, a dog have sex in any of those 3 reasons?


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

KoiFishSushi said:


> You missed the point.  It was meant in " If I post a picture of my dog or child up on this website and someone comments about wanting to fuck it - they should be at LEAST warned for such a gross comment."



Yeah I guess I miss read it. If someone's making those comments on a real-life photo then action should be taken.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Aug 23, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I'm against forcing an animal to have sex, but how do you know they don't understand sex? Why does a human have sex? 3 reasons, 1 is it's fun and 2 is for procreation purposes, and 3 it helps show love. Can say, a dog have sex in any of those 3 reasons?


Nobody will ever know, because most of us can't actually communicate with dogs.

So why not err on the side of caution and assume they DON'T want to fuck you? :V


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 23, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I'm against forcing an animal to have sex, but how do you know they don't understand sex? Why does a human have sex? 3 reasons, 1 is it's fun and 2 is for procreation purposes, and 3 it helps show love. Can say, a dog have sex in any of those 3 reasons?



Stop bringing up that fail argument right there. The argument of consent is a red herring, at best. It's irrelevant. Consent is an ideal for higher level organisms who have the intelligence to conceive it. Are dogs equal in intelligence to humans? No they are not. So drop it now. Besides this is a dead horse. The act of having sex with any non human animal can lead to the death of the animal, infection, the death of the person, ripped insides of the animal, ripped insides of the person, and the transfer of existing or future zoonoses. As for the animals that survive the encounter, it can lead to psychological problems, and or really bad behaviors manifesting.

No matter how much you try to argue there are several intelligent educated people on FA who know enough about the debate/discussion of this topic to dig up much  more than hearsay and or opinion in showcasing that it's wrong and should always be illegal.


----------



## Mazz (Aug 23, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I'm against forcing an animal to have sex, but how do you know they don't understand sex? Why does a human have sex? 3 reasons, 1 is it's fun and 2 is for procreation purposes, and 3 it helps show love. Can say, a dog have sex in any of those 3 reasons?



Dude, you thinking your dog submitting is it letting you have sex with it is wrong. A dog submits because it's submissive(and probably terrified of the unfamiliar thing you're doing to it), not because it wants to have sex with you. 
We have sex for pleasure, most animals do not and will only mate during estrus. 

Animals are not sex-crazed rapists(the bonobo could be used as an argument but they're closely related to us) and an animal CANNOT understand your sexual advances like another human can. 

I'm not going to argue with animal rapists anymore though. Please move on and have sex with something of your own species and age group.


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 23, 2009)

mrfopsers said:


> And you wouldn't question it? You wouldn't believe something's wrong somewhere in the system? How about a law that forced you to kill your parents once you turn 18?



I see what you're trying to do and it's not going to work on me. 

Socks are one thing and loli/shota manga is quite another. 

Well, if there was such a law, it would certainly crack down on teenage pregnancies, or even pregnancies in general.


----------



## Cadbury (Aug 23, 2009)

I'm here to support my fellow zoo's. There is however a time and a place for discussions of such matters, and here on FA isn't the place. Also, don't ban us for defending ourselves when we never posted anything regarding what we do outside of FA. Thanks a  bunch and much love =]

Soo many tunes so little time.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Depending on circumstances. However, generally drug usage is different (it's not an instant-ban). We remove comments/journals first, warn them. If it happens again...
> 
> It's sort of a different scenario since when it comes to drug usage, for the most part, the only person who gets hurt is the individual. Their direct actions don't afflict another.



I'm not sure I agree with your stance that drug usage is different from the beast stuff. I'm perfectly happy with the beast policy since I think it should be kept behind closed doors and laws should apply to public places (like this website) where such discussion takes place. 

However, how is drug offense any different? I myself and firmly against the use of illegal drugs and I find it offensive when I see images or read talk about the use of drugs. But how is that any different than someone who stumbles across a journal entry that's a topic of discussion regarding bestiality? It's nothing more than something someone has taken offense to it. I'm not fighting for it either way, I'm just afraid that a policy like this may cause other things to come into the ban or punishment category. For example a friend of mine posted a journal entry where he mentioned me numerous times, so I wanted to tease him and put in a simple ** emote regarding a mutual interest we have (no, not bestiality) that many people might find disgusting and take offense to. If someone reads that and takes offense, have I then opened myself up to a ban or other punishment?

A little clarification is my only goal.


----------



## SushiCougar (Aug 23, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Nobody will ever know, because most of us can't actually communicate with dogs.
> 
> So why not err on the side of caution and assume they DON'T want to fuck you? :V



Exaaaactly what I was going to say.


----------



## Nocturne (Aug 23, 2009)

mrfopsers said:


> And you wouldn't question it? You wouldn't believe something's wrong somewhere in the system? How about a law that forced you to kill your parents once you turn 18?



I think he means more in a sense of that people should udnerstand the consequences rather than committing a moral wrong.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> Dude, you thinking your dog submitting is it letting you have sex with it is wrong. A dog submits because it's submissive(and probably terrified of the unfamiliar thing you're doing to it), not because it wants to have sex with you.
> We have sex for pleasure, most animals do not and will only mate during estrus.
> 
> Animals are not sex-crazed rapists(the bonobo could be used as an argument but they're closely related to us) and an animal CANNOT understand your sexual advances like another human can.
> ...



First of all, I'm not an animal rapist and I've never had sex with an animal, I just like poking at what people say for the sake of discussion. Second, I'm talking about the human submitting to the animal, in which case the animal would be making up it's mind to say no and move on or go through with it. 

I love when people can't have an open discussion so they start throwing names around.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 23, 2009)

ultimately, the community is going to have to divide among some kind of moral lines.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Nobody will ever know, because most of us can't actually communicate with dogs.
> 
> So why not err on the side of caution and assume they DON'T want to fuck you? :V



If a guy bends over and a dog wants to fuck him, I'd say the dog made a choice. 

Lol, I'm totally stepping in it with this topic.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 23, 2009)

reality: you're not living in it


----------



## paran0id42 (Aug 23, 2009)

Cadbury said:


> I'm here to support my fellow zoo's. There is however a time and a place for discussions of such matters, and here on FA isn't the place. Also, don't ban us for defending ourselves when we never posted anything regarding what we do outside of FA. Thanks a  bunch and much love =]
> 
> Soo many tunes so little time.



Much respect to you for your understanding


----------



## Mazz (Aug 23, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> First of all, I'm not an animal rapist and I've never had sex with an animal, I just like poking at what people say for the sake of discussion. Second, I'm talking about the human submitting to the animal, in which case the animal would be making up it's mind to say no and move on or go through with it.
> 
> I love when people can't have an open discussion so they start throwing names around.



My opinion is against having sex with animals and children. Regardless if you do it or not you are defending it. In MY OPINION that makes you as bad as those raping animals. 

Turn my words on me all you want. Bestiality and pedophilia are sick and I will FOREVER HAPPILY STAY CLOSED MINDED and talk trash to people who are for it. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> Animals are not sex-crazed rapists(the bonobo could be used as an argument but they're closely related to us).



Except Dolphins, monkeys, dogs, birds,  turtles... (It's true! Dolphins are murderous sex maniacs!)


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Aug 23, 2009)

SushiCougar said:


> Exaaaactly what I was going to say.


Ah, a like-minded soul? Welcome to FAF


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Stop bringing up that fail argument right there. The argument of consent is a red herring, at best. It's irrelevant. Consent is an ideal for higher level organisms who have the intelligence to conceive it. Are dogs equal in intelligence to humans? No they are not. So drop it now. Besides this is neither the time or the place. Dragoneer has made his stance, the laws are as they are.
> 
> Besides this is a dead horse.



All I'm saying is that animals have sex all the time and they seem to make choices about which other animals they mate with. 

I'm fine with his policy, really. I do think that stuff should be kept private. All I'm doing is picking at people's ideas because I often find them flawed.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Aug 23, 2009)

Mojotech said:


> Except Dolphins, monkeys, dogs, birds, turtles... (It's true! Dolphins are murderous sex maniacs!)


Yeah--they've actually been known to fuck baby porpoises after killing 'em 0.e

...I remember my mom telling me a male friend of hers got raped by a sea turtle once. I guffawed.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Aug 23, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> All I'm saying is that animals have sex all the time and they seem to make choices about which other animals they mate with.
> 
> I'm fine with his policy, really. I do think that stuff should be kept private. All I'm doing is picking at people's ideas because I often find them flawed.



Let me put it this way:

Until he puts that ring on your finger, *don't fuck Fido.*


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> My opinion is against having sex with animals and children. Regardless if you do it or not you are defending it. In MY OPINION that makes you as bad as those raping animals.
> 
> Turn my words on me all you want. Bestiality and pedophilia are sick and I will FOREVER HAPPILY STAY CLOSED MINDED and talk trash to people who are for it.
> 
> Have a nice day.



I never said pedophilia is right, so stop using that when talking to me.

You still haven't proven me wrong though about the consent issue.


----------



## Mazz (Aug 23, 2009)

Mojotech said:


> Except Dolphins, monkeys, dogs, birds, turtles... (It's true! Dolphins are murderous sex maniacs!)



Most monkeys actually no... some great apes yes. 
There are a few exceptions but it still doesn't give someone the right to rape animals. 

Keep it in your species. I don't care how "Spiritually in tune" you are with an animal; you don't need to be having sex with them.
--

I'm done arguing with "thegoodshepherd" about how he thinks it's ok to get an animal into fucking you. It's wrong I won't change my mind. You're sick and I hope you rot in your own personal hell.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> ...I remember my mom telling me a male friend of hers got raped by a sea turtle once. I guffawed.




All I can say is.... WTF and LOL.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 23, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> All I'm saying is that animals have sex all the time and they seem to make choices about which other animals they mate with.
> 
> I'm fine with his policy, really. I do think that stuff should be kept private. All I'm doing is picking at people's ideas because I often find them flawed.



Read the rest of the post. The edited part.

That you don't understand the animal world and seek to anthropomoprhize animals that bear no similarity with high level intelligence suggests that you have no business even jumping into the ring when it comes to this discussion.

A person who has a level knowledge of animal/dog behavior, will understand why what zoophiles claim as "consent" is nothing more than the human being misunderstanding the animals behavior. That aside let me say it again the result of using any non human animal for sexual pleasure can and does result in : Death of the animal, death of the person, human with ripped insides, animal with ripped insides, infections on both sides, possible transfer of new or known zoonoses, and or psychological damage, and or manifestation of behavioral problems in animals that survive the encounter.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Let me put it this way:
> 
> Until he puts that ring on your finger, *don't fuck Fido.*




Ha, I'm not about to thank you very much.


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 23, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Yeah--they've actually been known to fuck baby porpoises after killing 'em 0.e



WTF, dolphins are into necro.


----------



## Obsidian Wolfess (Aug 23, 2009)

The admins have a right to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

I am personally happy to see that FA is going to continue banning pedophiles, zoophiles, and other users that fit into similar categories.

I can't really see why someone would want to get screwed by their pet anyway. A lot of animals lick their dicks. It's like.. Eat alpo, clean dick, hay look a hole!!  Alpo in the vag? Do not want.


----------



## Mazz (Aug 23, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Read the rest of the post. The edited part.
> 
> That you don't understand the animal world and seek to anthropomoprhize animals that bear no similarity with high level intelligence suggests that you have no business even jumping into the ring when it comes to this discussion.
> 
> A person who has a level knowledge of animal/dog behavior, will understand why what zoophiles claim as "consent" is nothing more than the human being misunderstanding the animals behavior. That aside let me say it again the result of using any non human animal for sexual pleasure can and does result in : Death of the animal, death of the person, human with ripped insides, animal with ripped insides, infections on both sides, possible transfer of new or known zoonoses, and or psychological damage, and or manifestation of behavioral problems in animals that survive the encounter.



Oh, so well written. I applaud you. As do all the zoo animals I and other keepers care for that we have to constantly try to not anthropomorphize.


----------



## Gildedtongue (Aug 23, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Nobody will ever know, because most of us can't actually communicate with dogs.
> 
> So why not err on the side of caution and assume they DON'T want to fuck you? :V



Because they definately want you to either castrate them, or if they avoid that, forced to make babies with their siblings so they can continue the "pure bred line."

In a grand scheme of things, Kennel Clubs, and Bob Barker have destroyed the domesticated dog and cat.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 23, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> The problem is he pleaded guilty from the start, and did not fight his case and stand up for himself. Because he did not stand up for his rights he gave them up, and the penalty of the law was placed upon him from the start.



The problem with that form of reasoning is that it's often better for the individual to accept a plea-bargain than to fight against the government on the constitutionality (or even simply justness) of the law that was broken.

Back to what should be the main point, there must always be a clear and consistent line between what is permitted and what is not.  A member using the service to break the law or to post clear evidence of that member breaking the law is one thing.  A member expressing opinions regarding illegal acts is something else.  Is that where the line actually is on FA?

I also don't understand the practice of banning FA members for activities unrelated to FA.  For example, are you taking steps to ensure that the accounts you ban are in fact held by the people you intend to ban?


----------



## paran0id42 (Aug 23, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Yeah--they've actually been known to fuck baby porpoises after killing 'em 0.e
> 
> ...I remember my mom telling me a male friend of hers got raped by a sea turtle once. I guffawed.



I CAME
*b&*


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Read the rest of the post. The edited part.
> 
> That you don't understand the animal world and seek to anthropomoprhize animals that bear no similarity with high level intelligence suggests that you have no business even jumping into the ring when it comes to this discussion.
> 
> A person who has a level knowledge of animal/dog behavior, will understand why what zoophiles claim as "consent" is nothing more than the human being misunderstanding the animals behavior. That aside let me say it again the result of using any non human animal for sexual pleasure can and does result in : Death of the animal, death of the person, human with ripped insides, animal with ripped insides, infections on both sides, possible transfer of new or known zoonoses, and or psychological damage, and or manifestation of behavioral problems in animals that survive the encounter.



You still don't put out anything of any real evidence that it's wrong. You just try to put me down without combating my argument.

Let's look at the animal world through a wolf pack, shall we?

In a wolf pack you have a hierarchy with the alpha being on top. The alpha female does not mate with anyone in the pack besides the alpha male and will attack and reject any other males in the pack that attempt to mate her. So she consents to sex with the alpha male. Now, debate me.


----------



## Grimfang (Aug 23, 2009)

Sounds like a good move to me.



Arshes Nei said:


> I misread the name as "Chrisopher Hart" and was like yeah that guy belongs in jail for shitty how-to books.



Oh god... Years ago, I bought a couple of those shitty books.. like two times each. I couldn't even tell just how terrible they were back then.


----------



## Crusatyr (Aug 23, 2009)

I think that's a totally appropriate rule and also that people shouldn't have sex with animals.


----------



## Takun (Aug 23, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> You still don't put out anything of any real evidence that it's wrong. You just try to put me down without combating my argument.
> 
> Let's look at the animal world through a wolf pack, shall we?
> 
> In a wolf pack you have a hierarchy with the alpha being on top. The alpha female does not mate with anyone in the pack besides the alpha male and will attack and reject any other males in the pack that attempt to mate her. So she consents to sex with the alpha male. Now, debate me.



"Consent" or be killed.  :V


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> Oh, so well written. I applaud you. As do all the zoo animals I and other keepers care for that we have to constantly try to not anthropomorphize.



I don't think that an animal having sex with a human is anthropomorphizing it. Anthropomorphic is an object having characteristics of a human, and zoophiles are not attempting to modify animals to walk upright. And sex is a universal thing found in nature, if sex was clearly a human characteristic and a zoo was trying to teach an animal how to do it, that would be anthropomorphizing the animal.


----------



## Obsidian Wolfess (Aug 23, 2009)

Face palm.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> "Consent" or be killed.  :V



Who's talking about killing the animal who doesn't consent? Unless you're telling me I should consent to the people I'm debating or be killed, in which case I'm tempted to since all I'm getting is insults without cogent arguments.


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 23, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> You still don't put out anything of any real evidence that it's wrong. You just try to put me down without combating my argument.
> 
> Let's look at the animal world through a wolf pack, shall we?
> 
> In a wolf pack you have a hierarchy with the alpha being on top. The alpha female does not mate with anyone in the pack besides the alpha male and will attack and reject any other males in the pack that attempt to mate her. So she consents to sex with the alpha male. Now, debate me.



Consent in the animal world is not analogous to consent with the human world.

Sex in the animal world is to ensure the survival of a species; sex in the human world has become wants of pleasure, an itch of you will. 

Humans who use animals as sex implements are only using the ideal of "love" and for the needs of self satisfaction, not for the animal's well being.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> Most monkeys actually no... some great apes yes.
> There are a few exceptions but it still doesn't give someone the right to rape animals.
> 
> Keep it in your species. I don't care how "Spiritually in tune" you are with an animal; you don't need to be having sex with them.



Monkeys have been known to engage in prostitution, kidnapping, homosexual escapades, incest, and rape. It's not limited to just great apes, (And is in fact LESS common in species such as gorillas and whatnot.).

Fine, but only if the animals stop it first. If I see one more dog humping someone's leg... *Angry Fistshake*


----------



## Mazz (Aug 23, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> You still don't put out anything of any real evidence that it's wrong. You just try to put me down without combating my argument.
> 
> Let's look at the animal world through a wolf pack, shall we?
> 
> In a wolf pack you have a hierarchy with the alpha being on top. The alpha female does not mate with anyone in the pack besides the alpha male and will attack and reject any other males in the pack that attempt to mate her. So she consents to sex with the alpha male. Now, debate me.



Because your stupidity makes it impossible not to reply.

That's instinct, that's the animal picking what is the strongest to father the next line of wolves. That's what makes the fittest survive. 

That wolf isn't going to tell a human it's ok to have sex because it's not the same species. It would much rather kill you to feed it's pups then let you father them.

Go to school, learn about animals. Read the book "Animals in translation" at least before you try to say that animals consent to being raped by humans.
--



Mojotech said:


> Monkeys have been known to engage in prostitution, kidnapping, homosexual escapades, incest, and rape. It's not limited to just great apes, (And is in fact LESS common in species such as gorillas and whatnot.).
> 
> Fine, but only if the animals stop it first. If I see one more dog humping someone's leg... *Angry Fistshake*



That's in their own species still though on the rare cases it does happen. Chimps will beat their females but they won't go around raping humans. 
We have no right to do that to them or any other animal. 
--

I love how people think their dog being dominant to them by humping their leg is a sexual advance... not


----------



## paran0id42 (Aug 23, 2009)

This thread sure went off course.  It seems anything bestiality related usually derails back to the "Consent" arguement.


----------



## DeusExBestia (Aug 23, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> It's sort of a different scenario since when it comes to drug usage, for the most part, the only person who gets hurt is the individual. Their direct actions don't afflict another.



It is still illegal.

Besides, we can't prove bestiality "hurts" the animals in every single case. Just like they couldn't prove there was any animal abuse involved in the Mr. Hands incident. Sure, there might be bad eggs out there who do hurt animals, but just like non-zoo furries don't want to be lumped into the same category as zoo furries, and being accused of being zoos, it generally isn't fair to turn around and say "ALL YOU ZOOS ABUSE THE ANIMALS AND HURT THEM", when quite frankly, most zoos genuinely care about their pets far more than any other person would ever care for their pets.

Partner vs property and all that.


----------



## Glacierwulf (Aug 23, 2009)

Gildedtongue said:


> Because they definately want you to either castrate them, or if they avoid that, forced to make babies with their siblings so they can continue the "pure bred line."
> 
> In a grand scheme of things, Kennel Clubs, and Bob Barker have destroyed the domesticated dog and cat.



Just like any other group of people there are good and bad breeders. s/putering is a means for controlling the pet over population. Is it their fault, no, it's ours. Since it is our responsibility, we do these things. Just like we vaccinate to prevent disease and continue to make veterinary advances. Yes, we humans do some fucked up things(look at what we did to the bulldog, and what we're doing to the American Pitbull Terrier), look at the puppy mills, and look at PETA. 

As for the bestiality issue, since just recently a study has been done which placed a dogs mental capacity to that of a 3-4 year old toddler. No, I don't think they have the capacity to consent to sex. In the wild, the female has to have entered estrus before copulating takes place. Dogs breed, to produce offspring. Am I saying they don't enjoy it? No, I'm not. What I'm saying is it's a biological response.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Consent in the animal world is not analogous to consent with the human world.
> 
> Sex in the animal world is to ensure the survival of a species; sex in the human world has become wants of pleasure, an itch of you will.
> 
> Humans who use animals as sex implements are only using the ideal of "love" and for the needs of self satisfaction, not for the animal's well being.



Omg, someone who knows how to make a point!

This is a fair point, animals usually do mate for procreative purposes. However I'm reminded of a pic I saw on rotten.com a long time ago about a pig mating with a water heater. Where's the survival of the species in that?


----------



## Ainoko (Aug 23, 2009)

Obsidian Wolfess said:


> The admins have a right to decide what is acceptable and what is not.
> 
> I am personally happy to see that FA is going to continue banning pedophiles, zoophiles, and other users that fit into similar categories.
> 
> I can't really see why someone would want to get screwed by their pet anyway. A lot of animals lick their dicks. It's like.. Eat alpo, clean dick, hay look a hole!!  Alpo in the vag? Do not want.



The admins are banning people who air what they have done to kids and animals to the public. So if you draw, or write cub, zoo, or beasiality porn you are generally safe from being banned as drawing, and writing is fantasy. Fantasy is safe, performing the acts in RL is not safe and makes you liable for the crime(s) committed


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

paran0id42 said:


> This thread sure went off course.  It seems anything bestiality related usually derails back to the "Consent" arguement.



Seems on topic to me, Dragon wanted us to take place in a discussion and that seems to be what we're doing.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> Because your stupidity makes it impossible not to reply.
> 
> That's instinct, that's the animal picking what is the strongest to father the next line of wolves. That's what makes the fittest survive.
> 
> ...



Seriously, stop being rude and just debate it. I'm in school studying law enforcement with the intention of becoming a federal agent someday. So knock it off and just keep it civil.


----------



## Takun (Aug 23, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Who's talking about killing the animal who doesn't consent? Unless you're telling me I should consent to the people I'm debating or be killed, in which case I'm tempted to since all I'm getting is insults without cogent arguments.




Consent and be the alphas bitch or have him kill her or die from having no food.  Never have puppies.  Never carryout the genetic urge.

Sure carries over to humans. :|


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 23, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Omg, someone who knows how to make a point!
> 
> This is a fair point, animals usually do mate for procreative purposes. However I'm reminded of a pic I saw on rotten.com a long time ago about a pig mating with a water heater. Where's the survival of the species in that?



Human involvement, sad but true. Most activities that appear strange is usually due to human involvement. Sometimes it is funny and other times it can be sad to downright disturbing

For instance, most animals would not do certain things such as the Lioness taking care of an antelope or a cat using the toilet.


----------



## paran0id42 (Aug 23, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Seems on topic to me, Dragon wanted us to take place in a discussion and that seems to be what we're doing.



It went from "Here is what FA will allow, and what is a basis for banning"
To
"Animals can not consent" and back and forth comments.  If you think its on topic, then go on ahead but I think it got derailed.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

DeusExBestia said:


> It is still illegal.
> 
> Besides, we can't prove bestiality "hurts" the animals in every single case. Just like they couldn't prove there was any animal abuse involved in the Mr. Hands incident. Sure, there might be bad eggs out there who do hurt animals, but just like non-zoo furries don't want to be lumped into the same category as zoo furries, and being accused of being zoos, it generally isn't fair to turn around and say "ALL YOU ZOOS ABUSE THE ANIMALS AND HURT THEM", when quite frankly, most zoos genuinely care about their pets far more than any other person would ever care for their pets.
> 
> Partner vs property and all that.



I agree with you, if one thing is banned because it's illegal the other thing should be banned as well. And keep in mind that most drugs are illegal in ALL states (with the exception of Mary Jane in a few states where it's legal).


----------



## Glacierwulf (Aug 23, 2009)

I do support Dragoneer's stance. Cheers for fighting the good fight.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> That's in their own species still though on the rare cases it does happen. Chimps will beat their females but they won't go around raping humans.
> We have no right to do that to them or any other animal.



Unfortunately? They actually do. Chimps with no previous human contact (Or ones that have) have been known to sexually assault human women. (They've also been known to kidnap and kill human infants.)


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> Consent and be the alphas bitch or have him kill her or die from having no food.  Never have puppies.  Never carryout the genetic urge.
> 
> Sure carries over to humans. :|



I'm not aware that the alpha male kills a female if she turns him down. If I'm wrong about that let me know where to go and I'll research it for fun.


----------



## Cadbury (Aug 23, 2009)

It's troll city up in this bitch man and half em of have no clue what they're talking about. They're just gonna bitch and complain because they have nothings better to do. Pick up a guitar and write a song about it ^^


----------



## Pomponio (Aug 23, 2009)

NachT said:


> I'm confused. You mentioned that you'll actively go against anyone talking about having taken actions of illegal activities, yet the only big one that's in the spot-light is sexual activity with animals and minors. Haven't seen anything negative on any other illegal activity, such as drug use, anti-government/religious debates, or anything along those lines. Are these going to eventually be brought up where people need to pretend not to do them, or are they safe to still talk about?
> 
> ~N~


 Uhmmm... How is discussing politics/religion an illegal activity?


----------



## Mazz (Aug 23, 2009)

Mojotech said:


> Unfortunately? They actually do. Chimps with no previous human contact (Or ones that have) have been known to sexually assault human women. (They've also been known to kidnap and kill human infants.)



Chimps and bonobos are our closest relatives. 
One rapes, murders and destroys the other has free love and sex. 
How people who don't believe in evolution hate being told that though. 


Just because some animals do things that we see as "human" doesn't make us right to go and have sex with them.


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 23, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I agree with you, if one thing is banned because it's illegal the other thing should be banned as well. And keep in mind that most drugs are illegal in ALL states (with the exception of Mary Jane in a few states where it's legal).



It varies from state to state. If the FAF servers were in a place that didn't have Bestiality laws, then he could turn a blind eye, but since the servers are located in Virginia (PETA and other Animal activists with the animal rights laws), it is illegal.


----------



## Ainoko (Aug 23, 2009)

I have a statement, that may make a major arguement, so I am going to make a thread for the statement.


----------



## Mazz (Aug 23, 2009)

Pomponio said:


> Uhmmm... How is discussing politics/religion an illegal activity?





You'll end up in jail for not agreeing. YOU WILL, IT WILL HAPPEN, WE'LL ALL TURN MUSLIM BECAUSE OBAMA GOT ELECTED AND ALL WHITES WILL END UP IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS IF WE DON'T AGREE!!!

(Seriously, I have been told that during the election).


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> It varies from state to state. If the FAF servers were in a place that didn't have Bestiality laws, then he could turn a blind eye, but since the servers are located in Virginia (PETA and other Animal activists with the animal rights laws), it is illegal.



I understand that, I was talking about the drug policy part. I'm perfectly cool with FA's policy on the public speech about certain things. I just get pissed that Dragoneer takes a much lighter stance towards one thing than he does another.

EDIT: No matter what state the servers are in drugs are illegal. So he should hold the same policy on drugs that he does on zoo.


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 23, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I understand that, I was talking about the drug policy part. I'm perfectly cool with FA's policy on the public speech about certain things. I just get pissed that Dragoneer takes a much lighter stance towards one thing than he does another.




Own biased opinion, I guess?


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> You'll end up in jail for not agreeing. YOU WILL, IT WILL HAPPEN, WE'LL ALL TURN MUSLIM BECAUSE OBAMA GOT ELECTED AND ALL WHITES WILL END UP IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS IF WE DON'T AGREE!!!
> 
> (Seriously, I have been told that during the election).



Lol, some people are crazy like that. I didn't vote for Obama and I didn't like him but I do laugh at people who go that crazy about it. Like my cousin's brother in-law, said pretty much the same thing to me in a discussion we were having. Was funny, really.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> Chimps and bonobos are our closest relatives.
> One rapes, murders and destroys the other has free love and sex.
> How people who don't believe in evolution hate being told that though.
> 
> Just because some animals do things that we see as "human" doesn't make us right to go and have sex with them.



Sadly, Chimpanzees are the one we share the common ancestor with. It makes hatred and baseless aggression exceedingly easy for most people.

And I never said it was okay to do that, I was simply correcting you where you were wrong. If there's one thing I can't stand it's someone who is both vitriolic *and* incorrect.


----------



## Char (Aug 23, 2009)

Wait guys I think I get it now.

As long as we KILL the animals and EAT them, that's ok. Or as long as we lop off or mangle their reproductive organs, that's kosher too.

But letting a dog mount you is just wrong and obviously abusive.

I'm glad that was cleared up for me.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Own biased opinion, I guess?



Perhaps. I'm gonna bow out of this thread now so thanks for the discussion.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 23, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> You still don't put out anything of any real evidence that it's wrong. You just try to put me down without combating my argument.
> 
> Let's look at the animal world through a wolf pack, shall we?
> 
> In a wolf pack you have a hierarchy with the alpha being on top. The alpha female does not mate with anyone in the pack besides the alpha male and will attack and reject any other males in the pack that attempt to mate her. So she consents to sex with the alpha male. Now, debate me.



Oh no you don't. Don't even try to push aside all my legitimate things because I can back myself up with actual things called links. This is more for the benefit of anybody wanting to come in and start stuff about "baww bestiality should be okay! It's not wrong!".

http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/results.php?us_state=&ca_state=&uk_state=&nz_state=&au_state=&es_state=&type_id[]=10&status=c&month=&year=&gender=&keyword=&search=search

 People can have hearsay about animals not being hurt? Well the above is a database of animals that were.

http://www.answers.com/topic/zoophilia-and-health
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_health

Since condoms are not designed to deal with having sex with non humans, have fun reading about what things humans put themselves at risk for when they decide to use animals for sexual pleasure.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2172612.ece

Small animals can injure you, or make you lose your "Manhood".

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002569751_horsesex19m.html
Big ones can kill you.

My claims are validated.

Now, stop anthropomorphizing wolves. The female does not consent to sex with the male. The female fights for position of alpha(in some cases unless it's a family unit), and when she gets it, and when she comes into heat she decides who is going to mate with her. That is going to be the strongest member of the pack, which happens to be the alpha. This is basic animal biology. The strongest tend to be the ones who mate. Also females will kill the pups of lower members who mate with other lower members because the ability to mate is reserved for the leaders.

Sometimes though if times are good the pups of the lower members are spared. There is no room for things like pleasure or human ideals of consent in a structure where sex is governed by the weather, the availability of prey, and the female who is in heat and took alpha by force. 

So, for those of you watching, don't try to argue it. Don't try validate it. You won't win.


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 23, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Perhaps. I'm gonna bow out of this thread now so thanks for the discussion.



See ya.


----------



## Ainoko (Aug 23, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Oh no you don't. Don't even try to push aside all my legitimate things because I can back myself up with actual things called links.
> 
> I'm not tackling the other irrelevant bit until I blast you with information:
> http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/results.php?us_state=&ca_state=&uk_state=&nz_state=&au_state=&es_state=&type_id[]=10&status=c&month=&year=&gender=&keyword=&search=search
> ...



You my friend have raised some valid points


----------



## Mazz (Aug 23, 2009)

Char said:


> Wait guys I think I get it now.
> 
> As long as we KILL the animals and EAT them, that's ok. Or as long as we lop off or mangle their reproductive organs, that's kosher too.
> 
> ...



Killing for food is not the same as having sex with an animal. 
"Fixing" your pet to ensure there aren't more unwanted animals in the population isn't the same as HAVING SEX WITH AN ANIMAL. 
--


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Oh no you don't. Don't even try to push aside all my legitimate things because I can back myself up with actual things called links.
> 
> I'm not tackling the other irrelevant bit until I blast you with information:
> http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/results.php?us_state=&ca_state=&uk_state=&nz_state=&au_state=&es_state=&type_id[]=10&status=c&month=&year=&gender=&keyword=&search=search
> ...



See, this is all I wanted. Some actual links to information, could do without the attitude and insults though but whatever. And yeah, the female only mates with the male, and the male picks the female alpha. I saw an interesting show on a wolf pack, I can't remember the name but it had 2 people living amongst a wolf pack and studying it day after day.


----------



## DeusExBestia (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> I can't stand the artwork for things like zoo and pedo stuff but I understand FAs stance on allowing it.
> I applaud that you do not allow people to openly discuss how they raped their dog or how they want to touch their neighbors children... that I wouldn't be able to ignore as easily as I can ignore the artwork.



Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I'm sick of people throwing around the term rape when it is in regards to something they don't like.



Mazz said:


> I know you're talking about homosexuality. Being gay isn't the same. When you're having consensual sex with someone of your gender it's not rape.



And zoophilia isn't directly sex. Just like pedophilia isn't sex (you're thinking of child molestation, so how about you turn off Fox News and 700 Club and go get some fresh Above-Room-Temperature-IQ religious-free air?). They are both paraphilias, but not the term for the act of copulation. From the Greek _zoo_ (animal), and _philia_, (friendship or love). Don't see sex in there at all. I love me a good Subway oven roasted chicken breast sandwich on 9-grain honey oat bread, but I'm not inclined to stick my dick into one. Therefore, check your ignorance at the door.



Mazz said:


> When you're having sex with a child or animal, both of which cannot consent because of the lack of an emotional and mental capacity to do so it's RAPE. Animals do not understand sex the way we do and they CANNOT consent due to the lack of that ability.



No. RAPE, according to some magical dictionary that came preinstalled with my OS, *is the crime, committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them*. So with this, we can postulate that, since animals are not people (see _person_ in the above bolded definition), you can not rape animals. Not people, not rape.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 23, 2009)

Ainoko said:


> You my friend have raised some valid points



She does that a lot.


----------



## Ainoko (Aug 23, 2009)

Yes I do know that threre is fine line between reality and fanatsy. I have fantsies, but have no intention of ever acting on them


----------



## Char (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> Killing for food is not the same as having sex with an animal.
> "Fixing" your pet to ensure there aren't more unwanted animals in the population isn't the same as HAVING SEX WITH AN ANIMAL.
> --


You're right, it's not the same.

The two things I mentioned will definitely result in permanent damage to the animal.

An animal fucking you isn't exactly guaranteed to cause the same damage. Yes, it happens, but shit happens and there are terrible people out there that don't care if the animal is hurt. Most zoophiles are not those people.


----------



## Glacierwulf (Aug 23, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> You still don't put out anything of any real evidence that it's wrong. You just try to put me down without combating my argument.
> 
> Let's look at the animal world through a wolf pack, shall we?
> 
> In a wolf pack you have a hierarchy with the alpha being on top. The alpha female does not mate with anyone in the pack besides the alpha male and will attack and reject any other males in the pack that attempt to mate her. So she consents to sex with the alpha male. Now, debate me.



Actually those studies depicting the "alpha" theory have been proven false. The wolves that were gathered in those "studies" were individuals from different areas and packs thrown together in the same space. As a result, some rather inaccurate data was gathered.

Modern wolf pack studies have shown wolves operate in family unit. Just like a human family unit, it consists of a male and female and their offspring. They are not constantly fighting for the "alpha position."  As soon as the pups are old enough o go out on their own, and find a mate, they become "alphas" of their own pack.

http://dogpublic.com/articles/article.aspx?sid=14&pid=1640


----------



## Mazz (Aug 23, 2009)

DeusExBestia said:


> Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I'm sick of people throwing around the term rape when it is in regards to something they don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I love animals too but I'm against having sex with them. If a zoophile isn't thinking of them sexually than I won't call them an animal rapist. If you're imagining sex with animals you think you "love" than you in my opinion are a rapist. 


So because it's not human it makes it ok to force it to have sex with you and it's not rape? 

OH WOW, YOU'RE SUCH A GOOD PERSON.
--

*edited to add*
It's my OPINION and if I think you're a rapist for having sex with animals then I will call you one. 
Don't like it don't tell me you think it's ok to fuck animals.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

Glacierwulf said:


> Reference please?
> 
> Actually those studies depicting the "alpha" theory have been proven false. The wolves that were gathered in those "studies" were individuals from different areas and packs thrown together in the same space. As a result, some rather inaccurate data was gathered.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the info, I wasn't aware that theory was proven wrong. My mistake.


----------



## DeusExBestia (Aug 23, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> Hold up, are comments on bestiality drawings like "oh murr, I'd fuck that dog." and on cub porns like "what a naughty boy, I'd suck his penis"  still allowed?
> 
> Seems like advertising it too.



I think that should be applied to anything, not just illegal activities. And people who try to RP with a picture. *BLUSHES AND GIVES THE NAKED HORNY RABBITWOLFDOGLIONCATFERRETGIRAFFEGRYPHON A HUG AND BENDS OVER*

I say we ban those people to.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 23, 2009)

paran0id42 said:


> This thread sure went off course.  It seems anything bestiality related usually derails back to the "Consent" arguement.



I'm still thinking how to bash Christopher Hart some more in this thread.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 23, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> I'm still thinking how to bash Christopher Hart some more in this thread.



You could go make a rant about it in R&R.


----------



## InvaderPichu (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> I love animals too but I'm against having sex with them. If a zoophile isn't thinking of them sexually than I won't call them an animal rapist. If you're imagining sex with animals you think you "love" than you in my opinion are a rapist. .



I really don't think you should use the term "rapist" so lightly. I think that's rather insulting to people who have actually been raped. :\ And yeah, someone who forces an animal into sex is certainly a rapist, no arguments from me. But fantasizing about it? Where is the harm?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 23, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> You could go make a rant about it in R&R.



But it's not as fun as when someone searching for Christopher Hart gets animal sex threads


----------



## Wookiee (Aug 23, 2009)

Sounds fair to me.  You get one mundane that finds a link between one zoophile and the fandom and all of a sudden all furries are zoos.


----------



## InvaderPichu (Aug 23, 2009)

Wookiee said:


> Sounds fair to me.  You get one mundane that finds a link between one zoophile and the fandom and all of a sudden all furries are zoos.



I'm sure a lot of normal people assume that anyway even without the help of people who openly admit to fucking their animals. D:


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 23, 2009)

Char said:


> Wait guys I think I get it now.
> 
> As long as we KILL the animals and EAT them, that's ok. Or as long as we lop off or mangle their reproductive organs, that's kosher too.
> 
> ...



What's that fallacy called, where you equate two completely unrelated, dissimilar things?


----------



## Mazz (Aug 23, 2009)

InvaderPichu said:


> I really don't think you should use the term "rapist" so lightly. I think that's rather insulting to people who have actually been raped. :\ And yeah, someone who forces an animal into sex is certainly a rapist, no arguments from me. But fantasizing about it? Where is the harm?



I agree with the term rapist may offend someone who has been raped and if it did I apologize. 
--
So because they're not physically screwing an animal I'm supposed to be ok with them imagining having sex with my dog(or any other animal for that matter)?
I don't believe the "just imagination" argument. You're imagining it because you want to do it. If you want to do it all you need is the chance. 
I'd rather people just not get that chance and I certainly won't let people who imagine sex with children or animals near my child or animals.


----------



## Char (Aug 23, 2009)

Wookiee said:


> Sounds fair to me.  You get one mundane that finds a link between one zoophile and the fandom and all of a sudden all furries are zoos.



Nobody can help that though, and that's just simply the "mundane" being dumb.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that furry porn being what it is is enough to convince most people that all furries are zoophiles.

If we're aroused by a picture of something that looks like an animal, then obviously we're aroused by animals themselves. /sarcasm


----------



## Mazz (Aug 23, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> But it's not as fun as when someone searching for Christopher Hart gets animal sex threads



You could just spam comment his name over and over again. XD
--

You're a mod, you can like... pretend it's for an experiment or something...


----------



## medjai (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> I love animals too but I'm against having sex with them. If a zoophile isn't thinking of them sexually than I won't call them an animal rapist. If you're imagining sex with animals you think you "love" than you in my opinion are a rapist.
> 
> 
> So because it's not human it makes it ok to force it to have sex with you and it's not rape?
> ...



They never said it's okay. You're really good at crucifying people for questioning you, even if they aren't even opposing your opinion.

The point here is, you're using the wrong words. It isn't rape because animals aren't people. However, just because it isn't rape doesn't mean it's okay. I think the term that might fit a wee bit better is animal abusers, since that's what they're charged with under the law.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Aug 23, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Oh no you don't. Don't even try to push aside all my legitimate things because I can back myself up with actual things called links. This is more for the benefit of anybody wanting to come in and start stuff about "baww bestiality should be okay! It's not wrong!".
> 
> http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/results.php?us_state=&ca_state=&uk_state=&nz_state=&au_state=&es_state=&type_id[]=10&status=c&month=&year=&gender=&keyword=&search=search



Damn, I was going to cite Pet-Abuse.com.


----------



## Attaman (Aug 23, 2009)

Wookiee said:


> Sounds fair to me.  You get one mundane that finds a link between one zoophile and the fandom and all of a sudden all furries are zoos.


  Sounds right to me.  You get one Furry that finds a link between non-Furs and trolling and all the sudden non-Furs are "mundanes".

I'm getting a bit of a headache going back in this thread.  The regular ol' "Animals can give consent," "Prove it hurts a party," "Well it's done in nature / humans do other bad things," it's all the same every thread.  Do we really need to go through this every time someone so much as whispers bestiality, let alone makes a topic about it?  You'd think by now we'd have a nice little archive for "Insert post here" responses to such threads.  Hell, I bet the mods right now could play both parts of the thread to a "T" from beginning to lock out of sheer memory.


----------



## Carenath (Aug 23, 2009)

Wookiee said:


> Sounds fair to me.  You get one mundane that finds a link between one zoophile and the fandom and all of a sudden all furries are zoos.


Too late for that, you dont need any link between admitted/practising zoophiles and furries, for regular folks to assume all furries are zoos.

I made that assumption before, purely because all furries are anthro and the blindlingly obvious 'furry sexuality'.. I thought at first, furries were just zoo's trying to make their thing more acceptable by humanising the characters they played while deep down still harbouring the same animal-loving kink that zoos have.

On top of that.. zoos can be furries, the fandom isnt exclusive to anyone.

Its also nice to have some official clarification on the lines here.. I would hate to see FA/F turn into a furry version of Dragon Realms.


----------



## Char (Aug 23, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> What's that fallacy called, where you equate two completely unrelated, dissimilar things?



How is killing an animal or castrating them any better than letting one mount you? How is LESS harm done that way?

Why is semen collection given a pass? Why is forcefully impregnating another animal with said semen also ok? Both of these things are obviously done against the animal's will right?


----------



## paran0id42 (Aug 23, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> What's that fallacy called, where you equate two completely unrelated, dissimilar things?



I dont know where that original quote was, or what the fallacy is.

But I heard hunting animals for food is wrong and sick, thus humans need to die.  kinda really no- Theres animals we hunt for food, and theres animals we take in for comfort and enjoyment.  The animals we hunt for food are dealt with in the most swift and painless manner.  Animals we keep for enjoyment are treated as they are our children.  All pet owners I know have great relations with their animal because they are like children to them.
Sometimes with this consent thing though... if they think their dog wants anal.. (Male OR female) there is no way that is love and they are dilusional.  Anal sex is considered a fetish (for homosexuals amongst men and women there is an exception imo) in our society, dogs have no idea what anal is.  
Where am I going with this :|


----------



## DeusExBestia (Aug 23, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I agree with you, if one thing is banned because it's illegal the other thing should be banned as well. And keep in mind that most drugs are illegal in ALL states (with the exception of Mary Jane in a few states where it's legal).



Even if that was the case, it is illegal at the federal level, which applies, TO EVERY STATE.

Unless Chief(er) Obama changed that?


----------



## medjai (Aug 23, 2009)

paran0id42 said:


> I dont know where that original quote was, or what the fallacy is.
> 
> But I heard hunting animals for food is wrong and sick, thus humans need to die.  kinda really no- Theres animals we hunt for food, and theres animals we take in for comfort and enjoyment.  The animals we hunt for food are dealt with in the most swift and painless manner.  Animals we keep for enjoyment are treated as they are our children.  All pet owners I know have great relations with their animal because they are like children to them.
> Sometimes with this consent thing though... if they think their dog wants anal.. (Male OR female) there is no way that is love and they are dilusional.  Anal sex is considered a fetish (for homosexuals amongst men and women there is an exception imo) in our society, dogs have no idea what anal is.
> Where am I going with this :|



Really? Bonobos have gay anal sex all the time, as well as dozens of other animals. Even hetero anal sex. In both the wild and in captivity.


----------



## DeusExBestia (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> Chimps and bonobos are our closest relatives.
> One rapes, murders and destroys the other has free love and sex.
> How people who don't believe in evolution hate being told that though.



So, one group of monkeys are republicans, the other are liberals...

WHY ARE YOU BRINGING POLITICS INTO A BESTIALITY DISCUSSION


----------



## paran0id42 (Aug 23, 2009)

Char said:


> How is killing an animal or castrating them any better than letting one mount you? How is LESS harm done that way?
> 
> Why is semen collection given a pass? Why is forcefully impregnating another animal with said semen also ok? Both of these things are obviously done against the animal's will right?



Theres your quote!

"_How is killing an animal or castrating them any better than letting one mount you_"  You abuse the dogs mental state.  The dog will assert authority over you.  You tell it to sit, it will not.  You tell it to calm down, it retaliates.  You decide to give up on the dog and give it to a shelter, and it is given to a different family.  That family gives up the dog again because it assumes itself as the alpha male after mounting you.
Killing an animal needs to be specified.  Killing a cow provides food for the hunter.  UNIVERSAL Predatory law.  Humans need to feed, and we have evolved as master hunters.  Humans can kill whatever they want but choose not to because we know what is good for ourselves.  Not only that but we are mentally cognitive to understand what is aggressive, what is a threat, and what is necessary for our survival.  Castration controls the pet population right?  Cats who mate continuously pose a problem.

"_Why is semen collection given a pass? Why is forcefully impregnating another animal with said semen also ok?_" No opinion, I dont understand where this comes into play.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Aug 23, 2009)

DeusExBestia said:


> So, one group of monkeys are republicans, the other are liberals...
> 
> WHY ARE YOU BRINGING POLITICS INTO A BESTIALITY DISCUSSION



Lol!


----------



## paran0id42 (Aug 23, 2009)

medjai said:


> Really? Bonobos have gay anal sex all the time, as well as dozens of other animals. Even hetero anal sex. In both the wild and in captivity.



WELL THE MORE I KNOW D:


----------



## InvaderPichu (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> I agree with the term rapist may offend someone who has been raped and if it did I apologize.
> --
> So because they're not physically screwing an animal I'm supposed to be ok with them imagining having sex with my dog(or any other animal for that matter)?
> I don't believe the "just imagination" argument. You're imagining it because you want to do it. If you want to do it all you need is the chance.
> I'd rather people just not get that chance and I certainly won't let people who imagine sex with children or animals near my child or animals.



Not really. Plenty of people who fantasize about horrible acts don't actually want to do those horrible acts outside of fantasy, because they are well aware of the consequences of acting out their fantasies. There is a huge difference between what goes on in our imaginations and what goes on in the real world.


----------



## Glacierwulf (Aug 23, 2009)

Char said:


> How is killing an animal or castrating them any better than letting one mount you? How is LESS harm done that way?
> 
> Why is semen collection given a pass? Why is forcefully impregnating another animal with said semen also ok? Both of these things are obviously done against the animal's will right?



Well, for one the two formers aren't illegal. Unless you're intentionally trying to prolong the pain of the animal, thus making it abuse. Semen collecting isn't dong for fun, it's for a breeding program or medical testing.


----------



## DeusExBestia (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> It's my OPINION and if I think you're a rapist for having sex with animals then I will call you one.
> Don't like it don't tell me you think it's ok to fuck animals.



Well, then, it is MY opinion that if you are a moron, inbred, republican, and a religious psychopath for thinking that something you don't like is immediately one of the worst things you can ever do to a human being, I will call you Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or Ted Haggard from now on.

And I didn't say it was okay "fuck" animals, Mr Falwell. I just stated that it can not be considered "rape" because the definition of "rape" did not include animals in the definition.


----------



## DeusExBestia (Aug 23, 2009)

paran0id42 said:


> You abuse the dogs mental state.  The dog will assert authority over you.  You tell it to sit, it will not.  You tell it to calm down, it retaliates.  You decide to give up on the dog and give it to a shelter, and it is given to a different family.  That family gives up the dog again because it assumes itself as the alpha male after mounting you.



Speaking from experience?


----------



## Char (Aug 23, 2009)

paran0id42 said:


> Theres your quote!
> 
> "_How is killing an animal or castrating them any better than letting one mount you_"  You abuse the dogs mental state.  The dog will assert authority over you.  You tell it to sit, it will not.  You tell it to calm down, it retaliates.  You decide to give up on the dog and give it to a shelter, and it is given to a different family.  That family gives up the dog again because it assumes itself as the alpha male after mounting you.


That seems like quite a stretch and a lot of assuming to me. Yes, I understand about asserting dominance, but I don't see it going anywhere near the extent you just described with most dogs.



paran0id42 said:


> "_Why is semen collection given a pass? Why is forcefully impregnating another animal with said semen also ok?_" No opinion, I dont understand where this comes into play.


So jacking off a dog just for the hell of it is ok then? What about giving one a blowjob? Is it ok just as long as he doesn't mount you?


----------



## Vaelarsa (Aug 23, 2009)

Thank you, Dragoneer.

The more sick fuckery is discouraged in furry communities, the better.


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 23, 2009)

Char said:


> How is killing an animal or castrating them any better than letting one mount you? How is LESS harm done that way?
> 
> Why is semen collection given a pass? Why is forcefully impregnating another animal with said semen also ok? Both of these things are obviously done against the animal's will right?



Castration is done for population control reasons; hell, even castration isn't enough to dampen the hundreds of abandoned animals out there, most of which are probably still capable of sexual activity and which will undoubtedly birth feral young, which are not only dangerous to humans but which will also mature, have families of their own, and on and on it goes. It's a vicious cycle that doesn't end. Castration helps, but it's not a be all, end all. 

We kill animals because they are of some use to us humans, because they can benefit us more dead than alive. 

Male animals are often 'fooled', for lack of a better term, into becoming aroused, at which point the animal is either going to continue the faux-mating process of its own accord or will be manipulated into ejaculating. Animal semen is very valuable in breeding programs, especially when the male it was collected from has certain desirable physical traits.

Considering that a cow doesn't mind if you bury your arm up to the shoulder in its rectum, I shouldn't think it minds a thin pipette of semen being emptied discreetly into its vagina. All the cow will know (at some point) is that it's pregnant and will have to give birth to a calf.


----------



## DeusExBestia (Aug 23, 2009)

Glacierwulf said:


> Well, for one the two formers aren't illegal. Unless you're intentionally trying to prolong the pain of the animal, thus making it abuse. Semen collecting isn't dong for fun, it's for a breeding program or medical testing.



His point is, CASTRATING AN ANIMAL is far more abusive than having sex with it. I mean, people talk about letting the animal is "mental abuse", so is removing his testicles. Except more so.

They get fat, they can become placid, depressed, stressed. (sex can burn calories) They lose sex drive. Why is that an issue? Possibly because it is in their nature to have sex? To reproduce? You're changing everything about them when you snip their stones. It's like a MASSIVE CONTROL issue.

And don't get me started with that BS for "population control". If stupid people actually cared about their animals as much as zoophiles do, there wouldn't be any unwanted puppies, not because the dog only has sex with the zoophile, but because the zoophile ACTUALLY LOOKS AFTER THEIR PET.


----------



## Swampwulf (Aug 23, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Depending on circumstances. However, generally drug usage is different (it's not an instant-ban). We remove comments/journals first, warn them. If it happens again...
> 
> It's sort of a different scenario since when it comes to drug usage, for the most part, the only person who gets hurt is the individual. Their direct actions don't afflict another.



I'll bear that in mind the next time I go visit my sister's grave.
Her O.D.ing shouldn't affect me, my siblings, or my Parents.
_Dragoneer said so!_


----------



## paran0id42 (Aug 23, 2009)

Char said:


> That seems like quite a stretch and a lot of assuming to me. Yes, I understand about asserting dominance, but I don't see it going anywhere near the extent you just described with most dogs.
> 
> 
> So jacking off a dog just for the hell of it is ok then? What about giving one a blowjob? Is it ok just as long as he doesn't mount you?



They are things I read here and there.  And back to you with assuming; I said I had no opinion because I don't understand what semen collection exactly is in this thread.


----------



## RustyFox (Aug 23, 2009)

Mazz said:


> I don't believe the "just imagination" argument. You're imagining it because you want to do it. If you want to do it all you need is the chance.



Someone call the Thought Police. I think I've got a bunch of suspects for them to investigate...


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 23, 2009)

DeusExBestia said:


> His point is, CASTRATING AN ANIMAL is far more abusive than having sex with it. I mean, people talk about letting the animal is "mental abuse", so is removing his testicles. Except more so.
> 
> They get fat, they can become placid, depressed, stressed. (sex can burn calories) They lose sex drive. Why is that an issue? Possibly because it is in their nature to have sex? To reproduce? You're changing everything about them when you snip their stones. It's like a MASSIVE CONTROL issue.
> 
> And don't get me started with that BS for "population control". If stupid people actually cared about their animals as much as zoophiles do, there wouldn't be any unwanted puppies, not because the dog only has sex with the zoophile, but because the zoophile ACTUALLY LOOKS AFTER THEIR PET.



Nothing says "I have no control of my animal,and by extension, my life." like inviting friends over for coffee and having your German Shepard furiously hump one of your girlfriends legs.

To put it simply, it's more convenient to castrate male animals than it is to allow them to live with the damn things. There are no angry neighbors to deal with when your male digs under the fence and has happy times with Fluffy next door. There are no leg humping incidents. There is less aggression, in many cases. Male animals are easier to handle when they're minus their nuts. I see nothing wrong with it.


----------



## Glacierwulf (Aug 23, 2009)

DeusExBestia said:


> His point is, CASTRATING AN ANIMAL is far more abusive than having sex with it. I mean, people talk about letting the animal is "mental abuse", so is removing his testicles. Except more so.
> 
> They get fat, they can become placid, depressed, stressed. (sex can burn calories) They lose sex drive. Why is that an issue? Possibly because it is in their nature to have sex? To reproduce? You're changing everything about them when you snip their stones. It's like a MASSIVE CONTROL issue.
> 
> And don't get me started with that BS for "population control". If stupid people actually cared about their animals as much as zoophiles do, there wouldn't be any unwanted puppies, not because the dog only has sex with the zoophile, but because the zoophile ACTUALLY LOOKS AFTER THEIR PET.



No they don't get fat, that rumor is the result of owners not knowing how to properly adjust the pet's food intake. A neutered male needs less food than an intact dog. I've yet to see a depressed dog. Again, projecting human feelings onto animals is dangerous. Neutering is not abuse. It reduces chances of certain cancer, and can help curb certain tenancies. I'm am not saying it's a fix all for problems, but it can help with male/male aggression. Now neutering isn't for every dog, it has it's risks, though none of the false facts. you mentioned. As for the stress thing, the vet is a stressful place when owners don''t care enough to familiarize the animal with the vet *before *taking them there for something so evasive.

IMHO there should be more of a criteria for who can and can't own an animal. People who turn their dogs into breeding machines, then dump them, people who can't be bothered to socialize their dog, people who won't fucking take a basic obedience course then, wonder why their animal isn't listing. They don't deserve an animal. They shouldn't have kids for that matter.


----------



## Char (Aug 23, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> Male animals are often 'fooled', for lack of a better term, into becoming aroused, at which point the animal is either going to continue the faux-mating process of its own accord or will be manipulated into ejaculating. Animal semen is very valuable in breeding programs, especially when the male it was collected from has certain desirable physical traits.


So as long as we're PROFITING from it, it's ok.



AlexInsane said:


> Considering that a cow doesn't mind if you bury your arm up to the shoulder in its rectum, I shouldn't think it minds a thin pipette of semen being emptied discreetly into its vagina. All the cow will know (at some point) is that it's pregnant and will have to give birth to a calf.


Then it also shouldn't mind having a penis stuck in it right? Or does the cow suddenly mind this?


----------



## TDK (Aug 23, 2009)

RustyFox said:


> Someone call the Thought Police. I think I've got a bunch of suspects for them to investigate...



+1 

Why should we care what they think? The last thing people should worry about is whats going on in someone's head. Especially when a lot of us are thinking about some fucked up shit, I think I smell the stench of hypocrisy.


----------



## Technicolor Pie (Aug 23, 2009)

I'm not gonna touch the rest of this mess, but as an aside: Men that think dogs put their junk on as high a level of importance as they do always make me laugh.

The fact there's actually a market for TESTICULAR IMPLANTS for dogs in order to take advantage of people that project like this is hilarious.


----------



## Glacierwulf (Aug 23, 2009)

Technicolor Pie said:


> I'm not gonna touch the rest of this mess, but as an aside: Men that think dogs put their junk on as high a level of importance as they do always make me laugh.
> 
> The fact there's actually a market for TESTICULAR IMPLANTS for dogs in order to take advantage of people that project like this is hilarious.



It is funny, no?


----------



## Char (Aug 23, 2009)

Technicolor Pie said:


> I'm not gonna touch the rest of this mess, but as an aside: Men that think dogs put their junk on as high a level of importance as they do always make me laugh.
> 
> The fact there's actually a market for TESTICULAR IMPLANTS for dogs in order to take advantage of people that project like this is hilarious.



lol neuticles

Did you see the Penn and Teller episode that had those? Where the owner started feeling up his dog during the interview?


----------



## zorrofeta (Aug 23, 2009)

RustyFox said:


> Someone call the Thought Police. I think I've got a bunch of suspects for them to investigate...



LOL

I've -thought- about killing the baby whining next to me in the theater.
I've -thought- about killing Rush Limbaugh

I've thought a lot of things. That doesn't mean I have thought about actually DOING them.

The human imagination is probably the most insane thing in this universe. If we all did things we thought about, we wouldn't exist.


----------



## Kimbyfox (Aug 23, 2009)

Obsidian Wolfess said:


> The admins have a right to decide what is acceptable and what is not.
> 
> I am personally happy to see that FA is going to continue banning pedophiles, zoophiles, and other users that fit into similar categories.
> 
> I can't really see why someone would want to get screwed by their pet anyway. A lot of animals lick their dicks. It's like.. Eat alpo, clean dick, hay look a hole!!  Alpo in the vag? Do not want.



they eat their shit sometimes too... don't forget that


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 23, 2009)

Char said:


> So as long as we're PROFITING from it, it's ok.
> 
> 
> Then it also shouldn't mind having a penis stuck in it right? Or does the cow suddenly mind this?



Unfortunately, 'profiting' isn't quite the word for it. You could technically say that a bestialist 'profits' from screwing animals (i.e., they orgasm from it). The kind of profit I had in mind was the kind animals afford us in the way of raw materials; cuts of meat, organs, and bones for human and animal consumption and nutrition, and fur or skin which goes toward use in clothing and other items. 

How should I put this...it is...considered unacceptable for humans to mate with anything other than other humans. To be blunt, I believe the unspoken, yet enforced, rule is "You stick with your own kind." Humans to humans, dogs to dogs, fish to fish, birds to birds, and so on. A cow would probably notice a human penis entering it, just as it would notice a bull penis entering it. The reaction to such a phenomenon may or may not be the same; there are too many factors to accurately gauge the reaction of every cow.


----------



## Char (Aug 23, 2009)

Kimbyfox said:


> they eat their shit sometimes too... don't forget that


So do humans :x


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 23, 2009)

Char said:


> So do humans :x



If they do so, it's my fervent hope they die from god knows whatever bacteria are lurking in their own fecal matter.


----------



## Carenath (Aug 23, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> Castration is done for population control reasons...





AlexInsane said:


> To put it simply, it's more convenient to castrate male animals than it is to allow them to live with the damn things. There are no angry neighbors to deal with when your male digs under the fence and has happy times with Fluffy next door. There are no leg humping incidents. There is less aggression, in many cases. Male animals are easier to handle when they're minus their nuts. I see nothing wrong with it.


On that note.. why not castrate people too, after all there are over 6bn of us on this world and not enough resources to go around.. so us privileged people in the western world have mostly what we could want and still want more, and millions are suffering. Should we not institute castration to stop people in less developed countries from breeding and having children they can't look after?


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 23, 2009)

Carenath said:


> On that note.. why not castrate people too, after all there are over 6bn of us on this world and not enough resources to go around.. so us privileged people in the western world have mostly what we could want and still want more, and millions are suffering. Should we not institute castration to stop people in less developed countries from breeding and having children they can't look after?



Oh, but we do have castration services available to humans, it's just that humans fancy themselves too important to have themselves neutered and spayed; that's for lower races, donchaknow.

The human race is filled with hypocrisy about some things, but I wouldn't have it any other way. It's quite amusing, really.


----------



## DracosBlackwing (Aug 23, 2009)

I very rarely post in the forums, as they can become places for excessive drama as well, but this topic has become, if not 'large' enough, 'overblown' enough to make me want to make a statement.

Pedo and Zoo stuff have never really been things I've enjoyed seeing, and having RL instances openly discussed on FA can lead to trouble for all involved, so the ban idea is a sound one. I'd even venture to say offering the same punishment for illegal drug use conversations should be the same... but I know too many furs engage in that crap to ban them all. Also, there's that risk of people whining about FA becoming restrictive in letting people be who they are, and I'm sure no one wants to deal with THAT drama tsunami on Furry Beach either.

The only thing I think should be considered is the groups that were mentioned earlier; those people who are trying to witch hunt others who they feel are doing the deed, then screaming for their removal. The fandom being what it is, people seem to harbor way too much hatred and let it seethe, then see something like this as just another way to harass those they dislike. If people are caught TRYING to get people banned, they themselves should be banned for the effort. It's much like how some parents used to handle children who were hopeless tattlers; the child themselves got into trouble.

I think this will sorta help lessen the drama potential, as those who might be running to tell on this or that person hoping to cause them strife might be discouraged from doing so, simply because there's zero tolerance for the bulls**t. Just an idea, though.


----------



## Glacierwulf (Aug 23, 2009)

Carenath said:


> On that note.. why not castrate people too, after all there are over 6bn of us on this world and not enough resources to go around.. so us privileged people in the western world have mostly what we could want and still want more, and millions are suffering. Should we not institute castration to stop people in less developed countries from breeding and having children they can't look after?



Because one cannot legally do so without permission from the owner of the nads.


----------



## Attaman (Aug 23, 2009)

Carenath said:


> Should we not institute castration to stop people in less developed countries from breeding and having children they can't look after?


No, because then the Ants win.


----------



## paran0id42 (Aug 23, 2009)

Carenath said:


> On that note.. why not castrate people too, after all there are over 6bn of us on this world and not enough resources to go around.. so us privileged people in the western world have mostly what we could want and still want more, and millions are suffering. Should we not institute castration to stop people in less developed countries from breeding and having children they can't look after?



Comparing animal nature to human nature is an arguement that will get you nowhere.  You should drop it while its still cold.


----------



## Mazz (Aug 23, 2009)

Technicolor Pie said:


> I'm not gonna touch the rest of this mess, but as an aside: Men that think dogs put their junk on as high a level of importance as they do always make me laugh.
> 
> The fact there's actually a market for TESTICULAR IMPLANTS for dogs in order to take advantage of people that project like this is hilarious.



I love that shit. MY DOG IS LESS OF A MAN BECAUSE MY WIFE CUT HIS BALLS OFF!!!
So I'm going to put it through another more invasive surgery to give it pretend balls so he feels more manly. 
--

Neither of my dogs seem to care they lack balls, they act the same as they did when I had them. As do my cats except the boy stopped the pissing all over the house thing when he was neutered.


----------



## Drakkon (Aug 23, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Nobody will ever know, because most of us can't actually communicate with dogs.
> 
> So why not err on the side of caution and assume they DON'T want to fuck you? :V



Because that makes you an idiot and a human supremist.  It betrays the attitude that a majority of humans have that animals are stupid, base creatures who cannot communicate their wants, needs, feelings, or desires in any meaningful way because they do not speak our language.  Neither might an arab from the Middle East, but that doesn't make them a stupid base creature, does it?  Animals have more than enough ways to indicate their unwillingness to be involved in such behavior, including, but not limited to, snapping and biting at their would-be lover, running away and hiding, failing to maintain an erection (if male), or moving so much as to make mounting impossible (if female).

Why not assume they don't want to fuck you?  Because they're either clearly indicating their willingness or lack thereof to anyone who isn't too stupid to understand it.

I'm not taking a position pro- or con- on this matter.  I understand the site needs to protect itself legally, but the vocal, possibly minority, individuals posting in this thread have betrayed their deep ignorance of animal behavior and social skills with comments like the above.  In the course of researching such things for my books and games, I have discovered that animals are far more intelligent than we typically give them credit for being.  While I hesitate to give them a level of cognition equal to us (with the notable exception of dolphins, who I think might possibly be even smarter than we are), they are far from the dumb beasts that Rigor has indicated s/he believes them to be.

That said, my personal stance on this matter is that unless someone is forcing an obviously unwilling animal to engage them in sexual activity, there are enough methods instinctively available to animals to say "No." that one should assume they are willing participants.

For people supposedly belonging to an animal-loving fandom, there is a shockingly dreadful level of ignorance about their very basic behavior being displayed in this thread.  It is deeply disappointing.  Agreeing with the polic is one thing.  I understand it, and I accept that.  But making up moral high ground issues regarding it and acting like the human in the situation is the only one who can make a decision regarding it, is quite another.  Researching normal animal behavior will lead to discovering that more often than not humans have almost no control over animals, particularly where mating behaviors are concerned.  Please stop being arrogant pricks.


----------



## Char (Aug 23, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> How should I put this...it is...considered unacceptable for humans to mate with anything other than other humans. To be blunt, I believe the unspoken, yet enforced, rule is "You stick with your own kind." Humans to humans, dogs to dogs, fish to fish, birds to birds, and so on. A cow would probably notice a human penis entering it, just as it would notice a bull penis entering it. The reaction to such a phenomenon may or may not be the same; there are too many factors to accurately gauge the reaction of every cow.


I agree that it is considered unacceptable, especially from any sort of biological or evolutionary sense.

I'm sure you are aware that there are countless instances of animals engaging (or trying to engage in) sex with species different from their own. Though perhaps they are just confused and don't realize this, or maybe again it's some display of dominance.

Anyways, all I'm trying to argue here is that I think humans do far worse things to animals than have sex with them, with many of these things considered socially acceptable because we profit from it. That, to me, seems like a double-standard.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 23, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> How should I put this...it is...considered unacceptable for humans to mate with anything other than other humans.



What if there were aliens though? Sentient ones...

or District 9 prawns? ;o


----------



## Glacierwulf (Aug 23, 2009)

Drakkon said:


> Because that makes you an idiot and a human supremist.  It betrays the attitude that a majority of humans have that animals are stupid, base creatures who cannot communicate their wants, needs, feelings, or desires in any meaningful way because they do not speak our language.  Neither might an arab from the Middle East, but that doesn't make them a stupid base creature, does it?  Animals have more than enough ways to indicate their unwillingness to be involved in such behavior, including, but not limited to, snapping and biting at their would-be lover, running away and hiding, failing to maintain an erection (if male), or moving so much as to make mounting impossible (if female).
> 
> Why not assume they don't want to fuck you?  Because they're either clearly indicating their willingness or lack thereof to anyone who isn't too stupid to understand it.
> 
> ...



Wow, extreme much? No one said that animals were stupid. We're just stating that their intellect is closer to that of a 3-4 year old toddler. A dog like a toddler only understands so much.

Until the dog get's up and starts conversing with me about current events, my and the science communities finds will remain valid.


----------



## Attaman (Aug 23, 2009)

Drakkon said:


> Because that makes you an idiot and a human supremist.


  And what may I ask is wrong with being a Human Supremist?  Unlike other animals on this planet, we've worked to get where we are now instead of sitting content as we are in life.



> I have discovered that animals are far more intelligent than we typically give them credit for being.


  Indeed.  Look at crows.



> (with the notable exception of dolphins, who I think might possibly be even smarter than we are),


  The correct answer is mice, sorry.  Few people know that their infantcide is to preserve their intelligence.


----------



## Carenath (Aug 23, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> The human race is filled with hypocrisy about some things, but I wouldn't have it any other way. It's quite amusing, really.


It does make for entertaining moments too.



Glacierwulf said:


> Because one cannot legally do so without permission from the owner of the nads.


Doesnt stop parents from circumcising their baby boys in some countries.



paran0id42 said:


> Comparing animal nature to human nature is an arguement that will get you nowhere.  You should drop it while its still cold.


Ah because we're somehow superior to 'lower' animals right 

And clearly you both failed to realise I was being sarcastic in my earlier statement.


----------



## dineegla (Aug 23, 2009)

Pretty Simple. Thank you.


----------



## mapdark (Aug 23, 2009)

Good.

I mean of course you can't begin to hunt for every potential zoophile on the website. but I think that the restriction of actively talking about that sort of acts is a very good one!


----------



## paran0id42 (Aug 23, 2009)

Carenath said:


> It does make for entertaining moments too.
> 
> 
> Doesnt stop parents from circumcising their baby boys in some countries.
> ...



Parents circumcising their children is because children are in control of the parent.  What, we are going to get into when children have freedom of choice now? :|

Screw this sarcasm.  Sarcasm on the net is pretty void.


----------



## Glacierwulf (Aug 23, 2009)

Carenath said:


> It does make for entertaining moments too.
> 
> 
> Doesnt stop parents from circumcising their baby boys in some countries.
> ...



Yes, because the child cannot consent otherwise. As I've said before mentally dogs and toddlers are on the same level. And no I didn't realize, sarcasim is hard to pick up on the interwebs, but I guess you failed to realize that.


----------



## Char (Aug 23, 2009)

Glacierwulf said:


> Yes, because the child cannot consent otherwise. As I've said before mentally dogs and toddlers are on the same level.


Shouldn't we also just assume that the child does not want to be circumcised then? Since they're unable to consent to it? Why does "unable to consent" mean "we can do what we want to" in this instance?


----------



## Glacierwulf (Aug 23, 2009)

Char said:


> Shouldn't we also just assume that the child does not want to be circumcised then? Since they're unable to consent to it? Why does "unable to consent" mean "we can do what we want to" in this instance?



I would agree with this, I don't think circumcision is necessary, and should be the decision of the child once it is old enough to form an opinion itself. I feel the same on both instances. So unless dogs suddenly gain the ability to speak to us. I would assume like dogs, children are considered the property of the parents until a certain maturation takes place. That and cutting off you kid's foreskin isn't illegal.


----------



## paran0id42 (Aug 23, 2009)

Char said:


> Shouldn't we also just assume that the child does not want to be circumcised then? Since they're unable to consent to it? Why does "unable to consent" mean "we can do what we want to" in this instance?



Heres more comparisons between animals and humans!


----------



## Glacierwulf (Aug 23, 2009)

paran0id42 said:


> Heres more comparisons between animals and humans!



I agree, you can't compare animals to humans. It won't stand in court, whatever reason you make to justify animal "consent" it's still invalid.


----------



## Char (Aug 23, 2009)

Glacierwulf said:


> I would agree with this, I don't think circumcision is necessary, and should be the decision of the child once it is old enough to form an opinion itself. I feel the same on both instances. So unless dogs suddenly gain the ability to speak to us. I would assume like dogs, children are considered the property of the parents until a certain maturation takes place. That and cutting off you kid's foreskin isn't illegal.


Dogs do have the ability to communicate, just not with words. But this thread has already been down that road I believe.

And I'm not debating the legality of any of this. I just don't always assume that illegal = wrong.



paran0id42 said:


> Heres more comparisons between animals and humans!


He's the one comparing dogs to 3-4 year old humans, not me.


----------



## shine (Aug 23, 2009)

Dragoneer;
[B said:
			
		

> What we WILL take action upon:[/B]
> 
> 
> Discussing how you engage in sexual relationships with a pet, farm animal or other creature (living or dead).
> ...


----------



## Glacierwulf (Aug 23, 2009)

Char said:


> Dogs do have the ability to communicate, just not with words. But this thread has already been down that road I believe.
> 
> And I'm not debating the legality of any of this. I just don't always assume that illegal = wrong.
> 
> ...



Since some are misunderstanding my point. Here's the article. What I am saying is that they're not on the same mental level at an adult human being. I am not saying that dog = human.  

Whenever they're able to say "Yes," in english, spanish, etc..., I'll buy that they agreed to have sex with the zoo.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Aug 23, 2009)

Glacierwulf said:


> I agree, you can't compare animals to humans. It won't stand in court, whatever reason you make to justify animal "consent" it's still invalid.



I think he has a point though. At what point is it okay to distinguish between the two if people on the other side are also going to throw around "Rape" and "Toddler" when talking about animals. (You guys are typing faster than I am!)



Glacierwulf said:


> Yes, because the child cannot consent otherwise. As I've said before mentally dogs and toddlers are on the same level. And no I didn't realize, sarcasim is hard to pick up on the interwebs, but I guess you failed to realize that.



So which is it, should we treat animals the same as we would toddlers or not? Is it okay to eat or castrate toddlers? Should we stop doing either to animals? PETA and other animal rights groups like to bandy around words like "Murder" and "Slavery" when talking about animals. Are they correct? What do we use to determine where these sorts of things become right and wrong when it comes to animals? My basic position is using words like Rape, Murder, and Slavery with animals cheapens the words when applied to humans, and that animals- not being Sapient- do not deserve special treatment of any sort outside of caution and study.



Glacierwulf said:


> I would assume like dogs, children are considered the property of the parents until a certain maturation takes place. That and cutting off you kid's foreskin isn't illegal.



Except animals never undergo that Maturation, and thus are considered property permanently... And just because something is illegal, does not neccisarily mean it's bad. (rather, something should be illegal BECAUSE it's considered bad. Not the other way around. Although to be fair I think circumcising your child SHOULD be illegal.)


----------



## Ainoko (Aug 23, 2009)

yep


----------



## Ri'en Karrot (Aug 23, 2009)

I totally am fine with this. I don't like hearing about real life accounts in lots of detail of ANY illegal activity, but I'm completely okay with hearing people's opinions on any subject even if I don't like or agree with it, as long as it doesn't turn into threatening words about the people they don't agree with.
I kinda wish there was a ban on aggressive words that sound like slurs >>; The dogf'er one that's being thrown around recently really gets my stomach in a knot and I don't even wholly agree with either side of the people arguing. But that's just my feelings, not a suggestion XP


----------



## Glacierwulf (Aug 23, 2009)

Mojotech said:


> I think he has a point though. At what point is it okay to distinguish between the two if people on the other side are also going to throw around "Rape" and "Toddler" when talking about animals. (You guys are typing faster than I am!)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol, anyone who believes that PETA is for he well being animals is delusional. PETA is batshit and should be ignored. Cannibalism has nothing to do with this and I never said dogs = people. I was comparing their mental maturation to something that's familiar. If you would read the article I linked to you'll understand my point. 

Most things that are illegal are bad, and I don't see the good in having sex with animals. Tell me, what positive effect does one's animal have after it's been screwed by it's caretaker?

I do agree with you on your last point. I don't see the point in circumcising anymore.


----------



## Foxxel (Aug 23, 2009)

I'll just say a Random thing then I'll just go.........
"Noming......Good For the Soul"-DJ-Foxxel


----------



## Ainoko (Aug 23, 2009)

Glacierwulf said:


> Lol, anyone who believes that PETA is for he well being animals is delusional. PETA is batshit and should be ignored. Cannibalism has nothing to do with this and I never said dogs = people. I was comparing their mental maturation to something that's familiar. If you would read the article I linked to you'll understand my point.
> 
> Most things that are illegal are bad, and I don't see the good in having sex with animals. Tell me, what positive effect does one's animal have after it's been screwed by it's caretaker?
> 
> I do agree with you on your last point. I don't see the point in circumcising anymore.



But you know, we base the intelligence of animals based on our intelligence, which I beleive is wrong. Animals are just as intelligent if not more so than us. 

And before anyone says this, I am not supporting beastiality.


----------



## Char (Aug 23, 2009)

Glacierwulf said:


> Since some are misunderstanding my point. Here's the article. What I am saying is that they're not on the same mental level at an adult human being. I am not saying that dog = human.
> 
> Whenever they're able to say "Yes," in english, spanish, etc..., I'll buy that they agreed to have sex with the zoo.


Ah, then  we've only come full circle to the issue of "consent" again. You believe that it's impossible for an animal to consent, and I believe that they can. I doubt it will ever get beyond that really.

But at least most people have managed to have a logical, respectful debate here. I appreciate that.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Aug 23, 2009)

Glacierwulf said:


> Lol, anyone who believes that PETA is for he well being animals is delusional. PETA is batshit and should be ignored. Cannibalism has nothing to do with this and I never said dogs = people. I was comparing their mental maturation to something that's familiar. If you would read the article I linked to you'll understand my point.
> 
> Most things that are illegal are bad, and I don't see the good in having sex with animals. Tell me, what positive effect does one's animal have after it's been screwed by it's caretaker?
> 
> I do agree with you on your last point. I don't see the point in circumcising anymore.



That's my point though. PETA is insane mostly because it places animals on equal footing with humans, if not more so. 

I don't really see an upshot to it, to be honest. I'm mostly making the point that things can be illegal without being bad for hair-splitting purpouses.

(And if you're not comparing dogs to 3-4 year old humans, don't say they're on the "Same level as a 3-4 year old".)

Anyway, now that I'm done playing Devil's Advocate (sorta), I think it's time for me to go to bed. Gnight.


----------



## Stormrunner (Aug 23, 2009)

Alright a few things here that I've seen and found hilarious.

Neutering and Spaying pets does not equal abuse.

My female cat was in PAIN when she went into heat before I got her fixed (this btw was due to a dumb vet who kept telling me she was "too young"), to the point of cleaning herself endlessly and moping all the time.  She'd do the "dance" but then go into a corner and whimper.  She would then come sit in my lap with her head on my leg and whimper some more.  She went as far as BITING herself near her vagina.  I think I did her a favor fixing her believe me.

My male cat came to me fixed.  He is a hyperactive, energetic, THIN, momma's boy.  He's about the happiest cat you will ever know, unless your a stranger.  He still goes to "safe" places with my dad, and comes to my mom only on occasion since I moved back in with them (very long circumstances won't get into it).  But to me he comes when called an starts purring if I just look at him :3. So logic is flawed.

And as for people being able to fix themselves of their own free will. ROFL

I've been told I can't get my tubes tied because I'm not 30-35, haven't had 3 children, or don't have a medical condition where it is deemed necessary. I don't want kids, I haven't wanted them for a long time.  But, there are laws in play in some states that say I can't have the procedure done.  Am I going to go out and do it myself?  You must be crazy.  I'd rather wait until I'm "legal".  I'm not going to harm myself to make myself fixed, but I am willing to "spay" myself for "population control" (there are big hints here about my point).  (BTW I'm 28 at the time - I've wanted to be "fixed" since I was 21 but wasn't able to be).

As for the sperm thing for animals.  Be glad we do it.  Some species wouldn't exist right now without it, including but not limited to the longhorn cow that I know a lot of furries like.  Now of course we can us DNA, but back then, fat chance.

As for FA's stance on the topic.  Good to get more information so that people can't say it hasn't been covered.  And showing people that TOS are not TL;DR things they can just skip over for the lulz.


----------



## Glacierwulf (Aug 23, 2009)

Char said:


> Ah, then  we've only come full circle to the issue of "consent" again. You believe that it's impossible for an animal to consent, and I believe that they can. I doubt it will ever get beyond that really.
> 
> But at least most people have managed to have a logical, respectful debate here. I appreciate that.



And that's it. I'm gonna go feed my cat now.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 23, 2009)

Char said:


> Ah, then  we've only come full circle to the issue of "consent" again. You believe that it's impossible for an animal to consent, and I believe that they can. I doubt it will ever get beyond that really.
> 
> But at least most people have managed to have a logical, respectful debate here. I appreciate that.


 
I believe the issue of consent is a pointless red herring. It's a distraction, that is often used to pull people away from the more important and relevant issues when it comes to the subject.


----------



## Char (Aug 23, 2009)

Glacierwulf said:


> Most things that are illegal are bad, and I don't see the good in having sex with animals. Tell me, what positive effect does one's animal have after it's been screwed by it's caretaker?


It becomes more submissive since it's made apparent that it's not the alpha of the pack?  /sarcasm


----------



## Snikch (Aug 23, 2009)

NachT said:


> I'm confused. You mentioned that you'll actively go against anyone talking about having taken actions of illegal activities, yet the only big one that's in the spot-light is sexual activity with animals and minors. Haven't seen anything negative on any other illegal activity, such as drug use, anti-government/religious debates, or anything along those lines. Are these going to eventually be brought up where people need to pretend not to do them, or are they safe to still talk about?
> 
> ~N~


 
Well, he did say drug use would get you banned.

As for anti-government/religious debates, these aren't illegal and are covered under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. So there is no reason to remove such comments.


----------



## Glacierwulf (Aug 23, 2009)

Char said:


> It becomes more submissive since it's made apparent that it's not the alpha of the pack?  /sarcasm



The alpha theory isn't valid when it comes to dogs or wolves. Research had debunked this.


http://dogpublic.com/articles/articl...id=14&pid=1640


----------



## Fox Glove (Aug 23, 2009)

The only thing we can compare a dog to in terms of thinking is perhaps a 3 year old child. That's probably as close as we're going to get. They know things. They understand instinct. They can learn tricks and many of them at that.

But at the end of the day, even if it's someone bending over for Fido to knot them the animal understands nothing beyond it's what instinct tells them what to do.

So you're taking advantage of an animal's instinct to propagate it's genes, I'm sorry, but it's true, animals do not make love as we do, animals cannot understand humans on the same level, we cannot interpret them. Better safe than sorry.

Further than that, when a dog mounts, *he is asserting his dominance* and thus one minute the dog will be the dominant one and the next minute he'll be getting punished for something that he's not supposed to do as the submissive of the relationship. It severely fucks with their psychology. They will start to bite and get aggressive.

And the same thing, a female dog can get exceptionally uncomfortable after having sex forced upon her. Avoidant, and aggressive to boot. 

If someone really loved their animals they would not risk the chance of hurting them in the first place.

And there is a distinct difference from fantasizing about a sentient non-morphic animal and actually thinking about screwing the pooch and doing it.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 23, 2009)

Char said:


> It becomes more submissive since it's made apparent that it's not the alpha of the pack?  /sarcasm



Depending upon the position, it was already submissive to begin with, therefore even if it did not want it, it submitted because it's not going to question the one in charge.

Or switch it and the dog will now become more aggressive, because now it thinks it's the one in charge. That's what happened to a dog that a known and banned acting zoophile "Java" had. She let it use her, if you understand what I mean, and he became so aggressive she could not handle the animal.


----------



## Ainoko (Aug 23, 2009)

Fox Glove said:


> The only thing we can compare a dog to in terms of thinking is perhaps a 3 year old child. That's probably as close as we're going to get. They know things. They understand instinct. They can learn tricks and many of them at that.
> 
> But at the end of the day, even if it's someone bending over for Fido to knot them the animal understands nothing beyond it's what instinct tells them what to do.
> 
> ...




I beleive that your statement is false. Mammals which includes any warm blooded creature, is capable of learning and adapting to their environment. Reptiles, which avians, and otehr cold blooded creatures, rely on instinct.

Mammals have to teach their young how to survive in the world, reptiles, avians and other cold-blooded animals have all their survival knowledge imprinted in the brains the moment they are hatched.




Ainoko said:


> But you know, we base the intelligence of animals based on our intelligence, which I beleive is wrong. Animals are just as intelligent if not more so than us.
> 
> And before anyone says this, I am not supporting beastiality.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 24, 2009)

Glacierwulf said:


> The alpha theory isn't valid when it comes to dogs or wolves. Research had debunked this.



I think I've seen that and the one thing it neglected to mention is that it only deals with family units. Not all wolf packs are going to be family units. In the chance that non-related wolves end up in a single pack, in fighting can happen to decide hierarchy.

This is more often seen I would imagine with captive wolf packs who end up coming from different lines thrown together. They will fight until a pecking order is established. Fragmented wolf packs can join together to form one, but the same kind of fighting can happen.

Regardless a sense of "I'm either a leader or a follower" still occurs in the wolf or dog mind. In that it will have what are either dominance or submissive behaviors which can clearly be seen just going to a dog park. I mean, if there was no semblance of an dominance versus submission thing, why will dogs who don't know each other fight or go out it and establish a hierarchy? At the very least dogs and wolves do self organize into a hierarchy, and the lowers ones tend to follow the leader and or show what can be called submissive behavior.


----------



## Char (Aug 24, 2009)

Wait, I have Glacier saying that the alpha theory doesn't apply to dogs or wolves, and then others using that very theory to say "the dog will think it's the alpha". Which is it?


----------



## Glacierwulf (Aug 24, 2009)

Char said:


> Wait, I have Glacier saying that the alpha theory doesn't apply to dogs or wolves, and then others using that very theory to say "the dog will think it's the alpha". Which is it?



Do you research and read modern wolf and dog studies and you'll find out.

http://www.leecharleskelley.com/thetop10myths/mythofthepackleader.html


----------



## Sanguine_Sonata_Deige (Aug 24, 2009)

Does this all-out war against the blatant use of illegal things also include the use of marijuana and cannabis?


----------



## Taasla (Aug 24, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I'm going to pose a question to you on this matter.
> 
> Obviously, forcing oneself on a dog or other animal is rape the same as forcing oneself on a human would be. But if someone submits to an animal and the animal takes them up on that offer, is that not consent? In nature if a female does not want a male to mate with her, she will fight him off, I'd say some animals understand consent rather well.



That is not consent, and instead mental abuse on the male dog.  A male dog does not want sex because he enjoys it.  It is his way of asserting his dominance.  If someone "takes him up on his offer", then they are allowing him to assert his dominance as the pack leader.  Once the dog begins to display dominance issues, the owner will then take measures to establish their dominance.

Thus a very confusing cycle begins.  The dog asserts his dominance only to have it taken away.  This can cause a lot of stress and problems, and not only that, the dog can become aggressive.  I can think of one fur in particular who had this problem.  Her dog was put down.

Furries tend to humanize their pets too much.  As much as we all like cartoon animals, real animals are not capable of human thought.  A male dog does not try to mount someone because he wants to show his love.  He wants to be leader of the pack.


----------



## Stinkdog (Aug 24, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Depending on circumstances. However, generally drug usage is different (it's not an instant-ban). We remove comments/journals first, warn them. If it happens again...
> 
> It's sort of a different scenario since when it comes to drug usage, for the most part, the only person who gets hurt is the individual. Their direct actions don't afflict another.



Why is talking about real life drug usage different?  Is talking about real life theft different?  What about assault?  Traffic violations?  Murder?  Human-on-human rape?

I agree with the policy I just don't think you should word it as if the mods are going to crack down on all illegal activity when it's pretty clear that they won't because doing so would alienate most of the FA user-base.


----------



## Lambat (Aug 24, 2009)

lady, english language is not ma basic language.


----------



## Revamp (Aug 24, 2009)

Mazz said:


> My opinion is against having sex with animals and children. Regardless if you do it or not you are defending it. In MY OPINION that makes you as bad as those raping animals.
> 
> Turn my words on me all you want. Bestiality and pedophilia are sick and I will FOREVER HAPPILY STAY CLOSED MINDED and talk trash to people who are for it.
> 
> Have a nice day.


Yeah stick with your closed mindedness because you're all in your sick little world there. 
r 
There are other things that are just as sick as beastiality or something like that that goes on, but the main reasons people got beef with it is because of religion, and that it's been put out to the spotlight


----------



## Revamp (Aug 24, 2009)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I understand that, I was talking about the drug policy part. I'm perfectly cool with FA's policy on the public speech about certain things. I just get pissed that Dragoneer takes a much lighter stance towards one thing than he does another.
> 
> EDIT: No matter what state the servers are in drugs are illegal. So he should hold the same policy on drugs that he does on zoo.


Agreed I have seen furs on FA post pics of themselves high, even though its illegal


----------



## Pegasus316 (Aug 24, 2009)

'Neer, having sat here and read pretty much the entirety of this thread (2 1/2 hours now), I can see that a good 90% of the people posting here have missed the point almost entirely. >_< (Note: That was SARCASM, by the way, folks.)

Seriously, I'm with you on this one. In all honesty, it sounds like a lot of people are looking for clarification just for the sake of trying to punch holes in the rules. Case by case makes sense, though.

For example:



Sanguine_Sonata_Deige said:


> Does this all-out war against the blatant use of illegal things also include the use of marijuana and cannabis?



Err... Those would both be the same thing, actually. Marijuana. Also read: Acapulco gold, Columbian, Jamaican, Maui wowie, Mexican, Panama red, bhang, cannabis, doobie, dope*, ganja, hash, hashish, hemp, herb, joint, loco weed, maryjane, reefer, roach, sinsemilla, tea, weed (as in, "You put your WEED in there!")

And, since marijuana is considered illegal in Virginia where the server is located (as has been stated several times in this thread), if you talk about how you smoke it constantly and illegally, then I'd guess yes. Or, at the very least it will warrant deletion of the post and a warning. If you continue, it could lead to a ban, however.

Not gonna touch the "consent" portion of this thread. Head hurts after reading it all. >_<


----------



## Gildedtongue (Aug 24, 2009)

So, because the rules are based off of what is against the law in the server's state, when will these be removed, or the posters banned?

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1989563/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2314990/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2187273/

And that's just a half second search on FA...


----------



## Sanguine_Sonata_Deige (Aug 24, 2009)

Er well, I know they're the same thing, but some people make it necessary to make a distinction between the two names. 

And honestly, if you're accusing me of partaking in those drugs, I'm extremely offended, more then you can imagine. 
Sorry for asking clarification, I guess. Apparently that's grounds for me being a drug user.


----------



## Duality Jack (Aug 24, 2009)

That is like comparing Pedophilia with driving violations. No offense. The larger the crime the harsher the reply.


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 24, 2009)

Gildedtongue said:


> So, because the rules are based off of what is against the law in the server's state, when will these be removed, or the posters banned?
> 
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1989563/
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2314990/
> ...


And those were removed. We do remove them as we see them, but with the sheer amount of FA's submissions it is impossible to police everything.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 24, 2009)

So in this thread we have concluded we can argue about everything, but learn absolutely nothing.


----------

