Is having sex with an animal a crime or even wrong?

[jeager106]

I read recently a 20 year old woman had been having sex with her dog since age 13.
She made selfie and Fido video and showed her boyfriend who was shocked and turned her into cops & she was charged with beastiality, later amended to
a crime against nature.

An odd charge in light of global warming, pollution, rising ocean levels and no one is charged with a criminal offense of a crime against nature.

Should she be criminally prosecuted & is this a crime in your opinion?
No one has commented on Fido's response, or if Fido was in fact willing.
Does Fido need psychological counseling or simply shot in the head as has been the practice for centuries?
Kidding aside tho is this an issue of morality or sexual preference?
Is it a moral AND criminal issue or a morality issue only?
Should the boyfriend feel his g-friend cheated on him? (moral & emotional response?)
Should the b-friend have gone to the cops?
What is a crime against nature? Should the woman be charged criminally with anything?
There are a lot of really keen minds here & I respect them so.
I value those opinions.

If you must have documentation there are many on line articles.
Here's is but one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/2 ... 12694.html

[Bust Nak]

Should she be criminally prosecuted & is this a crime in your opinion?

What is or isn't a crime is a matter of law and not opinion. You should be asking us if the law should change or not. Had you asked that question istead, I would answer, she should not be punishable by law if her dogs weren't abused.

Kidding aside tho is this an issue of morality or sexual preference?

Can't it be both? I think it's both.

Is it a moral AND criminal issue or a morality issue only?

Moral issue, and ideally, our laws should reflect our morality.

Should the boyfriend feel his g-friend cheated on him? (moral & emotional response?)

No.

Should the b-friend have gone to the cops?

No.

What is a crime against nature?

Taboo.

Should the woman be charged criminally with anything?

That depends on the how the dogs are.

[jeager106]

[Replying to post 21 by Bust Nak]

Good point and in sharp contrast to Divine Insight who sees using the dog as simply masterbation using an animals tongue to do it.
Never mind the disorder is listed as Zooaphila and is a treatable disorder.
After all she started screwing the pooch at age 13.
Pretty abnormal behavior.

[Divine Insight]

Good point and in sharp contrast to Divine Insight who sees using the dog as simply masterbation using an animals tongue to do it.
Never mind the disorder is listed as Zooaphila and is a treatable disorder.
After all she started screwing the pooch at age 13.
Pretty abnormal behavior.

You sound quite biased to me.

The woman has not been diagnosed by psychologists to have Zoophilia. So your claim that she does is unwarranted.

Claiming that she is "screwing" the pooch is also unwarranted. A dog licking the woman's virgina does not constitute "screwing".

Your response to this event reminds me of the burning times. You are basically proclaiming this girl to be a "witch" using everything you can dream up to condemn her. And apparently if anyone defends this woman you're more than willing to burn them at the stake as well.

Instead of saying that what this girl is going is "wrong" in any moral sense. I would just say that it's sad. It's sad that she feels that she needs to turn to her pet for sexual satisfaction.

Moreover if she started doing this at age 13 this also demonstrates quite clearly that we, as a society, aren't even prepared to recognize the sexual needs of young people. We don't even consider the girl to be an "adult" until she's at least 18.

But clearly she was sexually mature at 13 already and trying to find sexual satisfaction.

As a society of Great Apes we have actually demonized our own sexuality. We have made our perfectly natural desire TABOO.

We did this to ourselves. Our very own taboos are a "Crime against nature".

If this girl would have been taught how to properly masturbate maybe she would have never turned to the dog. In fact, you don't even know how her relationship with the dog began. It may have begun quite innocently. The dog might have just naturally been licking at her and got her sexually excited and things grew from there.

Burning this girl at the stake on charges of Zoophilia without even considering the history of how this came to be seems like radical extremism to me.

Why is it so important to you that this girl be condemned on some level. If not on charges of morality, or legality, then let's proclaim her to be psychological sick.

Maybe she's none of these? Why is it so important to you to condemn her in some way?

Maybe she's just a victim of a prude society of Great Apes who have perverted their own natural sexual desires in the name of some imagined God who will condemn them to hell if they do anything that comes natural to them.

Don't you think it's time than we stop perverting our own natural sexuality?

I'm not saying that we should encourage this girl to continue her activities with her pet. On the contrary, it's a shame that she ever went down that path in the first place. But the reality is that she's far better off staying home and getting off by having her pet dog lick her vagina than she would have been had she gone out seeking some guy to "screw" her for real (to use your term).

Had she done that, she may have come home with an unwanted pregnancy.

So should we be burning her at the stake, or should we give her a medal for not going out and getting pregnant by some horny guy?

I just don't see where it will serve anyone to criminalize this girl.

I'm not saying that she wouldn't do well to obtain sexual counseling. Ironically they'll probably just give her a mechanical vibrator and say, "Here try this, and let's know how you make out".

She actually needed sexual counseling when she was 13. But she didn't get it because we have made it "taboo" to even allow that 13 years olds should be instructed on things like masturbation. Instead we just yell at them a teach them that sex is something dirty and they shouldn't even be thinking of it at that age.

We pervert sex and make it dirty.

We are the ones who do this. We do this to our poor innocent children. And then when they end up doing weird things we are prepared to burn them at the stake for being immoral.

We create our own perverted society by forcing natural desires to be "perverted".

Would you be happier if this girl had gone out and gotten pregnant by a boy when she was 13? Or would you have burnt her at the stake for that too?

What is she was just masturbating normally at 13? Would you demonize her for that too?

What if her parents had bought their 13 year old daughter a sexual vibrator for her 13th birthday? Would you have them burnt at the stake for corrupting their daughter?

What's your solution?

To just tell this girl to ignore her sexual desires until she's 18 lest she be cast into the eternal pits of hell as a sinner?

Is that the solution?

[Beans]

I read recently a 20 year old woman had been having sex with her dog since age 13.
She made selfie and Fido video and showed her boyfriend who was shocked and turned her into cops & she was charged with beastiality, later amended to
a crime against nature.

An odd charge in light of global warming, pollution, rising ocean levels and no one is charged with a criminal offense of a crime against nature.

Should she be criminally prosecuted & is this a crime in your opinion?
No one has commented on Fido's response, or if Fido was in fact willing.
Does Fido need psychological counseling or simply shot in the head as has been the practice for centuries?
Kidding aside tho is this an issue of morality or sexual preference?
Is it a moral AND criminal issue or a morality issue only?
Should the boyfriend feel his g-friend cheated on him? (moral & emotional response?)
Should the b-friend have gone to the cops?
What is a crime against nature? Should the woman be charged criminally with anything?
There are a lot of really keen minds here & I respect them so.
I value those opinions.

If you must have documentation there are many on line articles.
Here's is but one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/2 ... 12694.html

IMHO the answer does not even need be taken from the Bible, though such a thing is strictly forbidden in the scriptures.

It is enough that no one ought to have the right to do things that put others at greater risk of diseases they would not otherwise have been exposed to.

And once you license a thing like that by classifying it is no big deal, you lose the power to deter any who would go to extremes.

For that reason it is my opinion that we would be foolish to not consider it both criminal for the risk of disease it poses and immoral for the lack of love of neighbor it demonstrates.

[bluethread]

IMHO the answer does not even need be taken from the Bible, though such a thing is strictly forbidden in the scriptures.

It is enough that no one ought to have the right to do things that put others at greater risk of diseases they would not otherwise have been exposed to.

And once you license a thing like that by classifying it is no big deal, you lose the power to deter any who would go to extremes.

For that reason it is my opinion that we would be foolish to not consider it both criminal for the risk of disease it poses and immoral for the lack of love of neighbor it demonstrates.

As is argued with regard to other forms of sharing bodily fluids, can't diseases be avoided if one takes precautions.

[jeager106]

If you want doggie sex that bad then go ahead.

How does a participant in beastiality put a condom on a dogs tongue?
It likes it anal cavity clean many times a day, eats decaying meat and...............
well, do what you want.

[Divine Insight]

If we're going to make criminals and sinners out of everyone who does something we deem to be disgusting then I think we should make criminals and sinners out of humans who engage in oral sex with each other. I personally find that to be disgusting.

In fact, while we're making criminals and sinners out of people let's take it to the top level. If there exists a creator designer God who designed the act of procreation and sexual desire (a desire that is intimately entangled with feelings of love and affection for some of us) to need to be performed using organs that are also designed for disgusting waste removal of unhealthy garbage, that designer God should be incarcerated as the worse criminal and sinner of all.

If we are going to deem sex to be disgusting, then all we are doing is proclaiming that our creator-designer (if such a being exists) is ultimately disgusting.

So religious people who want to proclaim these sorts of things as being "filthy" are doing nothing more than suggesting that they were created by a filthy-minded creator.

In fact, why did this God design dogs to naturally want to like their butt hole in the first place? What a filthy-minded designer.

If all these things are sins, then our designer is the greatest sinner of all for having designed us to be this way in the first place.

[Beans]

IMHO the answer does not even need be taken from the Bible, though such a thing is strictly forbidden in the scriptures.

It is enough that no one ought to have the right to do things that put others at greater risk of diseases they would not otherwise have been exposed to.

And once you license a thing like that by classifying it is no big deal, you lose the power to deter any who would go to extremes.

For that reason it is my opinion that we would be foolish to not consider it both criminal for the risk of disease it poses and immoral for the lack of love of neighbor it demonstrates.

As is argued with regard to other forms of sharing bodily fluids, can't diseases be avoided if one takes precautions.

Does anyone have the right to so gamble with public safety that they would trust those who engage such activity while strung out on drugs to do so?

Once we allow certain diseases into the arena of man they take on a new life of their own.

If we set the president to allow such a risky thing it is a violation of the model of Christ and a mocking of God. There will always be ill consequences to such a thing.

[bluethread]

If you want doggie sex that bad then go ahead.

How does a participant in beastiality put a condom on a dogs tongue?
It likes it anal cavity clean many times a day, eats decaying meat and...............
well, do what you want.

I wasn't talking about what I want to do. I was just checking the consistency of the argument. You just appear to be questioning the effectiveness of a particular precaution. The argument presumes there are effective precautions. I have my doubts in other cases related to the exchange of bodily fluids also, but that is the argument and the possible ineffectiveness of the precautions is seen as a red herring in those cases.

Beans:

Does anyone have the right to so gamble with public safety that they would trust those who engage such activity while strung out on drugs to do so?

Once we allow certain diseases into the arena of man they take on a new life of their own.

If we set the president to allow such a risky thing it is a violation of the model of Christ and a mocking of God. There will always be ill consequences to such a thing.

Are you saying that it is wrong for any drug addict to engage in any activity that involves the exchange of bodily fluids? If not, please indicate the criteria for determining which are acceptable for drug addicts and which are not.

That said, if one keeps drug addicts from engaging in that activity, is it then acceptable?

[Beans]

If you want doggie sex that bad then go ahead.

How does a participant in beastiality put a condom on a dogs tongue?
It likes it anal cavity clean many times a day, eats decaying meat and...............
well, do what you want.

I wasn't talking about what I want to do. I was just checking the consistency of the argument. You just appear to be questioning the effectiveness of a particular precaution.

Beans:

Does anyone have the right to so gamble with public safety that they would trust those who engage such activity while strung out on drugs to do so?

Once we allow certain diseases into the arena of man they take on a new life of their own.

If we set the president to allow such a risky thing it is a violation of the model of Christ and a mocking of God. There will always be ill consequences to such a thing.

Are you saying that it is wrong for any drug addict to engage in any activity that involves the exchange of bodily fluids? If not, please indicate the criteria for determining which are acceptable for drug addicts and which are not.

That said, if one keeps drug addicts from engaging in that activity, is it then acceptable?

The exchange of bodily fluids is not itself the issue but the steps we take to keep our fluid safe to share.

This is the big problem in Christianity today; no one fully teaches the model of Christ.

You can note under the Old Covenant how even within a marriage the man and the woman were required to do things to keep themselves clean and there were times when it was forbidden for even them to lay together exchanging bodily fluids.

The model of Christ is that we do nothing which might cause harm to our neighbor. For to cause harm in any way to them is to not love them.

Of course, if they are doing things which cause harm to others then love demands justice for the sake of all be administered. That is the only situation in which love for all overshadows the showing of love to one. And IMHO anyone who really thinks that through has to admit that is only reasonable.

Most Christians walk through this life taking it for granted that they already know how to love. The problem with that is not all really do. So the model of Christ brings all together under one model for love. And the pictures which were painted in that Old Law explain the spiritual principles entwined in that love.

There does need to be a turning of attention to what the model of Christ more fully means and that would involve exploring that Old Law for the spiritual picture which is rolled up in Christ.