Horrors on LJ

[emmelinemay]

My world was a better, happier, shinier place before i discovered the existence of these people.

no pictures, but text content may not be work-safe. It's DEFINITELY not mind-safe.

Comments

My....MIND!!!

[flywingedmonkey.livejournal.com]

"I don't think there is a man alive who could take a full grown Clydesdale stallion. That would be pretty amazing."

JmC
Gleening a few laughs in the horror

Re: My....MIND!!!

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

there's just so much wrong in there, it's hard to know which bit to pick out to quote, isn't it?

Re: My....MIND!!!

[flywingedmonkey.livejournal.com]

I'm just, buh... gah... muh....
JmC
WRONG!!!

Re: My....MIND!!!

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

just don't try reading any of the rest of the community.

[liz-lowlife.livejournal.com]

Where do you find this stuff?!

Eugh.

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

stupid_free.

All the stupid and wrong ends up there. Eventually.

[liz-lowlife.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the heads up!

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

if you ever get bored and want to feel really angry and confused, check out this tag. She's the Crazy Adoption Lady.

[mr-foz.livejournal.com]

Good grief.

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

my only reaction really was O_O and then D:

The part where he went to see this film with his dog. As his date. And then it all goes down hill from there.

[mr-foz.livejournal.com]

Any story that starts with a quick intro re a bloke who got assfucked to death by a horse is not likely to end well....

I mean, don't get me wrong, I've had a beast or two in my youth, whilst twatted, but this is ridiculous.

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

i think the part at which it says

Warning: The rest of this entry is my review and reaction to the film and may also contain TMI material about my sexuality and my own opinions on zoophilia. If you are not a zoo, or if you are offended or disgusted by material related to "bestiality" or zoophilia, or you are at work, or are otherwise uninterested, then do not read what's under the cut or at least take caution.

is the part at which i decided to stop reading. And then read all of it.

oh dear god, why?

i actually couldn't finish reading this one.

[mr-foz.livejournal.com]

No more links!

:(

[gaius-octavian.livejournal.com]

That's normal for young Cornishmen tho' isn't it?

[jaketherat.livejournal.com]

Meh, whatever floats their boat. It's easy to be judgemental cos it's not something that appeals to you (or me ftr), but it's too easy to transpose the situation to (for example) someone reading about gay sex for the first time and being horrifed. I'm not saying that it's ok to go around molesting horses for your jollies, that's a whole nother question, but I'm sure I don't need to point out that people don't choose what they get a jones from. Maybe I'm just overly liberal but I think judgement calls on sexuality grounds are very rocky ground. Not arguing for the legalisation of paedophilia or anything (necessary disclaimer much of the tinme when making this point) but I find the idea of thought crime totally abhorrent, and it's a surprisingly small step away from a knee-jerk horrified reaction at someone's fantasies.

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

well, IMO, having sex with an animal is an abuse of power. You're having sex with something that can't consent. A female dog in heat will present herself to her owners, because she recognises the power relationship. It doesn't mean she loves us in a deep and spiritual way, and wants us to do her up the bum. To do so is an abuse of power. Which is what child-molesting also is.

Whatever consenting adults want to do is A-OK by me.

As soon as something that CANNOT consent is brought into play, FUCK open mindedness, quite frankly.

[jaketherat.livejournal.com]

Like I said, that's another question which wasn't the subject of the point I was making. I apologise if I misinterpreted you but the gist of your post seemed to be expressing horror and disgust at the themes of the community which, on a casual scan, seems to be very much based in th realms of fantasy and not about real events (the subject of the film notwithstanding). It's tricky ground I admit, I hesitate to express any views on this at all as it's such an emotive subject that people are always going to project their own interpretations on to what you say, and ftr I entirely agree with your last statement, but in light of that I still stand by my point.

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

my horror and disgust was more at the views expressed in the post that animals can consent to sex with humans, and that anyone that thinks otherwise is a moron.

Furries i can just about cope with, if not understand, consenting adults and all. People that rationalise having sex with animals? just. no.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_yungfuktoi_/]

Actually, if you can open your mind past the initial repulsion to an act we cannot relate to or understand, he makes a very good case. I can't say that I have a problem with any of his points (poorly communicated, as they were). The way animal owners harp on about 'concent' in one breath whilst indulging in the act of 'ownership' of another creature demonstrates that maybe we should give this topic another think.

[jaketherat.livejournal.com]

Here be monsters! :P

[http://users.livejournal.com/_yungfuktoi_/]

Speaking of which, how are you guys in boat-land holding up with the floods and wot?
(sorry, Em, for the thread hijack)

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

an animal doesn't have the ability to consent to a human sexual relationship any more than a child can.

The adult is the one teaching the animal/child that it is ok to do, and it isn't. It's an abuse of power, and and abuse of a duty of care we have to animals that we have domesticated over the millennia.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_yungfuktoi_/]

Yes, this logic would apply to animals who are not mature. You're comparison is flawed because children do not want to engage in sex, but clearly animals do. As is demonstrated by this poster, sex with his horse is totally concensual (ie, you cannot physically have sex with a horse unless the horse wants to).
That said, I think you do have a good argument if you made a more accurate comarison. Instead of likening beastiality to paedopheia, you can make a strong case that it is abuse of power to engage in concensual sex with another human if that human is mentally retarted, autistic, or very thick. Or drunk! And on that level, I would agree. I think the point that is lost when discussing this kind of non-consensual sex is that 'true love' cannot exist in these situations because it cannot be reciprocated by the object of affection. And sex without reciprocal love is likened to power play and sexual abuse.

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

Thing is, one of the arguments used by paedophiles is that children *do* want it. Children who are routinely abused will ask for it or engage in it, as that is what they come to understand as 'normal', in the same way you can teach a dog or a horse that it is normal for their owner to hae sex with them.

It is a valid comparison - we cannot knwo FOR SURE that the dog/horse/chicken whatever WANTS to have sex with us. We assume.

no consent, no dice.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_yungfuktoi_/]

...but by your own arguement, concent isn't always relevant, either ("Children who are routinely abused will ask for it or engage in it, as that is what they come to understand as 'normal'). A child, of any species, should not be engaged in sexual acts because children do not WANT to (otherwise, it would be legal and a non-issue), this isn't about the indoctrination of children into promiscuity, which would be an entirely different matter.
I don't think animals are being expoited or hurt by engaging in sex with their owners. They will never experience shame or ostrasization from it, only pleasure. Pet dogs, for example, will often hump anything they can find, and it's not abusive in any way to designate a particular stuffed toy for the purposes of this masturbation.
sex of any kind is only wrong when one of the parties is being abused, injured, or faces any related repercussions from the act in their individual future. Having sex with a horse can be dangerous and injurious, but only to the human who knows full well that what they are doing is not a part of the natural design.

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

Children are 'trained' to seek it, even want it. Rape victims have been known to feel pleasure from the sensation, it's one of the big taboos, and one of the reasons many rape victims have so many problems dealing with the act.

We have no way to know if the animal wants the act. Instinct =/= desire. We ASSUME, based on human communications. We cannot know there is consent, and where we cannot KNOW there is consent, there is abuse.

Under the age of 16, in the eyes of the law, children CANNOT consent, so my comparision is valid.

Having sex with an animal, or training an animal that having sex with humans is ok, is abuse of our position of power over them. Animals do not know what the act means to us. Ergo, they cannot consent to it.

Wanting something doesn't make it right, giving something to something that wants it doesn't make it right. Having sex with something/someone that CANNOT consent = wrong.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_yungfuktoi_/]

That's a tremendous responsibilty to put on the shoulders of Darwins 'fittest'. You don't assume that animals court each-other, have nasty break-ups, or in any way/shape/form CONSENT to sexual acts amongst THEMSELVES. The animal kingdom, and it's mating rituals, consist largely -scratch that- almost totally of non-concensual sex. We could outlaw two turtles from having a go at each-other, or accept that human mating rituals are ludicrously complex when compared to other animals. What makes non-concensual sex in our human society so utterly repulsive is the trauma and emotional damage that is done to the victim as a result of this unforgivable, selfish act. The scars that a rape victim carries with them should never be undermined, but this reaction is a very psychological one reinforced by religion, upbringing and societal mores. However, these sexual protocols simply do not exist in the animal kingdom. An animal will not feel violated or repulsed by sex with a human, and will (seemingly) be happy to engage long as that act is pleasurable and is not injurious to them.
This is why your 'no consent=wrong' theory, although correct in human terms, cannot apply to less complicated beings who rely on nothing but non-concensual sex for their very existence on this planet. When you throw a human mate into the equation, one need only take into account the sensitivity that a human can demonstrate -or not- through human traits such as altruism, empathy and compassion, by not causing reckless harm to the animal the way a 'proper' mate of the same genus wouldn't give a damn.


You know...I almost can't believe I'm defending the case for beastiality. This will totally haunt me when I launch my political career ;)

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

I actually disagree with almost every thing you said up there, but respect the way you put it across. I can't argue any more eloquently than restate my position which is no explicit consent = no dice, as shira put it so well :)

We raised ourselves above the animal kingdom, given ourselves morals and ethics to love by, and we have a duty of care to those in our power and who depend on us for surviva. No explicit consent = rape, and that's enough for me!

I do see your point (and i saw his badly argued one in the original post) about ownership and use of animals. That would be why I'm vegan ;)

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

ourselves morals and ethics to love by

AWESOME typo!!! I meant live, but hey, it still works, given the context!!

[redshira.livejournal.com]

I'm seeing where you're coming from for the most part but just wanted to say hi there, autistic over here, having happy fun consensual sex since the age of 17. Have also been forced into non-consensual sex, just as many non-autistics have, and am clearly capable of making the distinction. Autism =/= inability to make an informed decision about whether or not to consent to sex, and it certainly does not equal an inability to feel and reciprocate love.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_yungfuktoi_/]

You make an excellent point, and I should have been clearer. I was trying to demonstrate that for an 'average' person to engage in sexual relations with a person with a profound mental disability would be the ethical equivalent of having sex with an animal. There are pleanty of 'high functioning' (although I find that description a bit condescending) Autism cases, but that's deviating to the point I'm making.
Beings of low intelligence, be they human or animal, clearly have the ability to love another creature, but the extent to which they can do that cannot be determined in the same way we judge one another, as high-functioning, rational adult humans. This is why I've entertained both sides of the debate on beastiality: I feel that if we, in this society, can claim ownership of another creature in a legal but highly un-democratic nature, then we have no argument to say that, for instance, a horse cannot engage in sex with it's owner... which it clearly enjoys. If a creature is not cognizant that it is being 'used' for sex, but it enjoys the act regardless, who are we to say that's where the line of propriety is drawn?

[redshira.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes, in that case I agree with you; it's a very tricky ethical minefield to navigate, with fairly persuasive viewpoints on either side. I tend to err on the side of caution and say along with Emmie "no explicit consent = no dice" but I'd certainly not want to be the one to draw definitive legal lines.

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

"no explicit consent = no dice"

i think that pretty much sums it up for me :) Cheers!

[aeia.livejournal.com]

Urghh.. that is just wrong. I can see how people can feel close to a horse but to want sex with one!!

[pheadrablashyrk.livejournal.com]

O_o

That is just very sad, wierd and wrong...

And i totally agree with you about the consent thing, the author of that reveiw tried to justify it, there is no justification... animals and children cannot consent to what they dont understand.

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

animals and children cannot consent to what they dont understand.

Absolutely. Not saying that animals don't understand what sex is, i'm sure they do, many animals, like humans, have sex for fun. Not generally with other animals though. I think the key here is our self awareness, our ability to draw moral lines and make ethical judgements. Just because a dog in heat presents herself to you, does that make it right to have sex with her for your own pleasure? does it bollocks.

Quite aside from the fact that any human getting sexually excited over a horse/dog/whatever cock clearly has MAJOR issues.

[kynon.livejournal.com]

o.O