.

guessing implying accusing

No it does not. I advise you get out your trusty Websters dictionary here Jen. While your at it, look up the word "assume".

The fact that you do not see sex with an animal as a form of abuse by itself speaks volumes of your "opposition or distaste" - there is no opposition of it that I can see only acceptance of it.

Can you simply not read Jen? I said I was not convinced. Why should I be. Some prefessionals say otherwise. Since I'm not qualified to say one way or the other, I look to the pros.

I stated my personal opinion over and over, but you refuse to listen: I DO NOT advocate of condne beastiality in any way.

Continue to assume what I think on your own terms. It really gets you nowhere.

You say I'm sorry Jen, I simply cannot equate an animal with a human child. They are simply 2 different animals, in case you haven't noticed.2 different animals - stands outThen in the next breath you say No I have not, and I fail to see the relevance. We are talking about a human being here, but an animal. I see them as 2 distinctly different thingsNow suddenly there is a difference between human and animal.Which is it?You say

Are you really THAT stupid?

DIFFERENT as un NOT THE SAME!!

I do see a child who cannot speak for itself the same as I see an animal that cannot speak for itself in the same light for exactly those reasons - they cannot speak for themselves. This is where I equate the two together. Reference

I don't. I dont see animals as being anywhere near the same as people.

How does one know what they are thinking - dog or very small child? We can only tell by the crying or altered behaviour by them after the fact. BTW your sentence - “How does one know what a dog is knows”???????

I am far more in tuned to a small childs thoughts than I am a dog. I don't find it hard to believe from all this sillyness of yours that you do in fact know the thoughts of an animal...sheesh.

You shot your argument down in flames right there - in other words they cannot consent - therefore it is RAPE. Animals cannot speak to give consent - consent is not given - it is rape, in the same manner a child cannot give its consent – it is rape.

If you think so, kindly show me even one instance where a person was convicted of raping an animal.

Because you may be a decent human being who can actually think for the dog and feel for the dog (put yourself in the dogs’ shoes for one minute and try to imagine for one horrific minute – comparison for you – try the penis of an ox entering your anus against your will – very blunt I know but do try to see the pain it would cause you) Rape is deemed as sex without consent in most places – an animal cannot give consent to a human – therefore I see it as rape, an act of violence.

You are a repetitive idiot.

Ive really grown tire of you judging me Jen...your finished on this thread.

If you think so, kindly show me even one instance where a person was convicted of raping an animal.

It's not uncommon - I imagine you could find a few hundred cases of sexual abuse against animals in your country alone. That's what bestiality is listed as in most legal statutes anyway. Rape is simply sexual assault (possibly aggravated) against a human - the next step up. It's not called rape in most legal systems anyway, so you probably won't find any people convicted of raping a human either.

You make it sound like you watch them on a regular basis - study?

Are you a pure and bona-fied dumb dumb or what.

Because I have seen something you think I watch it all the time?

You really are deranged Jen.

Addressing her questioning about you treating this matter humorously and you replying that you never displayed emoticons to show humour is not addressing it - I therefore point out to you that your words alone displayed humor. This is not repeating or rehashing others.

More and more repitition. LW is right...you need an adjustment in your meds dear child.

The fact that I respond to your thread and post as I see it - expressing my views - does not make it repetitive.

It does when you say the same thing over and over and over again, and refuse to see what I have written.

You have the one tract mind of a dog.

Opening a thread and inviting comments on it - is about seeing others angles and answering them from you angle - they may only differ slightly from others and to you appear the same - they are not - there are ever so light differences and they come from different people with different perspectives.

Unfortunately, this is not what you have done.

You are a classless moron jen...plain and simple.

You do not debate, you simply attack a persons integrity in a very nasty way.

I see now why all those joeusers flamed you...you simply deserve it.

Stop trying to change the subject and get off topic by steering the topic toward me and any faults I may or may not have Xy.

You make your faults very clear. You also exemplify the fact that you do not understand what you read.

On and on and on she goes...when she stops nobody knows...

Shes done now.

Humans are not “meant” to have sex with animals they are meant to have sex with one another. That you find homosexuality horrendous but not bestiality floors me.

Again, putting words in my mouth to suit your sillyness.

You accuse me here in your post of name calling on you in the past I ssume you are referring to Pearls blog? Might I show you what you called yourself, if you go and read the post you will see I never called you any of what you called yourself.

I've grown fed up with your childish antics Jen. Bye Bye.

It's not uncommon - I imagine you could find a few hundred cases of sexual abuse against animals in your country alone.

I was able to find abuse, but no rape via google.

I was able to find abuse, but no rape via google.

As I tried to say before, the two are the same thing. Rape is the common name for what is known in law as sexual abuse or sexual assault. Try those search terms instead.

As I tried to say before, the two are the same thing. Rape is the common name for what is known in law as sexual abuse or sexual assault.

Sorry Cacto. My dictionary says differently. I guess we are at an impasse.

Sorry Cacto. My dictionary says differently. I guess we are at an impasse.

Who cares about your dictionary? With a simple Google search I came up with the Texas Penal Code and I can assure you that nowhere in that document is rape listed as an offence. Instead sexual assault is listed. Admittedly I have no idea what your jurisdiction is, but I seriously doubt rape is listed as 'rape' rather than sexual assault or abuse wherever you do live.

Why? Because rape means sexual assault. Abuse is a lesser crime but still quite serious, particularly if it involves children. In both there are explicit clauses which require non-consent or, in the case of children, non-consent is assumed.

The same implied non-consent applies in a number of jurisdictions when used to describe the sexual abuse of animals. The lack of faculty to consent is a given for both kids and dogs, which is why bestiality is considered abuse rather than love; you may think there are those out there capable of having a loving sexual relationship with an animal, but as animals are incapable of providing consent to the degree necessary by the law of the land your views on consent between man and beast are unlikely to become law, just as NAMBLA's views on consent between man and child are unlikely to become law.

It is in Virginia, and no, it doesn't include animals as potential victims. It's interesting to note that in this state it is still legal to rape your wife, as long as the two of you reside in the same house and do not cause 'serious' physical injury to her.

I have to admit the American legal system is far beyond my knowledge. So every state has its own interpretation on every single offence? It seems a little excessive but I suppose you have your reasons. Making anal and oral sex a class 6 felony (which I assume is a serious one?) is a bit bizarre, but then I suppose it sounds like a good idea to the people of Virginia. I guess it's either missionary or nothing for the good people of that state.

I still think that any fair system would consider bestiality a crime for the same reasons pedophilia is considered a crime rather than for the same reasons sodomy is a crime - ie due to a lack of consent rather than because it makes unimaginative people squeamish.

I'm still unconvinced by Xythe's contention that bestiality is no worse than homosexuality, despite his... convincing... argument that there must be people out there who can miraculously gauge consent in animals.

Cacto, the way I see it, and it appears many law makers as well, is that while all rape is sexual abuse, not all sexual abuse is rape.

Rape has a very specific mental componant to it. I guess since no person can say for certainty the mental condition of an animal, at least in the state of California, one cannot be convicted of raping an animal.

A scouring of the CA Penal code revealed to me the law concerning beastiality:

California Penal Code Section 286.5 reads:

286.5. Any person who sexually assaults any animal protected by Section 597f for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of the person is guilty of a misdemeanor.

This is not looking anything the way rape is dealt with.

261. (a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
circumstances:

Feel free to paruse the rest by clicking here> Link

I'm certain I would find similar statutes in many states.

Could you please find something that contradicts this?

P.S. Please note in CA Peanal Code 261 where rape is defined, not one instance pertaining to animal exists, but rather refers to people. As I mentioned earlier, the only mention of sex with an animal resides in CA Peanal Code 286.5 as far as I could see.

Sorry, I am not Peta. You want to screw an animal, I am not going to worry about it (unless you abuse them). WWW Link Soooo, which is it, DoN? Do you lose sleep over it, or do you not mind if animals are screwed as long as you don't "abuse" them in the process?

Well, here is the queen of lying again. So to use your trick, you are now equating beastiality with pedophelia? Or do you think that pedophelia is not as bad?

Which is it? Perhaps you should go back to comprehension 101, as I can quote you out of context to and show how you support (apparently from the statement above) pedophelia.

Thanks for the tip Jen. Back to ignoring. Why waste time reading lies?