Originally Posted by Inertia

So courts decide what's morally right and wrong now....

And when the courts decided that Irene Morgan was wrong for not giving up her seat to a clearly more important white person. It was someone only wrong that time?

Or how about when a little florida girl was abducted by a repeat sex offender John Couey, is dragged to a trailer, raped repeatedly and then buries her alive when the police come and he is found guilty and sent to prison?

Or when:

A Vancouver-area pig farmer was found guilty of second-degree murder in an estimated, highly controversial, $100 million investigation and longest trial in Canadian history. Pickton preyed upon sex trade workers and is believed to have been responsible for the deaths of some 60 women.

Classic tales of crimes enacted by the famous and infamous at the Crime Library on truTV.com


The system isn't perfect. But it speaks for the public, and you are tried by a jury of your peers. The law is much stricter than it has been before, for fear of a public persecution by those who manipulate the law.

And yes, of course they play a major role in laws. This has been true ever since the constitution was ratified.

It's easy to discern a crime wherein someone is hurt, but not all crimes are that brutal or hurtful at all, such as copyright laws, sexuality, etc...

To rely, as you do, upon a system you admit is flawed for morality will only lead you too a flawed moral system. In Denmark, Europe; bestiality is not outlawed, does that mean that it is moral to commit such acts there, but nowhere else? Or do you only follow the laws of one special country?

Originally Posted by Inertia

It's easy to discern a crime wherein someone is hurt, but not all crimes are that brutal or hurtful at all, such as copyright laws, sexuality, etc...

To rely, as you do, upon a system you admit is flawed for morality will only lead you too a flawed moral system. In Denmark, Europe; bestiality is not outlawed, does that mean that it is moral to commit such acts there, but nowhere else? Or do you only follow the laws of one special country?

To discern a crime when someone's hurt is what lawyers do every day. It's a common legal pratice.

Also expressing my opinion is not saying my morality is flawed. And if it is, so is yours and everyone else's. We all have our own views and opinions. By saying one's morality is wrong based on what they've said concerning opinion, it just tarnishes the word and morality of others as well. And I've been saying my views from the legal system that I know the best about, which is the American legal system, and I'm not saying America is some sort of super special country. That is just twisting my words.

Originally Posted by CiaoPinkZebra

To discern a crime when someone's hurt is what lawyers do every day. It's a common legal pratice.

Also expressing my opinion is not saying my morality is flawed. And if it is, so is yours and everyone else's. We all have our own views and opinions. By saying one's morality is wrong based on what they've said concerning opinion, it just tarnishes the word and morality of others as well. And I've been saying my views from the legal system that I know the best about, which is the American legal system, and I'm not saying America is some sort of super special country. That is just twisting my words.

To make myself clearer on the top part there...

It's easy to discern (recognise) what a crime is when someone involved is hurt or victimised.

I didn't say anyone's moral system is flawed, only that relying on a flawed system for morality will lead you to having a flawed moral system. I deduced this because you agreed that the law isn't perfect. I'm simply saying that if it isn't perfect (if it's flawed) then relying on it for morality will lead you to an imperfect (flawed) moral system. I didn't claim that you relied upon it or that your morality is flawed.

Originally Posted by Inertia

To make myself clearer on the top part there...

It's easy to discern (recognise) what a crime is when someone involved is hurt or victimised.

I didn't say anyone's moral system is flawed, only that relying on a flawed system for morality will lead you to having a flawed moral system. I deduced this because you agreed that the law isn't perfect. I'm simply saying that if it isn't perfect (if it's flawed) then relying on it for morality will lead you to an imperfect (flawed) moral system. I didn't claim that you relied upon it or that your morality is flawed.

Thank you for clearing that, it got me a little angry. But, putting all legal systems, governments etc, aside what is in the animal's best intreats? It would be, from my point of view, not to have intercourse with the human.

The animals best interest would be to not be domesticated in the first place in my honest opinion. I think its kind of ironic that we care about animal's well-being while fooling ourselves that caging an animal in a house is in its best interests.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

The animals best interest would be to not be domesticated in the first place in my honest opinion.

You have a point.. but what's done is done. But I totally see where your coming from. I mean most of the dogs today would NEVER survive in the wild! Like those tiny dogs people carry around... its pathetic really.

Also, and this is completely hypothetical. Humans have identiified with having a myriad of sexual agendas. Polyamorous, bisexuality, homosexuality, heterosexuality, pansexuality, and all kinds of gender roles to fill in all the little gray spaces. If all these identities can exist within a specified culture, who should have the authority to condemn and convict people who may identify themselves on an animal level. Like, many people will argue that a guy can be born a woman and vice versa regarding the innate identifying qualities rather than the physical appearance. If this is the case, then is it not possible that there are humans who identify with being animals. Humans that feel they are more like a cat or a dog or another animal altogether? In fact, many Native American tribes identified their souls or guardians to be that of wild animals that were intrinsic to their specific culture, why couldn't humans take the next step? To take it one step further, would not a human that identified more with a dog theoretically understand a dog and its intentions better than a human that just studied dogs. If the ones that identify with dogs more can understand them better, would there opinion not reign supreme over that of the amateur who merely studies the animal and guesses at their intentions?

Hmmm I guess so. But you would have to be extremely sure of consent, no matter what your sexual preference is. I think that's the real issue with Bestiality. Sure that the animal consents beyond reasonable doubt.

Animals can't give consent- sorry Inertia I've never seen a dog/cat/insert animal with come to bed eyes. Animals can't tell anyone if they have not given consent or not and people can and will exploit this. An animal could be sexual violated by it's owner repeatedly and it would be powerless to stop it or tell anyone. Sexualizing pets and turning them into another human sex toy is wrong on so many levels it pains my soul. If animals turn you on find a furry or a blow up farm animal.

@Tutela de Xaoc- Omg, like the dog whisperer :eager:

As I've been essentially left behind by this debate, I will only respond to the last message that was directed at me.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Ouch! While your logic does make sense I would challenge it on the very basis you asserted. You state that,


Using this, I would like you to explain how you are 100% certain that you are right in saying

Furthermore, I would like equal proof showing that I am 100% wrong with my assertions about it being completely sexual as well. as I have personally witnessed the humping occur, the red dog penis come out, etc. I do not choose to let the humping continue to the point of ejaculation as that is quite distasteful.

It's quite simple: dogs do it to inanimate objects, and female dogs do it just as much as male dogs. On the first part, while I suppose it's possible that the dogs are sexually attracted to sofas, I do not think that is the case. If it were about sex, they would at the very least limit it to living (or once-living) organisms. On the latter part, while female dogs do have a sex drive, they are pretty much physically incapable of being on top during sex. If it were about sex, they'd back up to you, rather than seemingly attempting to mount your leg.

As to your questions about the behaviourists, I said that they do not completely understand everything. That does not mean that they know nothing. They can observe canine interactions, both in the wild and in captivity, and gain a basic understanding of what certain things mean. Pet owners do not observe their pets and other pets and then make an educated guess as to what certain things mean, but rather mix pop culture assumptions (that are often dangerously wrong; there's no telling how many chimpanzee attacks have been caused by someone going "OH LOOK, HE'S SMILING AT ME! I GUESS THAT MEANS HE LIKES ME!", and a whole lot of dog bites are preceded by a wagging tail) with what they want to believe is true. I am closer to my animals than most, as I view animals as people, but I will readily admit that I have no idea what's going on with them most of the time. Most of my scratches over the years have come from me thinking they want to be petted and them showing their displeasure. If you accurately gauge what your animal wants from you, it is mere luck. And receiving consent from a being that cannot verbally communicate with you requires you to be exactly right, 100% of the time.

Originally Posted by Philomel

As I've been essentially left behind by this debate, I will only respond to the last message that was directed at me.

I didn't leave you behind lol, was just waiting for your response haha

Originally Posted by Philomel

It's quite simple: dogs do it to inanimate objects, and female dogs do it just as much as male dogs.

Hmm, so doing assumed sexual things with inanimate objects does not make it sexual? Why the heck do humans use lotion, dildos and handcuffs then? Next time I hear of a woman masturbating with a Dildo, I'll have to ask her if she was trying to assert her dominance over it rather than achieve sexual gratification ;)
I have a feeling I will be slapped if I attempt the question xD

Originally Posted by Philomel

On the first part, while I suppose it's possible that the dogs are sexually attracted to sofas, I do not think that is the case. If it were about sex, they would at the very least limit it to living (or once-living) organisms. On the latter part, while female dogs do have a sex drive, they are pretty much physically incapable of being on top during sex. If it were about sex, they'd back up to you, rather than seemingly attempting to mount your leg.

Like I asserted above, having sexual attraction is not the only reason to perform sexual actions. I have had a few girlfriends, and my fiancee even rubs up against me when were cuddling and she "humps" me while I face away from her. She is not capable of having sex this way yet it gives her a type of sexual gratification, why cannot the same be said of dogs?

Originally Posted by Philomel

And receiving consent from a being that cannot verbally communicate with you requires you to be exactly right, 100% of the time.

While your comments on behaviorists are essentially correct to our best understanding...I do not agree with verbal consent.

Otherwise, how would different languages intermingle. I feel there are many more indications of wanting to have sex, disregarding voice. There is how you dress, how you look at the human, how you touch the human, how they respond to your touch. There are a bunch of hints that women and men alike wish the other would catch onto so they don't have to announce they want sex. In fact, my fiancee and I, when we had sex for the very first time even...we did not announce to each other that we were going to have sex, we just did it. Also, you did not answer my question about deaf and mute people either. As they are unable to verbally communicate their intentions, should they be barred from having sex through an indirect result of illegalizing having sex with anything that can't verbally consent?

EDIT: Now that i seriously think about it...sex is only illegal when someone verbally states they do not want it. So, using the logic we human use in legalities, I would propose that having sex with animals should be completely legal unless it can be proven that the animal in question is 100% declining the advances by the human. Not to say I would sleep with an animal as I find that perpetually disgusting, however, since an animal cannot be interpreted 100%, no one can prove the animal dislikes it or is declining the advance, so therefore it should be, using a consistent logical thought process, completely legal.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

This supposedly shows an Elephant and a Rhino....though I am unable to see it right now as my browser does not support java or flash. Also, I have decided to be modest and not post the actual video, just the link to the site. Click at your own discretion ^_^.

Elephoceres

also, a note about canines....humping your leg and getting off on humans would in most cases I would assume, be inferred that they want to have sex. Just because they cannot verbally communicate does not mean they cannot give consent at all. Otherwise deaf and mute people would not be able to have sex with anyone since they would not be able to voice their consent.

=_________=
Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!

Sign language. Writing. Deaf people can speak. It may not be as clearly as others, but they can SPEAK.

Sometimes your points are in left-field, but that was an absolutely ridiculous thing to say, and, if I'm frank, rather stupid.

My point was simple and entirely relevant. Communication is not limited to verbally announcing your intentions.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

My point was simple and entirely relevant. Communication is not limited to verbally announcing your intentions.

Yes, how many people say "I want to have sex with you" before having sex anyway.

Originally Posted by CiaoPinkZebra

what is in the animal's best intreats? It would be, from my point of view, not to have intercourse with the human.

But as you admitted earlier, that would merely be an opinion.

I'm saying I agree with you in this, but that your reasoning is faulty. No offense intended.

Originally Posted by Kris

=_________=
Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!

Sign language. Writing. Deaf people can speak. It may not be as clearly as others, but they can SPEAK.

Sometimes your points are in left-field, but that was an absolutely ridiculous thing to say, and, if I'm frank, rather stupid.

Okay lets say, hypothetically, that a person didn't speak your language at all, but wasn't deaf and dumb, is there no way at all that you would know that they wanted to have sex with you?

Originally Posted by una

Animals can't give consent- sorry Inertia I've never seen a dog/cat/insert animal with come to bed eyes.

But I seriously doubt that you want to have sex with an animal or that you've ever expected an animal to want to have sex with you. So you would have no idea what signals to expect. I've never seen a man give me come to bed eyes, doesn't meant men don't ever want sex from men.

Originally Posted by una

An animal could be sexual violated by it's owner repeatedly and it would be powerless to stop it or tell anyone.

Yet, the occurrence is fairly commonplace according to research. Restrictions only make people hide, leading to worse circumstances of abuse. With or without you believing it's right or wrong, animals CAN NEVER complain, therefore regardless of any laws or opinions animals CAN always be sexually violated by it's owner repeatedly and it IS powerless to stop it or tell anyone, which makes your statement confusing.

Again, I agree with you in believing that it is wrong, but your reasoning is faulty.

Originally Posted by Inertia

But I seriously doubt that you want to have sex with an animal or that you've ever expected an animal to want to have sex with you. So you would have no idea what signals to expect. I've never seen a man give me come to bed eyes, doesn't meant men don't ever want sex from men.

That suggests some sort of foreplay on the animals part. I'm a dog owner and before my dogs got neutered they were particularly fond of legs and cushions but I never saw them eyeing up the cushion or fluttering their lashes at legs. I don't want my hounds to molest my soft furnishings or my guests legs so if there was some sort of give away I would notice it and deter them from their wicked ways.
There are very few animals that have sex for pleasure. Dogs use sex as a way of asserting dominance. I think the humping is more down to impulse then canine lust. I think you try to convey the idea that animal sexuality is universally the same.

Originally Posted by Inertia

Yet, the occurrence is fairly commonplace according to research. Restrictions only make people hide, leading to worse circumstances of abuse. With or without you believing it's right or wrong, animals CAN NEVER complain, therefore regardless of any laws or opinions animals CAN always be sexually violated by it's owner repeatedly and it IS powerless to stop it or tell anyone, which makes your statement confusing.

Most people keep their sex lives private. I don't see how making bestiality legal stop people from hiding what they do in the bedroom or how it would lessen abuse. The illegal status and it being a social taboo deters people from doing it like in the day of yore when pre-martial sex was a big taboo. Giving bestiality a legal status will not make the problem better. Animals will become sexual object, the practice of bestiality will increase along with the risk of abuse.

Originally Posted by Inertia

Again, I agree with you in believing that it is wrong, but your reasoning is faulty.

There is not going to be a clear cut logical deduction because this is more a less a debate of moral and ethics. When look at certain scenarios with out moral objectivity then they look social acceptable like visiting dying hospital patients while dressed as death or sleeping with dead corpses ect. Hypothetically we could do that but most of us exercise some form of moral decorum which tells us that is tasteles and downright icky :no::gonk::cry:

That suggests some sort of foreplay on the animals part. I'm a dog owner and before my dogs got neutered they were particularly fond of legs and cushions but I never saw them eyeing up the cushion or fluttering their lashes at legs. I don't want my hounds to molest my soft furnishings or my guests legs so if there was some sort of give away I would notice it and deter them from their wicked ways.
There are very few animals that have sex for pleasure. Dogs use sex as a way of asserting dominance. I think the humping is more down to impulse then canine lust. I think you try to convey the idea that animal sexuality is universally the same.

You're still relying on human signals to make your analysis, again... I doubt you want to have sex with an animal, you'd have no idea what signals to look for. We know very little about what animals want and don't want.

Most people keep their sex lives private. I don't see how making bestiality legal stop people from hiding what they do in the bedroom or how it would lessen abuse. The illegal status and it being a social taboo deters people from doing it like in the day of yore when pre-martial sex was a big taboo. Giving bestiality a legal status will not make the problem better. Animals will become sexual object, the practice of bestiality will increase along with the risk of abuse.

I didn't say making it legal would prevent it, only that restriction pushes people into hiding.

There is not going to be a clear cut logical deduction because this is more a less a debate of moral and ethics. When look at certain scenarios with out moral objectivity then they look social acceptable like visiting dying hospital patients while dressed as death or sleeping with dead corpses ect. Hypothetically we could do that but most of us exercise some form of moral decorum which tells us that is tasteles and downright icky :no::gonk::cry:

Well if you don't define or explain why this concept: morality is good or bad then how am I to accept it. If you go to different people of different cultures they'll have different ideas of what morality actually is. One group of people might think that having sex with animals is a good thing, so this notion of moral objectivity makes little sense to me.

I thought of another example. A female cat in heat will rub its ass all over you. Furthermore it looks disappointed when you push its ass away.

Originally Posted by Inertia

You're still relying on human signals to make your analysis, again...

No that's what you are doing by saying that animals are capable of lust and communicating their lust. I'm saying with a sarcastic analogy that dogs don't flutter their eye lashes at cushions ect. They don't literally flutter their eyelashes at cushions but they do not exhibit any behaviour towards the object or leg that it wants to hump it. Why would it?

Originally Posted by Inertia

I doubt you want to have sex with an animal, you'd have no idea what signals to look for. We know very little about what animals want and don't want.

Animal behaviourists do exist they are not like unicorns.

Originally Posted by Inertia

I didn't say making it legal would prevent it, only that restriction pushes people into hiding.

They would hide their secret fetish but I doubt they would actually go into hiding. It really doesn't make any sense, whatever your sexual fetish is you are probably going to keep it a secret whether it is illegal or not.

Originally Posted by Inertia

Well if you don't define or explain why this concept: morality is good or bad then how am I to accept it. If you go to different people of different cultures they'll have different ideas of what morality actually is. One group of people might think that having sex with animals is a good thing, so this notion of moral objectivity makes little sense to me.

You have your own defined set of morals so don't pretend you have no notion of what moral objectivity is. You've already said that you don't agree with bestiality which is kinda of an indicator that somewhere inside of you is some moral reasoning that says sleeping with animals is a no-no. I never said that morality was a universal set of beliefs. All beliefs which are subjective but morals are consider as socially virtuous. There will be differences and similarities depending on age, culture, religion, ect. In some countries child labour is socially okay while in another country it is illegal- so which moral is right? If you are using concepts of 'good' and 'bad' as indicators then you are not going to get very far because both are subjective and change when viewing different points of view.... anywhoo it all becomes a subjective mess which makes the clear logical deduction that you so desire difficult to achieve.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Hmm, so doing assumed sexual things with inanimate objects does not make it sexual? Why the heck do humans use lotion, dildos and handcuffs then? Next time I hear of a woman masturbating with a Dildo, I'll have to ask her if she was trying to assert her dominance over it rather than achieve sexual gratification ;)
I have a feeling I will be slapped if I attempt the question xD

Its not that they love the object and want to have sex with it. It's that they want the sexual satisfaction, and using kinky things only increases the sex drive, it isn't the objective of it. As for masturbation, that is just the thrill of exciting the sexual organs, not because you want to have sex with it. And that isn't necessarily what an animal would think about having sex with a human is about either.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

EDIT: Now that i seriously think about it...sex is only illegal when someone verbally states they do not want it. So, using the logic we human use in legalities, I would propose that having sex with animals should be completely legal unless it can be proven that the animal in question is 100% declining the advances by the human. Not to say I would sleep with an animal as I find that perpetually disgusting, however, since an animal cannot be interpreted 100%, no one can prove the animal dislikes it or is declining the advance, so therefore it should be, using a consistent logical thought process, completely legal.

No, its not just rape if someone says they don't want to have sex. If they are incapable of objecting, or don't want it in the first place this is also rape. However, regretting to having sex is not rape. It's just "buyers remorse" as it is sometimes called.

----------

@Inertia

Originally Posted by una

You have your own defined set of morals so don't pretend you have no notion of what moral objectivity is. You've already said that you don't agree with bestiality which is kinda of an indicator that somewhere inside of you is some moral reasoning that says sleeping with animals is a no-no. I never said that morality was a universal set of beliefs. All beliefs which are subjective but morals are consider as socially virtuous. There will be differences and similarities depending on age, culture, religion, ect. In some countries child labour is socially okay while in another country it is illegal- so which moral is right? If you are using concepts of 'good' and 'bad' as indicators then you are not going to get very far because both are subjective and change when viewing different points of view.... anywhoo it all becomes a subjective mess which makes the clear logical deduction that you so desire difficult to achieve.

I agree exactly with what Una said. By saying before that my reasoning is faulty, its hypocritical to go then and say that morality is an open to interpretation.

No that's what you are doing by saying that animals are capable of lust and communicating their lust. I'm saying with a sarcastic analogy that dogs don't flutter their eye lashes at cushions ect. They don't literally flutter their eyelashes at cushions but they do not exhibit any behaviour towards the object or leg that it wants to hump it. Why would it?

I didn't claim that they were capable of lust at all, nor did I assert that it was necessary for them to be.

Dogs and their apparent habit for humping inanimate objects is considered by zoophiles and behaviorists to be masturbation. Whilst they don't particularly flutter their eyelashes at them, neither does the general human being do so to a dildo, vibrator or their own hand.

Animal behaviourists do exist they are not like unicorns.

Nor are they omniscient ergo alike most sciences all opinions are subject to change. No appeals to authority here...

They would hide their secret fetish but I doubt they would actually go into hiding. It really doesn't make any sense, whatever your sexual fetish is you are probably going to keep it a secret whether it is illegal or not.

Do you claim that fetish communities do not exist? I'm pretty sure they do. Only the zoophile kind requires higher degrees of anonymity.

You have your own defined set of morals so don't pretend you have no notion of what moral objectivity is. You've already said that you don't agree with bestiality which is kinda of an indicator that somewhere inside of you is some moral reasoning that says sleeping with animals is a no-no. I never said that morality was a universal set of beliefs. All beliefs which are subjective but morals are consider as socially virtuous. There will be differences and similarities depending on age, culture, religion, ect. In some countries child labour is socially okay while in another country it is illegal- so which moral is right? If you are using concepts of 'good' and 'bad' as indicators then you are not going to get very far because both are subjective and change when viewing different points of view.... anywhoo it all becomes a subjective mess which makes the clear logical deduction that you so desire difficult to achieve.

My point is not to assert that I have no morals at all, but to ask why they matter? You have pretty much said the same thing in your post. This concept of moral objectivity is what has been relied upon for arguments against homosexuality too. To jump out and simply say "It's not morally objective" means nothing to me unless you can give me a reason why it isn't.

Need I mention that in Denmark zoosexuality is not illegal.

@Inertia

I agree exactly with what Una said. By saying before that my reasoning is faulty, its hypocritical to go then and say that morality is an open to interpretation.

I'm not sure what you mean here? How is it hypocritical and how is morality not open to interpretation, seeing that it is interpreted differently? Do you claim that everyone's understanding of morality is wrong except for the people that believe the same things you do or what a certain special systems dictates?

Originally Posted by una

No that's what you are doing by saying that animals are capable of lust and communicating their lust. I'm saying with a sarcastic analogy that dogs don't flutter their eye lashes at cushions ect. They don't literally flutter their eyelashes at cushions but they do not exhibit any behaviour towards the object or leg that it wants to hump it. Why would it?

Just because humans flirt by fluttering their eyelashes does not mean that dogs will. As far as humans know, dogs could be flirting by licking you or sniffing you. Furthermore, why would a dog flirt with an inanimate object? Do humans flirt with inanimate objects when they use those objects for sexual gratification?

Originally Posted by una

Animal behaviourists do exist they are not like unicorns.

And they cannot be proven to be correct either. In my honest opinion, I believe that if a cat or dog did not want to have sex with a human it would communicate in a way that it knows how. Most likely by clawing or biting the attempted rapist much how a cat will communicate that it doesn't wish to take a bath and claws you to death in the process.

Originally Posted by una

You have your own defined set of morals so don't pretend you have no notion of what moral objectivity is.

Moral Objectivity does not exist. The only objective moral that exists in theory is Survival. All else falls to subjectivity and survival only works when you are putting the importance of your individual or species above all others that also wish to survive.

Originally Posted by CiaoPinkZebra

Its not that they love the object and want to have sex with it. It's that they want the sexual satisfaction, and using kinky things only increases the sex drive, it isn't the objective of it. As for masturbation, that is just the thrill of exciting the sexual organs, not because you want to have sex with it. And that isn't necessarily what an animal would think about having sex with a human is about either.

So, the human has sex with the animal and the animal looks at the human as a toy that excites its sexual organs. What exactly is your point?

Originally Posted by CiaoPinkZebra

No, its not just rape if someone says they don't want to have sex. If they are incapable of objecting, or don't want it in the first place this is also rape. However, regretting to having sex is not rape. It's just "buyers remorse" as it is sometimes called.

You cannot claim 100% certainty that an animal doesn't want it in the first place. Like I mentioned above, animals have teeth and claws. If they truly aren't enjoying themselves (like when taking a bath), trust me, they'll let you know.

'Kay... Just because we are human animals doesn't mean we can go raping our dogs and cats. D: It's like the animal kingdom itself. Dogs arn't mating with cats, kangaroo's arn't gettin' it on with elephants.. etc... so we shouldn't be raping other animals. It's sick and disturbing.

Originally Posted by Alixness

'Kay... Just because we are human animals doesn't mean we can go raping our dogs and cats. D: It's like the animal kingdom itself. Dogs arn't mating with cats, kangaroo's arn't gettin' it on with elephants.. etc... so we shouldn't be raping other animals. It's sick and disturbing.

How do you explain the Elephant and Rhino mating together? Or are they the same species?

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

How do you explain the Elephant and Rhino mating together? Or are they the same species?

I'm no animal expert so I wouldn't know. What I was trying to get at is it's very rare to see two animals of a different species mating so humans should be no acception. Atleast, that is what I think... ALTHOUGH! Other species of animals might try, but as I learned, something doesn't equal up in the reproductive areas of the two animals so it just isn't possible for them to make an offspring. Hmm.. Let me refraise my first post. It isn't possible for humans to give birth to a doghuman offspring, likewise for the animal. Again, I'm not an expert, I'm just going by what I've learned.