Canada’s top court rules non-penetrative sex with animals is legal

On sweden and rape: iirc we have a broader definition of what consitutes rape so thats why our number is so high i dunno where wed be if you only counted rape rape.
 
R.Graves said:
Lower? What constitutes rape in Sweden?
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden
Read up.

One of the things is that in Sweden each rape is counted even if it happens multiple times to the same person. So in a country where a man was raped 3 times they might only count it as one as it is one rape victim. In Sweden it is counted as three, as it is three separate rapes.

Sweden's definition is also broader so that it is not only when a woman gets penetrated and forcefully held down. It can be fellatio while drunk or fucking someone who's too afraid to not give consent.

Then there is the issue where not every rape is always reported. The statistics may say that country X has Y amount of reported rapes but that doesn't include unreported rapes since, well, they're unreported. In Sweden rapes go reported more often than a shitty third world country for example.

This is the official legal definition of rape in Sweden:
A person who by assault or other violence or by threat of a criminal act forces another person to have sexual intercourse or to undertake or endure another sexual act that, in view of the seriousness of the violation, is comparable to sexual intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years.​

This also applies if a person engages with another person in sexual intercourse or in a sexual act which under the first paragraph is comparable to sexual intercourse by improperly exploiting that the person, due to unconsciousness, sleep, serious fear, intoxication or other drug influence, illness, physical injury or mental disturbance, or otherwise in view of the circumstances, is in a particularly vulnerable situation.
​
So basically, you know how in a film someone has something tragic happen to them and when the love interest comes to comfort them they end up bumping ugglies? That'd be considered rape as you're taking advantage of someone who is not in the right frame of mind. In Sweden men can also be raped by women. Shocking, I know. In some countries the legal definition is about "penetrating the victim" or the victim being female. So, yknow. :shrug:
 
Mr Fish said:
"If you kill a cow to eat it’s meat then you are having that cow imprisoned for life and murdered for your own benefit. We are all aware of the deplorable conditions in factory farms, thanks to our vegan friends who never shut up about it. If you rape a cow, you’re basically just sticking your dick into it. Might this traumatize the cow? I don’t know. I’ve never fucked a cow or had the inclination to.

However, I cannot look down on one who would fuck a cow. I might question their tastes, but I have no moral pedestal from which to judge them, because I routinely eat meat.

I know that because I eat meat, mammals who are not altogether that different from myself from a broader perspective, are kept in misery and killed callously. So how can I possibly judge someone who uses this same creature–who my every action says is worthless for anything but misery, meaninglessness and slaughter–for sexual pleasure.

I would think that any reasonable being, if given the woeful choice between life imprisonment followed by execution or being raped by a creature with a penis significantly smaller than the bull penis that evolution has created you to withstand easily… . Almost anyone given that choice is going to choose the latter. The reasons why should be obvious.

If you are a vegan, then you can be against bestiality as well. But if you eat meat, I don’t see how the position is intellectual tenable. Your only argument against it is your own personal disgust, which holds no weight."

- The Amazing Analist
http://amazingatheist.tumblr.com/post/109026159556/no-matter-how-you-slice-it-beastiality-is-still

I feel conflicted about this issue. On one hand I don't think it's that big of a deal but on the other hand I feel like we should be better than this as we've been granted a level of intelligence from our evolution to know what is right and what is wrong which is very different from mere animals. So, yeah... I'm not on the fence, I hopped off the fence and went home.

I don't care at the end of the day. Someone else can fight over this issue about what is morally righteous. I don't give a shit. Whenever it is brought up and I'm hooked back up on that fence I still can't pick a side and the moment I untangle that hook I just leave.
I just think what TJ has to say about it is interesting and provides a different kind of perspective.
Click to expand...

The thing is that there are a lot of other things animals don't consent to anyway. Let alone being food or being sexed. We routinely spay/neuter animals so they aren't aggressive. We force them into breeding programs for very specific characteristics that leave them prone to crippling congenital defects. And we also breed for traits that makes the dog think you're the bestest thing in the world.

So sterilization? Check.
Eating them? Check.
Eugenics? Check.

I don't know where "better" is supposed to be because there's not really any meaningful point of orientation to go by. We use other peoples as tools and instruments of convenience, but put up a lot of ethical boundaries on how far that can go. And then fudge the rules anyway. We don't have (so many of) those limits with animals.

What it boils down to has nothing to do with intelligence or sapience or any of that. It comes down to simply that we are speciest and only readily accept members who interface with us culturally (with animals lacking nearly most everything required to do that). So we're also tribalists and racists some of the time to boot.
 
Last edited:
Dr Fallout said:
I came here and died twice.
Click to expand...
TIVp2.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top