In my humble opinion, if the animal is not forced in any way and chooses to do whatever sexual activity it wishes, it should be legal. What should be illegal is forcing an animal to perform sexual activities. The issue is identifying when an animal wants to do something or not. It is extremely difficult to tell. For this reason, it should be illegal to assist the animal in sexual activities (for example; pushing a dog rear in order to ensure the dog has inserted its penis into the vagina). If the animal mounts the human on its own and (obviously) the human gives consent also, how can the animal be a victim of abuse?
Replies 5
4
25 Feb 2014 7:05PM
Exactly. There were some videos when bestiality was allowed that had a dog on the ground and the woman on top. I hated those ones, because it was entirely possible that the dog was not choosing to be involved. I'm fine with ones like that being banned, but it's retarded that the videos of dogs mounting girls were banned as well. Of course, the most retarded thing is that those were banned because they were "animal abuse", but the crush videos weren't.
2
25 Feb 2014 9:21PM
Yep, just another example of societal schizophrenia/multiple personality disorder. Double standards like these are found throughout modern societies mainly due to the fact that our "rulers" are imbeciles and so drawn away from philosophical and even consistently rational thinking.
I think the main reason they were taken off Motherless is judicial. The act, recording, and distribution of bestiality is illegal in most of the Westernised world whereas the recording and distribution of animal cruelty and killing is somewhat of a grey area and the same applies to snuff films.
