O_o

*backs away slowly*

(September 7, 2015 at 12:05 am)vorlon13 Wrote: Since a silly post in CD's b'day thread, I've  wondered about the utility of mouth tentacles in pleasuring a man.

When you use your tongue to lick a mans filthy asshole out at the end of a long hard day, it is in fact a form of beastiality because you are such an animal.

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

My gawd but we sure have a lot to say about fucking animals.

(September 7, 2015 at 4:34 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: My gawd but we sure have a lot to say about fucking animals.

Well, we are animals ourselves right? Maybe dogs and horses are just different races. So don't be a racist.

(September 7, 2015 at 8:45 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

Whoa, baby!

To bring the thread back to the original conversation, this is actually a good question. The immediate answer people will jump to in response is consent obviously, as has already been shown, but I don't think this wholly addresses the issue. Don't get me wrong, consent is in my opinion the ONLY moral aspect regarding sexuality that matters (and certainly the only aspect the state should have any involvement in enforcing), so this is both a morally and legally sound argument from my standpoint.

The problem is that consent rarely enters the conversation when it involves other activities regarding animals. We slaughter and eat them by the millions without their consent, we use them as lab testing subjects without their consent, we own them as pets without their consent, we are even legally allowed to kill some of them for sport without their consent. If consent really was the be all, end all of the discussion, I would expect its presentation to be more cosmopolitan throughout these discussions. Instead, we have consistently utilized animals as we have seen fit, consent be damned.

(September 9, 2015 at 7:29 pm)Tartarus Sauce Wrote: To bring the thread back to the original conversation, this is actually a good question. The immediate answer people will jump to in response is consent obviously, as has already been shown, but I don't think this wholly addresses the issue. Don't get me wrong, consent is in my opinion the ONLY moral aspect regarding sexuality that matters (and certainly the only aspect the state should have any involvement in enforcing), so this is both a morally and legally sound argument from my standpoint.

The problem is that consent rarely enters the conversation when it involves other activities regarding animals. We slaughter and eat them by the millions without their consent, we use them as lab testing subjects without their consent, we own them as pets without their consent, we are even legally allowed to kill some of them for sport without their consent. If consent really was the be all, end all of the discussion, I would expect its presentation to be more cosmopolitan throughout these discussions. Instead, we have consistently utilized animals as we have seen fit, consent be damned.

Yeah, exactly. 

I think I addressed the reason consent isn't necessary in the case of killing them for food.