Tokyo Restaurant: Rape an animal, we'll kill and feed it to you.

[snyper]

I don't believe that's a truly correct definition for the word, really. We're a mammal, for one, so the third definition contradicts the second.

It sounds... hm... arrogant to claim we're not an animal, don't you think? I mean, if you believe in Christianity or so, I suppose you don't believe we are, but, aside from that, there's no real reason to!

No, im not into religion but ok.

You are an animal.

I'l just stick to being..not.

Happy? :laugh: :p

[Aaron Veteran]

I worked up such an appetite reading that fine selection from your class material! You know what all those animals you just listed have in common? They are all delicious!

If you had mentioned Dogs, Cats, Salamanders, or Sardines I would have been inclined to disagree.

Ever wondered why it would be different? It certainly shouldn't be.

Yeah, that steak description got me a bit hungry as well...

Because sex requires consent.

When MJ was fingering bubbles do you think he sought the monkeys permission first?

So in effect it is forcible rape.

PS. I dont dabble in geese or chickens, the whole avian flue thing turned me off.

Ok, but that begs the question as to why we insist on achieving consent from an animal for sex, but in the same moment are within our (and their) rights to kill them on sight and consume them? Why do we have a stricter moral code regarding sex than killing? And lets face it, if we are to apply human constructs of Law toward animals by calling it "rape" then slaughter houses ought to also be referred to as "murder" houses, correct? If you support that an animal can be raped (a human created construct) then they too can be murdered.

[GreatStalin]

No, im not into religion but ok.

You are an animal.

I'l just stick to being..not.

Happy? :laugh: :p

Mammal man!

See Snyper! Aaron knows the stuff.

[Budious]

Ever wondered why it would be different? It certainly shouldn't be.

Yeah, that steak description got me a bit hungry as well...

So what's your opinion on animals eating other animals they otherwise would probably not consume? Human distribution of livestock to domesticated pets? My pit bull loves to lay around the house and gnaw on his smoked cow femur knuckle bone.

[NateB1]

@Snyper

I wasn't trying to "bring God into" this discussion, I was just offering a possibility why the majority of us are so opposed to bestiality.

If you have another reason, other than "it feels wrong" or something similar, I would be glad to hear it.

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

My dog just raped my knee, does reverse bestiality count? If it does, I'm guilty.

Earlier I reported here on a case where a camel raped and killed a woman, but as far as we know it didn't then try to eat her.

In your case, I don't even think your dog was trying to kill you, much less eat you.

[remix17]

Crazy japs never fail to amaze :D :blink:

[Budious]

Earlier I reported here on a case where a camel raped and killed a woman, but as far as we know it didn't then try to eat her.

In your case, I don't even think your dog was trying to kill you, much less eat you.

Never said he was, he loves me... he was just trying to F*** the hell out of me... I need to get his balls snipped but he's just 6 months old.

[Unholy Moley!]

This sound too sick to be true.

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

Never said he was, he loves me... he was just trying to F*** the hell out of me... I need to get his balls snipped but he's just 6 months old.

Sorry, i should have put a ;) after that last line :D

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

1. I really hope they used condoms.

Infections that are transmitted from animals to humans are called zoonoses. Some zoonoses may be transferred through casual contact, but others are much more readily transferred by activities that expose humans to the semen, vaginal fluids, urine, saliva, feces and blood of animals.

Brucellosis is one such disease, since it is transmitted by semen, vaginal fluids and urine...

...sexual activity with animals is, in some instances, a high risk activity.

2. They are rich AND sick people.

The established view held by the overwhelming majority of professionals in the field of psychology is that zoophilia is a mental disorder

3. Sex with animals is just sick and wrong. There's no argument to make a rebuttal or to defend those who do such things except that it is a mental disorder.

4. Zoophilia on wiki - tonnes of info for those interested.

5. One last thing:

"News about the restaurant spread through word of mouth and it became popular."

I just can't imagine this happening:

- So what did you do last night?

- oh, I went to this fancy restaurant where I had sex with a pig and then they cooked it for me. It was delicious. Wanna come with me next time?

- :blink:

Basically, why would a zoophiliac tell anybody about this.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Zhivago

[snyper]

Ever wondered why it would be different? It certainly shouldn't be.

Yeah, that steak description got me a bit hungry as well...

Ok, but that begs the question as to why we insist on achieving consent from an animal for sex, but in the same moment are within our (and their) rights to kill them on sight and consume them? Why do we have a stricter moral code regarding sex than killing? And lets face it, if we are to apply human constructs of Law toward animals by calling it "rape" then slaughter houses ought to also be referred to as "murder" houses, correct? If you support that an animal can be raped (a human created construct) then they too can be murdered.

I understand fully your arguement. and agree its an interesting one.

I argue that as humans we are the highest on the food chain which gives us the abiliy and "moral" right to kill animals for food. To use them sex perhaps then is not immoral, but rather just discusting. . why discusting? because sex is not about "every hole's a goal" You wouldnt have sex with a retarded person would you? So similarly you wouldnt butt love an ant-eater.

[x9248]

DO NOT GO THERE

There some kind of problem? Dude shouldn't have posted such an ignorant pic/remark.

[curme]

I read somewhere (digg maybe?) that this article was just a translation from one of Japan's tabloids. The same kind that have articles like, "Elvis and Bin Laden Wed In Secret Ceremony".

I highly doubt that the article is true.

[_bobcat_ Veteran]

Firstly lets not bring god into it, because many of us could care less what he thinks.

Secondly, animals do not feel plesure, with the exception of dolphins.

Thirdly, animals may do what looks like rape, however, most of us are not animals, so we dont

He wasn't bringing God into it. What he was saying is that society's religious roots may be the reason we find it so disgusting. Even though you and I individually are not religious the society around us shapes our views on right and wrong and those are still influenced by religion. I can see your Irish Catholic bias all over many of your posts you know.

Personally I do think it is wrong, generally, to take advantage of an animal. You could be passing diseases to them for example and you may cause pain; the poor animal can not stop what is happening.

However if you then kill it straight after, I think that is far worse than the sex. But of course in our society it is perfectly acceptable to kill and eat an animal. Why is that? I presume it's mainly because meat is good for us and the vast majority of people like it. The vast majority of people are disgusted by the idea of bestiality and so it is considered to be wrong.

Further, I think most people would rather be raped than murdered if they had to make a choice and I'm sure the animals would if they could choose!

By the way I would like to point out that the idea of bestiality disgusts me, like the idea of sex with a 93 year old person disgusts me :x

[Alpha Drone]

What I find very interesting is the reactions everyone is having.

Killing, cooking, consuming an animal = Good meal.

Screwing, killing, cooking, consuming an animal = Horribly vile act.

I'm not advocating porking a pig by any means, but from a sociological view it is pretty interesting I think...

.. and from a Psychological point of view- it's disturbing. Funny ,eh?

[nestrobber]

This sounds bogus

[Saito]

lol

<3 japanese for their wierd stuff xD

[curme]

Quote - (Aaron @ Sep 18 2007, 08:52) *

What I find very interesting is the reactions everyone is having.

Killing, cooking, consuming an animal = Good meal.

Screwing, killing, cooking, consuming an animal = Horribly vile act.

I'm not advocating porking a pig by any means, but from a sociological view it is pretty interesting I think...

I think the difference is that normal people kill an animal humanely as possible, and don't do it for personal gratification, but to survive.

[popsmear]

In todays modern world, we do not do it to survive. To an extent yes, but most of it is luxury.

Also, a lot of it is FAR from humane. Take KFC for instance.

[snyper]

In todays modern world, we do not do it to survive. To an extent yes, but most of it is luxury.

Also, a lot of it is FAR from humane. Take KFC for instance.

I will disagree, a healthy balanced diet will include meat.

Veg heads will say different, but it is fact.

[obiwong]

ok

i hope i never have THAT much money that i get THAT bored to do something like THAT :wacko:

[popsmear]

@snypie

I never said it didn't?

The fact is buying that nice $20 steak at the store is very much a luxury compared to "eating to survive".

[snyper]

@snypie

I never said it didn't?

The fact is buying that nice $20 steak at the store is very much a luxury compared to "eating to survive".

yes, but you need to eat meat. It need not be a $20 steak, but a less expensive one. We need meat..

*drools*

[_bobcat_ Veteran]

You can live without it.