Ask me if I’m against animal necrophilia. If I object to sex with already butchered animal carcass or dress less chicken.

worse forms:

Just like fossil fuel use/addiction, our world infrastructure runs on “fuels” that include animal subjugation (food). that’s how our species/societies evolved. Someday we can/must overcome this…. but for now, we can lessen our negative impact by weeding out unnecessary animal use. expecting us to stop all of this cold turkey is untenable.

MUST we wait until we are all vegetarians BEFORE we start fighting animal testing for cosmetics, animal bile/organ harvesting in china for quack medicine use, and pit-bull fighting?

No. that’s just me. saving “some” animals from cruelty is more important to me than consistency.

lastly, you are working under the assumption that the farm animals involved in sexual acts are spared from the butcher’s cleaver…and that the sexual favors they unwittingly provide their owners will buy them their freedom and a life of luxury.

———–
We can’t rape or torture female convicts even if they are minutes away from the gas chamber.

Because the topic is the anti-obscenity law? The one about sex related obscenity?

This is not to say the other things you mentioned is not obscene from other point of views, but those other point of views are not the one I’m talking about right now, and are not the reason I brought this topic up. This is off topic on a massive, gigantic scale.

I’m against Manny Villar because he doesn’t want me to draw titties. WTF does this have to do with fishes in aquariums?

Let other causes, other laws, other blogs, other opinionated bloggers take care of those. I can’t be expected to take care of *everything*, right?

Hey Rob,

point taken. I agree that bestiality porn is the most GLARING form of animal abuse despite it’s low ranking in the suffering scale. It’s the “Icky” factor in us.

some notes:

1. just because we abuse them in other ways, doesn’t make it *pointless* to protect them in others, don’t you think? I can point to many examples on how unreasonable this requirement is…. the environment is one) Is it *all or nothing?* Bestiality should be treated on it’s own. let’s ignore human inconsistency for now ’cause we’ll never run out of it.

but yes, if the animals perform the sexual act on their own volition, then yes, I can’t say I can object to it without evoking my sensitivities. The only reason why I don’t look it up is that it doesn’t turn me on.

2. so there is no difference between farmers and bestiality filmographers?

we can point to *basic human needs/survival*.
We are using/abusing animals for food and food production. we’ve established that. We can mitigate it by lessening the frequency to essential activities. No, I don’t enjoy horse racing or bull fighting. to me, food production seems to be more important than inter-species sex. there is a hierarchy of human needs and limiting it to the most essential ones makes sense.

also, there many kinds of animals… from earthworms to blue whales. many levels of sentience and ability to suffer and plan. some are harmful to us. consistency is pointless and we have to use our brains.

buddhists use pest control after all.

the alternative is to eat tofu for the rest of our lives.

All countries limit free speech in some ways. But we can’t reasonably say: we are collectively like Kim Jong Il. The point is, It shouldn’t be all or nothing. absolutes.

Lastly, so would you be against Villar’s bill? And would hypocrisy and the need for consistency be enough to quell your voice?

“We still let our personal taste have a say on things, don’t you think so?”

Yes, and that’s what’s behind what I previously described of my bottom line. The real motivation is not ‘protection of the innocent’, but protecting our own sensitivities. That shows how ‘we’ (collectively) aren’t too different from Villar. We just probably tolerate more stuff than he does, but each of one has our own subjective limits of what’s obscene (I would puke if I watched scat porn, but people make these videos, so obviously there are those who buy them). If we’re not self-aware, then we tend to impose these personal standards on others using other justifications we’ve used to fool ourselves into thinking are our real motivations.

As for big animals and humans in in a coma — people don’t eat kids and brain-dead people. But they eat big animals.

As for horny horses and little horny kids — that illustrates exactly my point. All our laws are (more or less) consistent in trying to protect innocent and young humans from potentially harmful stuff (even if they enjoy it — cigarettes, alcohol, porn, sex). But we don’t apply the same standards for animals — we’d like to ‘protect’ them from non-consensual sex, but we exploit them in other (worse) ways.

As for erring on the side of caution — the question becomes, why do this only for animal sex, but not for other things we do to them? Why not err on the side of caution when it comes how horses feel about pulling karitelas in the heat of the sun? About how fish feel about living in aquariums? About how carabaos feel working hard on the field? About how poodles feel about their silly hair-dos? About how they all feel about being eaten?

Buddhists at least have a very consistent philosophy when it comes to animals — don’t do any of them any harm.

If you feel guilty about inhumane treatment of chickens (for example), then you can buy some “free-range” chickens (those chickens that were raised with more freedom of movement and general happiness). They cost 3x as much though. They have it here in SM Supercenter Pasig. I don’t know if there is a beef equivalent here. I don’t feel guilty enough to spend 3x more on chicken. That kind of guilt is a luxury only available to the rich.

“My bottom line is, you can’t be for one form of inhumane treatment of animals but be against another. I think it indicates that the motivation is not really ‘protection of the innocent’ from exploitation.”

My actions are inconsistent with my views. I think the meat industry is inhumane but yet I partake on it. It’s indefensible and I’m part of the problem. my views are pretty consistent but I’m a selfish dick:) It’s like Thomas Jefferson and slavery.

on bestiality, again, I see your point. so elephant cunnilingus doesn’t really make the elephant suffer. But so is sex with a brain dead/comatose patient (add to that the fact that he/she has no relatives/friends), and yet both of us will prolly be against it. we know that there is absolutely no consciousness in that human shell.

We still let our personal taste have a say on things, don’t you think so?

But it does seem to have a completely different effect on Musicians.

@ Robby, I kinda see your point specially with horse/woman sex. but perhaps we can (again) use the same standards we use on pedophilia. Clearly, we can agree that any/most normal 13-16 year old boy would enjoy sex with Kim Kardashan and yet we prohibit it.

We really can’t tell what the horse is thinking so maybe we can just err on the side of caution? I’ve never seen bestiality videos before so I don’t know how it’s implemented. But yeah, this is open for discussion. It doesn’t have to be black or white, on and off. I hate absolutes:)

Chimps are a lot stronger than people, even Pacman. When they kill, they tear out the genitals of their opponents and they have four powerful hands to do it with.

But yeah, it is hypocritical to frown against one form of suffering yet condone another just because the latter somehow benefit you and the former disgusts you. We’re all guilty of this.

People should have that in mind before going off and writing laws just to suit their own personal taste.

I understand what you’re saying. I think most societies have laws against inhumane treatment of animals. But in mainstream (if you can call it that) bestiality films, the animals seem to enjoy “giving it” to humans. As for JM’s Bicolano carabao, it doesn’t seem to care one way or the other. I don’t see any unnecessary suffering there. So maybe some types of bestiality should be illegal due to inhumane treatment, but what about those where the animals seem to enjoy it or don’t appear to be harmed (I’m sure everyone here has had their leg humped by a dog, so you know what I mean)?

I’ve never heard (or seen) chimps or chickens used for bestiality films, at least not in ways you and Gerry have described. I think you may be using extreme imagery and examples to portray inhumane treatment, but the “mainstream” (again, if you can call it that) is actually very different.

My bottom line is, you can’t be for one form of inhumane treatment of animals but be against another. I think it indicates that the motivation is not really ‘protection of the innocent’ from exploitation.

But it maybe helpful for volatile/violent folks.