Comments by Appleby

101. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188517 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:06 am

Comment #188511 by irate_atheist

Sex shouldn't be much of a problem for many animals. They have those holes for a reason, you know.

102. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188507 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:00 am

Comment #188504 by hungarianelephant

What does "scientifically valid" mean?>

Valid according to the scientific methodology. Not ethics or some other ambiguous shit you are trying to base laws on.

103. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188505 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 6:58 am

Comment #188503 by irate_atheist

So I'll find some animal that isn't "harmed" by sex. Or do you think that's impossible?

104. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188502 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 6:56 am

Comment #188498 by Peacebeuponme

Some people still talk that way about homosexuals.

105. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188497 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 6:52 am

I think you guys don't read your posts carefully before you post them or are only reading parts of mine. I'm frankly tired of having to explain things over and over again. Especially the "consent" argument which is meaningless in the context of animals. My best guess is you guys "just don't wanna go there" because:

There really is no scientifically valid reason to outlaw bestiality.

It's funny because I hardly considered you guys conservatives. Stop telling people where they can or can't stick their penises (as long as they are doing no harm).

106. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188462 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 5:50 am

Comment #188458 by Rachel Holmes

You're assuming: sex with animals = cruelty.

This needs to be demonstrated scientifically. Now which animal would you like to start with?

107. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188456 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 5:41 am

Comment #188452 by Rachel Holmes

You're missing the point Rachel. The assertion is:

You need consent from an animal to have sex with it.

Said assertaion does not stand up to scrutiny (Comment #188445 by Appleby) and therefore need not be accepted.

108. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188453 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 5:39 am

Comment #188450 by irate_atheist

No. The assertation was that an animal's "consent" is needed to justify sexual relations with it.

The argument against *that* assertation was given in:

Comment #188445 by Appleby

109. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188451 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 5:37 am

Comment #188449 by Rachel Holmes

We don't have to endorse it. We just can't find a reason to forbid it and apparently that's enough.

110. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188447 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 5:32 am

Comment #188444 by Rachel Holmes

Read Comment #188445 by Appleby

and then,

Understand that the "consent" criterion can only apply to humans.

111. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188445 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 5:31 am

Comment #188442 by Quetzalcoatl

I have yet to get an answer to this. Maybe everyone missed it.

Comment #188110 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 8:31 am

Comment #188102 by Philip1978

The problem, Phil, is that these reasons, while valid on the surface and in casual conversation, may not have a strong scientific basis. Why is the distinction between humans and animals only this clear with regard to sexuality? And why is it okay for someone to slaughter a cow for food without its "consent" but not to have sexual relations with it? Who drew the line between sexuality and slaughter and on what basis was that decision made?

112. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188441 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 5:25 am

Comment #188438 by Rachel Holmes

I'm afraid the consent argument is invalid. Haven't you been following this thread?

113. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188439 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 5:24 am

Comment #188436 by irate_atheist

How many times are you going to keep harping on "consent" and "suffering". Those arguments have been thrown out the window long ago. Else stop hunting for sport and eating meat.

114. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188435 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 5:22 am

Comment #188432 by Rachel Holmes

I'm afraid your jump from bestiality to pedophilia is about as confusing to me as my purported jump from homosexuality to bestiality was (and perhaps still is) to you.

Please explain your position more clearly first. How are bestials suddenly being compared to pedophiles? Are you saying human children are like animals?

115. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188433 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 5:19 am

913. Comment #188426 by Appleby

No, no, no. It's up to YOU to demonstrate why they can't be given equal rights, remember?

116. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188426 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 5:13 am

Comment #188410 by Rachel Holmes

Me misunderstood? Naw!!! It can't be. Heck yes.

I said heterosexuality was the status quo. I also said the status quo wasn't necessarily better.

Nobody has realized the hypocrisy some homosexuals are demonstrating here. How can you argue against bestials in the same holier-than-thou way that heterosexuals were once arguing against you? You have invoked science and reason to win your rights. Do you really think bestials cannot do that too? I have yet to hear one, valid, scientific argument that is grounds for not granting bestials equal rights as the rest of us (heteros and homos alike). And I've already given you so many arguments bestials could use to support their case (and I'm not even one of them).

117. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188420 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 5:05 am

I think the only reason why bestials haven't come out of closet demanding equals rights is because there aren't enough of them yet. What would really help is some science to reinforce the idea that humans and animals aren't all that different after all. Humans already declare and accept emotional bonds with their pets. Sex is just one step further.

If however, enough people think it's "just not right" (not very scientific, I might add), it's quite possible that to be fair, gays will also be stripped of their rights (as before), leaving only the status quo. I suspect bestials will benchmark themselves against gays as an "alternative sexual orientation having been accepted". What more if science can show that bestials "do not have a choice in the matter" (their brains are wired that way).

You know, even the idea of sex with robots is slowly coming into the fray.

http://sexuality.about.com/od/sexandtechnology/a/david_levy.htm

It's practically a shoo-in for bestials.

118. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188406 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 4:08 am

Comment #188403 by Philip1978

I know it sounds ridiculous today but so did homosexuality at one time. At least with bestials, the sex is "straight" (yet another argument they could use).

119. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188402 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 3:59 am

Comment #188401 by Rachel Holmes

I didn't say it was better. And through creative logic, you may one day not be able to say yours (or heterosexuality) is better than bestiality. How do you feel about that? Are we all the same? Or do you suggest we draw the line somewhere? You and me? You and them? Me and them? Just you? Just me? Just them? Whom? And more importantly... how?

120. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188400 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 3:54 am

Comment #188399 by Rachel Holmes

But answer the question: how is your relationship with your girlfriend different from bestiality

One day, I'll be told it isn't.

121. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188393 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 3:27 am

Comment #188389 by Vaal

And I with them. ;)

122. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188392 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 3:26 am

Comment #188390 by irate_atheist

But you implied it. You prick.

123. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188388 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 3:20 am

Comment #188386 by Vaal

I don't believe in stuff like that. You actually have no good reason to believe in a god of any kind, if you don't mind my saying so.

124. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188384 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 3:12 am

Comment #188382 by Quetzalcoatl

I deleted that comment. Entered it by mistake. Please remove yours as well.

ADDED:

Goddamnit, Quetz. Hurry the fuck up.

125. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188377 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 3:01 am

Comment #188374 by irate_atheist

You dweeb. I'm not a pedophile. None of the girls I've ever been with have ever told me they were below 18. And I've even been with women as old as 35.

126. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188376 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 2:59 am

Comment #188372 by Philip1978

I never claimed I was a love doctor. Where'd you get that idea? I usually bed virgins for crying out loud! How good could I possibly be in bed?

127. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188373 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 2:57 am

Comment #188371 by Quetzalcoatl

Oops. I thought you were a chick.

128. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188370 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 2:53 am

Comment #188369 by irate_atheist

Now I think that's crossing the line. What are you implying exactly?

129. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188367 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 2:51 am

Comment #188365 by Quetzalcoatl

Well you'll have to get into bed with me for that.

130. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188364 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 2:48 am

Comment #188362 by irate_atheist

Actually no. They're usually younger than me and want more out of life than I care to give them. So I understand.

131. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188363 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 2:46 am

Comment #188361 by Philip1978

There's nothing to brag about in teaching virgins a thing or two. The point is they'll remember it. I assume however, they are not going to sleep with a hundred other guys before finally settling down. If so, then what I taught them probably counts for nothing.

132. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188357 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 2:35 am

Comment #188355 by Philip1978

Not another misreading of one of my posts! You guys must really be looking at me through a lens of preconceptions.

I didn't say that out of arrogance. I just said that because I know the girls will remember me because I was their first time (and actually took the time to teach them some useful things where other guys probably wouldn't bother).

ADDED:

My girlfriend, by the way, doesn't mind. She's not the jealous type. And when she gets tired of me (they all eventually do) we'll just part ways amicably.

133. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188353 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 2:28 am

Comment #188299 by mordacious1

I feel I should add that the "damaged goods" comment was a figure of speech (hence the quotes). Don't take me literally on that. I don't think women are chattel. Some people are way too sensitive. This is almost like a religious board.

134. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188344 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 1:39 am

Comment #188331 by Rachel Holmes

Pretty much all your arguments, a hundred years ago and even today in many parts of the world, were used against homosexuality. People just couldn't conceive of two men (especially) doing the "act". It was as revolting to them as bestiality is to you.

135. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188342 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 1:29 am

Comment #188325 by MaxD:

It isn't just about pleasuring you? No there is also that bit about having a play thing who won't bruise your ego when she makes some comparisson.

It's not like that. I like virgin women. I enjoy making love to them. Laughing and joking with them. Cooking for them. I don't dump them the next morning. Our relationships last at least a while and I've remained friends with almost all of them to this day.

"Experienced" women (I'm hesitant to use the word "promiscuous"), in my experience, are not guilty of comparing my manhood to other guys (as you might think) - they have more tact than that - but they have too much baggage (emotional included) from their previous relationships. Some even talk about those relationships in bed. Personally, this annoys me (my bad, I know). They also don't listen very well (and probably feel the same way about me). Communication is important in a relationship. It just works better with virgins for me, in my experience.

Also we see that you don't mind having sex and that is cool, but that you are more than mildly picky about your potential partner's history. Why is it okay for you to have sex and not chicks?

Women are free to have as much sex as they want. But not all do. I simply prefer the chaste ones. Just because I'm unchaste, does that mean I can only date unchaste women or must prefer them? That does not logically follow. I know virgins who claimed they would never have slept with a guy who was also a virgin. Are they guilty of a double standard too?

You enjoy teaching them through their lack of experience? Man you are bizarre.

No, I enjoy teaching them to make up for their lack of experience. It sometimes even turns into a biology lesson. In fact, most the guys these women finally end up with or marry have me to thank. What's so bizarre?

136. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188318 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 10:12 pm

Comment #188299 by mordacious1

For the record, I'm not a zoophile - this is the word we're using now - although I kind of preferred the term I coined, "bestial" (noun).

Anyway, yes, I prefer virgin (human) females. I see nothing wrong with that. In my experience, they're "tighter", humbler, more tactful and won't try to compare me with the other men they've slept with. And I enjoy teaching them to make up for their lack of experience. It's not just about them pleasuring me. Does having this preference make me a misogynist? I'd settle for old-fashioned (not in the negative sense) but certainly not religious. It has nothing to do with that in my case.

137. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188288 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Comment #188212 by Rachel Holmes

The derogatory way in which you view bestiality is not unlike how homosexuality was viewed a hundred years ago (and is still viewed in many parts of the world). Your allusions to the importance of emotion and the capacity to have a meaningful relationship with a sexual partner (as points of differentiation and perhaps discrimination) are valid only at face value. Scientifically, the differences between humans and animals are not as unequivocal. There is also the question if we should even stipulate that those criteria *should* be applied to all sexual relations involving humans. It would not surprise me if people who practice bestiality start fighting for their equal rights one day and make a reasonable case for it, regardless of how ridiculous it seems right now.

Incidentally, on a recent trip to the third world, I met with a young woman working at a local supermarket. She had a face that looked very much like that of an orangutan, very thick lips, unusually hairy arms and even slightly elongated fingers. She had what we might call physical deformities. There's probably a medical term for this condition too but it escapes me now. Yet, in every other way she was human even though she did not look like it. In truth, she looked more like an ape. I suppose the distinction between this woman (human) and an actual ape (the non-human kind) makes all the difference in terms of the permissibility of sexual relations.

However, I'm not quite sure what those reasons are and if they have any basis in science. Perhaps the step towards the acceptance of homosexuality in modern society was easier but I wouldn't rule out bestiality quite so easily. Even so, between the two my preference for adopted children would then rest with homosexuals. In time, perhaps even not.

138. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188144 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 9:11 am

Comment #188142 by irate_atheist

No.

Comment #188143 by Cartomancer

You're right. You know... one thing I like about homosexuals is that in my experience, they're more intelligent than heterosexuals.

139. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188139 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 9:01 am

Comment #188134 by esuther

I just might. I'm not getting any real answers to my questions anyway. A lot of people also seem to be unusually offended at mere words. Sexual orientation is apparently too sensitive an issue for rational discourse.

140. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188132 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 8:52 am

Comment #188126 by epeeist

It was an answer to a question, I believe. I still think they'll be happier in their own communities in the same way as they are happier in their own bars. I'm not suggesting we force them into ghettos and camps (like I was often misquoted). I also don't mind having them as neighbours (but perhaps not in preference to heterosexuals because we have more in common). What's so bad about this? Am I a homophobe because of my opinion on this matter or for having preferences?

141. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188120 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 8:40 am

Comment #188117 by Peacebeuponme

It's because I wasn't sure if your main argument for said adoption was gay rights or the interest of the children. You've recently clarified that.

142. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188119 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 8:38 am

Comment #188116 by epeeis

What conditions have I imposed on others? I have merely posited thought experiments.

143. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188110 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 8:31 am

Comment #188102 by Philip1978

The problem, Phil, is that these reasons, while valid on the surface and in casual conversation, may not have a strong scientific basis. Why is the distinction between humans and animals only this clear with regard to sexuality? And why is it okay for someone to slaughter a cow for food without its "consent" but not to have sexual relations with it? Who drew the line between sexuality and slaughter and on what basis was that decision made?

144. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188101 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 8:21 am

Comment #188100 by Rachel Holmes

In science, we sometimes have to ask difficult questions and get down to the details, however uncomfortable they may be. Personally, I'm just curious. I'm sorry if I'm coming off as a homophobe. I suspected from the beginning it would be difficult to even ask questions like this. If Dan Dennett was here, I'd tell him it's even more difficult than asking tough questions about religion.

145. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188096 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 8:12 am

Comment #188091 by epeeist

I only have a preference, like Comment #188055 by Peacebeuponme.

146. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188085 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 7:59 am

Comment #188056 by AllanW

Since this issue is obviously bothering you, AllanW, and I really can't say if I actually misrepresented you, let me make it clear to all:

I am not sure what position AllanW holds on the issue of bestiality. If I remember correctly, the last thing he said was that he did not condone it or conflate it with homosexuality.

Happy?

147. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188083 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 7:55 am

Comment #188082 by hungarianelephan

I didn't. epeeist apparently did.

148. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188080 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 7:50 am

Comment #188079 by epeeist

I'm not here to discuss objective morality, I'm afraid. It's a whole other can of worms I'd rather not digress into right now.

149. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188077 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 7:47 am

Comment #188067 by AllanW

Non-legal redress? What's this about?

150. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188073 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 7:42 am

Comment #188072 by irate_atheist

Actually, the point was that we hunt and slaughter animals without their "consent" (even lawfully). Not that there aren't laws.