That's fair. I did start with a reasonable post, but got sucked in.
I just think that a desire to look at animals sexually and, in particular, producing images portraying it, is likely to lead to animals being abused to produce more obscene images.
Much as cartoons of child abuse would upset me because they will likely bring people in to the idea of child porn and result in a child getting hurt to make that porn.
I think that blatently promoting sexual thoughts towards animals is tantamount to inciting animal cruelty.
My words were likely to have been 'as long as they don't interfere with anyone else' - the law is unlikely to come into it. I think that animals being interfered with is a reason not to do it.
( ,
Wed 5 Sep 2007, 22:29,
archived)
Much as cartoons of child abuse would upset me because they will likely bring people in to the idea of child porn and result in a child getting hurt to make that porn.
I think that blatently promoting sexual thoughts towards animals is tantamount to inciting animal cruelty.
My words were likely to have been 'as long as they don't interfere with anyone else' - the law is unlikely to come into it. I think that animals being interfered with is a reason not to do it.
fair enough
you should blame Disney, Warner and others too then, they introduced anthropomorphic animals (with partly very clear female proportions) to millions of kids ;)
( ,
Wed 5 Sep 2007, 22:37,
archived)
I don;t think Disney and co are to blame
anthropomorphasising (sp?!) goes back at the very least to Egyptian Gods, but most ancient folk tales have manly beasts and feminine serpents and such
( ,
Wed 5 Sep 2007, 22:48,
archived)