Glorfindel wrote:
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
>
> > cheeky upchuck wrote:
> >
> >>>>Why would it be immoral?
>
> >>>I guess it isn't.
>
> >>What would be moral about letting it have its way with you or any part of your body?
>
> > If the human consents to letting the animal wank on them, that's gross,
> > and sends out warning bells, but it's a lot better than if the human
> > wanks to the animal.
>
> >>>Just grosses me out.
>
> >>Glorfindel got off on it.
>
> > I don't think that can be said for sure. She didn't specify feeling
> > sexual on her part.
>
> No, there was no sexual pleasure/interest in it for me. I was
> just allowing the little bird to do what he wanted with my hand,
> and I don't see anything morally questionable about it in this
> case. For crying out loud -- he was a little bird, no bigger
> than my hand, and it was completely his idea.

In my opinion, that puts you higher on the morality scale than a person
who gets off sexually from animals.

> >>>>I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on my hand.
> >>>>Poor little guy, he was never going to have another bird as a mate,
> >>>>he was quite old when I adopted him, and he was definitely oriented
> >>>>toward humans. Why should I make his last few years less pleasant
> >>>>for him by denying him this release, when it did him no harm, and it
> >>>>did me no harm?
>
> <snip>