chico chupacabra wrote:

> Archie Bunker wrote:
>
>>>> Is it the sentiment among Episcopalians that sex with small animals is
>>>> included in this "sexual immorality" which St Paul tells the church in
>>>> Corinth to flee? Or is this kind of behavior okay now since the Holy
>>>> Spirit has obviated most of the Pauline Epistles? Would your parish
>>>> object if she brought one of her little "friends" with her to church
>>>> the
>>>> same way she has her FAS-defective ******* partner, and maybe even got
>>>> its jollies with her during, say, vespers? Or is it all perfectly
>>>> reasonable for "anglo catholics" to "glorify God" in their bodies and
>>>> spirits by diddling with critters?
>>>>
>>>> Discuss.
>>
>>
>> I guess I better stop letting the dog hump my leg..or should I say
>> ankle since he is a chihuahua. HA HA HA HA
>
>
> The issue according to Karen is whether your dog has a "preference" for
> sex with your leg, ankle, or humans in general, over and above a
> preference for sex with other dogs. I've never known a dog to have a
> foot/ankle/lower leg fetish, aside from eating up shoes on occasion. If
> your chihuahua prefers sex with your ankle or with you, then she thinks
> it's perfectly acceptable for you to "cuddle up with it on the couch"
> and alienate your human companionship for a little animal sex:
>
> ...[S]ome animals don't want a mate of their own species, just
> as some humans don't. We may think it is better for a human to
> get out, mingle with other humans, find a human partner. But
> some humans just want to curl up on the couch or go out hiking
> with their companion dog or cat. I think we need to respect
> such personal preferences. As long as no *harm* is being done
> to another, we have no right to tell another human, OR another
> non-human, how to live his/her life, or who to live it with.
> Karen Winter
> http://tinyurl.com/m7ff8
>
> BTW and nevermind sex, have you ever considered hiking with a CAT? I
> don't know where she comes up with her examples, but I guess it's to be
> expected from someone who feels special and that it was "sweet" that a
> bird got off in her hand.

For what it's worth, almost 30 years ago, my then
girlfriend and I took our two cats up into the Angeles
National Forest, north of L.A., for a day trip. We
mostly hung around the campsite, but we did go on a
short walk, and the cats, perhaps a little freaked out
by the strange environment, stayed right with us. I
did take the precaution, however, of attaching little
cat string leashes to their collars, to make it easier
to try to catch them if they wanted to bolt. It was a
pretty amusing experience, once, but wasn't worth
repeating.


>
>> just kidding! It does seem a bit odd letting an animal get off on your
>> hand.
>
>
> *Very* odd, and thanks for your reply. Anyone else out there think it's
> a bit queer? Anyone care to defend Karen, her "regularly" having sexual
> relations with a small animal, and/or bestiality in general?