chico chupacabra wrote:
> > There is definite sexual gratification for a 'milked' bull
>
> Bulls aren't milked, dumb ass. And you want a five-acre farm and a
> pickup...

How do I say this to you delicately? Notice that the word 'milked' is
in little quote marks. It's obvious I'm referring to something else.
I referred to the human-assisted masterbation of bulls in order to
collect the semen for sale. If it's any easier for you to understand,
try substituting 'wanked' where I wrote 'milked'.

> > I don't see a difference here.
>
> You did when you first learned that it was true; you said it was gross.
> Now you and Lesley feel compelled to once again circle the wagons and
> protect The Side. This time, though, that circle is a circle jerk with
> a small abused cockatiel in the middle.

I still think it's gross, but the bird was definitely not abused.
Don't portray it that way. What is The Side?

> It was very sexual for
> her.

Prove this. She has not said so.

> > Morally, she is not lower than the ranchers.
>
> So you're taking the side that it's better and moral to **** animals so
> long as you don't eat them.

I don't believe in any sexual abuse of animals. In Glorfindel's case
no abuse took place, just something I consider gross. Just like
letting a dog hump your leg is not abuse - the dog is not hurt or made
into a sexual object for a human. Yeah, it's gross, but when you look
at it from a moral viewpoint, there's no harm being done. When a human
****s an animal, that's a violation of that animal.

Scented Nectar
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/