Skanky wrote:

> 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?

You could start by learning that there's no E in masturbation, dumbass.

> I referred to the human-assisted masterbation

Which you find acceptable when Karen does it to a bird, even if you
can't spell it. At 46, no less.

> > > 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.

Definitely? You can't speak for the bird because you weren't a witness
to it. You have Karen's self-serving account.

> Don't portray it that way.

Why not?

> What is The Side?

The Confederacy of Dunces who support AR at AAEV, TPA, and AFV.

> > It was very sexual for
> > her.
>
> Prove this. She has not said so.

She said it was "sweet." She's so happy the bird liked her more than
other birds. Etc. Everything she's said, in toto, indicates prurient
interest in what happened.

> > > 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.

Except when you know of Karen's experience with it, then it's okay.