Derek wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006 10:16:16 -0700, " > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On 17 Aug 2006 08:54:28 -0700, " > wrote:

> >You don't get it. The reason humans hand-rear young birds, not
> >allowing females to nest and nurture their own offspring, is to get
> >them to bond with humans INSTEAD OF other birds.
>
> Bonding with an animal or bird should never include debasing
> it by availing yourself as its sexual partner.

It goes byond a bond, it is total identification. An animal that has
been prevented from sociializing with members of its own species sees
its human caregiver as one its own. In this context, sexual overtures
towards the caregiver is understandable and predictable.
>
> >It makes them "better pets"
>
> No, it does not. And besides, making them "better pets" isn't
> in the animals' best interests; it's in the human's best interests.

Well, yeah. That's why hand-rearing young birds. along with a
multitude of other things we force upon "pets" of all species, is
morally repugnant.
>
> <restore>
> >> or,
> >> failing that, instead of following your abusive alternatives,
> <end restore>
> >> gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down
> >
> >Sexual instincts dont just go away, Derek.
>
> You wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird,

I don't believe Karen claimed to manipulate the bird into a state of
sexual arousal. The bird is self-aroused because of an innate sexual
drive in mature birds. Any handling will prompt sexual activity. This
behavior usually waxes and wanes seasonally. Do you have any personal
experience with birds? Because you act as if you don't know the first
thing about bird behavior.

> yes, sexual arousal does go away while a suitable alternative
> is being sought.
>
> >> or do what it wants to do on a soft toy.
> >
> >The bird sees Karen as it's mate
>
> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
> hand.

No, it sees Karen as its mate.

> >and many birds are strictly
> >monogamous. It would have no impulse to treat a toy as a mate.
>
> A bird will masturbate on a soft toy just as readily as on
> a person's hand.

> >Besides, you can't give birds "soft toys".
>
> Yes, you can.

Not if you care about the health of the bird. Clearly, you consider a
companion bird's physical and mental health of no importance.
>
> > They would immediately rip it apart and eat the fibers
> > causing serious intestinal problems.
>
> Then give it a soft rubber one.

Same thing. Birds beaks are strong. They can tear apart anything with
flexibility.
>
> >>What she shouldn't do is debase it or herself by allowing
> >>it to masturbate on her hand.
> >
> >What a prude!
>
> So, if I were to distract my labrador from using my leg to
> masturbate on I would be a prude?

If you have an intact male labrador it would be cruel not to provide
him some means of sexual release. I would hope you aren't stupid
enough to be actively breeding him.

If you did allow him to ejaculate on your leg, I wouldn't say you were
sexually abusing him.

> If he continually tried
> to mount my face and I refused to suck his dick, I would
> be a prude?

Can't imagine any living being wanting to get that close to your face,
but since it sounds as if that experience would be uncomfortable and
possibly dangerous, you would be well within your rights to refuse his
advances.

If the cockatiel was biting Karen's arm while he rubbed on her hand, I
imagine she would put an end to the session.
>
> >Sexual behavior in animals is not "debasing".
>
> It is when that sexual behaviour includes availing oneself
> as its sexual partner.

According to Karen, she did not initiate sexual contact.

> Clearly, you are not fit to keep animals either,

Like the opinion of a man who beheads mewling kittens with a garden
shovel has any value?

> because like Karen you're willing to
> debase yourself and the animal in the hope that it will
> make it a *better pet* for you, you dirty little animal-fiddler.

You thick-headed junkie, neither Karen nor I are interested in making
any animals "better pets". I am opposed to the very existence of pets
as a category of animals without domain over their own lives.