On 17 Aug 2006 13:02:15 -0700, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 2006 12:17:56 -0700, " > wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On 17 Aug 2006 10:16:16 -0700, " > wrote:
>> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >> On 17 Aug 2006 08:54:28 -0700, " > wrote:
>>
>> <restore>
>> >> >What should she do with the sexually aroused cockatiel? Fling it
>> >> >against the wall? Shake it hard? Throw it back in its lonely cage?
>> >>
>> >> Respect its animal status and get it an appropriate mate,
>> <end restore>
>>
>> >> >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.
>>
>> No, you have no way of knowing that, and bonding with an
>> animal or bird should never include debasing it
>
>...nor the pet owner himself...

Of course, but I don't believe the animal fiddlers here
appreciate that aspect very well. A little further down
this page I wrote, "She availed herself as his sexual
partner, thereby debasing him and herself."

de·base
To lower in character, quality, or value; degrade.
See Synonyms at adulterate. See Synonyms at corrupt.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debased

>> by availing
>> yourself as its sexual partner.
>>
>> >> >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.
>>
>> Then it's clear that YOUR interests come before the
>> animals' interests. You want to make them "better pets"
>> for you, even if that interest debases both you and the
>> animal.
>>
>> >> <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.
>>
>> I didn't claim that she did. That little dodge out of the way,
>> you wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
>> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird, and
>> 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.
>>
>> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
>> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
>> hand.
>>
>> >> >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.
>>
>> Well?
>>
>> >> >Besides, you can't give birds "soft toys".
>> >>
>> >> Yes, you can.
>> >
>> >Not if you care about the health of the bird.
>>
>> A bird can masturbate on a soft rubber toy just as easily
>> as on Karen's hand without any harm to the bird at all.
>>
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> No, they cannot tear apart a strong rubber toy.
>>
>> >> >>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.
>>
>> Then you would allow a dog to masturbate on you, debasing
>> him and yourself.
>>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> Sucking off a dog wouldn't physically harm him, and if he
>> continually tried to mount your face, according to your
>> perverted standards you would have no option but to
>> oblige him.
>>
>> >> >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.
>>
>> She availed herself as his sexual partner, thereby debasing
>> him and herself.
>>
>> >> 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?
>>
>> From the same source which made that accusation;
>>
>> 9) He's never abused animals. This part of my story was obviously
>> a fake you stupid ******s.
>> http://tinyurl.com/hwm4o
>>
>> tut tut tut. You've got to do better than that, Mary.
>>
>> >> 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,
>>
>> That little outburst isn't going to help you, either. I don't even
>> smoke cigarettes these days.
>>
>> >neither Karen nor I are interested in making
>> >any animals "better pets".
>>
>> Yes, you are. You admitted it further up this thread, you
>> dirty little animal-fiddler.