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...




Then why are you trying to "hook up" with farm animals Goo?





>
> > 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.