ever see Kissed? it's about a lady who fucks dead dudes. (non-doc)

Didn't Harry Potter's artistic bravery in Equus teach you narrow-minded neanderthals ANYTHING about tolerence?!!

Buffywrestling that was great.

Does anybody know which queen of France or whatever was supposedly a horsefucker? Can't remember.

I know the Jackass guys will be interested in this one though. The shitting in J2 was gross but drinking the horsespunk made me gag. By which I mean... uh nevermind.

Besides, don't you realise how redundant your post is, or did you somehow wander into this TB without reading the actual review itself? You just read a long and funny review about a man getting fucked and killed by a horse! Bears are 'crossing the line'?! Yes I'm exagerratin' but Jeezuss dude! It's THE ONION.

Your Fireman story is MORE offensive as it's actually real (if we believe someone as gullible as you) and you didn't hesitate to share it with US, you 'complete sick fuck'! We should be spared your post - by your own argument.

I remember renting Woman Chaser at one point. That was really on tape? Time flies.

I crack myself up, I tell you.

One more thing... my wife is a hoarse fucker.

Xiphos is absolutely right. It is unfair. Horse-fucker should be a title achieved after 10 or more horse-dalliances. Less than 10 fucks and people should just refer to you as "that guy who fucked a horse one/two/a few times".

Darfur, I'm not absolutely sure but I had a little white Welsh Mountain pony (stop it!) when I was a kid and he did look sheepishly and maybe enviously at the black stallion next door from time to time. Of course he also used to run by the new mares to show off when a new lot came, his fat buttcheeks making him fart with every stride. Hey, Ladies!

Fight. Thanks for that. I dunno, why, but at least you've put my mind at ease. Wouldn't wanna get that one wrong in polite company.

Seph, maybe he's defensive because, well, his name is Vern, fer cryin' out loud. What more do you need to be suspicious?! ;)

Now, I'm all for Man having dominion over the rest of God's fuckin' creatures. However, taking a fuckin' stiff horse-prick up you large intestine hardly seems to be the way to express your fuckin' gratitude to the Lord fuckin' Almighty. God bless the soul of that poor cocksucker who was too weak to resist the overtures of the equine. Cause that's all a good assfucking requires; a submissive posture of weakness or temptation. Neither of which I will abide.

At least he wasn't a government official.

Also, death by horse cock? Probably up there in my top 8 worst ways to die.

1)Some of those "snickering, adolescent comments" are pretty funny

2) Some of us enjoy Vern's reviews, horse fucking and all

3)It's a fucking talkback.

4)Did you see this, and did you jerk off to it? Do you prefer horse fucking over "fan-boy super-hero" movies?

1.) "Neigh means Neigh" from HV

and

2.) "Fuck Mr. Hands and the horse that road in on him." By DocP

Your Golden Saddle Awards are in the mail. Congrats.

Hey, you said we could flame away!

It is uncanny how often this happens: Demon Dave, Bruce, Horse guy...

If only he could find a way to use these powers to fight crime!

Then Hollywood could make a film about it for us to jerk off about, thus satisfying Gimp Pants own strange kink...

I'm sure you might understand my complete lack of fuckin' empathy towards your beastial endeavors. I prefer cunt or pussy of the human type. Never take from an animal what you can be given by a whore.

No matter how many "rational" NAMBLA-esque arguments you provide for your defense, you're still a very, very sick fuck. Even your argumentation proves it.

For the record, it may not be illegal in the Netherlands and Denmark to fuck animals, but it sure as hell isn't considered normal, healthy acceptable behavior.

By the way, there are also countries where cannibalism isn't punishable by law. Does this make it okay to eat someone?

Fucking freak.

I can't believe some folks have such beliefs. I mean, What about all the horse masturbation that goes on? Do the horses consent to that? Using their logic, we should put a stop to that too. And yet, if it weren't for insemination, horses would go extinct. But at least the 'rights' of horses everywhere would be protected!

As for me, I'm mostly interested in pointing out what a fucking monstrous freak he is, and not so much protecting the horse's rights.

However, I do see the humor in Limbaugh hating animal rights activists so much that he'll stoop to defending horsefuckery just to avoid having to agree with them on anything.

This is one of those things that as a Libertarian... I just don't know what the hell to think. On a personal level, I certainly do think that this stuff is sick, the same way I feel about abortion. But animals are considered property from a legal standpoint. These people do this stuff in private away from the public. They understand the risks and suffer the consequences.

Consider Michael Vick. He procured the animals legit, housed them on his own property, and encouraged them to engage in something that is natural for them by instinct. Sure, I think he's sick and depraved. Of course those animals didn't deserve their fate. I do not condone nor support such actions. But when you really look at it, all he is ultimately guilty for is animal cruelty and perhaps tax evasion.

Bow hunting is legal. Ever see an animal struck with an arrow in the neck or in the lower abdomen? How is that less torturous? And we all know how veal is produced.

It wasn't long ago, certainly within my lifespan, that lots of folks felt the same way about homosexuality. Yes, there is a difference between two sentient beings consenting vs. this. Yet I guess I just don't understand the outrage here, given that so many of the offended likely have no problem with abortion. Cruelty only counts once you've completely escaped the birth canal and/or the fuzzier and cuter you are. No one gives a shit about the percentage of lobsters lost because they tore themselves apart struggling, but that's okay since lobsters are yummy anyhow.

This is one of those things that sends my mind into loops the more I think of it. Sick, yes. Unethical, yes. Immoral, yes. But illegal? I'm just glad I'm not in a position where I have to cast a ruling on these types of decisions.

There may be no gray area to you about abortion, just like there may be no gray area about picking up a 10-piece bucket at the local KFC. But if we aren't talk about death here, then what are we talking about? When you compare and contrast that with this, wholesale slaughter is less of a crime than bringing Mr. Ed to a climax.

I can't believe I'm typing this shit. Yeah, the guy certainly is fucking horses. I can't believe we have someone like Equinas among us here at AICN. It's all messed up no matter how you slice it. However, I'm not going to march in pro-life parades and enforce my personal beliefs on society. And as reluctant as I am to type this, that extends to folks like Equinas and Mr. Hands.

BTW, thanks for not misinterpreting me or trying to pin something on me. A rare thing in TB. There are few times when I urge myself to reconsider before hitting "post comment" and this was one of them.

Dear God in heaven, see what you've done? You've driven me off to the Horsefuckers side. This is how revolutions begin people. Someone find me a pretty little mare with a good disposition... I don't want to be on the side of the "norms" any longer. I'm sure I can learn to love it, over time. My understanding is that horse pussy tastes a great deal like regular old human pussy. You know, like fish.

A talkbacker...called EQUINAS (clever!)...who FUCKS ANIMALS.

Where is JuggFuckler when you need him?!

http://tinyurl.com/26y9cw

Although I've had no experience with any of this, I presume that both are mutually exclusive.

Drug legalization, specifically marijuana. Perhaps some of you may be in support of this, comparing and contrasting its use with alcohol. "Where is the victim?" is a common argument. The way I see it, only the government is because they don't get their cut by way of taxing the sale. Granted, there are family members that may be victims due to a user becoming addicted, or accidents involving vehicles, etc. But all the arguments supporting the sale of alcohol could also apply here. If a user wants to use in the privacy of his own home then why can't the product be taken to market? Where is the victim?

Swingers, wife swappers, bondage and discipline, and other sexual deviants (I mean these as a term of art and not a slam) are considered sick by many. But again, where is the victim when everyone is a consenting adult?

One thing is certain -- this is nothing like pedophilia where it is clear that there is a victim. Some of you drew this comparison, but I personally don't see it that way. I suspect the animal is willing to oblige in most cases simply because the animal doesn't know any better. Especially if we're talking about them being the ones that are doing the fucking.

Nearly all of you sound like so many morally outraged conservatives back around the 80s (and admittedly up to today) when more and more homosexuals began to out themselves. BangoSkank summed this up perfectly when they wrote, "his detractors have brought up torturing him, having him violently raped, branded, shipped off to an island, and shot in the back of the head." Sounds exactly the same to me what the far right-wing homophobic nutjobs have said about homosexuality. Bestiality certainly is extreme, but its one of several speed bumps on the road of tolerance.

Is polyamory okay? Why can't three adults love each other just as much as two? Where does tolerance begin and end?

I think it is worth noting that former governor of my home state of MA, Michael Dukakis, tried legalizing bestiality several times when in office. There were many jokes made at his expense at the time, especially considering that his wife's nickname was Kitty. I leave it to the reader to Google up his party affiliation.

So many of you likely are in favor of a woman's right to choose. Why is it less of a sin for an 11 year old girl to terminate a child's life without consent of her parents -- but its not okay for a man to purchase an animal, which is legally considered his property, for the purpose of having that animal defile him? I can't see where the victim is here. As an aside, I recently had to sign a release granting a doctor permission to remove a wart my daughter had in the nail bed of her big toe. Shouldn't it be more important for me as a parent to know if she's having a fetus removed?

Like I wrote earlier, I know that these words can be construed as support for the other side and I can't believe I'm actually typing this shit. However, there is some major league contradiction when you broach this topic the same way as you do other topics, as I've briefly touched upon above. I'm not accusing anyone of hypocrisy here, but there is a level of discernible inconsistency. To me, tolerance knows no end.

Quote: "I suspect the animal is willing to oblige in most cases simply because the animal doesn't know any better."

Would you use the same rationale if referring to someone taking advantage of a mentally handicapped person?

The bottom line is this guy probably has some serious psycho-social behavioral disorder. He acts out upon it by procuring sex OUTSIDE HIS OWN SPECIES. It's a sickness.

Your concession that your sexual "preference" is probably a sickness should be the first step in getting yourself some serious help. It also pretty much negates any further denial-based argument you may try to put forth on this matter.

Animals are considered property, children and the disabled are not. Also anyone who has dealt with animals to any extent can tell if an animal has been damaged "emotionally"... it's why they kick or bite or freak-out around humans.

I feel like a white suburban middleclass youth who has become a Muslim extremist because he saw what kind of war crimes were being committed by a small portion of his countries soldiers.

Go team horsefucker.

And apparently airports are filled with a wide assortment of freaks. I'd rather sit next to Larry Craig than someone who takes a gallon of horse jizz in the ass.

has a point though.Sick and depraved he may be, but at the end of the day its only our sensibilities being offended.

Is this person past the age of consent or under? I'm not trying to merely flip this back at you. There is merit to the question.

My wife worked at a group home for about 8-years. All staff were expected to treat the individuals as adults. Some still behaved like children, wanting their hands held on walks and the like, yet all were encouraged to act their ages. From a sexual standpoint, they couldn't get all grabby and were educated to understand that that is unacceptable behavior. However, if two residents approached their sexuality in an adult like manner, the staff could do nothing to stop them. Personally, I think that's absurd. How do you effectively educate safe sex practices? These are the laws of the land, however. On the other hand, she had no experience of "regular" people courting any of the residents during her whole time there. I can only suspect, given the rest, that the activity wouldn't be discouraged, providing the "normal" person wasn't forcing themself.

BTW, I think you underestimate the mentally handicapped. Although I understand what you meant in your question, I still wouldn't put them on the same functional level as animals.

We enslave animals, experiment on them, pen them in their own filth while they wait to be carved up for consumption... but a dude making sweet love to his pet deserves to be shot? A dude, who -if he speaks the truth-- has fought for his country in war? Face it, it is a matter of moral sensibilities

And yes, he is certainly suffering from some type of psycho-sexual deviation, he admits as much.

Why? Because you say so? Am I keeping you from spewing further bile in your roiling hatred of something you don't understand like so many rabid weasels in a burlap sack? Perhaps you are too afraid to look in the mirror and see the inconsistency of your own thought process, which have gotten you by this far? MNG and mode 7 have. Meanwhile, all you're capable of "Fuck, fuck, fucketty, McFuck, fuck."

You must realize that many far right conservatives have used the very same thought process about homosexuality that you have made here. That isn't enough to make it the only correct and logical answer, or the only one to matter.

Again, there is no light at the end of the tolerance tunnel. It just goes on, and on, and...

MNG and mode 7 have *attempted to draw a line in the sand somewhere*. Meanwhile, all you're capable of "Fuck, fuck, fucketty, McFuck, fuck."

I live in Massachusetts. I won't stoop to the tired line of, "I have homosexual friends..." but if you work in a larger company, you can't help but rub elbows with them every so often. Earlier this year, I overheard two of them speaking about the upcoming Gay Pride Parade in Provincetown. No eavesdropping, this was cafeteria talk. One asked the other if they were going. The reply was, "I wouldn't associate with any of those freaks."

Things are the same all over.

Another case of someone thinking that something that is obviously dangerous, is so good, then it turns out horribly wrong. Isn't that comedy?

Remember, "Sleeping Dogs Lie"? I still haven't watched it (mainly because they'd never have it in my little part of the world), but there was the same debate then, too.

I'm not accusing you of either. When I posed that question, and a rhetorical one at that, I was drawing analogy to how it is the same question that liberals pose to me when other topics are being bantered; e.g. prostitution, abortion, homosexuality, marijuana legalization, etc. And from both sides of the aisle. Depending on the topic, I'm labeled either too tolerant or utterly intolerant. This is frustrating to me. I think I've convinced at least you that I attempt to approach and place most things on a level playing field. Given that, which side is ultimately the intolerant one?

"Society has to have lines and boundaries in order to function."

Absolutely, but ceaseless preaching of tolerance coupled with a heavy dose contradiction can only break society down, not build it up.

"One last thought, I don't quite understand what you mean when you make reference to your endless tolerance."

Oh, no, no, no. I'm not claiming to have boundless tolerance at all. I've written here earlier how I do not condone nor support Mr. Hands or our own Equinas. However, when one gets on a high horse and smacks everyone across the face with the mighty hammer of tolerance about other topics, then those debating points can be easily used against that person. Different subjects are all scrutinized under a subjective microscope for some reason. Tolerance can be a slippery slope that never ends. That's what I meant, sorry.

Homophobia existed for quite a long time, certainly within my lifespan. Granted, there were pockets of society within history that allowed some form of homosexuality, but tolerance of such was nothing like it is now and our society grows only more tolerant as time marches on. Whether or not this is a good thing is irrelevant to the discussion.

This is the slippery slope theory I'm certain you must have heard by now. Hence, if accepting homosexuality is the first step toward sexual deviance and depravity (again, not my personal stance, but stay with me here), then what is next? I believe I will see a large movement toward the acceptance of polyamory at some point during my lifetime. Honestly. After all, using YOUR OWN debate points, these are people that love each other. Now, perhaps you are with me and don't think polyamory would be a good thing for our society. But let's say you are for it. That's another step toward depravity again. What is the next step after that? So on and so on.

Needless to say, this constant backtracking away from what many consider to be traditional core values that are an essential cornerstone of our society are perceived by many to be a slippery slope that eventually will lead way to sympathy and possibly acceptance and legalization of pedophilia. The proverbial shooting for the moon in our lifetimes, but what about our grandchildren? My grandparents never would have thought that homosexuality would have ever been as wifely accepted as it is today. Is it really that much of a stretch for us to imagine what our grand kids will be debating?

BTW, I could interpret (hopefully misinterpret) your typing the word "Jebus" as a betrayal of your own for of intolerance of certain organized religions. Thus, I could also ask you what year you are living in. See how this works? Prolly not the case. Prolly written in jest, but as you can see, tolerance is a subjective animal.

A lot of folks are concerned about the wellbeing of the horses, but I think they're underestimating these animals. Comparing them to people - young, disabled, whatever - is ridiculous. Horses are a different species, and they're not shy about letting you know they're pissed off. Rabbits, for example, freeze when they're in distress, so if you were sufficiently motivated I guess you could rape one without being mauled to death like those Monty Pythoners. But horses are fucking terrifying. I wouldn't slap one in the face, let alone try to fuck it, because these things will stomp you into the ground if they get upset. Equinas, I won't pretend to understand the attraction of these beasts but if you can survive a whole sexual encounter then you must be doing something right.

As Thomas Servo points out, only (most) humans are shy about interspecies sex. The rest of the animal kingdom is an absolute fucking orgy. These things will stick their cocks in anything, from same-sex siblings to knots in tree trunks. We'd probably be the same if we didn't have such a high sense of identity, and therefore shame.

One thing that intrigues me is the idea of a full loving relationship between human and horse. Anyone who's ever owned a dog will know that they are able to differentiate between people, and hold more affection for one than another. But offering an animal "love" (as opposed to just sex) seems a little presumptuous. Like trying to apply a human characteristic - the desire for love - to a different species. How can we know if horses have any sense of romantic love? Even if they do, how could this be manifest in a way we can understand enough to reciprocate? I can barely understand women. I suppose I'm asking Equinas if he's gained some higher understanding of horses, and exactly how fulfilling a romantic relationship - or, say, marriage - with one could be. For either party.

Finally, thank you Vern for this astonishing debate.

Slaveowners have been portrayed to, at times, have a sense of affection for their slaves. And masters had sex with their slaves on a regular basis, for pleasure and procreation. Does that mean the slave women enjoyed it? If they didn't (or couldn't) object, was it justified? No, it was coersive and rapacious all the same.

There's a point where over-thinking something just throws common sensibilities out, and that's pretty dangerous. The day anyone takes a horsefucker's arguments seriously is, as you say, the day people need to keep their children out of public view.

Stop trying to use the lack of legislation against bestiality in the Netherlands and Denmark as some sort of measuring stick. In neither of those countries is it socially acceptable to fuck horses, I assure you, despite the lack of laws prohibiting it.

Cannibalism isn't illegal in Germany, either, but you don't see people finding it socially or morally acceptable to fucking eat people there.

For the record, I'm not pro-horsefucking, but as long as there's a debate on the subject, what does "Dude! You fuck a horse!" do for anyone? From Vern's review it sounds like the documentary avoided that kind of thing. It's too easy to shout someone down or ignore their point of view. Also, in a discussion about exploitation, there's also a lot of exploiting Equinas and his ilk for laughs, which doesn't seem fair.

I have seen different species of animals fucking, and I've also seen what I can only describe as non-consensual animal sex (same species; cows if you care). I like hillwalking, and that's the kind of thing you get in the countryside. I was mystified when I saw it, but it's pointless to judge animals from a human moral standpoint.

My main problem, as I said above, is when the idea of love comes into it. I want to know a horsefucker's opinion on this because love requires a certain level of mutual understanding and I don't believe you can achieve this with a horse. It sounds like the self-delusion of that idiot who thought he could live with Alaskan bears, until they ate him and his girlfriend. I think it's dangerous to think of animals in human psychological terms (who knows if the word "consensual" even really applies?) but Equinas knows a guy who's married to one. So I'm asking if he really believes romantic love is possible between species.

I guess I just want to understand extreme behaviour. I wouldn't go near a horse's crack, much less with my cock out, but some folk out there have no problem with it. That's what intrigues me. Not the act itself, but a person's ability to go through with it.

I know, I know, it's not exactly what you meant, but essentially it is what you're saying. Your argument that "THEY'RE ANIMALS!" works both ways. As in "THEY'RE ONLY ANIMALS!".... Again, it's okay to grind them up into glue or dogfood, but not for E to stick his cock into one?

And yes, I'm playing devil's advocate here. Sheesh.

Why? Because you love bacon?

If you equate horse-fucking to child-molestation, you have to equate eating a burger to cannibalism. You don't get it both ways.

I know, I know, two wrongs don't make a right, and we do have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, but I still haven't seen anyone argue that there is a true victim in this crime.

Property is property, and animal cruelty is animal cruelty. I just don't think it's been properly proven that E's horsefucking falls into that later category. Especially if you compare to what else we can legally do to the same animal. Sure it's fucked up, sure it goes against everything we've been taught to believe, but I guess it's the level of moral outrage I've seen here that has me defending his actions. To me, comparing the act of fucking a horse to child pedos, or raping a "slave" or someone in a coma is what's offensive.

Check out my earlier post to Equinas = the horsefucker is the initial victim. The behavior he is perpetrating (and apparently enjoying the defense thereof) is a result of a severe psychological-behavioral disorder. IT'S A SICKNESS. Nothing more. Anyone trying to defend it or prop-up even more dubious notions of inter-species romance is fooling themselves.

The issue is: imposing oneself upon another living thing for the purpose of fulfilling one's sexual gratification.

On the subject of exploitation, I've used a horse as transport more than once, I've eaten horse meat and I've gambled on the occasional race. So while I've never imposed myself on a horse for sexual gratification (quite the opposite when your happysack's the victim of violent saddle bouncing), I have exploited them for food, money and to get from A to B. None of which was necessary, only appealing or convenient. So it's hard to be too judgemental of a man who uses them for sex.

I still have questions, though. How the fuck do they put up with all the flies? I've never seen a horse that wasn't surrounded by a hundred buzzing bloodsuckers and that shit cannot possibly be a turn-on.

And well done everyone. Although it says a lot about us that the most reasoned and erudite TB in recent memory has been inspired by this topic...

I stand by my stance that the horse doesn't give a fuck. I've hesitated in admitting that I was born and raised on a horse farm in a community filled with horse owners.... because of the obvious accusations that I thought would follow.... yes, I'll stick up for the horse-fucker, but I don't really want people to think I am I horsefucker.... And let me tell ya, I find it hard to believe that if the horse didn't want to be fucked (or at least minded), it wouldn't allow it. I have seen --at, frankly, too young an age-- a Arabian mare kick the ever-loving-shit out of a stallion trying to be bred with it. If we can eat a horse, feed it to our dogs, have it "raped" by a stallion with shlong MUCH MUCH larger than a human, ride the fuckers around for our amusement, or strap them to farm equipment to be used as "slaves".... fucking it can't be that big of a deal.

Yes, it's fucked up. No, it's not natural. Yes, there is something wrong with our friend E. No, I don't expect people to ever be accepting of horsefuckery in polite society. AND yes, I have enjoyed fanning the flames of this talkback.

And Bringsexy, PLENTY of people have compared having sex with a horse to raping a kid in this talkback. Suuuure, I manipulated what you said, but that doesn't change what others have posted.

If there is a sudden surge of people signing up as AICN members.... you're welcome.

And as far as I know, not a single one has fucked a horse. Or a chicken.

Maybe it will attract some real former Nazis who will try to spin the Holocaust.

That's what I've been (stubbornly) striving for since my very first post in this thread. Some have come close, but all have ultimately betrayed their stance as subjective feeling aka an assault on one's own moral values and sensibilities where this topic is concerned. And let's face it, this is an easy topic to dismiss with what one perceives as humor.

I've tried long and hard here to present tangible criteria how preaching of tolerance on other topics of a sexual nature could easily pave the way for acceptance of bestiality (and all of its various forms) from the same moral grounds, but few are willing to entertain the notion. Why? 'Cause, like, DUDE!!! They're fucking ANIMALS!! See Vern's last post that quoted Doc Pazuzu. Ultimately, morality is relative if tolerance is our only guide.

No, I am not condoning nor am I defending what they do. I am a conservative yet mostly a libertarian. In everything, I question where the victim is. Frankly, I see no victim here, given the defense of other pet sexual acceptance of the liberal left when I peer through the same prism of tolerance.

Contrasting and comparing bestiality with abortion, rape, pedophilia, etc. (where there is a discernible victim) -- as well as where each party statistically stands on the legalization of bestiality is concerned -- it is very clear to me that there is a major level of contradiction if not hypocrisy. The kind that demonizes Mark Foley while re-electing Gerry Studds multiple times.

You have? Which ones? Where? I've been fascinated with this thread and I have yet to see one. Perhaps you intend to cite the ones that compare bestiality with rape of the handicapped? I countered that one handily. Briefly, in the states of MA and RI, the handicapped are considered to "be" their ages. Hence, if they are at or above the age of consent, and they consent, then there is no rape. And if they are not at the age of consent, then they are the victim of pedophilia. The law makes no special provision. Perhaps the law differs in other states and/or countries.

And that's where that particular comparison is concerned. Again, what well reasoned argument has been made? I've seen none.

As disgusted as I am about the Michael Vick case, it's ultimately about the vilification of what one man did with his property. Granted, there are animal cruelty laws as well as tax evasion that he is guilty of -- neither of which make the man a role model by any stretch -- but those animals were his property BY LAW. It sickens me to type this, but he can do with his property as he sees fit as long as it falls under the law. And if the law in his state allows for pit fighting, well... Then only the cruelty and tax evasion laws can stick. We can carry on all day about how our moral sensibilities were bruised, but at the end of the day, black and white rules.

If I am expected to believe that two bearded overweight men making out in plain sight in the middle of a playground while their twin adolescent adopted daughters swing on swings and slide down slides in the park will have no impact at all on the groundwork that our founding forefathers envisioned for our society -- well, then, by that same logic, neither will Equinas's fucking of barnyard animals in the privacy of his own home where he is hurting no one else, hopefully including his property (i.e. the animals) he is in company with.

BTW, Equinas if you are reading this, I hope you realize that you were given the benefit of the doubt not by a card carrying member of the party of tolerance, but by a libertarian conservative. I don't like what you do and would never condone it. Were you to meet my daughter, I would immediately introduce you to the backside of a shovel and the trunk of my car. Despite this, I feel compelled to quote Jefferson... "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

My interpretation -- The liberals have already damned morality, so do what you will under the tenets of law, but understand that you may never be understood.

Damn, that is a compelling argument. What I've been waiting for.

Your gorilla angle difficult to overcome. The only thing I could hope to banter is the domestic vs. not angle. After all, if a creature willingly obliges, then there is still no harm, no foul.

At the end of the day, you are comparing the rape of a cognizant, sentient being with that which is not. Not by my own personal determination but by that which is law. I may not like it. You may not like it. But law is law. And animals are considered property. And their owners may do with them what is fit under law. Again, we all know where veal comes from.

I wrote this before, but it appears lost -- Do any of you realize just how much your accusations sound like the homophobic right?

And you strive to support tolerance for bestiality, when even Eq. makes a clear distinction between Zoophiles (like himself, who have sex with animals for 'love') and Bestialists (who have sex with animals for other reasons). Do you support both camps, or do you subscribe to that distinction too?

Since you obviously didn't bother to read Eq.'s own descriptions of Zoophiles and Bestialists, and lump them both together, I think you're in this TB not to participate in a debate, but to use the issue to bash the Left. It goes right along with the tactics used by most right-wingers. Issues are only important when they're a convenient tool to use. Otherwise you wouldn't give them the time of day. And the hypocrisy is written all over your faces, just like it was written on Larry Craig's and Mark Foley's and Ted Haggard's.

The only people whose argument holds any water are the vegans. Everyone else is just making the same moral debate they brought out against the gays a hundred years ago. It's wrong because it ain't right. Dudes doing dudes butholes? Well, God couldn't have wanted it that way.... so *bam* it's wrong.

I have to say, I am absolutely neutral on horse-fucking. Which is to say, I just don't give a damn about it one way or another.

There are about 80 million things in the world I care about to some degree, and people having sex with horses is not one of them. So Equinas, go on with your bad self. You have the tacit blessing of my indifference. But I would vote for you. It probably takes a mighty man indeed to fuck a horse, and our nation needs mighty leaders.

Seek help.

It was funny at first but you are getting WAY into this now. I can picture you whacking off o this talk back - and everyone who is enabling you to do so. Disturbing.

We are fueling you; giving you power.

I thought it was funny....

Until now.

If you do the acts - and you come unto a PUBLIC forum to "suggest" (re: horsefuckery) and they are, no matter how much spin you place on them - a crime that if you were EVER caught, would be punished to the full extent of the law in the juristiction, and you *winkingly* admit to them....

Well, you must know that when you register to talkback.... They might not have your name. But they have your server. They know where you come from...

You want to be VERY careful, horsefucker. Very careful.Ï

Don't you people have any sense of priorities? This fucking country... people are being killed every day in wars all over the world, starving, and you're freaking out because some guy likes fucking horses? (or says he does... it's the internet after all).

And the idea of someone named "buffywrestling" trying to sound ominous and threatening... god, grow up. All of you people beating your chests and getting on your high horse (forgive the pun), go over to Iraq, they could use tough dudes like you there.

It would be difficult to do so without getting mauled and killed, so a man who could fuck a wild animal would clearly have accomplished something very daring and outrageous...so it seems like something hunters would enjoy, and could add to their weekend warrior status and braggadocia rights.

I'm not a veggiephile PETA member, but I think its pretty idiotic how a cat getting stuck in a tree is newsworthy and evokes 'Awwwwws' when pigs, cows, and chickens are on people's dinner plates. Its selective sentimentality....a lot of bullshit.

Free speech? Free Country? Free Trolling? Damn right. That is why he gets to say Horse cum tastes like hay and I get to call him insane.

But you are naive if you think that no one is controlling the Talkbacks. And who registers. And they don't know who you are.

Name the place. Name the FARM, horsefucker. I DARE you.

PS: Bring your friends.À

I don't have kids, but personally I'd feel more comfortable having a beer with a guy who fucks horses than with a guy who threatens to kill anyone in opposition to his own moral outlook. So the guy likes horses! He's not going to kidnap me and stick my cock in Black Beauty's holiest of holies. I'm sure he has other personality traits; for example, this is AICN, so maybe he also likes movies.

Equinas, thank you for answering my question about love. It seems a shame that the horses don't reciprocate your feelings but I've known human couples in the same situation, so fair enough. (Boy, I never thought I'd have to qualify the word "couples" with the word "human.")

Kurszinski, if I was a man of greater integrity I would be vegan (like some of my friends) and never exploit another animal, but I'm comfortable rationalising my meat-eating. And by the way, excellent work with the line "chevalling shit."

I'm still no closer to understanding the attraction of horses, but here's what I've decided about horsefucking being an act of cruelty. Like all questions of morality, it's subjective, so it comes down to what we can live with. It turns out, I can live with eating meat, which obviously involves killing animals. I've owned pets, and as Equinas points out, curtailled their sexual activity simply by keeping them away from other animals. I've stomped on bugs. And while horsefucking still seems like a weird thing to do, I don't think it's any crueller than my treatment (direct and indirect) of animals in the past. My dog never asked if he could be celibate his entire life, the poor bastard. So I don't see how providing an animal with a sex life is any worse than taking its sex life away.

I guess the only way to judge a horse's "consent" is to study the creatures for years, and then be able to tell from their behaviour whether or not they mind having a human cock tickling their geegee-spot. I still maintain that if a horse doesn't want you around, it will kick the living fuck out of you, but I will defer to horse experts on this one. Frankly, Equinas's mares seem to have a pretty sweet deal. No flies or anything, and I bet they don't end up breaking their legs during a steeplechase and then getting shot in the head. In a perfect world I suppose they'd be free to fuck stallions or horsedick-sized dildos or whatever they wanted, but in the same perfect world I wouldn't be eating steak tonight, and I like steak. So I'm happy to eat meat and not lynch dudes for sticking their own meat in horse holes.

He himself cited Dian Fossey, but conveniently neglected to mention that she DID NOT have sex with gorillas, despite their overtures. I'm sure she loved the gorillas, but was not SELFISH to use them for her sexual gratification.

And if we were to follow Daddylonghead's reasoning, we may as well not argue about anything. Just live and let live, and forget that civilization has developed precisely from humanity's collective debates about human behavior.

How far are you reaching!! There is no tie between them! No tie!! Stop tying!!

I'm not supporting horsefuckery, but I am supporting Equinas and his right to do whatever he wants with his own horses, assuming he genuinely believes the horses don't mind (and I reckon he knows a lot more about horses than I do). I also support his right to explain himself without being threatened by dudes wielding hypothetical shovels.

If your sex life goes beyond simple procreation, I guarantee that someone, somewhere, will be morally opposed to what you're into. I think my tastes are normal, but some folks would call me a pervert for enjoying oral sex. So in their view, I'd be under the same pervert umbrella as these sick fucks who rape children. I mean, holy shit, I have standards. But the morally outraged can't see past their own disgust. They can't recognise the difference between being attracted to a sexual partner and being attracted to a sexual act. They only "moral" and "immoral."

If you decide fucking horses is immoral, that's fine, but please decide it; don't just trust your kneejerk reaction or use your own sense of normalcy as a benchmark. That's how "witches" used to get burned.

By the way, BSB, this isn't all directed at you. Just the first paragraph, really.

I can still call Equinas "horsefucker" though, can't I? For mocking purposes? Because I hear through the grapevine: He actually FUCKS horses!

(He says it's for "research" but I agree with Vern. It's to make a centuars. A HERD of them. To take over the world. Peirs Anthony backed him up.)

You might not agree with what a horsefucker does in his own stable, but that's no reason to fear him (or her). These people aren't psychopaths. I'm pretty sure that you will never be hurt by a horsefucker, and neither will your children.

Irony.

I do not mock what I do not understand. I mock horsefuckers. I hear they taste like hay. ‡

Bobo_Vision, you're right, this debate has made me aware of my hypocrisy towards the treatment of animals. I'd never really considered the extent to which humans control the sex lives of pets and livestock, when I'm not sure we really understand what sexual needs they may have. I feel bad for not letting my dog hump that collie whose unmentionables he was always sniffing. I feel bad for my friend's neutered cat. And I don't suppose this would have occurred to me were it not for a movie about horsefucking.

I'm glad that you pointed out the irony...after I pointed out the irony. See what I did there?

E:

Thank you for pointing out my regurgitating. At least it didn't taste like hay. 

Back to the horseys though. Man, I can't believe what's happened in the TB since I was here last! As for Equinas and the disingenuous apples/apples (really apples/oranges) shenanigans, "intelligence" and "morality" is a funny thing. You guys who expound on his 'refined' discourse should be reminded that Hitler was let's face it, a genius (not necessarily a positive statement before you guys slam me), and convinced more than a handful to follow and agree with his version of morality. No, I'm not saying Aquinas is Hitler. I'm saying don't be swayed by some wordplay, and think it through for yourself before agreeing or conversely resorting to redneck rants. So called 'intelligence' is no antidote for prejudice or proclivities - those people just tend to be more articulate and persuasive in their justification.

And considering how Equinas is so fond of playing with the idea of perception it wouldn't surprise me either if he's just crapping on and doing this for fun. Which is wanking of a different kind! I know others have said similar things already, but that's my 2c anyway.

For Christ's sake I know it's a free site and all but can we please get a fucking edit function? Vern, use your old criminal skills to fix this for us! I know you walk the straight path now but use some persausion, can ya?

Folks, the answer lies in the evidence. Don't believe me. Please do google up which political affiliation has systematically catered to the bestials and learn. And amaze which bestial leaning acolytes later became presidential candidates. And then, amaze at who was the lieutenant governor for such a bestial leaning "animal" (by such a definition and no pun intented).