betsy Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 Canada’s Supreme Court Legalizes Some Sex Acts with Animals Canada’s highest court has just ruled that some sex acts between humans and animals are legal.In a quixotic ruling, the country’s high court ruled that a man who was on trial for raping and sexually exploiting his own daughters wasn’t guilty of “bestiality.” The man reportedly, “smeared peanut butter on the genitals of his victims and had the family dog lick it off while he videotaped the act.” The convicted man took his case to the Canadian Supreme Court, demanding that the bestiality charge be nullified. In the end, the court agreed. As a result of the rape case, the court ruled 7 to 1 that humans having sexual contact with animals is OK if there is no “penetration” involved in the act. The high court’s lone dissenter, though, said the ruling would mean open season for the sexual exploitation of animals. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/09/canada-supreme-court-legalized-humans-sex-animals/ It's okay to abuse your animal, that's the point here, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 Canada’s Supreme Court Legalizes Some Sex Acts with Animals Is petting your dog considered a sex act? What about all those old ladies who kiss their dogs? Please tell us what the boundaries are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 What about all those old ladies who kiss their dogs? It's considered a sex act only if the "old ladies" stick out their tongue. Ugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 It's an issue of consent. Bark once for yes, twice for no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 It's an issue of consent. Bark once for yes, twice for no. Only if it's an enthusiastic yes. Tail must be wagging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 OMG are we now training our animals to give enthusiastic consent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 OMG are we now training our animals to give enthusiastic consent? How else are we supposed to react to this thread . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 (edited) Alice in wonderland. Down the rabbit hole. Ooops. Didn't mean that to be sexual in any way. Edited July 23, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 Alice in wonderland. Down the rabbit hole. Oh no! Not rabbits too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 Alice in wonderland. Down the rabbit hole. Ooops. Didn't mean that to be sexual in any way. That was good! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 (edited) Only if it's an enthusiastic yes. Tail must be wagging. You mentioned it, not me. ENTHUSIASTIC CONSENT. Wagging in what way? How do you gauge enthusiastic? Edited July 23, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 You mentioned it, not me. ENTHUSIASTIC CONSENT. Wagging in what way? How enthusiastic can you gauge that consent? Betsy. It's a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 Only if it's an enthusiastic yes. Tail must be wagging. LOL Forgot about the tail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) I can't believe this actually needs explaining.... But here it is: Found "not guilty" of something is not the same as "legalizing" that same something. People are found not guilty of murder all the time.... That doesn't mean murder has been legalized. What an absolute stupid article by an absolutely stupid source. Doesn't this tell you something about your sources Betsy? When they go to these extremes to lie about something like this? Edited July 24, 2016 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 Nailed it, Squid. Time to shut down the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 Sorry but the courts got it wrong here. The interpretation relies on the historical codes that placed bestiality and buggery together. In this way, the court interpreted beastiality, as parliaments had codified it, to mean sexual penetration of animals. Why they got this monumentally wrong is because a woman, not having a penis, can never penetrate an animal but any reasonable person will acknowledge that it's possible for her to engage in non-penetrative sex acts with an animal. As a result this interpretation now undermines the parts of this law that pertain to these acts in front of children or forcing children to engage in them. Very poor ruling, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 So as it is, it's legal for a woman to have sex with an animal, but not legal for a man to have sex with an animal. Yet another sexist double standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) Ahh, yes, Catherine the Great. Law or no law, people will do what they will do. Of course, the stories of Catherine may be myth. Edited July 25, 2016 by Queenmandy85 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) I can't believe this actually needs explaining.... But here it is: Found "not guilty" of something is not the same as "legalizing" that same something. Here. It's all in the first sentence. Canada’s highest court has just ruled that some sex acts between humans and animals are legal. Edited July 25, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) Nailed it, Squid. Time to shut down the thread. Then you're also wrong. Read my response to him. Edited July 25, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 Here. It's all in the first sentence. Yes, the first sentence of some trash piece pseudo-journalism was quoted. Give us the actual court filing, not trash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 25, 2016 Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 Every dog I have had would willingly lick peanut butter off of anything without feeling any remorse or embarrassment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 26, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2016 (edited) Every dog I have had would willingly lick peanut butter off of anything without feeling any remorse or embarrassment. Yeah. Same with a toddler! Or a mentally retarded person. They'll probably think it's a game! Licking, getting licked by a dog.......vice versa! They wouldn't know if they're being sexually exploited. Would that be a crime if it's just watching and taking videos of these licking that gets a pervert's jollies off? How do we even say for sure that it's meant to be sexual at all? If these people participating in this doesn't see it as sexual (because they have no idea about it)........then, there shouldn't be anything wrong about that, right? These liberal judges had opened up another can of worm here, folks. Edited July 26, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 26, 2016 Report Share Posted July 26, 2016 Yeah. Same with a toddler! Or a mentally retarded person. They'll probably think it's a game! Licking, getting licked by a dog.......vice versa! They wouldn't know if they're being sexually exploited. Would that be a crime if it's just watching and taking videos of these licking that gets a pervert's jollies off? How do we even say for sure that it's meant to be sexual at all? If these people participating in this doesn't see it as sexual (because they have no idea about it)........then, there shouldn't be anything wrong about that, right? These liberal judges had opened up another can of worm here, folks. What does any of that have to do with animal cruelty? It was just the bestiality ruling that was overturned, not the rape and sexual exploitation charges. What the guy did to his daughters was sick but in no way was it animal cruelty. Animals leave moral, sexual and religious hangups to us humans. All the dog knows is that it likes peanut butter and is getting some. The only downside for it is that it may now be trained to stick its nose in peoples crotches looking for peanut butter but again, that is mostly the humans problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted July 26, 2016 Report Share Posted July 26, 2016 Yeah, the courts charged the wrong mammal in this case. That dog is guilty as hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.