Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on February 19, 2016, 03:50:43 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Germany retains its ban on sex with animals following a court decision. Not bad, I say!
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35611906
*************
Two complainants have failed in their attempt to get Germany's constitutional court to consider their claim against the laws banning sex with animals.
The two unnamed individuals say they are sexually attracted to animals.
They sought to get the court in Karlsruhe to consider whether the existing rules are unconstitutional.
But the court threw out their claim, ruling that the effect of the ban on the complainants' right to sexual self-determination was justified.
The court said that protecting animal welfare by seeking to prevent them being the victim of sexual assaults was a legitimate aim of the law - which remains unchanged after the court's decision.
*************
There is no law to prevent animals from being eaten however....sadly!
No idea about the legal position in other countries on bestiality....and how long the bans if any, will remain.
Does anyone think bestiality should be legalized?
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Of course sex with animals should not be legalised, they can't give consent! :o
-
Of course sex with animals should not be legalised, they can't give consent! :o
They give consent to being eaten, I presume!
-
Does anyone think bestiality should be legalized?
Seemingly it is legal in Denmark, Sweden and Hungary. :o
Update, old news!
However in Mexico, Romania, Finland and Thailand and several US states........!!!!
-
Bestiality can be found in Hindu art. Like on the exterior of the Lakshmana temple. Suppose to represent humans doing god. Other Hindu writings say that if you do a cow, hell awaits you.
-
They give consent to being eaten, I presume!
There must be hundreds of really bad taste jokes about bestiality, don't worry I'm not going there, no thanks I'll pass on that.
ippy
-
I'll have to have a chat with Queen Marg. about that. Absolutely weird and sicko of those Danes.
-
It would appear that wiki still thinks it OK in Germany due to a decision last year. Not sure if this latest is an appeal of that and having already searched on 'Is bestiality level in Germany' I am refraining from searching too much more.
There is a summary in the attached link, as with everything on wiki some caution is needed but it ties in the main with what can be easily found.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo philia_and_the_law
In general the trend is that this is become more widely illegal, and I suspect that will continue. While there is in general liberalisation of laws on sexual activity, there is also a trend take consent more central to the question, and overall a movement at least to some concept of animal rights. One small point on that is if we saw an expansion of animal rights based on the idea that they would have some form of consent, then it might be argued by those who wanted bestiality legalised that some for of consent could be given to sex.
As to my own opinion, no, I don't think it should be legal as I think consent and informed active consent is crucial.
-
They give consent to being eaten, I presume!
I think animal breeders might pursue Douglas Adams idea of breeding a creature that wanted to be eaten.
http://remotestorage.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/douglas-adamss-cow-that-wants-to-be.html
-
Funnily, in the US it is still legal in many states.....especially with sheep, I think. ::) :D
-
Well, if it is OK to eat animals, I can't see why having sex with them should be a problem
-
Well, if it is OK to eat animals, I can't see why having sex with them should be a problem
if it is purely based on the question of being able to do acts that might be damaging to animals, then that would be correct. I think though that there is a whole complexity that surrounds how we view and legislate for sex which involves us entwining the concept of consent to it being legal. So the approach is sex needs consent, animals cannot give consent. You can argue for it, but not simply on the basis of consistency with one other rule very easily because legal systems are generally more complex.
-
I think though that there is a whole complexity that surrounds how we view and legislate for sex which involves us entwining the concept of consent to it being legal. So the approach is sex needs consent, animals cannot give consent.
I'm sorry but I don't get why sex is considered to be a special case where consent matters more than with any other potentially harmful act.
-
I'm sorry but I don't get why sex is considered to be a special case where consent matters more than with any other potentially harmful act.
We don't give them an opportunity to consent to artificial insemination.
-
We don't give them an opportunity to consent to artificial insemination.
Nope.
-
I'm sorry but I don't get why sex is considered to be a special case where consent matters more than with any other potentially harmful act.
Because of the difficulty of establishing it in the first place.you can disagree with it but that doesn't mean that from a legal viewpoint it isn't seen as different. That legal frameworks are not entirely logically consistent is not hugely surprising.
-
Because of the difficulty of establishing it in the first place.you can disagree with it but that doesn't mean that from a legal viewpoint it isn't seen as different. That legal frameworks are not entirely logically consistent is not hugely surprising.
The legal situation is obviously quite inconsistent but I'm not talking about what is legal, I'm talking about what is (or should be) morally acceptable. Given that we don't require an animal's consent to slaughter and eat it, it seems a bit precious to insist on consent in order to have sex with it.
-
We don't give them an opportunity to consent to artificial insemination.
I don't think that the restriction is in place to protect animals but in that we think that sex needs consent. That there are inconsistencies isn't surprising as there are multiple motivations and principles involved.
It's rather like my issue with incest. I don't think that there can be no situations where clear informed consent could be given but that looking at it, it is easier from a legal approach to ban it because it is so difficult to avoid the possibility of manipulation, and creates a worse position for people who have been abused.
-
The legal situation is obviously quite inconsistent but I'm not talking about what is legal, I'm talking about what is (or should be) morally acceptable. Given that we don't require an animal's consent to slaughter and eat it, it seems a bit precious to insist on consent in order to have sex with it.
But that only takes it a step further to principled I could have one that says 'Sex should only happen with consent'. (Bizarrely spell check offered me ' Vincent's as a suggestion for consent'). In which case I would have a conflict if dependent on my principle in regard to animal treatment.
As noted, part of my motivation against making bestiality legal, and in the context of the thread legality is what was being discussed, is that because of the issues surrounding sex crimes and consent, keeping consent as an absolute requirement brings the best results
-
But that only takes it a step further to principled I could have one that says 'Sex should only happen with consent'. (Bizarrely spell check offered me ' Vincent's as a suggestion for consent'). In which case I would have a conflict if dependent on my principle in regard to animal treatment.
As noted, part of my motivation against making bestiality legal, and in the context of the thread legality is what was being discussed, is that because of the issues surrounding sex crimes and consent, keeping consent as an absolute requirement brings the best results
If you are going to insist on consent to having sex with an animal, that's fine by me as long as you are consistent and insist on having consent in order to kill and eat them too.
-
If you are going to insist on consent to having sex with an animal, that's fine by me as long as you are consistent and insist on having consent in order to kill and eat them too.
No, I'm being consistent with the principle that having sex needs consent. I'm choosing to do so when two different principles I have conflict.
That presupposes that I actually have a principle that I should apply principles consistently.
-
They give consent to being eaten, I presume!
At least an eaten cow is dead.
An animal which has been in congress has to live with the embarrassment.
-
If you are going to insist on consent to having sex with an animal, that's fine by me as long as you are consistent and insist on having consent in order to kill and eat them too.
How daft is that!
We eat animals because we are omnivores.
Permission for that is not required.
We don't have sex with animals for the same reason we don't torture them.
Living things suffer, therefore we can humanely kill and eat an animal but it is immoral to cause it unnecessary suffering.
It's not immoral to eat meat.
What is immoral is to cause the animal suffering outside and beyond the simple process of killing it humanely as possible.
However, if you are starving, and only have a bow and arrow, you do what is necessary to bring about a timely end so you can eat it and survive.
-
How daft is that!
We eat animals because we are omnivores.
We eat animals because we want to, not because we have to. It's inherent in the definition of omnivory that flesh can be eaten and digested but it's not vital as it is in obligate carnivores. Omnivory is a description not a prescription; an is and not an ought.
Permission for that is not required.
Is this a human-only thing or are the cows signed up to it as well?
We don't have sex with animals for the same reason we don't torture them.
Not really - inter-species sex is presumably possible without cruelty inherently involved.
Living things suffer, therefore we can humanely kill and eat an animal but it is immoral to cause it unnecessary suffering.
That living things suffer is not a rationale for creating even more living things to suffer.
It's not immoral to eat meat.
Opinion, not fact. My opinion is that it is.
What is immoral is to cause the animal suffering outside and beyond the simple process of killing it humanely as possible.
Which state of affairs nobody has ever achieved, or gone to any significant lengths to try to achieve.
-
Humans are animals, according to Rose I don"t need permission. To kill them to eat, so I can kill Rose and eat her.
-
Humans are animals, according to Rose I don"t need permission. To kill them to eat, so I can kill Rose and eat her.
Don't try eating me...........I won't agree with you.
-
Humans are animals, according to Rose I don"t need permission. To kill them to eat, so I can kill Rose and eat her.
No, but some unfortunate people have had to choose in dire circumstances to eat the dead.
We are animals too.
In desperate situations people do desperate things.
-
Don't try eating me...........I won't agree with you.
Animals tend not to agree with it either, but as C. S. Lewis said in a rare moment of correctness, it only comes down to might being right - which as NS just hinted leaves him free to eat Rose if he can.
-
It has nothing to do with asking permission.
We are animals, lions are animals, neither need to ask permission.
If you were stranded on a desert island or away from civilisation and things like cultivated crops, vegans and a lot of vegetarians wouldn't survive.
Meat is a high energy resource.
You wouldn't be able to pick enough wild berries and leaves.
The modern world allows us to be vegetarians.
Eskimos couldn't be vegetarian even if they wanted to be, not if they only had access to what they could pick.
-
Exactly, Rose. The modern Western world offers us a choice. We aren't desperate. So why eat meat?
-
Exactly, Rose. The modern Western world offers us a choice. We aren't desperate. So why eat meat?
Well, in my opinion it's better for you to have a diet that includes meat, fish, eggs and dairy.
But we are drifting.
My point was jeremy P 's point was irrelevant because the comparison isn't based on asking permission.
I don't see his point as valid.
I don't think it is about asking permission, but about how you treat a living feeling animal.
Being omnivores I feel it is natural for us to eat some meat, I don't feel it is appropriate to make another living feeling animal suffer outside this.
-
Exactly, Rose. The modern Western world offers us a choice. We aren't desperate. So why eat meat?
For the sake of completeness, the ancient Eastern one did too.
-
Animals tend not to agree with it either, but as C. S. Lewis said in a rare moment of correctness, it only comes down to might being right - which as NS just hinted leaves him free to eat Rose if he can.
I'm sure Mr P.Lod would have something to say about that.
I knew this forum would revert to cannibalism.
-
No, but some unfortunate people have had to choose in dire circumstances to eat the dead.
We are animals too.
In desperate situations people do desperate things.
You didn't say anything about desperate situations, I am just hungry. Don't worry I will kill you humanely.
-
No, but some unfortunate people have had to choose in dire circumstances to eat the dead.
We are animals too.
In desperate situations people do desperate things.
Rose,
You keep saying 'we are animals' and so we can eat them without their consent. In that case, since we are animals...having sex with them should not also require consent. Or if you believe sex requires consent....eating them also requires consent without which we are guilty of murder or even cannibalism.
Secondly...having sex with animals cannot be taken as torture. Where is the torture if a woman....er... accepts a horse or dog? If anything, it is the woman who suffers IMO. ::) Ugh!!
This is a repulsive subject IMO...but requires discussion. It is surprising many countries and US states have not banned it.
As I have mentioned in some other threads, continuing to think of ourselves as animals has many regressive implications. This is only one of them.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Rose,
You keep saying 'we are animals' and so we can eat them without their consent. In that case, since we are animals...having sex with them should not also require consent. Or if you believe sex requires consent....eating them also requires consent without which we are guilty of murder or even cannibalism.
Secondly...having sex with animals cannot be taken as torture. Where is the torture if a woman....er... accepts a horse or dog? If anything, it is the woman who suffers IMO. ::) Ugh!!
This is a repulsive subject IMO...but requires discussion. It is surprising many countries and US states have not banned it.
As I have mentioned in some other threads, continuing to think of ourselves as animals has many regressive implications. This is only one of them.
Cheers.
Sriram
No I don't agree.
Killing an animal humanely to eat it's flesh is not the same thing as degrading it for pleasure.
Bestiality is degrading an animal for pleasure.
You are not degrading an animal by just by killing it to eat it.
It's about a living animal suffering.
I think hunting is a natural human trait, but you could argue that hunting in our modern world when you are not planning to eat it, falls under the same category as bestiality because you are tormenting a live creature for pleasure.
Basically if you are going to kill something purely to eat it its not the same thing as degrading and tormenting it.
I don't see hunting that way, but fox hunting for example could be classed under the same thing because it is causing an animal distress for pleasure.
It boils down to respect for the animal.
IMO It is ok to kill humanely with as less suffering as possible for something you are going to eat.
It is not ok to torment or cause something distress by doing something to it, purely for pleasure.
Some other things that spring to mind are badger baiting and cock fighting.
It's just where I draw a line I suppose.
-
Rose....... I think you are just trying to justify something you enjoy doing (eating meat) as against something you don't do (sex with animals).
It is an inconsistent argument.
-
Rose....... I think you are just trying to justify something you enjoy doing (eating meat) as against something you don't do (sex with animals).
It is an inconsistent argument.
No it isn't.
It's more inconsistent to pretend you are not ultimately existing by eating other living things.
Plants are living things.
We, as just another form of life on this planet survive by consuming other forms of life.
We are all predators of one sort or another.
We all eat things that are alive and can't be asked first.
-
No it isn't.
It's more inconsistent to pretend you are not ultimately existing by eating other living things.
Plants are living things.
Nobody pretends that living things don't exist by eating other living things.
The difference is that there are sentient living things and non-sentient living things. A non-sentient living thing - a lettuce, for example - isn't harmed by being eaten s there's nothing to be harmed. It has no awareness, no capacity to feel pain, no life to go well or badly, no interests in one state of affairs over another. A pig does.
-
Nobody pretends that living things don't exist by eating other living things.
The difference is that there are sentient living things and non-sentient living things. A non-sentient living thing - a lettuce, for example - isn't harmed by being eaten s there's nothing to be harmed. It has no awareness, no capacity to feel pain, no life to go well or badly, no interests in one state of affairs over another. A pig does.
Not necessarily
According to researchers at the Institute for Applied Physics at the University of Bonn in Germany, plants release gases that are the equivalent of crying out in pain. Using a laser-powered microphone, researchers have picked up sound waves produced by plants releasing gases when cut or injured. Although not audible to the human ear, the secret voices of plants have revealed that cucumbers scream when they are sick, and flowers whine when their leaves are cut [source: Deutsche Welle].
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/plants-feel-pain.htm
You might want to believe that, but science is starting to show plants are not just fodder.
-
Vegetables, fruits and leaves are normally given off by the plants and trees... and no life is take in most cases. The pulp of the fruits and veggies are eaten and the seeds are thrown back for germination.
Its only in some cases that the roots or stem of the plants are eaten.
-
No I don't agree.
Killing an animal humanely to eat it's flesh is not the same thing as degrading it for pleasure.
Bestiality is degrading an animal for pleasure.
You are not degrading an animal by just by killing it to eat it.
You evidently haven't seen what goes on in slaughterhouses ::)
-
And that is without addressing the hypocrisy of eating pig but not dog or cat. In terms of intelligence there's little difference.
-
You evidently haven't seen what goes on in slaughterhouses ::)
No I haven't, but was brought up with animals and my parents slaughtered their own chickens, ducks, geese and rabbits for food.
-
And that is without addressing the hypocrisy of eating pig but not dog or cat. In terms of intelligence there's little difference.
Not really.
People who keep certain animals as pets don't like the idea of eating them.
Hence some countries do eat dogs, and in Europe they eat horsemeat.
We don't like it because in the uk we have culturally given those animals the status of pets.
In India they would be just as horrified at us eating cow, that's because culturally it has the same status as a pet ( as in not to be eaten).
It just depends where you have been brought up.
If you were brought up in a country that ate dog or horse ...... It would just be another sort of meat.
It's not hypocritical, it's how you are culturally brought up.
It's like insects, or snails, some places eat them others don't, it's what is normal for where you are.
It horrifies me that the Japanese eat dolphin because they are even brighter, but that's because eating dolphin isn't in British culture.
-
Not really.
People who keep certain animals as pets don't like the idea of eating them.
Hence some countries do eat dogs, and in Europe they eat horsemeat.
We don't like it because in the uk we have culturally given those animals the status of pets.
In India they would be just as horrified at us eating cow, that's because culturally it has the same status as a pet ( as in not to be eaten).
It just depends where you have been brought up.
If you were brought up in a country that ate dog or horse ...... It would just be another sort of meat.
It's not hypocritical, it's how you are culturally brought up.
It's like insects, or snails, some places eat them others don't, it's what is normal for where you are.
That's an excuse. It's culturally normal in this country to eat meat yet people choose not to. If you eat pig there's no reason not to eat dog.
-
That's an excuse. It's culturally normal in this country to eat meat yet people choose not to. If you eat pig there's no reason not to eat dog.
No there isn't, and about 11 countries still do.
But our own culture here determines what we consider edible, not all of it is based on intelligence of the eaten.
We don't tend to eat garden snails either or frog legs, but the French do.
Goat has only become more common because there is an ethnic demand for it.
We don't tend to eat horse either.
I don't have any reason not to eat dog, other than culturally I am partly conditioned not to.
Same with horse.
However if I went to France ( for example) I could well be served up meat outside my cultural menu.
I've eaten kangaroo, bison, and a few other things.
I don't eat some meats because I don't fancy it, rat/hamster/squirrel for example.
( although if they damage any more of my trees, barbecued Squirrel and muntjac just might go on the menu)
But you are right, there is no reason for me not to eat horse should I go to France , other than my culture that tells me a horse isn't something to be eaten.
-
No there isn't, and about 11 countries still do.
But our own culture here determines what we consider edible, not all of it is based on intelligence of the eaten.
We don't tend to eat garden snails either or frog legs, but the French do.
Goat has only become more common because there is an ethnic demand for it.
We don't tend to eat horse either.
I don't have any reason not to eat dog, other than culturally I am partly conditioned not to.
Same with horse.
However if I went to France ( for example) I could well be served up meat outside my cultural menu.
I've eaten kangaroo, bison, and a few other things.
I don't eat some meats because I don't fancy it, rat for example.
What happens in other countries isn't relevant to your choices. Culturally I was raised to eat meat but I don't. Similarly you could choose to do things differently. Hiding behind 'it's normal' doesn't address the fact that pigs and dogs are of a similar intelligence.
-
The things I personally feel are too intelligent to be eaten are, apes, dolphin, whales, dogs, cats, horses.
But most of these are things I have absorbed from the society around me, I can see other cultures have different lists which don't include horses, whales and dolphins.
I suppose society and upbringing shapes how you regard animals and if they are edible, in part.
That's not hypocrisy.
It's just a part of culture, I doubt if people in Korea think of the dog in the same way we do.
Just like in France the horse comes under their list of edibles.
-
What happens in other countries isn't relevant to your choices. Culturally I was raised to eat meat but I don't. Similarly you could choose to do things differently. Hiding behind 'it's normal' doesn't address the fact that pigs and dogs are of a similar intelligence.
I could, but because I see things differently to you, I don't.
Anyway vegetarianism is just as cultural in the uk as eating meat.
I'm not hiding behind its normal merely pointing out some meats are more normal in some cultures than others, and people do eat dog, just not in the uk.
I don't think pigs and dogs do have a similar intelligence. A dog has been used to do various jobs because of its usefulness and intelligence.
I've not seen any guide pigs, or police pigs lately ;)
Horses are different, you have the mounted police.
Horses and dogs perform work, pigs don't.
That's because they are not comparable, and babe was just a movie.
Dogs, cats, horses are working animals.
Pigs arn't.
In the uk we don't tend to eat " working" animals.
A cats job was to be a good ratter around the barns, less a working animal and they tended to get shot if too numerous.
In the uk we tend to respect animals that " work" in as much we don't tend to put them on a menu.
Pigs don't , therefore we eat them.
-
I think originally that's the real reason dogs cats and horses are not traditionally eaten in the uk, that they are working animals.
Pigs have never been regarded as a working animal.
-
You need to learn more about animal intelligence and behaviour then.
-
Vegetables, fruits and leaves are normally given off by the plants and trees... and no life is take in most cases. The pulp of the fruits and veggies are eaten and the seeds are thrown back for germination.
Its only in some cases that the roots or stem of the plants are eaten.
Potatoes, carrots, onions, leeks, cauliflower , cabbage, asparagus, spinach, swedes, rhubarb, ......
Most of the plants we eat here, involves the roots or stem or even the whole thing.
What do you eat in India then?
-
Potatoes, carrots, onions, leeks, cauliflower , cabbage, asparagus, spinach, swedes, rhubarb, ......
Most of the plants we eat here, involves the roots or stem or even the whole thing.
What do you eat in India then?
Most vegetables are annuals. They are harvested at the end of their lives.
Plants such as rhubarb and asparagus are perennial - harvesting part does not affect the whole and often encourages new growth (perpetual spinach for example).
Eating many fruits and berries is how their seeds get distributed. In some parts if the country figs grow near sewage works because of seeds in human faeces.
None of the above is sentient.
-
You need to learn more about animal intelligence and behaviour then.
You need to learn about different ideas and societies then, and be able to consider yours is not the only answer and way of seeing things and that you don't hold the only right ultimate answer.
It might help you understand why things are as they are, and people make different choices to you.
I've spent most of my life around animals of various sorts, as have many farmers.
Have you asked the dairy farmers about the intelligence and behaviour of his flock?
You might find the very people who spend their whole lives dealing with animals just might disagree with you.
-
You need to learn about different ideas and societies then, and be able to consider yours is not the only answer and way of seeing things and that you don't hold the only right ultimate answer.
It might help you understand why things are as they are and people make different choices to you.
I've spent most of my life around animals of various sorts, as have many farmers.
Have you asked the dairy farmers about the intelligence and behaviour of his flock?
You might find the very people who spend their whole lives dealing with animals just might disagree with you.
Of course they would; I'm very far from getting it right, as I do still eat dairy, although nothing like as much as I used to.
But I understand cultural norms can be broken. And I understand that just because pigs (like cats) can't be trained like dogs, they are still as intelligent. Imagine how a dog would react to a slaughterhouse. Pigs will have the same level of understanding.
-
Of course they would; I'm very far from getting it right, as I do still eat dairy, although nothing like as much as I used to.
But I understand cultural norms can be broken. And I understand that just because pigs (like cats) can't be trained like dogs, they are still as intelligent. Imagine how a dog would react to a slaughterhouse. Pigs will have the same level of understanding.
Well here is someone's account of going to a slaughterhouse who knew pigs.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/aug/29/slaughterhouse-crossing-line-between-life-meat
Perhaps the co2 idea is the most humane idea, the pigs don't sound like they get too stressed.
-
No, not being too stressed before being killed's fine. ???
-
No, not being too stressed before being killed's fine. ???
If they could make the pigs sleepy so there wasn't any potential stress caused by the gas, even better.
Rhiannon, if people are going to eat meat ( which they are) isn't it better to improve the slaughter method?
Being a vegetarian by conscience is a personal choice.
Funnily enough, I respect that.
But I also respect people's desire to eat meat as part of a balanced diet.
I'd much rather the animal welfare groups concentrated on improving the process of slaughter, rather than trying to insist we all make the same choice.
Anyway we are drifting again :)
🌹
-
Pigs can't be trained?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AZPrcyxrrE
-
If they could make the pigs sleepy so there wasn't any potential stress caused by the gas, even better.
Rhiannon, if people are going to eat meat ( which they are) isn't it better to improve the slaughter method?
Being a vegetarian by conscience is a personal choice.
Funnily enough, I respect that.
But I also respect people's desire to eat meat as part of a balanced diet.
I'd much rather the animal welfare groups concentrated on improving the process of slaughter, rather than trying to insist we all make the same choice.
Anyway we are drifting again :)
🌹
The point is that: if killing of animals (for food) is acceptable on the basis of cultural choice then why isn't bestiality?
I suspect that this has nothing to do with the welfare, suffering or rights of the animals but is entirely down to taboos in human cultures. This doesn't mean that there aren't perfectly good reasons why these taboos exist.
-
Plants feel and according to the Prince of Wales, "For the best results you must talk to your vegetables." (smilies)
http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/videos/do-plants-respond-to-pain/12151
-
Plants feel and according to the Prince of Wales, "For the best results you must talk to your vegetables." (smilies)
http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/videos/do-plants-respond-to-pain/12151
This is the same man who expressed a desire to be a tampon.
Still, you're keeping up with your usual standard of sources, I'll give you that.
-
A man in Germany was rushed to hospital to have a dangerous
mole removed from his penis...... he won't be shagging one of those again!
-
A man in Germany was rushed to hospital to have a dangerous
mole removed from his penis...... he won't be shagging one of those again!
Bravo sir.
-
Oh, Shaker is a grumpy Marxist today, can't handle an amusing quote. Well try this one and then go take over the world. "If is doesn't fart and eat hay, she isn't interested" Prince Phillip talking about his daughter.
Did Charles really say he wants to be a tampon? My, he sure admires you.
You ok about the fact that plants do feel? Good, so go stomp on a head of lettuce.
-
A man in Germany was rushed to hospital to have a dangerous
mole removed from his penis...... he won't be shagging one of those again!
I told you not to mention the warT.
-
I thought the UK was a Big Fucking democracy but I may have misheard the Prime Minister.