Girl held for sex with dog

15140 Views 170 Replies 31 Participants Last post by _E_, Apr 16, 2005

Player-X

Discussion Starter · Apr 10, 2005

Girl held for sex with dog
05/04/2005 15:33 - (SA)
Riot Hlatshwayo

Tzaneen - Three dogs were put down after villagers allegedly caught a 12-year-old girl having sex with one of the animals.

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) in Tzaneen confirmed that the three dogs were put down last week Tuesday because they'd been beaten so badly by angry villagers.

"We had no alternative because they were in a really bad state," said Tzaneen SPCA chairperson, Ranate Prinsloo.

She said police had asked the SPCA to collect the animals from a village in the Bolobedu area after villagers threatened to kill the dogs themselves to protect their daughters.

Mopani police spokesperson Superintendent Moatshe Ngoepe reported that the incident began as a rumour.

"Villagers heard that the young girl always had sex with three male dogs, so they lay in wait to catch her in the act," he said.

They claim to have seen at least one dog and the girl going behind her family's house on Monday afternoon last week and "surprised" them.

Police were called and arrested the child for bestiality.

She appeared before the Bolobedu magistrate's court last Wednesday and the magistrate ordered that she be sent to a psychologist.

"We are expecting the psychologist's report soon," Ngoepe said.

Head of the Bethesda Christian Church, Dr Elijah Mtileni, believes demons are to blame and said only prayer and fasting would help the girl.

Afraid of getting Aids

Meanwhile, bestiality charges were provisionally withdrawn against a 19-year-old man from Mphakati near Malamulele last Tuesday.

He'd been accused of having sex with a goat.

Two years ago, another Limpopo man was jailed to 18 years for having sex with a goat in October 2002. He'd argued that he abstained from sex with humans because he was afraid of contracting HIV/Aids.

That same year a Bushbuckridge man committed suicide after he was caught having sex with a hen that later died. A young Botswana man who stayed in Limpopo was also accused of having sex with a donkey and littering the ground around it with condoms.

In October 2003, another man was jailed for 10 months after villagers caught him with two goats in Xihosana village near Malamulele.

What's with these people?

Save

Status: Not open for further replies.

1 - 20 of 171 Posts

ArchIBaLD

· #2 · Apr 10, 2005

that's digusting. those people should be put in an institute with constant psychological care.

Save

Well, as long as the dogs were ok with it this wouldn't be a problem at all (She'd be excersicing his freedom wouldn't her) The problem here is not the yuck factor, but the fact that she is doing this to unwilling animals probably, which constitutes cruelty towards animals...

Save

Cid Highwind

· #4 · Apr 10, 2005

Of course it isn't cruelty if she just let the male dogs do it out of free will. This doesn't mean I think it's okay though, but there is a difference between this, and a man raping his dog or goat.

Save

_E_

· #5 · Apr 10, 2005

Proto said:
Well, as long as the dogs were ok with it this wouldn't be a problem at all (She'd be excersicing his freedom wouldn't her) The problem here is not the yuck factor, but the fact that she is doing this to unwilling animals probably, which constitutes cruelty towards animals...

Why yes. Let us all have sex with bears, goats, dogs...IT'S FREEDOM !!!
.
.
.
. Freedom my @**, people like you who have no moral grounds just piss me off ( and then you wonder why the world keeps getting worse

)

Yours,
-Elly

Save

Raziel

· #6 · Apr 10, 2005

That place s sick oO

Save

hackerslog

· #7 · Apr 10, 2005

Disgusting YUCK !

Save

netghost2.0

· #8 · Apr 10, 2005

Proto said:
Well, as long as the dogs were ok with it this wouldn't be a problem at all (She'd be excersicing his freedom wouldn't her) The problem here is not the yuck factor, but the fact that she is doing this to unwilling animals probably, which constitutes cruelty towards animals...

It's not a matter of the dogs probably being unwilling participants; they definitely are unwilling because dogs don't have the cognitive capacity to consent. That includes any other animal. Hence, screwing any animal is wrong.

エッリー said:
Why yes. Let us all have sex with bears, goats, dogs...IT'S FREEDOM !!!
.
.
.
. Freedom my @**, people like you who have no moral grounds just piss me off ( and then you wonder why the world keeps getting worse )

Yours,
-Elly

And what's wrong with too much freedom? And whose code of morality are we using here? People are judging based on the "YUCK" factor rather than stating (obviously) why it's wrong to screw animals.

And aren't you listening? In this case, Proto disagreed with the concept of humans having sex with animals because the animals would probably be (IMO, definitely) unwilling participants in the act. Animals don't have the cognitive capacity to consent similar to the reasoning why it's wrong and illegal to have sex with young children.

I suppose if it was up to some people, they would be more than eager to ban premarital sex, homosexuality, so-called "deviant" sexual acts, S&M, etc. would be banned as well. Two consenting adults who do not infringe on another person's rights is a good rule of thumb when dealing with sex.

See less See more

Save

Esturk

· #9 · Apr 10, 2005

That's pretty crazy, although it happens all the time everywhere. Of course the head of the church has to step in saying that demons are to blame. Blame everything on the demons because the girl has apparent psychological issues.

Save

Cid Highwind

· #10 · Apr 10, 2005

Head of the Bethesda Christian Church, Dr Elijah Mtileni, believes demons are to blame and said only prayer and fasting would help the girl.

???? said:
Why yes. Let us all have sex with bears, goats, dogs...IT'S FREEDOM !!!
.
.
.
. Freedom my @**, people like you who have no moral grounds just piss me off ( and then you wonder why the world keeps getting worse )

Yours,
-Elly

And the defenders of moral let a cardinal who condones pedophily lead a mass

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4429253.stm

I prefer hearing about a girl having sex with a dog based on free will, than priests sexually abusing children, but that might just be a personal opinion

Save

_E_

· #11 · Apr 10, 2005 (Edited)

netghost2.0 said:
And what's wrong with too much freedom? And whose code of morality are we using here?

Uhm, common sense? Rather than wondering what code of morality we are using here, I think we should worry about the definision of "freedom", since that word is used as much as "terrorism" is used these days to justify anything you wanna do...

Having sex with your dog is like stealing a candy from a little kid without her knowing.

Do they ( you & your dog and you & little kid ) love each other? Yes.
Do they willingly accept anything you do to them as long as you have a smile on your face? Yes
Are both acts right? No!

Or heck, I can even describe it as inserting a microphone in a speakers socket instead of the speakers. Can you do that? Yes. Does it work? Probably. Is it what you're supposed to do? No....

Common sense is the keyword here.

netghost2.0 said:
And aren't you listening? Proto disagreed with the concept of humans having sex with animals because the animals would probably be (IMO, definitely) unwilling participants in the act. Animals don't have the cognitive capacity to consent similar to the reasoning why it's wrong and illegal to have sex with young children.

I am. He said it's alright if both are willing to have sex with each other ( Right, as if dogs or cats can express their sex-desires towards humans :???: ) , which is why I am mad.

netghost2.0 said:
I suppose if it was up to some people, they would be more than eager to ban premarital sex, homosexuality, so-called "deviant" sexual acts, S&M, etc. would be banned as well. Two consenting adults who do not infringe on another person's rights is a good rule of thumb when dealing with sex.

I am against homosexuality, but I am not against banning it. Let them do whatever they want to do, IMO ; they're just hurting themselves ( does "uncured sexual transmitted diseases between homsexuals" ring a bell? ). But if turning a blind eye on them will result in people asking to legalise beastility and what's not, then you bet I am gonna be supporting a ban on all those "diverse sexualities".

Cidhighwind said:
And the defenders of moral let a cardinal who condones pedophily lead a mass

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4429253.stm

I prefer hearing about a girl having sex with a dog based on free will, than priests sexually abusing children, but that might just be a personal opinion :rolleyes

Newsflash of the day : I may be a believer, but I am not a christian nor do I belong to any religon. Go take that up with a christian fellow.

Yours,
-Elly

See less See more

Save

Coolsvilleman

· #12 · Apr 10, 2005

Ya, if its mutual then its not cruelty... but dude THATS WRONG! Please keep your dating to your own species thank you.

Save

Cid Highwind

· #13 · Apr 10, 2005

エッリー said:
Newsflash of the day : I may be a believer, but I am not a christian nor do I belong to any religon. Go take that up with a christian fellow.

Yours,
-Elly

It's not that it was addressed at you personally. But more towards morals in common. I found it very ironic that ppl talk about these acts and mentioning morals, while the biggest institute always talking about morals turns a blind eye to certain imho worse situations. And usually those are the ppl complaining about the world getting worse and worse because of moral decline.
That's all.

Other than that, I wonder whatever made her feel like having sex with dogs. It's pretty bizarre...

Save

_E_

· #14 · Apr 10, 2005

Cid Highwind said:
It's not that it was addressed at you personally. But more towards morals in common. I found it very ironic that ppl talk about these acts and mentioning morals, while the biggest institute always talking about morals turns a blind eye to certain imho worse situations. And usually those are the ppl complaining about the world getting worse and worse because of moral decline.
That's all.

Other than that, I wonder whatever made her feel like having sex with dogs. It's pretty bizarre...

Well, whoever is calling for morals when he isnt following them is a hypocrite , no matter who he is or where does he belong from. However, I wouldn't associate the actions of an individual with the whole institution. And you know, we're talking about common morals, -the very basic ones-. No matter where you come from/what you believe ; killing, theft , injustice, having sex with other species...etc are always looked at as WRONG. It's our human built-in morals, ya know? Now when you see those red lines breached nowadays ; when you see killing justified as "mercy" or "freedom" , theft justified as "interest", having sex with other species as "love" , injustice as "spreading democracy" then what's left from our common moral grounds?

One can't help but wonder...

Yours,
-Elly

Save

Cid Highwind

· #15 · Apr 10, 2005

エッリー said:
Well, whoever is calling for morals when he isnt following them is a hypocrite , no matter who he is or where does he belong from. However, I wouldn't associate the actions of an individual with the whole institution. And you know, we're talking about common morals, -the very basic ones-. No matter where you come from/what you believe ; killing, theft , injustice, having sex with other species...etc are always looked at as WRONG. It's our human built-in morals, ya know? Now when you see those red lines breached nowadays ; when you see killing justified as "mercy" or "freedom" , theft justified as "interest", having sex with other species as "love" , injustice as "spreading democracy" then what's left from our common moral grounds?

One can't help but wonder...

Yours,
-Elly

I can't say anything else than "I agree"

Though the church scandal which is connected to the article I pointed out to wasn't about only one priest doing wrong things. But I'm not going on about that since that would be going OT.

ps. All I wanted to say was that even though this act of bestiality is wrong, there are far worse things going on in the world that hurt people a lot more than this one act of bestiality.

Save

Proto

· #16 · Apr 10, 2005 (Edited)

.
. Freedom my @**, people like you who have no moral grounds just piss me off ( and then you wonder why the world keeps getting worse )

As netGhost already pointed out, I'm basically against it because it's not a mutual consent act. And, because my bad choice of words, I created another missunderstanding ^^. I perfectly know that, as it is now, animals have no possibility of expressing whatever they feel, because of their currently very limited cognitive capabilities. Hence why I'm against this act in this circumstances because of the reason I exposed, not because a yuck factor that makes me satanize everything you don't agree with.

No matter where you come from/what you believe ; killing, theft , injustice, having sex with other species...etc are always looked at as WRONG. It's our human built-in morals, ya know? Now when you see those red lines breached nowadays ; when you see killing justified as "mercy" or "freedom" , theft justified as "interest", having sex with other species as "love" , injustice as "spreading democracy" then what's left from our common moral grounds?

So, we are tu sucumb to our animal nature and everything directly coded within us, and (eg) follow the law of the jungle, kill the mentally and physically weak etc. Last time I checked we had the mental capabilities to evolve our morals and acts way past the DNA barrier

The point here it is, apart from feeling disgusted because of the very particular education you received how else does this affects you? :/

Freedom my @**, people like you who have no moral grounds just piss me off

Watch your language. Generalizing and using censored bad words doesn't sound very adminish to me

See less See more

Save

Yeloazndevil

· #17 · Apr 10, 2005

I really wish u wouldn't post this stuff...

Save

_E_

· #18 · Apr 10, 2005

Proto said:
As netGhost already pointed out, I'm basically against it because it's not a mutual consent act. And, because my bad choice of words, I created another missunderstanding ^^. I perfectly know that, as it is now, animals have no possibility of expressing whatever they feel, because of their currently very limited cognitive capabilities. Hence why I'm against this act in this circumstances because of the reason I exposed, not because a yuck factor that makes me satanize everything you don't agree with.

Oh Please. Do you have anything else other than your beloved "yuck factor" ( which you seem to be using it with or without a reason ) to say? Actually, here's a little riddle for you. Why do you think people get disgusted from the first place? ( hint hint..)

Proto said:
So, we are tu sucumb to our animal nature and everything directly coded within us, and (eg) follow the law of the jungle, kill the mentally and physically weak etc. Last time I checked we had the mental capabilities to evolve our morals and acts way past the DNA barrier

If you wanna live like an animal and you consider yourself one of them ( which I hope , for your own sanity, isn't the case), then please join your fellow animals in the jungle. I am a human being, not an animal.

Proto said:
The point here it is, apart from feeling disgusted because of the very particular education you received how else does this affects you? :/

Tough luck, that ain't gonna work with me...better try next time. No one educated me with such VERY BASIC morals. As a matter of fact, I don't even need such education. If there is anything, it would be YOU who strayed away from your own senses ; creating an illusion to yourself by justifying everything wrong you see using the "yuck factor" and living in it.

Proto said:
Watch your language. Generalizing and using censored bad words doesn't sound very adminish to me

Warui na! Sorry for being emotional!! I'll kill my emotions off before I post on a thread next time!
.
.
NOT.

Yours,
-Elly

See less See more

Save

Proto

· #19 · Apr 10, 2005

If you wanna live like an animal and you consider yourself one of them ( which I hope , for your own sanity, isn't the case), then please join your fellow animals in the jungle. I am a human being, not an animal.

You were the one who said that we should bind to our so called hard wired morals, not me -.-. That was just an example of what truly binding to our animal instincts would call upon. Please take the time to read what I write :/

Oh Please. Do you have anything else other than your beloved "yuck factor" ( which you seem to be using it with or without a reason ) to say?

Yuck factor: revulsion or discomfort that influences a person's attitude toward a thing or idea.

Now if that doesn't describe your position....

Tough luck, that ain't gonna work with me...better try next time. No one educated me with such VERY BASIC morals. As a matter of fact, I don't even need such education. If there is anything, it would be YOU who strayed away from your own senses ; creating an illusion to yourself by justifying everything wrong you see using the "yuck factor" and living in it.

You still didn't answer my question. How does this affects you

I really wish u wouldn't post this stuff...

So it is better off to live in a blissed ignorance? Wheter you like the news or not, I think it is better to know it. In Isaac Asimov's words "If knowledge and truth cause problems, it is not through ignorance that we will solve them"

Warui na! Sorry for being emotional!! I'll kill my emotions off before I post on a thread next time!
.
.
NOT.

I didnt ask anything of the like. Just watch your language and it'll be ok

See less See more

Save

_E_

· #20 · Apr 10, 2005

Proto said:
You were the one who said that we should bind to our so called hard wired morals, not me -.-. That was just an example of what truly binding to our animal instincts would call upon. Please take the time to read what I write :/

Uhm. Could you please show me where did I refer to our "hard wired" morals as "animal instincts"? oO

Proto said:
Yuck factor: revulsion or discomfort that influences a person's attitude toward a thing or idea.

Now if that doesn't describe your position....

/me slaps Proto with a large stick.

I am talking about the cause, not the reflex action....you...you......grrrr

And no, it doesn't describe my position. I deem theft wrong and I don't see it as "disgusting"...it's more like "cruel" rather than disgusting. What we do in the bathroom is digusting, but it doesn't mean it's wrong >_>

So what's the point you're trying to make ?

Proto said:
You still didn't answer my question. How does this affects you

Assuming you have emotions of some sort; Let's say you've witnessed a little dog getting kicked around by a gang of brats. How would that affect you? Hmm? You actually feel something? Good.

Watching anything wrong infront of you will affect you, that is if you had any sense of morals left in you ( and by "you" , I don't mean you specifically, but you in general terms ).

Proto said:
So it is better off to live in a blissed ignorance? Wheter you like the news or not, I think it is better to know it. In Isaac Asimov's words "If knowledge and truth cause problems, it is not through ignorance that we will solve them"

I think he was asking for your infamous "Yuck factor" seal on the thread's title

Top Contributors this Month