1. I'm very concerned about the possibility of unsupervised pets logging on to Second Life and engaging in virtual sexual conduct with humans. I've read reports stating that your best friend on the Internet could be a dog, and no one would know it. I've also witnessed first-hand evidence of cats posting ungrammatical, lewd, and often hilarious captioned images to Internet forums.

What is Linden Lab doing to address this dire and pressing concern??

Posted at 2:48AM on Jul 24th 2007 by Jacek Antonelli

2. To me, this is obvious... but then I'm giving away "keep ageplay legal" T-shirts. Same argument, different terms.

Posted at 4:04AM on Jul 24th 2007 by Samantha Poindexter

3. in SL you can have zoophily fiction at most, but I bet there are places in the world where drawings of animals and humans, and even animals and animals involved in sexual situations are illegal in one way or another

Posted at 4:31AM on Jul 24th 2007 by TigroSpottystripes Katsu

4. Excellent choice of illustration, too. Since that's Zeus in a swan disguise, that one doesn't count as bestiality either.

Next thing you know, someone will say that since my Avatar is less than a year old, she can't be old enough to drive.

Posted at 5:51AM on Jul 24th 2007 by Cyn Vandeverre

5. all sex is arguably bestial...humans ARE beasts after all...
http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/wolfe/lecture.html

Posted at 12:06PM on Jul 24th 2007 by Beetle

6. Some of the comments on the blogpost link are worrying, the more these people insist on policing the virtual world and internet the more I worry in the future about people insisting we have 'thought police' checking we're thinking whatever society claims to believe is best for us.

Posted at 3:33PM on Jul 24th 2007 by Wai-Tung Leung

7. There are a few things about bestiality in SL. The first is that bestiality in SL can mean humans having sex with furries or it can mean humans having sex with uncontrolled animal representations. The second version is more likely to be considered close to RL bestiality.

Second, my theory on the illegality of bestiality, since animals can't be considered thinking beings, is that the prohibition is rooted in what the goverment allows you to do with your property. This is because legally animals are property. But just as you can't be cruel to your animals, you can't have sex with them.

And because of all the restrictions on virtual representations of child pornography and how broad "Broadly offensive" is, people are concerned if their activity is next.

As a side note, there's no US law on virtual bestiality not involving minors.

Posted at 6:37PM on Jul 24th 2007 by Jessica Holyoke

8. while the brain can see pixels and interpret them as being 'animals' SL animals are nothing more than lumped together prims. This is a VIRTUAL world, there is nothing tangible in SL.

And as far as consent goes, answer me this. Do we ask animals for consent when we stick them in cages? Do we ask them consent when we cram them in small confined areas, feed them 24hrs a day, pump them full of hormones and antibiotics, then kill them to feed to the hungry masses?

My worry is the steady progression of people who say "I don't agree with this, and it offends me, I want it removed!" Why is this so? more than likely it is the progressive complacency of people to fight against censorship that lets people like that thrive.

Posted at 6:49PM on Jul 24th 2007 by Ironraptor Albion

9. once again the topic of how people think pleasuring is worse than violence...

Posted at 8:56PM on Jul 24th 2007 by TigroSpottystripes Katsu

10. Let's look at this another way... one day we wake up and there's a huge ufo in the sky, and about twelve different races of aliens emerge, and they're no better or worse than us, except their forms are different... some might look like tigers, bulls, werewolves... some might look more human, like elves... lets say the men were all rather hunky and the women were utterly gorgeous. I reckon there'd be a lot of protesting but in the end people would wind up marrying them, and why not?

Posted at 7:17PM on Aug 30th 2007 by Wolfie!

11. I agree with one of the above comments. Society seems to think they know what is best for us, when in fact. They don't. What is good for you, may not be good for another. And the idea that animals cannot grant consent to sexual advances? Thats bogus, actually. Look at it this way. A male is a male no matter how you cut it, alright? I'm female, of course and I know this for a fact. Males typically think about one thing, sex. So.. A male animal is the same as a human human because as stated above, humans are technically animals as well. In that capacity, a male animal pretty much gives consent when it decides to jump you and hump you.

Ha-Ha! I love being tactless.

Seriously, though. And the fact is, while you may and probably will find some furries that like bestiality, not ALL of them do. Furries are about the anthromorphs with free will, sentience, and a somewhat human physique. Is that bad? NO.

Onto what is quite possibly my favorite quote of all time -

"Suppose, then, that all men were sick or deranged, save one or two of them who were healthy and of right mind. It would then be the latter two who would be thought to be sick and deranged and the former not!" Aristotle, Metaphysics 340BC

Lemme put it this way, dearies. You don't know everything, it's a sad but a true fact. So.. Get your heads out of your rear ends, wipe the crap from your faces, and learn that if you don't like something. THEN IGNORE IT. Life is full of things you're not going to like, but you have NO PLACE in this world to pass judgement on another and claim them to be amoral or otherwise for anything they do. I'm sure you've got your vices you'd rather not be known as well.

Is bestiality moral? Possibly. I won't say yes or no, but I believe ( IN MY OPINION ) that so long as no one is harmed in the act and it's enjoyed by both parties involved, YES.

Is bestiality in a game moral? YES. Why wouldn't it be? It's fantasy. FANTASY. Learn the word, dimwits.

Are you moral? If you're giving people a hard time about this? In my opinion, no. Go force your Nazi facism on someone else. Your overly opinionated views be damned, leave them be to have their fun!

Posted at 5:18PM on Jul 30th 2007 by CutiePatootey

12. Tactless indeed... but hey, it's the women who do the staring... http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21937537-29677,00.html ;P. Though, I don't want to start a battle of the sexes here, so...

Yes I very much like your arguments CutieP. As far as governing principles go, we shouldn't be able to forbid any acts performed in the appropriate private space, between fully willing participants, and only affecting those participants.

Posted at 1:22PM on Aug 3rd 2007 by Al Sonic

13. You watch a lot of Star Trek don't you Wolfie?

I think all that needs to have been said concerning this has been said when the comment was made that there IS a PERSON behind the avatars and/or there is no being at all behind the object being used in "bestial" acts within SL. No one and nothing is being harmed so long as these persons are of legal age. If they ban this they might as well banning fat people from having a slim avatar in SL, as it is different. For that matter, they might as well just close down SL altogether, God forbid someone do/be/want something different in a virtual world.

Posted at 7:57AM on Oct 8th 2007 by PardonLeFrench