Do you think there's anything wrong with putting your penis in a dead pig's mouth?

[Orang Utan]

What bit of it do you consider "wrong" and why, out of interest?

If it were, say, a stuffed pig, or a pig ornament/statue of some stripe, would that be wrong too? Is it an Oxbridge/privilege thing? Would it be less wrong if it happened at Reading?

As I said I'm not getting too excited about this but for me I think the wrongness is in defiling the animal like that rather than anything else, and could otherwise put it down to high jinks. A couple of years ago in Spain a group sat nearby in a restaurant had a whole suckling pig brought to the table and it wasn't long before they put sunglasses on it, a hat, and a fag in its mouth. I was uncomfortable with that too. Is sticking a cock in a pig's head (in private) worse than that?

I wish I'd seen this thread before piping up on the piggate thread. I'm getting flak from c66 and Pickman's and accused of all sorts just for saying there's nothing intrinsically wrong with sticking your dick in a dead animal.

 

[Spymaster]

... there's nothing intrinsically wrong with sticking your dick in a dead animal.

Well the wrong bit, for me, is the disrespecting of the animal but there are certainly degrees of wrongness.

If you read about someone who had a penchant for jumping out of the car and rubbing his cock on every bit of roadkill he saw, you wouldn't be surprised if he got sectioned.

 

[Pickman's model]

I wish I'd seen this thread before piping up on the piggate thread. I'm getting flak from c66 and Pickman's and accused of all sorts just for saying there's nothing intrinsically wrong with sticking your dick in a dead animal.

that's not entirely what you've said, is it.

 

[danny la rouge]

What bit of it do you consider "wrong" and why, out of interest?

A number of points to make, first, the publicised incident was clearly intended as an act that transgresses social bounds and limits. The idea is that the actor is stepping outside of normal codes. So, those doing it conceived of it as "wrong", as far as society was concerned. They wanted something that would seem "sick".

Secondly, "wrong" doesn't necessarily mean "evil". It can mean not proper or usual. In this case, those who came up with the idea would agree: that's what was intended.

Thirdly, as outlined on the piggate thread, I think it is an activity that most of us would be disappointed to discover our university age children were involved in. And were a small child to approach a pig's head (or any item of food, not just charcuterie) willie out, we'd all make some level of disapproval known to the child.

So, it's something conceived as outside of normal bounds, it's something society would agree is not becoming conduct, and it's something we'd express disapproval of were our children to partake. I am surprised to learn there is a significant minority who say they don't think "there's something wrong with it". I suspect they are defining "wrong" as exclusively about morality.

So, is it immoral? That isn't what was asked, but to the extent that wasting food is morally wrong, then yes it is. Putting your penis into any food is a waste of that food, if it means the food won't be eaten. If the food is going to be eaten, and those doing the eating aren't aware of the preceding activity and if they are not eating it out of free, informed choice, then that too would constitute immoral behaviour.

 

[danny la rouge]

Well the wrong bit, for me, is the disrespecting of the animal but there are certainly degrees of wrongness.

If you read about someone who had a penchant for jumping out of the car and rubbing his cock on every bit of roadkill he saw, you wouldn't be surprised if he got sectioned.

Indeed.

I think that there is a strong argument about respect for animals. As most people know I'm a vegetarian, I'm not the person to make that case.

 

[Pickman's model]

Indeed.

I think that there is a strong argument about respect for animals. As most people know I'm a vegetarian, I'm not the person to make that case.

your last sentence seems to contain a non sequitur

 

[Spymaster]

A number of points to make, first, the publicised incident was clearly intended as an act that transgresses social bounds and limits. The idea is that the actor is stepping outside of normal codes. So, those doing it conceived of it as "wrong", as far as society was concerned. They wanted something that would seem "sick".

Secondly, "wrong" doesn't necessarily mean "evil". It can mean not proper or usual. In this case, those who came up with the idea would agree: that's what was intended.

Thirdly, as outlined on the piggate thread, I think it is an activity that most of us would be disappointed to discover our university age children were involved in. And were a small child to approach a pig's head (or any item of food, not just charcuterie) willie out, we'd all make some level of disapproval known to the child.

So, it's something conceived as outside of normal bounds, it's something society would agree is not becoming conduct, and it's something we'd express disapproval of were our children to partake. I am surprised to learn there is a significant minority who say they don't think "there's something wrong with it". I suspect they are defining "wrong" as exclusively about morality.

So, is it immoral? That isn't what was asked, but to the extent that wasting food is morally wrong, then yes it is. Putting your penis into any food is a waste of that food, if it means the food won't be eaten. If the food is going to be eaten, and those doing the eating aren't aware of the preceding activity and if they are not eating it out of free, informed choice, then that too would constitute immoral behaviour.

I agree with all of that. I haven't read the the piggate thread because I put that, and all of the bumped ones it spawned, on ignore the other night because they were fucking-up the board view. I will have a look now!

 

[Orang Utan]

that's not entirely what you've said, is it.

Pretty much.

 

[Pickman's model]

Pretty much.

didn't you draw a contrast between the actions of his administration and his face-fucking a pig?

 

[Orang Utan]

didn't you draw a contrast between the actions of his administration and his face-fucking a pig?

Yes

 

[chilango]

ah. but where any of these 6 oxford or cambridge?

None of them of course.

Though I should disclose I have attended a course in Forensic Anthropology run by Oxford University. It wasn't in Oxford though and I didn't count it above. We were handling human remains, yet nobody got their cocks out at any point.

 

[Spymaster]

... yet nobody got their cocks out at any point.

Prudes.

 

[danny la rouge]

your last sentence seems to contain a non sequitur

I think that some people may make assumptions about my motivations that wouldn't be helpful to the case. I think that the case would be better made by someone like Spymaster, who himself hunts.

 

[kabbes]

Secondly, "wrong" doesn't necessarily mean "evil". It can mean not proper or usual. In this case, those who came up with the idea would agree: that's what was intended.

...

So, it's something conceived as outside of normal bounds, it's something society would agree is not becoming conduct, and it's something we'd express disapproval of were our children to partake. I am surprised to learn there is a significant minority who say they don't think "there's something wrong with it". I suspect they are defining "wrong" as exclusively about morality.

Sorry Danny, but if someone asks me if something is "wrong", I'm going to interpret that as a moral question, regardless of all the subtle possible variations of what "wrong " can mean. Doubly so if they then refuse to specify what they mean by "wrong".

 

[danny la rouge]

Sorry Danny, but if someone asks me if something is "wrong", I'm going to interpret that as a moral question, regardless of all the subtle possible variations of what "wrong " can mean. Doubly so if they then refuse to specify what they mean by "wrong".

The problem with starting a poll is that keeping oneself as a respondent distinct from the poll-starter in the minds of others is difficult. As the latter, I didn't want to prescribe how others interpret the poll. I was happy as the former to explain my own thinking.

Interesting, though, that for you "wrong" is always about whether it's moral. For me that certainly isn't the case.

 

[brogdale]

Arriving late to this particular discussion, so apologies if this is all 'well-trodden' etc.

Quite a few posters of the other thread have sought to emphasise that Cameron's alleged behaviour was probably not undertaken for immediate sexual gratification and, as such, are presumably positing the action as symbolic.

If we accept that, in all probability, the story is a) true, and b) representative of behaviour that "transgresses ('conventional') social bounds and limits", it is the meaning and consequences of that symbolism that we have to judge as acceptable or wrong.

I think others (inc. elbows ) have had a go at that, but perhaps an exploration of possible meaning might be valuable?

 

[Argonia]

Glad to see the 'there's something wrong with this' camp is in the majority over at this thread. I can't for the life of me understand how one could come to the conclusion that there wasn't anything wrong with it. Really can't see the other point of view on this one.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The problem with starting a poll is that keeping oneself as a respondent distinct from the poll-starter in the minds of others is difficult. As the latter, I didn't want to prescribe how others interpret the poll. I was happy as the former to explain my own thinking.
.

Hmmm. Thing is, as I'm sure you know very well, how you ask a question changes the responses considerably. I thought your question was unclear and felt obliged to vote 'no' for the same reason as kabbes as I don't think it is a moral question, ultimately. I said I thought it was unclear, as did kabbes, and you're now surprised by the result. All I can say is that I'm not surprised by the result, and perhaps your surprise is the result of a misjudgement on your part.

ETA:

To clarify, I'm not surprised that there is a significant minority who probably interpreted the question as I did - that in and of themselves, weird erotic practices that involve no harm to others are not necessarily any of my business.

 

[Gromit]

Getting turned on by animals is deviant. Its wrong to abuse an animal.
Getting turned on by the dead is deviant. Its direspectful to the dead.
Gettting turned on by a dead animal is doubly deviant. Are we worried about being disrepectful to dead pigs? If the pig was killed just for this purpose then its awful. I doubt it was so i can kind of see people just saying hey its just an inanimate object just like any other inanimate object be it manufactured like a plastic dildo or grown dead animal part like the ivory dildos of yore. With your eyes closed maybe it is, with them open then ew it isn't.

None of it is natural when you think about it whether its putting your penis into a lubed fleshlight or a pig's head or inserting a fake penis into your vagina. They might simulate sex but its still just a simulation not natural.

But we aren't talking about someone fucking a pig's head for kicks. It was an initiation. Someone was being forced to do it because its humiliating.
Are such initiations wrong? Yes. Was anyone who has done this wrong to bow to peer pressure? Yes.

As to the legitamacy of one form of simulated sex (with the use of inanimate objects) over another, well I'll leave that for others to worry about.

 

[8ball]

The problem with starting a poll is that keeping oneself as a respondent distinct from the poll-starter in the minds of others is difficult. As the latter, I didn't want to prescribe how others interpret the poll. I was happy as the former to explain my own thinking.

Interesting, though, that for you "wrong" is always about whether it's moral. For me that certainly isn't the case.

It has "wrongness", while being a morally neutral act in itself.

 

[xenon]

There's not much to quibble over is there really. If you had a mate who stuck his nob in a dead animal, you could in all fairness call him a wrongun. The degree of wrongun might vary with how often how er, enthusiastically and how often but still, there's a line and beyond it just further into filthy weirdo territory.

 

[danny la rouge]

It has "wrongness", while being a morally neutral act in itself.

So, in your view there's "something wrong" with it, just not morally wrong.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So, in your view there's "something wrong" with it, just not morally wrong.

Why the need to make a general pronouncement about it either way?

One of the more tiresome things on the other thread about this was the way that those refusing to condemn were being assumed to condone or approve.

 

[8ball]

So, in your view there's "something wrong" with it, just not morally wrong.

"Wrongness" and "something wrong" do not overlap perfectly.
Do you feel there was anything wrong with the act?

We are kind of outside rationality discussing something like this - I keep finding myself wondering whether the pig's head was cooked, because some part of my subconscious thinks this would make things slightly better.

 

[two sheds]

Another weakness of this poll is that it doesn't give what the alternative is.

If the choice were between a pig's head and a mincing machine I think all these people saying how immoral it is might think again.

Moral relativism, people.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think I'm with 8ball on this. Or at least that he's on the right path. We might think that something had gone wrong somewhere along the line for a man who genuinely got his best sexual kicks from sex with products from the butcher, but for me at least, saying there is something wrong with him doing it is saying that you think he should stop. But his 'wrongness' may be too far down the line for that - there may indeed be something wrong with telling him to stop.

 

[maomao]

So if you had a friend or acquaintance who was an upstanding member of society in every other respect but was only able to be aroused by dead pigs' heads, purchased them on a regular basis for personal use, was discrete, disposed of them hygienically and never tried to involve others in their activities would it still be 'wrong'?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So if you had a friend or acquaintance who was an upstanding member of society in every other respect but was only able to be aroused by dead pigs' heads, purchased them on a regular basis for personal use, was discrete, disposed of them hygienically and never tried to involve others in their activities would it still be 'wrong'?

That's about it for me. And saying it's a waste of food is a stretch. If it's giving him pleasure, it's not wasted.

 

[maomao]

That's about it for me. And saying it's a waste of food is a stretch. If it's giving him pleasure, it's not wasted.

Would it be wrong to fuck an egg mayo sandwich? Would it be more wrong to fuck an egg mayo and bacon sandwich?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's an alternative use of something that could also have been eaten.