B869 - Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill Watch

This discussion is closed.
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
B869 - Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, The Hon. Aph MP
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill
An amendment to ban having sexual intercourse with a dead animal.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1: Into Section 69, Sexual Offences Act 2003
1) Replace

(1) (b) what is penetrated is the vagina or anus of a living animal, and
With

(1) (b) what is penetrated is the vagina, mouth or anus of a living or dead animal, and
2) Replace:

(2) (b) the penetration is by the penis of a living animal, and
With:

(2) (b) the penetration is by the penis of a living or dead animal, and
3) replace:

(2) (a) A intentionally causes, or allows, A’s vagina or anus to be penetrated
With:

(2) (a) A intentionally causes, or allows, A’s vagina, mouth or anus to be penetrated
2: Short title, extent and enactment
1) This may be cited as the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill 2015;
2) This act shall apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, and;
3) Shall come into force immediately after Royal Assent.


Noteshttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/69
0
Tahret
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Nay - what is the reasoning behind it, seriously?
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by Tahret)
Nay - what is the reasoning behind it, seriously?
#Piggate

Posted from TSR Mobile
2
Tahret
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by PetrosAC)
#Piggate

Posted from TSR Mobile
I understand that, but why should I not bang a dead pigeon, for example?
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by Tahret)
I understand that, but why should I not bang a dead pigeon, for example?
1) Is that even possible?
2) Kinda gross

That's it though. I'm not actually sure where I stand on this bill. As disgusting as it is, it doesn't harm anyone.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Tahret
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by PetrosAC)
1) Is that even possible?
2) Kinda gross

That's it though. I'm not actually sure where I stand on this bill. As disgusting as it is, it doesn't harm anyone.

Posted from TSR Mobile
To be fair, the rejection of necrophilia stems from the idea of humans having a soul that is only released at the time of burial/cremation. Animals, according to natural law, do not have a soul, are not intelligent beings, and therefore, when dead, are simply objects, much like a lamppost. If we chop up, eat and wear dead animals, there's no reason why they can't be ****ed either.
0
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
Attack on those who have done well in life.

First they ban fox hunting and now this attempt at stopping us sticking our dicks into dead pigs.

Jealousy from the peasants. Next they'll make it illegal to smash up the local Indian restaurant.
4
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
Nay.

It's grim but it's harmless, except perhaps to the person but it's their own fault.
0
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
I don't really see much point in it. Having sexual intercourse with dead animals is not common practice; I suspect this bill would make no difference.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
United1892
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
Aye
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
Seriously? There's a fetish involving trees – let's add those!

Dead people are protected because mistreatment hurts the feelings of their living relatives and since animals a) aren't aware of what happens with their dead mates, and b) don't really think this way at all, as it seems, I don't see any justification for this bill. It's missing any sort of explanation and adds no value. Looking at the author, it's typical.
0
United1892
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Life_peer)
Seriously? There's a fetish involving trees – let's add those!

Dead people are protected because mistreatment hurts the feelings of their living relatives and since animals a) aren't aware of what happens with their dead mates, and b) don't really think this way at all, as it seems, I don't see any justification for this bill. It's missing any sort of explanation and adds no value. Looking at the author, it's typical.
You'd be pretty annoyed if your dead pet dog got used for sex.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
More reactionary crap from Aph

Posted from TSR Mobile
2
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by United1892)
You'd be pretty annoyed if your dead pet dog got used for sex.
a) Why would I let someone use my dead pet dog for sex? :confused: Bury it or cremate it and you'll be fine.

b) It's a dog. Naturally, it would be quite disgusting and I'd prefer the person not to do it, but if it were dead and didn't feel anything, why would it matter?

c) Just how many cases of post-mortem raped pets do you think there are? :laugh:
0
United1892
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Life_peer)
a) Why would I let someone use my dead pet dog for sex? :confused: Bury it or cremate it and you'll be fine.

b) It's a dog. Naturally, it would be quite disgusting and I'd prefer the person not to do it, but if it were dead and didn't feel anything, why would it matter?

c) Just how many cases of post-mortem raped pets do you think there are? :laugh:
A) people can dig up graves

B) It's pretty vile and distressing to think about the poor little dog.

C) very few but it should be illegal.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by United1892)
A) people can dig up graves

B) It's pretty vile and distressing to think about the poor little dog.

C) very few but it should be illegal.
I think you're either overly emotional or don't know what dead means. I don't think one can persuade the other so let's move on.
0
celloel
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
Aye. At the very least the penetration of an animal's mouth should be illegal.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by United1892)
A) people can dig up graves

B) It's pretty vile and distressing to think about the poor little dog.

C) very few but it should be illegal.
I imagine there are even fewer cases of grave-robbing for necro-bestiality.
0
It's****ingWOODY
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by Tahret)
I understand that, but why should I not bang a dead pigeon, for example?
(Original post by PetrosAC)
1) Is that even possible?
2) Kinda gross

That's it though. I'm not actually sure where I stand on this bill. As disgusting as it is, it doesn't harm anyone.

Posted from TSR Mobile
It'd make for a rather unique willy-warmer at the least
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
I think we should support this Bill. It is a disgusting practice to use dead animals for some kind of sexual gratification or initiation ceremony, even if a rare one.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Why wouldn't you turn to teachers if you were being bullied?

They might tell my parents (11)
6.01%
They might tell the bully (18)
9.84%
I don't think they'd understand (32)
17.49%
It might lead to more bullying (70)
38.25%
There's nothing they could do (52)
28.42%

Watched Threads

View All