At long last we’ve reached the final round of the Nasty Fetish Tournament, and the the eventuality that we all feared has come to pass since the brackets were first set: it’s down to animal sex versus dead animal sex. Don’t lay all the blame on us – voters who denied the stoma fetish in the last round are just as culpable. Even if it’s not the most attractive finale, it’s not quite so clear cut as it appears.
After a cursory glance, it would seem that necrobestiality is the clear winner over its more generic cousin, what with the added element of death to the equation. But does that necessarily make it nastier? After all, the bestiality fetishist is causing extreme pain to a living being, whereas those who favor necrobestiality only have their way with its remains (one must assume the process of the necrobestiality ritual doesn’t include killing the animal first). Therefore, the crux is whether forcing sex upon nonconsenting animal is worse than getting off with its festering (or long festered) corpse. Is bestiality more morally reprehensible while necrobestiality registering higher on the scale of physical disgust? Which of those factors lends itself to our definition of nastiness? Once again, it’s up to you arbiters of turpitude to decide. At least it’s not Femskins.
Bestiality Advocates: Rashean Mathis, Paul Dano, Patrick Duffy
Necrobestiality Advocates: Fred Durst, Anthony Mason, Antonio Villaraigosa
I want more like this!
Follow Kissing Suzy Kolber on Facebook and get the latest NFL news and humor before everyone else.