The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Vegan women who swallow their sires' semen are hypocrites

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,296 times Debate No: 37791
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




Some of the more prim and proper women consider ingesting harry monk [1] to be a common, vulgar practice: unbecoming of a lady and, therefore, they refuse to imbibe such testicular tinctures.

However, most women these days aren't so prudish and are quite happy to quaff their boyfriends' penile coloda.

That said, some of these gunk-guzzling girls are vegans for ethical reasons and are, therefore, sworn to abstain from consuming animal products.

This is an outrage because humans are a species of animal and sperm is produced by humans, so it is totally hypocritical of vegan women to swallow their sires' semen.

Thank you.




Veganismis the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, as well as following an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals

product - something produced; especially : commodity 1 (2) : something (as a service) that is marketed or sold as a commodity

The Cummunist Manifesto

“Let the guzzling classes tremble at a Cummunist revolution. The harlotarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!

–Karl “Big Gulp” Marx

The vegan ethos is motivated by the recognition that neither man nor beast may be made an object to be sucked dry by the ruling classes. Vegans see ethical worth in all sentient beings and so refuse to partake in the reification of animals. Meat and leather represent the coercive transformation of a sentient being into an object to be sold and consumed.

Swallowing semen is consensual act- the sperm is willingly expelled from the body with joy and vigor. Barring fringe cases of prostitution, the vegan is not making the sperm donor an object to be bought and sold; the vegan is not reducing the sentient spewer to a piece of meat. Simply put, spunk ain’t a commodity.

Oral sex and the eager lapping that follows is not only wholly within the ethical bounds of veganism, it solves the inequalities vegans object to. In his semenal work, Marx noted:

“In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.”

Swallowing is an act which bridges the divide between classes. It removes antagonism as the donor appreciates the moral fortitude of the vegan for finishing the job through to the end.

Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Raisor for accepting this debate and for framing his response within the context of the Communist Manifesto which, as anybody with a social conscience will tell you, is the blueprint for a progressive and equitable meritocracy. Following the Glorious Revolution when I am duly installed as Britain's rightful dictator I will implement its recommendations in full but, in the meantime, I will explain why it is, indeed, hypocritical for a vegetarian lady to swallow her boyfriend's mess.

Firstly, I dispute my opponent's claim that love custard is not a commodity: when a man spills his kids into his girlfriend's mouth the lady enjoys the experience just as much as he does [1]. Obviously she doesn't pay him for this service but, nevertheless, it has value for her, and as such, gentlemen's sauce should be considered a commodity. To underline this point, although girls don't pay for sperm, fertility clinics certainly do.

My opponent then referred to Marx's "semenal work". If I hadn't realised this misspelling was an intentional (and very clever) pun I could have pointed out that the correct spelling is "seminal", but I wouldn't do that because I think engaging in seminal sementics is tedious.

Moving on to my opponent's argument, whilst it is true that the woman's willingness to gobble her boy off and then "finish the job" by swallowing his muck will "remove antagonism" in their relationship, it nonetheless remains the case that the girl receives sustenance from the semen, which, like most animal products, is very high in protein. [2]

A vegan woman's decision not to eat meat for ethical reasons is wholly consistent with socialism but, in developed countries, being a vegetarian is a matter of choice, not a necessity. So, by choosing to swallow her sire's semen vegan women are deliberately breaking their vow not to consume animal products and are, therefore, hypocrites.

[1] I expect.
[2] Probably.


Pro claims sperm is a commodity because of the value a lady (or man or transgender or animorph) places on it. But a thing having value does not make it a commodity. I appreciate the sun, moon, stairs, and rain [1] but these things are not commodities – commodities are things which can be bought and sold and owned.

Pro has a point that fertility clinics buy sperm- If a vegan went to a clinic, bought a vial of sperm, and threw it back like a vodka shot it may be hypocritical. Yet even in this case the man freely gave this sample- unlike the forceful coercion of animals. But the resolution is about swallowing after oral sex, not clinics- a situation where no commercial transaction occurs.

Pro avoids engaging in seminal sementics, sementing my victory by ignoring the intellectual girth and thrust of Marx.

Pro rightfully points out that swallowing semen is beneficial to women’s health due to its high protein content, it also reduces risk of breast cancer [2]. But vegans object to the ethical content of eating animal products, not the protein content.

Pro misses the jizt of my argument. An analogy: suppose I say “I am ethically opposed to slapping babies and so will not slap babies.” Then one day I see a baby choking on… semolina pasta. I slap the baby on the back, dislodging the food. No one would accuse me of being a hypocrite because I did not violate the ethical spirit of my pledge. In the same way, cum guzzling does not violate the ethical spirit of veganism.

Finally, extend my argument that semen drinking solves class disparity- as Pro concedes. This means that when swallowing her sire’s sperm, a vegan is solving the class inequality she objects to by rejecting the social inequality between man and beast. Swallowing is an act that helps bridge that inequality.

[1] Even my literary references are sperm puns!


Debate Round No. 2
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by leandro.sanchez 3 years ago
Posted by Beverlee 3 years ago
Don't hate, lol

But I still can't accept this debate. It keeps saying this:
"You cannot accept this challenge because you do not match the Instigator's age, rank or number of debates completed criteria."
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
< Yes, what Beverlee said. Sometimes you have to argue left handed, or it's over too soon.

I agree. If you state your arguments in the first round, then you may choke when your opponent has an excellent rebuttal.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
I just died a little lol. This will be funny to see the outcome of
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
Yes, what Beverlee said. Sometimes you have to argue left handed, or it's over too soon.
Posted by Beverlee 3 years ago
Dammit! It says that I can't accept this debate, because I am a loser or something... I just tried to pick it up.
Posted by Beverlee 3 years ago
philochristos is saying that you prematurely shot out your argument. You have to learn to hold that back until the other person can go, too. Otherwise, it's over too soon.

hee heee hee
Posted by PhoenixWrong 3 years ago
Nice argument. I hope someone accepts this, it will be interesting to say the least.
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
You should've held off making your argument until the second round. When you give yourself away like that, nobody wants to accept. I think your argument is air tight, so nobody should accept it.
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
You should've held off making your argument until the second round. When you give yourself away like that, nobody wants to accept. I think your argument is air tight, so nobody should accept it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro claims that spunk consumption by vegans is hypocritical and an outrage. I'm wondering why. I'm not a vegan, but when I try to imagine what motivates vegans, I don't see the hypocrisy or outrage. So, as far as I can see, Con nails it here: "cum guzzling does not violate the ethical spirit of veganism." If that's not true, then Pro needs to articulate what the ethical spirit of veganism is, so that we can see how it is being violated.