# Bestiality



## BenW (Nov 10, 2008)

Lance said:


> I'm not going to go into this whole religious thing again. I guess almost all atheist have this general stereotype thinking that Christians automatically think people are evil if they do not have the same values as them.


And where would we get that impression from?
...
...
...


Lance said:


> Those who defend this should be shot and killed right on the spot.


Irony at a base level, but I still like it.



Lance said:


> Lol. You don't know what intolerable is. Christians are not intolerable to atheist. Maybe the hardcore ones, but if you talk to most Christians, especially where I live, we have many atheist, gay, lesbian, and etc friends. What we are intolerable of, and most people probably, is sick minded folks like you who think they can justify their stance that its okay to have sex with animals. You obviously need to go to a mental hospital, but like I said, with the many disgusting statements you provided, you should be put in solitary confinement away from society.


Don't be a jackass, all he stated was that it shouldn't be illegal.
The government does not have any right to regulate sexuality.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Lance said:


> What is this *most* you are talking about?


oh excuse me, of course you have to take one word such as that and tear it apart, and of course in doing so you still make my point for me.

in a *fair amount* of other countries. either way, its not like its this completely unspeakable act that is so horrible, its just that your views are in disagreement, which is fine, i dont agree with it either, but you take the it to the next step and punish others for being different. even if it is odd/weird/sick. 

shitting on people is disgusting too, and can transmit disease, but some people like that, yeah its fuckin disgusting, but to each their own.


----------



## de l'eau salée (Nov 10, 2008)

Sometimes, my dog likes to attempt to dry-hump my sister. Does that count?


----------



## Spooky (Oct 30, 2008)

Silhouetree said:


> Sometimes, my dog likes to attempt to dry-hump my sister. Does that count?


That's just natural. It only becomes a problem if she starts dry-humping him back.


----------



## de l'eau salée (Nov 10, 2008)

Emo Gangster said:


> That's just natural. It only becomes a problem if she starts dry-humping him back.


Haha, I have yet to see that happen. But then again, I have never spied on them while they were in a room together :tongue:.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Maybe you should, would make for a very interesting video 


yeah, bored so figured id bump this post back up, lol.


its not a matter of whether you *agree* with it or not, its a matter of people having the *freedom* to *choose* what to do with their own live.


----------



## Omisoc (May 28, 2009)

Beastiality is disgusting, perverted, and wrong.

Until of course people stop saying it is and are OK with it.

And the more hot girls that are into it, the more it will be accepted.

Finally, I don't see how a dog humping some chick is cruel to the dog.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

lol kudos

*gives omisoc a gummi bear*


exactly, its not a matter whether you find it disgusting, pervierted n wrong (even tho it is, and it is kinda the matter, on your own opinion anyways) but its the opinions of others that matter. just because one does not agree with it doesnt make it completely wrong and criminalizationable (yeah, made the word up [or maybe i didnt i dk], it makes sense). 

its one thing to have an opinion, but once you try to make that OPINION into 'law' is when its WRONG.


----------



## Omisoc (May 28, 2009)

*immediately shoves the gummi bear up his butt*

.....what?


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

sicko, arrest him!!!!!


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

I like fucking animals.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

you sick fuck! you should be imprisoned!!!!!!! how dare you do what you want and not hurt anybody else in the process!!!!! now if you were to fuck little boys then that would be fine, your institution would still have credibility, but to fuck animals, oh man that is just an unspeakable act against god!


----------



## Chora (Jun 4, 2009)

Humans copulate with other humans, with the objects of a) releasing their lust, b) begetting offspring, c) expressing love, or d) all of the above. 

Humans often put animals of different species together for the purpose of cross-breeding them. Once humans create an environment which appeals to the animals' instincitve sexual urges, the animals tend to copulate of their own accord. 

So... if a human copulates with an animal of another species, is that necessarily condemnable? Replace the 'human' in the first paragraph with an animal, or replace the 'animal of another species' in the second paragraph with a 'human.' That's the only difference I can see, logically.

Granted, bestiality is not performed for the purpose of cross-breeding, but rather for the purpose of sating sexual desire. The same thing happens with ordinary human intercourse, though. That must be why the morning-after pill sells so well. 

I think humans can be as animalistic as the most animal of animals. Animals can also have human properties (I'm not a non-human-animal, so I wouldn't know... but I've read <Animals in Translation> and Temple Grandin makes a good case.) However, from a human point of view, humans are simply humans and animals are simply animals. We eat animals' meat. We render them into objects. Animals serving as objects of the hunger drive, and animals serving as objects of the sex drive, are pretty much logically equivalent, in my view. 

This CAN lead to problems, though. Bestiality coupled with violence can turn nasty and perverse. It can bring out the evil side of people. The evil side of people is the worst thing on the planet. It's what happened in Auschwitz and it's what happened in the Killing Fields and it's what happens in Kosovo and parts of Africa and everywhere, even now. People hurting and killing for the perverse pleasure of it, regardless of the object. Cold, clean killing could arguably be viewed as merciful. But prolonged affliction of an unwanted force upon a living, breathing, feeling thing is terrible, no matter what the object.

However, most of the time, the opposite is true. Meat farms are insanitary and terrible in their treatment of animals, while bestiality just happens at home with a dog or a sheep or a horse that the human finds desirable. I've seen terrible footage from PETA in which turkey farmers fuck their turkeys prior to killing them, but that's an abominable case unto itself, and constitutes violence. I've also seen bestiality porn in which girls kiss their dogs while the dogs fuck them. (I wasn't seeking it out, I just stumbled across it one day and got all weirded out.) De facto bestiality, I think, is not necessarily morally and objectively condemnable.

I seriously think pedophilia has NOTHING whatsoEVER to do with this issue. 

We do not fatten and eat our children. We love them in a nurturing way. Afflicting them with an adult desire in a forceful manner constitutes violence, true, just as kicking and punching chickens while fucking them constitutes violence. The violence is the same and should be condemned. Any and ALL violence, when performed for its own perverse sake, is a terrible manifestation of human evil and should be morally condemned.

The big difference between animals and children is that children will grow up to become people like us, and already ARE people like us. Children are fundamentally different from the animals that are normally subject to bestiality because children are in the process of becoming capable to affect the world, and do affect the world as they are, as much as we (and the people that commit the crime of pedophelia) do. Besides, children constitute little interior worlds of their own, and we, being humans as well, can generally intuitively connect to this fact and feel things like sympathy. It's .. just.. I know it's a species-discriminating whatever, but whatever, you know. Agh. 

So my point is: violence is BAD! bestiality is kind of weird but whatever, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with pedophilia! there is no basis on which to claim the objective inherent badness of bestiality! so there!


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

idliketobehappy said:


> Humans copulate with other humans, with the objects of a) releasing their lust, b) begetting offspring, c) expressing love, or d) all of the above.
> 
> Humans often put animals of different species together for the purpose of cross-breeding them. Once humans create an environment which appeals to the animals' instincitve sexual urges, the animals tend to copulate of their own accord.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you. you made the point much better than i ever could. i have a harder time coming with the specific details like that, all i do is just stick up for the rights/freedoms of people to do as they choose without being condemned for it, no matter how much one may disagree with the act. you cannot support the fact of being free yet condemn those for doing something you do not quite exactly agree with and be a reasonable person, or yet being a person who deserves to be free themselves. 

im sorry, this may sound a bit crude, but if you decide that its right to condemn and punish those for doing something that you dont agree with even tho theyre not harming anybody else then you are a fuckin 'tard and deserve to be put into a third world country where you yourself have no rights at all.

sorry, but fuck anybody who chooses to punish those for having differing opinions. (is that not what the whole 'revolution' was about to begin with). You dont like it? fine, thats perfectly acceptable and nobody will argue that. dont do it, and dont have anything to do with it.


----------



## Happy (Oct 10, 2008)

I dare you to wear a t-shirt on the street saying "I like to fuck animals" :laughing:

Its good that the internet can help express how you feel inside.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

i would wear a shirt that says that, itd be funny as hell imo. i couldnt care less what ppl i dont even know think of me, and those i do know would know i dont actually lke to fuck animals, so itd be funny as fuck


----------



## Happy (Oct 10, 2008)

Roland787 said:


> i would wear a shirt that says that, itd be funny as hell imo. i couldnt care less what ppl i dont even know think of me, and those i do know would know i dont actually lke to fuck animals, so itd be funny as fuck


Yes, don't care what people think of you, care what they will do to you. It won't be as funny when a group of radicals start kicking the shit out of you. :laughing:


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

yeah, like that would actually happen. and seems as if you would actually support such an act, is that true? if so, then that says a shitload more about you than it does about me for wearing such a shirt.


----------



## Happy (Oct 10, 2008)

Roland787 said:


> yeah, like that would actually happen. and seems as if you would actually support such an act, is that true? if so, then that says a shitload more about you than it does about me for wearing such a shirt.


Please find anything in my statement that would suggest this.


----------



## openedskittles (May 24, 2009)

This debate really boils down (by my logic) to: "Is it rape?"
It's a very tricky question to answer in this case, because consent can't be given and in most cases not even assumed.


----------



## SuicidalMarshmallow (Aug 15, 2009)

Wait so back to culture. (Sorry I want a question answered xD)
Wolfstar-- you said self examination, correct?
So if these are rights you yourself concluded with and believe them to be the "god-given" rights, what gives you the right to decide so and impose it upon other cultures/beliefs?
Not that I disagree with you-- I believe in those rights too and that is should be that way. But why?


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

They aren't things we create. They are things we discover through intuitive introspection, but they do not come from us, nor do they come from our culture.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WolfStar (Aug 18, 2009)

SuicidalMarshmallow said:


> Wait so back to culture. (Sorry I want a question answered xD)
> Wolfstar-- you said self examination, correct?
> So if these are rights you yourself concluded with and believe them to be the "god-given" rights, what gives you the right to decide so and impose it upon other cultures/beliefs?
> Not that I disagree with you-- I believe in those rights too and that is should be that way. But why?


I'm not imposing them on anyone or any culture. I may believe a certain culture is wrong in a belief but if the individual person in it is happy then then it is not my responsibility to evoke change. If the individual people are unhappy then it is their own responsibility to change.


----------



## SuicidalMarshmallow (Aug 15, 2009)

WolfStar said:


> I'm not imposing them on anyone or any culture. I may believe a certain culture is wrong in a belief but if the individual person in it is happy then then it is not my responsibility to evoke change. If the individual people are unhappy then it is their own responsibility to change.


Hmm...very convincing...yes,yes.



snail said:


> They aren't things we create. They are things we discover through intuitive introspection, but they do not come from us, nor do they come from our culture.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So where do they come from? o.o


----------



## Sunless (Jul 30, 2009)

WolfStar said:


> I'm not imposing them on anyone or any culture. I may believe a certain culture is wrong in a belief but if the individual person in it is happy then then it is not my responsibility to evoke change. If the individual people are unhappy then it is their own responsibility to change.


Thank you, Wolfstar, i agree with you on this completely <3


----------



## WolfStar (Aug 18, 2009)

SuicidalMarshmallow said:


> Hmm...very convincing...yes,yes.
> 
> 
> So where do they come from? o.o


I don't think they "come" from anything so much as they are just a part of this universe. Where does the YOU come from? Doesn't "come" from anything, it's just there.


----------



## SuicidalMarshmallow (Aug 15, 2009)

WolfStar said:


> I don't think they "come" from anything so much as they are just a part of this universe. Where does the YOU come from? Doesn't "come" from anything, it's just there.


Supposedly I am made out of a bunch of tiny particles form a star that exploded a long, long time ago ._.' As is everything else XD
I COME FROM A STAR! BWAHAHAHA BOW DOWN TO MY AWESOMENESS! >D


----------



## WolfStar (Aug 18, 2009)

SuicidalMarshmallow said:


> Supposedly I am made out of a bunch of tiny particles form a star that exploded a long, long time ago ._.' As is everything else XD
> I COME FROM A STAR! BWAHAHAHA BOW DOWN TO MY AWESOMENESS! >D


I didn't mean your body, but your self. :B


----------



## SuicidalMarshmallow (Aug 15, 2009)

WolfStar said:


> I didn't mean your body, but your self. :B


A combination of genetics, environment, and experiences.


----------



## WolfStar (Aug 18, 2009)

SuicidalMarshmallow said:


> A combination of genetics, environment, and experiences.


No, the body is a combination of genetics. You are not merely the combination of your sensory experiences.


----------



## SuicidalMarshmallow (Aug 15, 2009)

WolfStar said:


> No, the body is a combination of genetics. You are not merely the combination of your sensory experiences.


Yes I am. What do you think personality is? XD Certain traits get passed down, and then our experiences in our environment take those traits, alter them slightly, and shape us into who we become.


----------



## WolfStar (Aug 18, 2009)

SuicidalMarshmallow said:


> Yes I am. What do you think personality is? XD Certain traits get passed down, and then our experiences in our environment take those traits, alter them slightly, and shape us into who we become.


Nah. If that is so then we have no real choice in life, we can only do what we were made to do.

Traits get passed down, yes, but bodily traits. Intelligence and self-awareness and the like have nothing at all to do with genetics. Personality is a part of YOU. It's how you want to act to the world. You can change your personality, which means it isn't hard-coded which means it isn't genetic. We experience life, yes, but YOU choose how to interpret those experiences. The experience in and of itself does not shape you.


----------



## SuicidalMarshmallow (Aug 15, 2009)

WolfStar said:


> Nah. If that is so then we have no real choice in life, we can only do what we were made to do.
> 
> Traits get passed down, yes, but bodily traits. Intelligence and self-awareness and the like have nothing at all to do with genetics. Personality is a part of YOU. It's how you want to act to the world. You can change your personality, which means it isn't hard-coded which means it isn't genetic. We experience life, yes, but YOU choose how to interpret those experiences. The experience in and of itself does not shape you.


Well, we cant' do what we weren't made to do. It's like telling a robot made to fabric clothes to fabric tables. Doesn't work. Of course, if you alter that robot, then TADA! You are now able to.
Of course, some humans are gifted with an incredible force of will. They are the ones that make things happen, are they not? 
And your personality isn't just genetics. It's experiences and environment too. So maybe you have a tendency to do this, but then along comes someone else and changes your mind or you go through some life-changing experiences that change your mind too. Of course, how you interpret things is really up to your brain. Person A may respond aggressively while person B may respond submissively, for example. Of course, some of this is genetic, some of this is experience, some of this may be learned. Instinct? 
I don't believe two people could ever be exactly the same-- even if they are genetically identical-- because they did not go through the SAME EXACT experiences.
And intelligence is passed down genetically. That I can assure you. Some offspring may get it, others not.
See, like the color of your eyes. That's partly genetic, partly environmental. I'm not sure how it works exactly-- but environment does play a key role.
So someone made this metaphor....let's say you are going to cook this meal. Depending on the ingredients you have or don't have is going to determine how it comes out. So will the temperature/heat that you cook it at and the time you take to make it, ect.
It's not to say people can get away with rape or murder because they don't have a choice. It may be genetic, but I still think every human mind has power over themselves and is capable of self control. Then again, I know a few who don't. I think that you can achieve whatever you set your mind to. But does everyone have the gift of determination? Perhaps yes. If you really want something-- in fact, some non-human animals exhibit this trait as well-- you will find a way.
So maybe will is something every being possesses?
I've rambled on again xD


----------



## WolfStar (Aug 18, 2009)

SuicidalMarshmallow said:


> Well, we cant' do what we weren't made to do. It's like telling a robot made to fabric clothes to fabric tables. Doesn't work. Of course, if you alter that robot, then TADA! You are now able to.
> Of course, some humans are gifted with an incredible force of will. They are the ones that make things happen, are they not?
> And your personality isn't just genetics. It's experiences and environment too. So maybe you have a tendency to do this, but then along comes someone else and changes your mind or you go through some life-changing experiences that change your mind too. Of course, how you interpret things is really up to your brain. Person A may respond aggressively while person B may respond submissively, for example. Of course, some of this is genetic, some of this is experience, some of this may be learned. Instinct?
> I don't believe two people could ever be exactly the same-- even if they are genetically identical-- because they did not go through the SAME EXACT experiences.
> ...


We can't do what we aren't made to do, yes, that is correct. But genetics is not what makes us like that. I would say "God" but since I'm agnostic I'm just going to say life, or quite possibly just the Self. Who you are determines what you're good at.

Interpreting things is not the brain's job. The brain processes, not interprets. That's your job. The brain takes in information through the senses and then you decide what to do with it. Saying "Oh, I saw this event this way and it wasn't my fault, I had to because of my brain," is just shirking responsibility.

Everyone has the power of self control. It's just a matter of how much effort you want to put into obtaining it.


----------



## Sunless (Jul 30, 2009)

I find you very balanced, marsh 

Like she said: if a king asks his colonel to fly from flower to flower like a butterfly, and the colonel doesnt compel, whos fault is it?


----------



## WolfStar (Aug 18, 2009)

Sunless said:


> I find you very balanced, marsh
> 
> Like she said: if a king asks his colonel to fly from flower to flower like a butterfly, and the colonel doesnt compel, whos fault is it?


I really don't know what you're meaning with that. How does it apply to this.


----------



## SuicidalMarshmallow (Aug 15, 2009)

Sunless said:


> I find you very balanced, marsh
> 
> Like she said: if a king asks his colonel to fly from flower to flower like a butterfly, and the colonel doesnt compel, whos fault is it?


 Thank you, Sunless ^_^



WolfStar said:


> We can't do what we aren't made to do, yes, that is correct. But genetics is not what makes us like that. I would say "God" but since I'm agnostic I'm just going to say life, or quite possibly just the Self. Who you are determines what you're good at.
> 
> Interpreting things is not the brain's job. The brain processes, not interprets. That's your job. The brain takes in information through the senses and then you decide what to do with it. Saying "Oh, I saw this event this way and it wasn't my fault, I had to because of my brain," is just shirking responsibility.
> 
> Everyone has the power of self control. It's just a matter of how much effort you want to put into obtaining it.


What is this "self" you are talking about? Your personality? Identity? Are you talking about a soul? You are given your brain and you decide whether to use it or not.
I'm not saying that just cause your brain interpreted something one way you shouldn't take responsibility for it. It is _your_ brain-- therefore it is _you.
_I see what the problem with this whole thing is. If you have no choice because of your genetic make up, you can't be punished, now can you? It's not your fault. But that's where free will comes in. If you are taught something or find something to a truth for you, you should be able to choose. that's why it isn't just genetics.


----------



## WolfStar (Aug 18, 2009)

SuicidalMarshmallow said:


> Thank you, Sunless ^_^
> 
> 
> What is this "self" you are talking about? Your personality? Identity? Are you talking about a soul? You are given your brain and you decide whether to use it or not.
> ...


Wait, so is it my brain or is it me? Those are contradictory statements. It cannot be something that BELONGS to me and yet at the same time BE me. I would say the self is akin to a soul, but certainly not the kind of thing as from Christianity's viewpoint. I completely agree with your last paragraph, though.


----------



## SuicidalMarshmallow (Aug 15, 2009)

WolfStar said:


> Wait, so is it my brain or is it me? Those are contradictory statements. It cannot be something that BELONGS to me and yet at the same time BE me. I would say the self is akin to a soul, but certainly not the kind of thing as from Christianity's viewpoint. I completely agree with your last paragraph, though.


Well, I have yet to find out. What ARE you?I know there is this sense of self-- I have it too--...but isn't it just the way neurons are organized in your brain and the messages being sent throughout them and electricity and so on? If you aren't that-- what are you?
And thanks for agreeing with my last paragraph XD
Hm...so many things to find out.....like for example, if all these atoms and particles came form an exploding star, where did they come from before that? Where did they originate. Ah yes, life's miseries!
WHO STOLE THE COOKIE FROM THE COOKIE JAR!!!
IT WAS YOU!!!!!!! *accuses you by pointing finger at you while wiping cookie crumbs off the corner of her mouth with other hand*


----------



## WolfStar (Aug 18, 2009)

SuicidalMarshmallow said:


> Well, I have yet to find out. What ARE you?I know there is this sense of self-- I have it too--...but isn't it just the way neurons are organized in your brain and the messages being sent throughout them and electricity and so on? If you aren't that-- what are you?
> And thanks for agreeing with my last paragraph XD
> Hm...so many things to find out.....like for example, if all these atoms and particles came form an exploding star, where did they come from before that? Where did they originate. Ah yes, life's miseries!
> WHO STOLE THE COOKIE FROM THE COOKIE JAR!!!
> IT WAS YOU!!!!!!! *accuses you by pointing finger at you while wiping cookie crumbs off the corner of her mouth with other hand*


I believe the mind is a projection of the brain and the self is separate. The mind tries to protect the body by being a reflex organ and the self controls all of it. I guess it comes down to a personal belief but the idea that there is no self, you are your body, when you die you're dead, just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Defeats the purpose, the reason, and nothing is black and white like that.

As to your atoms and particles argument, eh, don't really need to know where they originated unless you're in the science department because the here and now is only what's important. 

I actually had a cupcake, not a cookie. NYAH! ;D


----------



## SuicidalMarshmallow (Aug 15, 2009)

WolfStar said:


> I believe the mind is a projection of the brain and the self is separate. The mind tries to protect the body by being a reflex organ and the self controls all of it. I guess it comes down to a personal belief but the idea that there is no self, you are your body, when you die you're dead, just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Defeats the purpose, the reason, and nothing is black and white like that.
> 
> As to your atoms and particles argument, eh, don't really need to know where they originated unless you're in the science department because the here and now is only what's important.
> 
> I actually had a cupcake, not a cookie. NYAH! ;D



Hm....so it does boil down to personal belief. And what purpose is it defeating? I don't think there necesarrily needs to be reason. We're already here. Might as well fucking enjoy it XD;
And I guess this means I don't have an explanation as to where these rights come from, them? They're just there?

But if it weren't for the science department-- we'd die of common cold ._.' So it IS important  I don't wanna die! D:

SO YOU TOOK THE CUPCAKE FROM THE CUPCAKE TRAY! D<


----------



## WolfStar (Aug 18, 2009)

SuicidalMarshmallow said:


> Hm....so it does boil down to personal belief. And what purpose is it defeating? I don't think there necesarrily needs to be reason. We're already here. Might as well fucking enjoy it XD;
> And I guess this means I don't have an explanation as to where these rights come from, them? They're just there?
> 
> But if it weren't for the science department-- we'd die of common cold ._.' So it IS important  I don't wanna die! D:
> ...


That's true, to some extent. There still exists a mind that thinks up fantasies and scenarios that many, many people have trouble quieting.


----------



## SuicidalMarshmallow (Aug 15, 2009)

WolfStar said:


> That's true, to some extent. There still exists a mind that thinks up fantasies and scenarios that many, many people have trouble quieting.


>.> I can't argue with that XD Damn it.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

another one like the incest thread. i promise to keep it calm myself and not to get as heated as i have done few times before, hope rest can do the same.



*and i keep any negative feelings i have towards people in these forums where said feelings are produced. in other threads you're all just different posters to me*


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

This topic reminded me of this music video.

Garfunkel and Oates are too awesome not to be mentioned in this thread.


----------



## Valdyr (May 25, 2010)

I've actually debated the topic before. I will briefly explain my thoughts on the matter.

In _principle_, there is nothing wrong with bestiality. There, I said it. My justification however is rather simple. 

The major boogeyman that opponents of my position raise is usually pedophilia. Now, I'm against pedophilia, broadly defined, but I think we have to ask ourselves why it is that we find pedophilia to be morally unacceptable. The usual answer is that children "aren't mentally developed enough." Now, not only is this vague, it also commits us to a rather untenable position. Most non-humans (not all) are less "mentally developed" than a human child yet they have sex just fine. What then, is the relevant factor that makes pedophilia?

The answer, I think, is a more refined version of the "mental capacity" argument. The key as I see it is _sexual maturity_. A child, by definition, is not supposed to be of mating age, and thus will neither have the appropriate psychological understanding nor the proper physical capacity. When we have sex with a child (not an adolescent - that's a much more complex issue) we violate the principle of consent because a child is not yet a sexual creature. 

The same cannot be said for a sexually mature non-human. They are clearly "supposed" to be having sex

A. By definition, because they are sexually mature and

B. They could and probably would engage in sexual activity with their own species

Thus, in principle, making a moral distinction between a non-human's "decision" to have sex with a member of its own species and a member of our species is completely arbitrary, and thus should be rejected.

We encounter our main problem, however, when we attempt to put this into practice, because determining when a non-human has consented is tricky. Obviously, they cannot consent in the same manner that we do - that is, as a sort of contract - because they do not have an idea of contract. But, I would consider it a suitable _reductio ad absurdum_ to point out that if we outright deny the ability to consent to non-humans, animals are raping each other every time they engage in sexual behavior. This is silly, since non-humans can and do engage in sexual behavior "voluntarily." Else there would be no life on earth!

Thus, our problem becomes outlining non-human consent. A good principle would be a lack of resistance on the part of the non-human. After all, especially in social mammal species (which, let's face it, are what most bestiality involves), animals that do not wish to mate will routinely fight off those attempting to mate with them. We probably should go further, and to play it safe, the human participant should have a decent knowledge of that animal's body language. Lastly, to avoid physical harm, people should only engage in bestiality at times when that animal is biologically supposed to be mating (we humans are spoiled with our year-round ability to mate!)

The main challenge that one could mount to this position, as I see it, is a natural law philosophy of sex. In said framework, consent is not important when morally evaluating sexual behavior. This view is, however, riddled with its own problems, and thus is a solidly minority view in contemporary ethics. Furthermore, bestiality specifically is a contingent matter, as a defense of natural law would need to be mounted more generally against liberal (consent-based) sexual ethics.

All I aim to show is that if we accept the principle of consent, making a blanket evaluation of bestiality as immoral is at best arbitrary, and at worst contradictory. I still would generally not recommend the practice.

Lastly, I think it is worth commenting that this does not condone zoosadism, which is the case in a great many bestiality cases. Zoosadism is bestiality without concern for the non-human participant's well-being or ability to consent.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

OK, before I get around to the nuts and bolts of this debate; I'll give a quick bit of background. I am a lawyer by training; specialising in criminal law. During my university days, we used to have to study debates just like this. Now for my position on the matter.

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) defines a right to private and family life, under article 8. However, this is not an absolute right; and can be derogated from. Now, the parallel that is drawn between bestiality and paedophilia is an incorrect parallel. For starters, what paedophilia is depends on which country you live in. In my native UK, the age of consent is 16; it is lower in many states, and higher in others. Thus there is no blanket definition of paedophilia; there _is_ a blanket definition of bestiality. Historically speaking, especially amongst the Commonwealth of Nations (the ex-colonies of the British Empire), there have been strict traditional laws that enforced a strong Judeo-Christian moral code. Amongst other things, this code culminated in infamous Indian Penal Code (IPC); which outlawed paedophilia, homosexuality and bestiality. Since then, homosexuality has gradually become legal amongst many Commonwealth countries, including India. The justification given, is the right to privacy. Now, note; this has grouping of homosexuality, paedophilia and bestiality has caused serious controversy; and before I go further... I stress. They are unrelated and incomparable phenomena; one cannot be used to justify the illegality of the other etc.

Now, following the same tautology as the courts in decriminalising homosexuality (in those States that have done so); why is bestiality illegal? The first justification is that "it isn't natural", however, shining a dispassionate light on the matter reveals very different. Aside from the fact that inter-species breeding is common (think mules here people), mammals are uniquely positioned to display common body language cues and are more than capable of shrugging off unwanted sexual advances (watch chimps in the wild, or wolves too for that matter). Thus, why are the cues universal? Further, once again, humans have clearly practised bestiality for aeons; otherwise, why would the Old Testament make specific reference to the "sinful" (I am an atheist, so "sin" doesn't mean much to me) nature of the act... people were obviously doing it. Thus, the same premise of privacy should extend to human-animal sexual acts...

However, then kicks in another argument. This is the argument that the animals are incapable of consent. Personally, I find this argument horrendously arrogant. Firstly, I think we can safely say that animals are capable of consenting to many forms of treatment. Not just this, but if one assumes that animals are incapable of consent; then what makes them reproduce and *pick* their mates? Further, if animals are not capable of consent, then every single non-human mammal is the by-product of rape; which strikes me as being a fairly ludicrous position. However, there is a killer blow, this is that bestiality carries with it extreme health risks. Brucellosis is just the first concern someone practising bestiality must be aware of; and considering the horrifying nature of the disease, should you find yourself sexually attractive to some mammal (or reptile, in which case salmonella is an additional concern); then you should really worry about these diseases. 

The counter to that point is that homosexuality was justified as criminal (or a mental disease for that matter) due to the health risks carried with it. However, the point is that HIV/AIDS prevention was actually stymied by criminalising and demonising homosexuals as they would refuse to be educated or come forward for testing due to the stigma attached. Indeed, when it comes to sexual stigmas, there are acts far riskier than bestiality in the bedroom, such as auto-erotic asphyxiation; and yet people do not condemn these acts as "sick" or akin to paedophilia en masse. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that symbolic coupling with animals was practised frequently throughout the world prior to the Abrahamic faith dominance of the world. 

Once again, that doesn't mean I'd be keen to try the practice, but really, if people want to screw with animals; provided they are educated about the risks and people are mature enough to understand that democracy and liberalism is in no way the tyranny of the majority; then they should be free to do so. However, this requires dispassionate analysis; and some countries (e.g. Denmark) do not criminalise the activity. Should you engage in bestiality? There is no answer to this question beyond; "research the matter, educate yourself on it and decide if the activity is for you". Those who suggest that legalising such activity will lead to a mass influx of animal lovers is equally ludicrous. The term for such belief is "moral panic"; and it is fallacy. Decriminalising sodomy didn't lead to a mass influx of either homosexuals or women clamouring to be anally penetrated in the streets; just as decriminalising marijuana possession in Portugal didn't lead to a mass influx of stoners terrorising the streets...


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Roland787 said:


> It has been requested that i make a new thread on this subject for debate. Ive already said what i had to say so i wlll leave the rest to all of you.
> 
> "ah niice. anyways i was jsut getting flamed in the chatroom for my statements defending animal fuckers. they think im sick, its not like im the one fucking the animals now. im just saying to each their fuckin own, and i will always stick to that philosophy, no matter how much i may disagree with something. if nobody is getting hurt then no harm done. now they try to defend animal rights and saying its cruel, really? most of these animals are well big enough to fight off any unwanted 'attacks' but i honestly dont even think the animals care.
> 
> if defending peoples odd habits and gross interests for the sake of real freedom makes me sick, than yeah, im the sickest son of a bitch you will ever meet."


Considering the differences in biology which makes it impossible for you to get inside some animals, not to mention the abuse of diddling an animal who has no idea what the fuck is going on; I'll play. 

If see a sexy piece of ass in the zoo, and if you can get a giraffe, koala or dog to show they're really hankering for a piece of your dick, then go for it. Grab them by the fur and go wild. However, I'm pretty sure humans are the only ones who would do some shit like that. I doubt there's a dog earnestly trying to figure out how to fuck a human.

Some of the shit people are willing to support is so beyond me.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

There is a stark and, to me, rather clear difference between defending and supporting. I have _defended_ many people; it's my job as a defence lawyer. Thankfully, none of my colleagues have ever thrown the accusation of support at me. What I am willing to defend is anything that my client is accused of. What I am willing to support is a different kettle of fish. As I posted earlier; inter-species breeding does occur; and more commonly than people care to accept. Just like homosexuality is displayed on mammalian species. In fact, a lot of the acts that cause people such distress are often well documented natural phenomena. That aside; I'm not sure that @Roland787 is supporting bestiality; rather he is defending those who choose to engage in the activity. The illegality of many things (drugs, prostitution, homosexuality etc. Just to name a few) do have a case to answer; and the only way reform is possible is through impassionate debate. As Thomas Jefferson said; "I may not agree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it". In that instance, Jefferson supported free speech and defended an abstract person. In this instance any "support" is for privacy laws and rights, not bestiality...


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

android654 said:


> Considering the differences in biology which makes it impossible for you to get inside some animals, not to mention the abuse of diddling an animal who has no idea what the fuck is going on; I'll play.
> 
> If see a sexy piece of ass in the zoo, and if you can get a giraffe, koala or dog to show they're really hankering for a piece of your dick, then go for it. Grab them by the fur and go wild. However, I'm pretty sure humans are the only ones who would do some shit like that. I doubt there's a dog earnestly trying to figure out how to fuck a human.
> 
> Some of the shit people are willing to support is so beyond me.


 

glad paradox was around right after your post to clarify my position and to defend my part, thanks for that btw paradox, and youre previous post was much appreciated along with valdyr's.

(can somebody tell me how to 'mention' people on here?)


i dont see how anybody who is against something automatically takes it as somebody supporting/participating in said thing when all theyre doing is defending it and trying to speak out for those who are oppressed by society.

you might think i go too far with bringing up these incest and beastiality topics, but its only because i like the debates on these largely taboo topics that to me are just based around paranoias and/or personal beliefs.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

@Roland787, you are very welcome. I may be an ENFP, but years of legal training and mass exposure to ENTPs (I love ENTPs) has developed my Ti considerably. Also; once again, the profession gives me a much better understanding than most I've come across between defending and supporting. As an ethnic minority lawyer, clients often request me when they are accused of race crimes. If someone said I support race crimes because I uphold the central pillars of democratic justice systems (innocent until proven guilty & the right to a fair trial) I'd be a little peeved. So I figured I'd step in and point that out . Personally I say don't stop the debates; these debates were always the most interesting in jurisprudence class back in the day haha. Bestiality can be debated until the cows come home, and those with deep held convictions tend to get very upset that someone dares speak a word of defence for people. I read in the earlier pages a clarion call for defenders of those who practise bestiality to be shot. I'd hope not, otherwise all defence lawyers like me would be shot in a Nazi style coup of societal intolerance... Scary thought eh? Also, yes, it is ludicrous to say that those who defend others are de facto participants. As The Doors sang; People Are Strange. 

Btw, to mention people, put the @ sign, then without a space, type their username; e.g. @Roland787


----------



## Valdyr (May 25, 2010)

I'd like to add, in addition to @_Paradox1987_ 's informative posts, a simple reply to our opponents. There are two issues at stake, as far as I see it. First, there is the legal issue - ought it be legal? The second issue is of moral philosophy, which is can it be moral or non-moral (as opposed to immoral)? In both cases, the onus of proof, as far as I'm concerned, lies on those who would wish to illegalize something (for the first issues), and to establish why something is universally immoral (for the second issue).

I would also like to thank Paradox for clarifying the distinction between defending and supporting. As I said in my earlier post, I am not _advocating_ going out and having sex with non-humans. I would never do it myself. But, I think that

A. There are examples of this behavior that fulfill a version of consent and thus are not immoral and

B. That the behavior should be legal

I can defend what I see as someone's ability to have sex with non-humans (and maybe even some non-human's ability to have sex with a human, who knows?) without saying it's a great idea.

Turning back to the philosophical side of the debate, as I pointed out before, the "they have no idea what's going on," argument is a bit confused, because it arbitrarily distinguishes between a sexually mature non-human's sexual behavior with a member of its own species. We know how many social mammals consent to sex with their own species behavior-wise, so in principle, a zoophile (people with a sexual attraction to non-human animals of any sort) should be able to tell.

As far as the morality of the act is concerned, we need to establish specifically why, in the case of a sexually mature non-human that is physically capable of sex with a human without real injury, that has consented insofar as "consent" is defined for that species given knowledge of their sexual behavior, what the morally relevant distinction is between, for example, the insertion of a human penis and the insertion of a member of that species' penis?


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

@Paradox1987 thank you 


pssst. is it case sensitive?


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Valdyr said:


> A. There are examples of this behavior that fulfill a version of consent and thus are not immoral and
> 
> B. That the behavior should be legal
> 
> I can defend what I see as someone's ability to have sex with non-humans (and maybe even some non-human's ability to have sex with a humam, who knows?) without saying it's a great idea.


you have examples of animals giving consent to sex with humans?


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

android654 said:


> you have examples of animals giving consent to sex with humans?


videos online you can see a dog willingly fuckin a woman lol


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Roland787 said:


> videos online you can see a dog willingly fuckin a woman lol


I bet your search history is quite interesting. Are you all aware the concept of consent of recreational sex is purely a human concept right? Taking that into consideration, how is an animal even suppose to consent when they're incapable of the concept.


----------



## Valdyr (May 25, 2010)

android654 said:


> you have examples of animals giving consent to sex with humans?


Non-humans can obviously consent to sex with members of their own species. For example, I do volunteer work with wolves, which includes breeding them for release into the wild. The female consents to the male's advance by not physically fighting (which believe me, they WILL if they don't want it), raising her tail up and to the side, etc. You need to establish why the same couldn't happen _in principle_ with a human.


Providing actual examples is contingent, because there's no reason in principle it couldn't happen. As far as I'm concerned, every single actual case of bestiality could end up being zoosadistic, in which case they would all be immoral. The point is that if we accept the principle of consent, we have to allow that in circumstances where the animal consents, which they clearly have the ability to do, then there exist potential scenarios in which the behavior is not immoral.

Furthermore, providing an example would be very difficult because, due to the illegality of the practice in many jurisdictions (and the extreme social stigma in most) most people involved in uneventful bestiality are not exactly going to come out about it. It's the same problem that happened with researching and homosexuality prior to the 20th century. It was so taboo that the only actual homosexuals people usually had to study were ones that had been brought in for treatment of other mental disorders, which was why homosexuality was considered a disorder - classic sample bias. Similarly, the main cases we're going to get information about in this day and age are cases involving hurting the animal/abuse, as they are going to be the ones that are brought to court.



> I bet your search history is quite interesting. Are you all aware the concept of consent of recreational sex is purely a human concept right? Taking that into consideration, how is an animal even suppose to consent when they're incapable of the concept.


Well, they can clearly have a pleasant experience having sex with their own species. If they can do that and _don't_ have any notion consent, then why should it be immoral? If consent is irrelevant, then there are more, not less, circumstances in which the behavior is acceptable.


----------



## Paeter (May 18, 2011)

People think it's fine and dandy to breed animals by the millions and slit their throats to satisfy their desire for meat but those same people are horrified by a few people having sex with animals to satisfy their desire for sex/their animal fetish. The absolute hypocrisy of it all makes my mind freaking explode.


----------



## Valdyr (May 25, 2010)

Paeter said:


> People think it's fine and dandy to breed animals by the millions and slit their throats to satisfy their desire for meat but those same people are horrified by a few people having sex with animals to satisfy their desire for sex/their animal fetish. The absolute hypocrisy of it all makes my mind freaking explode.


I emphatically agree.

If we're really so concerned about animal welfare, then not using animals for food, entertainment etc. seems a lot more pressing than bestiality, especially when I think it would be absurd to suggest that _no_ experiences of bestiality have ever been enjoyable (or at least neutral) for the animal.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Paeter said:


> People think it's fine and dandy to breed animals by the millions and slit their throats to satisfy their desire for meat but those same people are horrified by a few people having sex with animals to satisfy their desire for sex/their animal fetish. The absolute hypocrisy of it all makes my mind freaking explode.


Oh my god. I don't even know where to begin with this. You claim people are hypocrites, for eating meat and claiming others are sick for having sex with animals... Besides the obvious fact that they have nothing to do with one another, let me ask you something. DO you know any lions that have sex with zebras? Maybe foxes the dig into rabbits? Or an alligator that fucks deer?


----------



## NekoNinja (Apr 18, 2010)

Quite a strange debate. 

Id say the problem here is that laws are largely based on the morals of the majority. Obviously many will say that this is morally wrong. You can argue and say that who are you to judge what is "good" or "bad," but without such morality there would truthfully be no laws at all. I find it better that I live in a world with laws than a world without them. Of course this will mean that there will never be true agreement on everything among everyone but such also provides general safety and means to survival that may not exist otherwise. I'll take what seems best.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

shadowofambivalence said:


> beastiality/zoophilia is about the same as two humans having sex.


Yeah, ok then. /rolls eyes


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

*Sex with animals?*

Would you? Which ones? 

Have you? If so which ones?


----------



## MXZCCT (May 29, 2011)

Not an animal per se, but she was a wild animal that night.


----------



## FreeSpirit (Jun 1, 2011)

What the hell is wrong with you @Emerson?!!!!
*kidding*

Beastiality (is that how you spell it? I'm _not_ going to
check on the internet) is one of those fetishes that
I can hardly believe is real. Seriously, does anyone
_actually like_ this shit? Or do they just do it to prove
how sick they are?


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

FreeSpirit said:


> What the hell is wrong with you @Emerson?!!!!
> *kidding*
> 
> Beastiality (is that how you spell it? I'm _not_ going to
> ...


I don't know, just finished all of my work for this semester and buzzing from a load of pro-pluss, me and my INTJ roommate started discussing whether or not people actually do this sort of stuff (like outside of the wierd porn) and I decided that the best way to go about this sort of stuff was to check on here... 

Its bestiality btw. 

Don't player hate I guess?


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

Zoo Tycoon 2: Redlight district. The lost expansion pack. 


But really, this is fucking sick. no, I don't want to fuck animals. Because I'm sane.


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

Eerie said:


> Zoo Tycoon 2: Redlight district. The lost expansion pack.
> 
> 
> But really, this is fucking sick. no, I don't want to fuck animals. Because I'm sane.


If someones mind is built in a way that makes them sexually attracted to animals its not their fault. Or should we pray the bestiality away?


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

Emerson said:


> If someones mind is built in a way that makes them sexually attracted to animals its not their fault. Or should we pray the bestiality away?


You don't have to be religious to know that you shouldn't have sex with your pet.


----------



## ProfessorLiver (Mar 19, 2011)

Only on Wednesdays.


----------



## FreeSpirit (Jun 1, 2011)

The animal can't consent. THIS IS RAPE.


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

Eerie said:


> You don't have to be religious to know that you shouldn't have sex with your pet.


Wait so you're against having sex with an animal, but you're for keeping one in slavery? That's pretty sick if you ask me. (I am in no way condoning the actions of bestialphiles, its no skin off my rosey nose if people are attracted to animals though.)


----------



## Obsidean (Mar 24, 2010)

I'm pretty sure this is illegal.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

Emerson said:


> Wait so you're against having sex with an animal, but you're for keeping one in slavery?


Yep.

10char.


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

Obsidean said:


> I'm pretty sure this is illegal.


So's smoking pot but a lot of people do that. I was more wondering if anyone actually has, and then has the balls to own up and say so, major props to the person who does I guess.


----------



## ProfessorLiver (Mar 19, 2011)

Emerson said:


> If someones mind is built in a way that makes them sexually attracted to animals its not their fault. Or should we pray the bestiality away?


Use the same logic you would use with a passed out woman or a small child: It can't object, so therefor the actual sexual act is immoral. However, the hypothetical desire can't be fundamentally immoral because the person has no control over it. If an animal could telepathically state, universally, that it approved of the sexual activity, then hey man, do whatever.


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

Eerie said:


> Yep.
> 
> 10char.


Then it would appear we've reached an impasse.


----------



## ProfessorLiver (Mar 19, 2011)

Emerson said:


> Then it would appear we've reached an impasse.


An animal "in slavery" is different from a human in slavery. You're anthropomorphising the issue of slavery. An animal that is captive is more likely to live longer, reproduce and live happily, since it has a constant source of food and is far safer from predators than it's wild counterpart. Only a handful of the animals in captivity are used for labour, and even those are still more likely to live longer than a wild animal. 
The animal that is being raped reaps no benefits, so it doesn't morally justify the act.


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

ProfessorLiver said:


> An animal "in slavery" is different from a human in slavery. You're anthropomorphising the issue of slavery. An animal that is captive is more likely to live longer, reproduce and live happily, since it has a constant source of food and is far safer from predators than it's wild counterpart. Only a handful of the animals in captivity are used for labour, and even those are still more likely to live longer than a wild animal.
> The animal that is being raped reaps no benefits, so it doesn't morally justify the act.


You're taking the thread seriously. Error.


----------



## ProfessorLiver (Mar 19, 2011)

Emerson said:


> You're taking the thread seriously. Error.


Oh, sorry. After a bowl you start thinking about a cow sitting there like "What're you doing? What's that? WAIT NO I HAVE A WIFE AND KIDS. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"


----------

