Defending Bestiality

[ParanoiA]

Please spare the details. Besides, you cannot prove that with the picture alone.

 

What about videos? I've seen tons...err...I mean, I've seen a couple...ya know...against my will sort of thing...

 

Anyway, I'd have to agree the dog seemed to clearly be consenting. Thing is, a drunk female can "clearly be consenting" too, while being completely smashed out of her mind and we don't consider that legal consent...because it's not.

[Reaper]

Have you considered the idea that these dogs may have been trained to do that?

 

We can train certain animals to do things that they normally wouldn't do in nature.

[Sataure]

I don't know if you've ever had a male dog that hasn't been neutered, but they hump anything and everything, more than a teenager in heavy puberty.

 

This brings us to another dilemma though: we have to assume that animals are capable of sentient thought to come to the conclusion that consent is even involved. If they have no deeper sense of "I" or "Myself" other than for primal motives like "I'm hungry", then they are incapable of deciding whether or not to partake in sexual activity for themselves because there is no sense of self involved. We also have to assume that the animal involved has the capacity to make such complicated decisions, and is capable of feeling assaulted if they indeed had decided not to partake in sexual activity against their will.

 

I know many people with pets like to think their "members" of the family can think and have feelings, but we really have little proof of conclusion for either side of the debate. Sure they make decisions, like to eat, poop, drink, and sleep, but those are merely lower-level neural responses to intrinsic and extrinsic stimuli.

 

And on another, more fundamental level, we are all just piles of cells with water to fill us up. I believe that humans have that little something extra from the stars that makes us who we are, but for animals it may very well be that they are merely the result of many cells following certain chemical pathways to allow 'life' to occur. Sentience as far as we know today is a strictly human attribute.

 

Now I'm not saying do whatever you want because everything else is just bits of cells, water, and other materials and therefore has no feelings; doing so would be destructive. We have to be responsible for our sentience, but as far as I see this responsibility extends only far enough to ensure the prolongment of the earth, its life, and the human race. Therefore, as long as we are not physically harming ourselves, other sentient beings (sentience again is debatable as to its scope), and the planet, we are pretty much free to do what we want.

[Sisyphus]

I don't think an animal would have to be "sentient" according to whatever definition you're using (that little something extra from the stars?) in order to be factored in. A dog can at least think enough to solve simple problems, remember complex routines, and can experience a variety of emotions, playfulness, contentment, fear, anger, etc. THAT is not in debate. The question is whether such things are experienced in the same way as humans experience them, i.e. how well the analogous human and dog emotions correspond. Just remember that there really is nothing biologically unique about human beings that could justify the statement, "Sentience as far as we know today is a strictly human attribute." We are sentient and not fundamentally different from, at least, other higher mammals, so, pending other information, the logical assumption would be that these animals are sentient, or at least have some degree of sentience, as on a continuous spectrum or something.

 

All that really has to be sorted out before one can answer the only really relevant question you ask, "is it capable of feeling assaulted if they indeed had decided not to partake in sexual activity against their will?" I don't think we can really answer that satisfactorily, so I'd say we should keep on the safe side and not rape our dogs, no?

[Sataure]

Humans, aside from dolphins, are the only mammals, or animals for that matter, with a cerebral cortex developed enough for the capacity of higher cognitive ability, including "thought". We cannot assume that animals can "think" like humans do, with words and a language to interpret stimuli in a, what we would refer to as, coherent string of thought.

 

As far as we can tell animals merely 'think' by complex subconscious reactions to certain stimuli, without consciously acknowledging that they are indeed acting on said stimuli. With that said, even if animals did have "emotions" on a neuro-chemical level, their brains do not hold the capacity for conscious recognition of said emotion. This is what I meant by sentience: the capacity to hold conscious recognition of stimuli with regards to a sense of self, not just merely the response to a stimuli. An animal can seem to be happy or morose, but if that animal has no conscious awareness of self, its current emotions do not hold any more function than for survival; being happy when there is food nearby increases the chances they will eat more and be satiated, whilst being sad and morose whilst sick increases the chances they will get rest and heal quicker. As far as we can tell, humans are the only animal capable of knowing that we are sad or happy on a conscious level, and are capable of forming complex and higher-level decisions based on said emotions.

 

Humans are fundamentally different from other animals with regards to neural structure, so we can infer that it is this difference in brain structure that gives us our capacity for sentience.

 

Though, like you said, this still doesn't mean it is right to go ahead and engage in socially unacceptable activities with other forms of life. But on a side not, morality is contingent upon consciousness; without being able to be aware of self we cannot judge actions. Sexual behavior is also a culturally dependant as well. In more rural and underdeveloped cultures, engaging in sexual activities is not that big of deal, and if you take a look at ancient mythology, many stories had bestial undertones.

 

Its a complex issue, and the answer I believe is more of a personal moral decision coupled with societal norms than a clear cut yes or no.

[tutordave]

LMFAO!!!!

 

Reminds me of the South Park episode "Chicken F***er"!

 

Honestly, I think that's a bit on the unsanitary side. Animals have different diseases than us, and to have sex with them introduces the possibility of bringing those diseases over to the human race. Not a good idea unless you're trying to thin out the human population.

 

So... after you "do" a goat, would you then slaughter and eat it??? Or would you care for it like a... girlfriend? Honestly, I must just be really, really bored to even post this.

 

You are more warped than space near a black hole.

 

You can have your goat heard, but I'll take a harem of hot chix any day! Just don't tell the wife! ;-)

[Sataure]

And tutordave brings up a good point: it would be hard to have a healthy emotional bond with an animal that cannot provide reciprocated emotional responses.

 

I think pets should stay innocent pets, and sex should be between wives and husbands, and boyfriends and girlfriends, or other arrangements based on your sexual orientation.

[ku]

Many people say that non-human animals, e.g. goats, cannot consent to sex. But I think they can. Even though goats and human are part of different species, the theory of evolution states we are all related (at least we all share a common ancestor and genetic relatedness between humans and many animals is very high). Basicaly, we can all understand each other in the Animal Kingdom. Many owners of pets can understand if their dogs or cats are happy, sad, or angry. If you started having sex with a goat, it is fairly easy to tell whether the goat is happy or sad. If you suspect the goat is sad and doesn't want to have sex, you could stop and try again another time. Trying to respect the animal's choice then increases the probability that the goat will enjoy the sex, which makes bestiality even more moral than killing for food.

 

Legalizing bestiality can also have significant economic benefits. At the moment because bestiality is illegal, there is a missing market. Those humans who want to have sex with non-human animals cannot do so, and so there is a deadweight loss from government intervention since a potential trade between animal supplier and consumers who want sex is not realized.

 

The demand from consumers who want animal sex will result in growth in a new industry sector that caters to supplying animals ready for sex. These companies that specialize in, say, human-goat sex will hire workers, pay taxes, satisfy consumer demand, and contribute to GDP growth.

 

To all those that raise health concerns, in the same way that the food industry today has hygiene standards and competition among providers to increase quality, so too standards of animal preparation and presentation in the animal prostition industry can be made and competition among animal sex providers can increase quality and drive innovation and technological advancements. For example, scientists can genetically engineer orifices in, say, goats that maximize pleasure to the consumer. They do this by experimenting in labs different variables like surface texture, hardness, etc. This means that consumers can achieve better sexual intercoarse, therefore increasing aggregate consumer welfare. The biotech advances made in bestiality reasearch may even be transferable to other areas in the same way that space exploration advances can be applied to other areas.

 

With your reasoning it would be possible to assume that sex with children was also acceptable, as even children are more intelligent than animals, but there can never be consent from a child, because children are far too easily influenced by adults, which is why paedophilia is thankfully illegal and always will be.

Most people think killing animals for food is fine. If killing animals for food is fine, why not have sex with them? Not many people eat human children.

 

Is it done ONLY for pleasure? Or is nutrition also involved?

Nutrition from meat is done for long-term pleasure. More generally, people harm animals for their own sake.

 

...assuming eating intelligent animals isn't wrong in a world where we could very well be supported in a vegetarian lifestyle.

If eating animals is immoral then raping them would be as well following the logic I presented. I concede that.

[Severian]

I am inclined to agree with ku - I think his argument is logical. And indeed, one can use the same argument to argue for many other changes in the law, eg to support bigamy, incest, assisted suicide, consensual mutalation etc.

 

However, I would reject the initial premise that "You are free to do whatever you want so long as you don't reduce other people's freedom to do whatever they want", or at least interpret it differently. I submit that there is nothing you can do (and have publicaly known that you do) that does not effect the society that you live in. Your morality (or lack thereof) effects people around you and directly alters the world that people are living in.

[DrDNA]

If you started having sex with a goat, it is fairly easy to tell whether the goat is happy or sad.

 

Uhmm...you know this how? Your family tree must be as straight as a telephone pole.

 

 

 

 

Legalizing bestiality can also have significant economic benefits. At the moment because bestiality is illegal, there is a missing market. Those humans who want to have sex with non-human animals cannot do so, and so there is a deadweight loss from government intervention since a potential trade between animal supplier and consumers who want sex is not realized.

 

The demand from consumers who want animal sex will result in growth in a new industry sector that caters to supplying animals ready for sex. These companies that specialize in, say, human-goat sex will hire workers, pay taxes, satisfy consumer demand, and contribute to GDP growth.

 

I applaud your entrepenureal spririt. Are you planning to sell franchises? Have you considered corporate events?

 

To all those that raise health concerns, in the same way that the food industry today has hygiene standards and competition among providers to increase quality, so too standards of animal preparation and presentation in the animal prostition industry can be made and competition among animal sex providers can increase quality and drive innovation and technological advancements. For example, scientists can genetically engineer orifices in, say, goats that maximize pleasure to the consumer. They do this by experimenting in labs different variables like surface texture, hardness, etc. This means that consumers can achieve better sexual intercoarse, therefore increasing aggregate consumer welfare. The biotech advances made in bestiality reasearch may even be transferable to other areas in the same way that space exploration advances can be applied to other areas.

 

Most people think killing animals for food is fine. If killing animals for food is fine, why not have sex with them? Not many people eat human children.

 

Nutrition from meat is done for long-term pleasure. More generally, people harm animals for their own sake.

 

 

Eating is done to sustain life. It is part of the life cycle. Interspecies intercourse is not part of the life cycle.

 

I think I understand better now why radical Islam wants to kill us. Thanks for enlightening me.

[john5746]

Well, this is an interesting thread and it had gotten me to think a little on this issue. I think disgust in having sex with other species is probably genetic, I don't think we would do as well if men were humping animals instead of women, of course in desperate times, some may be tempted?

 

Killing an animal wouldn't be as bad as raping it, just as raping an enemy soldier would be considered immoral while killing him might not be. Killing an animal swiftly is not very painful. I can see where some animals would have pleasure having sex with humans and I cannot imagine them having emotional scars from this experience, so it is hard to argue from the standpoint of the animal in all cases, IMO.

 

So, is it immoral? Maybe not. Is it demented and something to be fixed? I think this is the case. Like sex with a blow-up doll, it isn't a healthy relationship, not even a relationship period. That being the case, overall it seems like a rather benign mental disorder, as long as the animal seems to be enjoying the situation.

 

Unlike homosexuality, this action doesn't promote a healthy relationship with a consenting adult. Can it be seen as another form of masturbation? Well, maybe so, but having another living entity there that cannot respond in any meaningful way just seems to reinforce the idea that sex is a purely selfish act, IMO. So this would not be something we would want everyone to do as a healthy way of living. This is something like a bad drug that we must live with but hopefully keep to a minimum or eliminate if possible.

 

In summary, I think it should be illegal and treated as a mental disorder, but maybe it isn't immoral.

 

I think I understand better now why radical Islam wants to kill us. Thanks for enlightening me.

 

The most retarded post I have seen in a long time.

[DrDNA]

Despite the attempts above trying to make the pro-banjo music playing position appear to be logical, it remains illogical. It also illegal in most or all states of the union. I expect that it will remain that way until the world finally goes to hell in a hand basket.

 

Now listen up good city boys, the females of most (but not all) species besides homo sapien have estrus cycles, so they are only receptive to a male when they are in heat. Any activity outside of that normal cycle would be un-natural and, no matter how many doggy biscuits or smoked pigs ears you might offer her, an unpleasurable experience for the female.

 

It is animal cruelity. Please stay away from my farm.

[john5746]

Despite the attempts above trying to make the pro-banjo music playing position appear to be logical, it remains illogical. It also illegal in most or all states of the union. I expect that it will remain that way until the world goes to hell in a hand basket.

 

Now listen up good city boys, the females of most (but not all) species besides homo sapien have estrus cycles, so they are only receptive to a male when they are in heat. Any activity outside of that normal cycle would be un-natural and, no matter how many doggy biscuits or smoked pigs ears you might offer her, an unpleasurable experience for the female.

 

It is animal cruelity. Please stay away from my farm.

 

Got a problem with banjos? I said it should be illegal and considered a mental condition. I also consider it un-natural and sick even if the animal is "ready and willing". I have lived on a farm and never had any desire to mess with another animal, but I have had the unpleasant experience of other animals trying to mount me. I let them know pretty quick that I was not "ready and willing".

 

If you hadn't noticed, the world is going to hell in a hand basket in certain areas. They treat humans worse than you could imagine treating animals. So quit with the personal attacks by invoking the nazis of our day.

[iNow]

With population growth what it is, one would think that screwimg animals wouldn't be high on the "we should defend that" priortity list. Hmmm... but then again...

[DrDNA]

I dunno what the heck is going on. Maybe it has something to do with the economy.

Straw is a heck of lot cheaper than a five star dinner for two and a movie.

[ku]

I think I understand better now why radical Islam wants to kill us. Thanks for enlightening me.

Legalizing bestiality will give a shining example to radical Islamic theocracies of freedom and individual choice. A thriving animal sex industry has "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" written all over it. Individuals have the freedom and right to pursue happiness and animal sex will enable that for many people. Animal sex is fully consistent with Americanism. Nothing will express or symbolize American individual freedom more effectively than a man humping a goat.

[Pangloss]

Well, certainly nothing symbolizes American freedom more than a man humping a goat. I don't think there can be any question about that.

[iNow]

Well, certainly nothing symbolizes American freedom more than a man humping a goat. I don't think there can be any question about that.

 

It's what else goat humping symbolizes about US men that I think is the true issue.

 

What other words can we insert in place of "freedom?"

[john5746]

Legalizing bestiality will give a shining example to radical Islamic theocracies of freedom and individual choice. A thriving animal sex industry has "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" written all over it. Individuals have the freedom and right to pursue happiness and animal sex will enable that for many people. Animal sex is fully consistent with Americanism. Nothing will express or symbolize American individual freedom more effectively than a man humping a goat.

 

I think your making a joke here, but I will bite anyway.

 

We shouldn't care what those retards think, IMO. As far as sending a message, how we treat our captured enemies sends the clearest message to an honorable foe.

[DrDNA]

Legalizing bestiality will give a shining example to radical Islamic theocracies of freedom and individual choice. A thriving animal sex industry has "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" written all over it. Individuals have the freedom and right to pursue happiness and animal sex will enable that for many people. Animal sex is fully consistent with Americanism. Nothing will express or symbolize American individual freedom more effectively than a man humping a goat.

 

Interesting thought you have there.

Instead of exporting arms, troops and other forms of "aid" overseas, we could just air drop goats to win them over to the American way of thinking.

 

As far as sending a message, how we treat our captured enemies sends the clearest message to an honorable foe.

 

I am pretty sure that what you are insinuating here is not allowed by the Geneva Convention. You might have to stick with the goats or do this in Guantanmo.

[john5746]

Interesting thought you have there.

Instead of exporting arms, troops and other forms of "aid" overseas, we could just air drop goats to win them over to the American way of thinking..

 

With your new found understanding of the islamofascists, who do you want to start killing first?

 

 

I am pretty sure that what you are insinuating here is not allowed by the Geneva Convention. You might have to stick with the goats or do this in Guantanmo.

 

I mean that if we treat our captured enemies well, that tends to shine a light on our side, even for our own troops. This works with soldiers, maybe not with terrorists.

[ku]

Interesting thought you have there.

Instead of exporting arms, troops and other forms of "aid" overseas, we could just air drop goats to win them over to the American way of thinking.

If we drop goats in a dictatorship and if citizen have sex with the goats, the dictator may not be pleased and may punish the citizens. I think it's more effective to bring those citizens into America where they can have sex with goats without government interference. Today of course bestiality I think is illegal.

[iNow]

Any women in the house thinking about sex with goats? Any? Anyone? Surely something so natural is not limited to the idiocy which is the Y chromosome.

 

 

Strangely, I don't mind killing the goat to eat it, or milking it to make delicious cheese, but the idea of jamming my cock inside of it just seems cruel and unusual.

[Pangloss]

Well that's ok, self-punishment is your constitutional right.

[lucaspa]

Many people say that non-human animals, e.g. goats, cannot consent to sex. But I think they can. Even though goats and human are part of different species, the theory of evolution states we are all related (at least we all share a common ancestor and genetic relatedness between humans and many animals is very high). Basicaly, we can all understand each other in the Animal Kingdom.

 

That's a non-sequitor. A does-not-follow. Remember, there is devergence from the common ancestor. One of the divergences is that we can no longer mate with and produce fertile offspring with goats. And yet, the common ancestor species of goats and humans could.

 

So also communication can diverge to the point that understanding is not possible. Humans are even further apart from other species due to our complex speech.

 

Many owners of pets can understand if their dogs or cats are happy, sad, or angry. If you started having sex with a goat, it is fairly easy to tell whether the goat is happy or sad. If you suspect the goat is sad and doesn't want to have sex, you could stop and try again another time. Trying to respect the animal's choice then increases the probability that the goat will enjoy the sex, which makes bestiality even more moral than killing for food.

 

You don't think the human is going to be a bit biased in his assessment of the goat's emotional state? This is like asking the rapist if the victim "enjoyed" it. Consent has to be given BEFORE the act, not deduced afterward.

 

Legalizing bestiality can also have significant economic benefits.

 

Irrelevant to an ethical/moral argument. Using humans as scientific experiments -- a la Dr. Mengele -- has economic and health benefits. It's still immoral and wrong.

 

Most people think killing animals for food is fine. If killing animals for food is fine, why not have sex with them? Not many people eat human children.

 

Apples and oranges. As you noted, killing for food is for nutrition. All species exploit other species for food -- even plants.

 

If eating animals is immoral then raping them would be as well following the logic I presented. I concede that.

 

A start. However, back to your first argument based on "nature" and evolution. We have evolved as omnivores -- where meat is part of our diet. We have not evolved to have sex with other species, have we? Instead, our sexual cues are geared toward our own species -- so that we can produce fertile offspring. Since we can't produce fertile offspring with members of species other than our own, by your logic, we shouldn't be doing it.