DrDNA Posted November 9, 2007 Posted November 9, 2007 Why the focus on carnal relationships involving goats? Do you find them more attractive than, say for example, sheep or chickens?
Pangloss Posted November 12, 2007 Posted November 12, 2007 Don't you? I mean come on, they're goats! What's not to love?
kleinwolf Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 In the Bible : "..reproduce between your specie..." some tried between species and saw that they do not reproduce (no mutants created, only diseases were transmitted) I don't know if the biblical law comes from the experience, or the experience comes after, as a law-enforcement.
Moontanman Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 This is absolutely the most self serving thread to anyone with an ax to grind I've ever seen, sex with an animal is cruel because they cannot consent? really? Really? REALLY? Do animals consent to being caged and and raised to make special veal? Do they consent to being bred into slaves for meat, milk, work? Do humans really care about what animals consent to? Have they ever? I've read where certain venereal diseases resulted from bestiality, this by it's self is the best argument I can give against it, sheep farmers are famous for there 'relationships" with sheep. I know this is almost certainly not true to day but bestiality was a significant factor in early humans as they domesticated animals. i knew a guy many years ago that had a pony that was "stump broke" when that damn pony was in heat it was annoying as hell! Do I care if you screw a sheep, pony or allow a calf to perform fellatio on you? No not really, your reward will probably be a somewhat less than human ability to have a real relationship with a real human. Do women do this to , oh yes they do details are not necessary. Should it be illegal? I'm not sure, so far all arguments seem to be of the slippery slope idea of if you allow this then this will happen too. If you do you are not unique but your are weird and I would be very suspicious of you as a reasonable human but is it immoral? only if all the other terrible things we do to animals are also immoral. Lets face it , moral only really applies to humans. would we allow other humans to be treated the way we treat even our favorite animals? I think not, drop the chicken dude, it's in your best interests, I think?
Pangloss Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 I dislike old thread bumps (at least usually), but I did enjoy re-reading some of the more humorous ones in this one. Got no interest in revisiting the topic, though. Sorry.
Moontanman Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 Sorry I didn't notice it was an old thread, I need to pay attention more but the idea that bestiality is somehow more immoral than many of the other things we do to animals for fun and profits is kind of weak IMHO.
Severian Posted May 28, 2009 Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) Like sex with a blow-up doll, it isn't a healthy relationship, not even a relationship period. [snip] Unlike homosexuality, this action doesn't promote a healthy relationship with a consenting adult. Isn't that a moral judgement? In order for sex with a blow-up doll to be less healthy than gay sex you need to use psychological health, but what is good psychological health and what is bad is a matter of perspective. 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 think you would be offended if someone said about gay sex: "I said it should be illegal and considered a mental condition. I also consider it un-natural and sick even if the other man is "ready and willing"." What is the difference? Edited May 28, 2009 by Severian
iNow Posted May 28, 2009 Posted May 28, 2009 Animals don't have the capacity to provide an informed consent.
Severian Posted May 28, 2009 Posted May 28, 2009 Animals don't have the capacity to provide an informed consent. Does that matter? After all, you eat them without their informed consent too. (Or are you a vegan?)
iNow Posted May 28, 2009 Posted May 28, 2009 I don't eat other humans. False comparison. We're talking about sex, remember?
Severian Posted May 28, 2009 Posted May 28, 2009 I am not sure I see your point. Are you claiming that raping an animal is worse (from the animal's point of view) than killing it?
iNow Posted May 28, 2009 Posted May 28, 2009 No. I am claiming that comparisons between sex with an animal and sex with a same sex human are not appropriate.
john5746 Posted May 28, 2009 Posted May 28, 2009 Isn't that a moral judgement? In order for sex with a blow-up doll to be less healthy than gay sex you need to use psychological health, but what is good psychological health and what is bad is a matter of perspective. My point was really that sex with a blow-up doll is really just masturbation - not a relationship. In the same way you could say sex with an animal would be more like masturbation in the least and rape at the worst. For some people sex with their wives may be this way as well, but at least with another human being there is an opportunity for a more meaningful relationship. This would be my reasoning for saying it is less healthy. It is a moral judgement, but I think one backed by reason. I think you would be offended if someone said about gay sex: "I said it should be illegal and considered a mental condition. I also consider it un-natural and sick even if the other man is "ready and willing"." What is the difference? I wouldn't be offended, but I feel for those that would be. Honestly, I think I am probably genetically inclined to find bestiality sickening. Does that automatically mean that I should be against it for society? No. My reasons for being against it are that 1) The animal has no ability to say if it consents to the relationship. 2) I see no opportunity for a meaningful relationship as with two adult humans. So the difference in this case are my reasons, not just the ick factor. #1 would keep me from giving it legal status, that same as not giving dog fighting legal status. The dogs may enjoy it, but its still wrong to use them like that. I also don't find sex with a man appealing, but I overcome that personal feeling with reason. Except for genetalia, the relationships seem to be the same to me or have the same opportunities. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI am not sure I see your point. Are you claiming that raping an animal is worse (from the animal's point of view) than killing it? I think it is. The only problem I have with dying is the care of my family. So without a family to support, I would much rather be killed quickly than raped repeatedly.
Severian Posted May 28, 2009 Posted May 28, 2009 My point was really that sex with a blow-up doll is really just masturbation - not a relationship. In the same way you could say sex with an animal would be more like masturbation in the least and rape at the worst. For some people sex with their wives may be this way as well, but at least with another human being there is an opportunity for a more meaningful relationship. This would be my reasoning for saying it is less healthy. It is a moral judgement, but I think one backed by reason. I think this is a bit of a bizarre argument. Leaving animals aside for a moment, one could certainly argue that any relationship with another human being is potentially more damaging than masturbation. There are huge numbers of people who get screwed up by their relationships. Very few people are screwed up by masturbation. I think you could argue this on purely moral grounds though. Just say that masturbation is morally wrong, while sex between consenting adults is not. The health argument is bogus I think. I wouldn't be offended, but I feel for those that would be. I think I would be offended (and I was expecting you to agree with me!). I think bestiality is morally worse than gay sex. But notice that I used the word morally there. I don't think this can be argued logically or supported by evidence. It is a moral statement, and as such a matter of opinion. I think it is. The only problem I have with dying is the care of my family. So without a family to support, I would much rather be killed quickly than raped repeatedly. I agree - I would rather be killed than raped repeatedly. But what if it is not rape? Just because an animal can't speak doesn't mean it can't give implied consent. Dogs have sex with each other without speaking, but we don't arrest them for rape.
GutZ Posted May 28, 2009 Posted May 28, 2009 I agree - I would rather be killed than raped repeatedly. But what if it is not rape? Just because an animal can't speak doesn't mean it can't give implied consent. Dogs have sex with each other without speaking, but we don't arrest them for rape. Morality is a concept of man is it not though? It requires a level of intelligence to understand what is right and what is wrong. When dog humps another dog, it's purely instinct. Not different from a humans need to hump but...I think we expect more from a human than a dog
john5746 Posted May 28, 2009 Posted May 28, 2009 I think this is a bit of a bizarre argument. Leaving animals aside for a moment, one could certainly argue that any relationship with another human being is potentially more damaging than masturbation. There are huge numbers of people who get screwed up by their relationships. Very few people are screwed up by masturbation. I think you could argue this on purely moral grounds though. Just say that masturbation is morally wrong, while sex between consenting adults is not. The health argument is bogus I think. Good points. I should distinguish between masturbation(with oneself or a non-living thing) and using a living thing to relieve oneself. Masturbation is healthy and much safer than sex with another living thing. It isn't wrong at all - its good. A relationship is superior to masturbation, IMO but both are great and not mutually exclusive at all. Using another living thing for this purpose is not the same as having a sexual relationship with another person. You are being selfish and you are not getting the psychological and physical benefits of a relationship. Using another living thing for your purpose requires thinking about that being. I guess its all opinion - there might be some studies showing the benefits of marraige or relationships to health, but I am assuming most people would have the opportunity to become better people by engaging in a relationship, rather than just using an animal to beat off all the time. I think I would be offended (and I was expecting you to agree with me!). I think bestiality is morally worse than gay sex. But notice that I used the word morally there. I don't think this can be argued logically or supported by evidence. It is a moral statement, and as such a matter of opinion. I recognize that the statement is offensive, but really didn't offend me personally. Of course, I wouldn't be offended if someone said all sex was sick and demented. That's their problem, but you got your point across. Saying something is un-natural and sick are not arguments. I am fine with it being a matter of opinion, but can't we provide reasons for our opinions? Saying I don't like something because my parents said so or because a book says so is different than saying there is concern for the beings involved and that relationships between human adults provide benefits that do not occur with much less intelligent beings? Based on those reasons, we can sometimes change opinions. I agree - I would rather be killed than raped repeatedly. But what if it is not rape? Just because an animal can't speak doesn't mean it can't give implied consent. Dogs have sex with each other without speaking, but we don't arrest them for rape. Ah, dogs get away with murder. They can have sex, pee and crap in public - even be intoxicated. Man, what a life! I'm sure in some cases it would be pleasurable for both parties, but it is my opinion that using another being like this would not be as psychologically healthy as having a relationship with someone with whom you can communicate. If we could be sure that the animal is happy with the situation, I really could care less about it - but I would not consider this type of coupling to be anything close to a good relationship between two adults.
Moontanman Posted May 29, 2009 Posted May 29, 2009 I'm not sure that sex with an animal is the same as rape, Rape implies violence, a dog that is trained to perform sex acts would not be rape. I'm not sure if the animal would even be aware of the sexual aspects of it at all. I do remember a case when I was a kid fio a dog who actually penetrated a little girl. The father heard the little girl crying and found the dog holding her down much the same way a male dog does as he humps a female dog. While I see no reason to have sex with animals I also cannot quite see it as rape either.
john5746 Posted May 29, 2009 Posted May 29, 2009 Rape implies violence Not always. Rape - A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person's will. but your point regarding the animals' awareness is a good one. I wouldn't consider it the same - just similar from the perpetrator perspective.
iNow Posted May 29, 2009 Posted May 29, 2009 Morality is a concept of man is it not though? It requires a level of intelligence to understand what is right and what is wrong. When dog humps another dog, it's purely instinct. Not entirely. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html Scientists studying animal behaviour believe they have growing evidence that species ranging from mice to primates are governed by moral codes of conduct in the same way as humans. Until recently, humans were thought to be the only species to experience complex emotions and have a sense of morality. But Prof Marc Bekoff, an ecologist at University of Colorado, Boulder, believes that morals are "hard-wired" into the brains of all mammals and provide the "social glue" that allow often aggressive and competitive animals to live together in groups. He has compiled evidence from around the world that shows how different species of animals appear to have an innate sense of fairness, display empathy and help other animals that are in distress.
GutZ Posted May 29, 2009 Posted May 29, 2009 (edited) I sit corrected. Still we can't hold animals to the same understand as adult humans have. We don't punish a 3 year old for murder for the same reason right? Which isnt the case with animals that. They get the death penalty most the time. That the same reason we protect them as well, hense pedophile laws. Leaving emotions out of it I can believe there is such thing as a consenting child especially after 13 specifically because I personally was very consenting with my GF at the time. As well I at that age would consider myself knowledgeable of my action. Every human is not the same level of development as the next. It's that fussy area as to where to cut the line. I think for everyone there is a line. I think both sides arguements get hurt by gray area. Ultimately, If a 5 year old can't consent I don't see how we can say a dog can be consenting. So i am again both forms of sexuality beast and pedo alike. I am just showing my logic I am not refuting what your saying just to be clear as well. I guess that means I don't advocate putting down dogs...O_o Edited May 29, 2009 by GutZ
Moontanman Posted May 29, 2009 Posted May 29, 2009 Ok, let try to get this clear, training animals to do all sorts of strange unnatural things (unnatural to them) is ok as long as it isn't sex. Sex is somehow demeaning to animals more so than enslaving them as workers, solders, entertainers, meat, fibers or anything else is fine? Training a dog to kill on command is ok but cunnilingus is not? Stump breaking a pony is bad, riding them and using them as slaves is ok? Bestiality is a strange concept for sure, very difficult to really understand but i don't see it as moral problem for the animal or rape from the stand point of the animal (well maybe a chicken might object:doh:) We use animals in (what must seem to them) some very strange ways unless of course the animals we train only look to please their trainers and do not have a concept of strange, only of what humans want them to do. As long as the animal is not being physically harmed I can't logically argue against it any more than any other human animal interaction. Can a case be made that an animal who is trained to perform sex acts feels demeaned by it? I really don't know, anyone want to take that part of it?
GutZ Posted May 30, 2009 Posted May 30, 2009 There is a difference between training and animal and having sex with it. First let's me be clear that I am against the idea of pets, even though I love animals. It's however in the best interest of the dog who was taken out of their environment. You can't tell that letting a dog go untrained is moral thing to do. The animal is wild, that's the whole issue, It doesn't understand not to run out on the road. Again I am not for place an animal in that type of environment, I dont think it's right. I will agree it's wrong to train animals to do human work. Bottom line is if you bring animals into an environment not natural to their own, you are responsible for it's well being. As a human being you can make arguments for using animals to a degree. Sex with an animal, doesn't benefit the animal. (Amoung other things we do, Yes I agree alot falls in that catorgory) Just because we current abuse animals in some ways and accept it doesn't mean it right. Do I think it's a criminal offense? No but you are always going to have the issue of consent, with the way our justice system works, You can argue either way. If you make a definitive decision about morality and sex, it's game time. You can justify having sex with an animal I am sure. Not my thing, Our who system is built around consent with sexual acts...it's not just animals, kids, full grown adults, Rape is not ok. Consent is an issue. Maybe it's flawed, I won't argue you there.
J.C.MacSwell Posted May 30, 2009 Posted May 30, 2009 70+ posts and no one has mentioned the Nazis, and no one has asked "what can a guy do, when a dog comes on to him". Not bad.
Kyrisch Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 We don't punish a 3 year old for murder for the same reason right? At the risk of going off-topic, I'd like to point out that the justice system is not punishment, but rather deterrent. Prison and other forms of detention should not be viewed as revenge; they are meant to remove a dangerous individual from society and possibly rehabilitate them. In fact, with current advances in psychology (due largely to the reductionistic and materialistic view in current science), it can be argued that all forms of vengeful punishment are immoral due to the lack of vested responsibility in an individual for their actions. If there is a significant response to this, feel free to split it into a new thread, I would like to pursue it.
Recommended Posts